A proposed solution to legitimacy crises: New scientific governance

Abstract

New scientific governance claims that public policies developed on the basis of scientific and technological developments can overcome the legitimacy crises of governments through public deliberation and public interaction-science. This study seeks to answer the question of what is new in scientific governance. In this study, it will be necessary to take into account the positivist influences on management thought. Because positivism replaced the legitimacy once provided by religion and faith with the primacy of reason, and produced a new dogma that sanctified reason by giving credibility only to what could be explained by reason. Therefore, in this study, positivism, which standardizes civilization, will be included in the discussion in terms of ideology. In typologies of legitimate authority, the answer to the question of why authority is obeyed or, in other words, why consent is given to authority can now be given in terms of the ability of new scientific governance to offer solutions to crises of legitimacy. The ability of governments to transform scientific inputs and outputs into public policy by considering them as a necessity of an open democratic system is one of the main discussion points of the study. While explanations that emphasize scientific governance in legitimacy crises will be included in the focus of the study, the process will be evaluated in the triangle of science, public and politics. The capacity of scientific governance, which is solution-oriented, focuses on nature-society interactions, integrative, sustainability-based as well as bridging the gap between knowledge and political decision-making, to respond to crises of legitimacy will be the main discussion ground of the study.

Keywords

• Scientific governance
• Participation
• Legitimacy crisis
• Deliberation
• Public policy

Meşruiyet krizlerine bir çözüm önerisi: Yeni bilimsel yönetişim

Abstract

Yeni bilimsel yönetişim, bilimsel ve teknolojik gelişmeler ekseninde geliştirilen kamu politikalarının, kamusal müzakere sürecinden geçmesi ve bilim-kamu etkileşiminin kurulmasıyla hükümetlerin meşruiyet krizlerini aşabileceği iddiasını barındırmaktadır. Bu çalışmada bilimsel yönetişimde yeni olanın ne olduğu sorusuna cevap aranacaktır. Bu çerçevede, yönetim düşüncesi üzerindeki pozitivist etkileri de göz önünde tutmak gerekecektir. Zira pozitivizm, bir zamanlar dinle, inançla sağlanan meşruluğun yerini, aklın öncelliğini koymakta, yalnızca akılla izah edilene itibar kazandırmak suretiyle aklı kutsayan yeni bir dogma da üretmekteydi. Dolayısıyla çalışmada, medeniyeti standartlaştıran pozitivizm, ideoloji yönüyle tartışmaya dâhil edilecektir. Meşru otorite tipolojilerinde, otoriteye neden itaat edildiği ya da başka bir deyişle otoriteye neden rıza gösterildiği sorularının cevabı artık, yeni bilimsel yönetişimin, meşruiyet krizlerine çözüm sunabilme kabiliyeti açısından verilebilecektir. Bilimsel girdi ve çıktıların, iktidarlar tarafından açık demokratik bir sistemin gereği olma boyutuyla dikkate alınarak, kamu politikasına dönüştürülebilmesi, çalışmanın temel tartışma noktalarından biridir. Meşruluk krizlerinde bilimsel yönetişimi öne çıkaran açıklamalar çalışmanın ilgi odağına dâhil olurken, süreç; bilim, halk ve politika üçgeninde değerlendirilecektir. Çözüm odaklı, doğa-toplum etkileşimlerine odaklanan, bütünleştirici, sürdürülebilirliği esas alarak bilgi ve politik karar arasındaki boşluğun kapatılmasına odaklanan bilimsel yönetişimin, meşruluk krizlerine cevap verebilme kapasitesi, çalışmanın temel tartışma zemini olacaktır.

Keywords

• Bilimsel yönetişim
• Katılım
• Meşruluk krizi
• Müzakere
• Kamu politikası

References

1. Åm, H., Solbu, G., ve Sørensen, K. H. (2021). The imagined scientist of science governance, Social Studies of Science, 51(2), 277-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720962573
2. Anbarlı Bozatay, Ş. (2013). Küresel siyaset, Beta Yayınları.
3. Anbarlı, Ş. (2007). Baskıya karşı direnme biçimi olarak sivil itaatsizlik ve meşruluğu sorunu, Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi (5: 2), 71-99.
4. Barben, D. (2007). Changing regimes of science and politics: comparative and transnational perspectives for a world in transition, Science and Public Policy, 34 (1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X193196
5. Boudourides, M. (2002). Governance in science ve technology, In EASST Conference, Responsibility Under Uncertainty, July.
6. Braun, D. (2005). How to govern research in the ‘age of innovation’: compatibilities and incompatibilities of policy rationales.” (Ed.) M. Lengwiler and D. Simon, WZB Discussion Paper 2005-101, New Governance Arrangements in Science Policy, January 1 (11–37).
7. Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior (CEPB). (2021). What is science governance, (environmentalpolicy.ucdavis.edu, 29.04.2024).
8. Cosens, B., Ruhl, J. B., Soininen, N., Gunderson, L., Belinskij, A., Blenckner, T. ve Similä, J. (2021). Governing complexity: Integrating science, governance, and law to manage accelerating change in the globalized commons, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (36). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102798118

9. Chilvers, J., ve Macnaghten, P. (2011). The future of science governance: A review of public concerns, governance and institutional response, Durham University Press. (ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk, 25.04.2024)
10. Davies, K. G., ve Wolf-Phillips, J. (2006). Scientific citizenship and good governance: implications for biotechnology, TRENDS in Biotechnology, 24 (2), 57-61.
11. Duverger, M. (1982). Siyaset sosyolojisi. (Ş. Tekeli, Çev.). İstanbul: Varlık Yayınları.
12. Esty, D. C. (2006). Good governance at the supranational scale: globalizing, The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1490–1562.
13. European Commisison (2009). Global governance of science report of the expert group on global governance of science to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, DOI 10.2777/31776.
14. Fraser, N. (2015). Legitimation crisis? on the political contradictions of financialized capitalism, Critical Historical Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Fall 2015), 157-189.
15. Friedman, G., & Reichelt, R. (1992). Ethical, Legal, And Social Implıcatıons ELSI. Dealing with Genes: The Language of Heredity, 302.
16. Funtowicz, S. ve Ravetz, J. (2008). Values and uncertainties, Handbook of transdisciplinary research, 361-368.
17. Gilley, B. (2006). The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries, European Journal of Political Research 45: 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00307.x
18. Habermas, J. (1992). Legitimation crisis. (Ed. Thomas McCarthy), Polity Press.
19. Horst, M., Irwin, A., Healey, P., ve Hagendijk, R. (2007). European scientific governance in a global context: resonances, implications and reflections, Ids Bulletin, 38(5), 6-20.
20. Lezaun, J., ve Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics, Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 279-297. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625070793
21. Lengwiler, M. ve Simon, D. (2005). Shifting boundaries between science and politics–recent work on new governance arrangements in science policy, New Governance Arrangements in Science Policy, Discussion papers//Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Bei der Präsidentin, Projektgruppe Wissenschaftspolitik, No. P 2005, 101, 5-9.
22. Macnaghten, P., ve Chilvers, J. (2014). The future of science governance: Publics, policies, practices, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(3), 530-548. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1245j Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B. ve Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?, Science communication, 27(2), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700528153
23. Irwin, A. (2004). Scientific governance in Europe: Towards a critical perspective, Asia Pac. J. Envtl. L., 8, 47.
24. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’scientific governance, Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706053350
25. Osvetimskaya, I. (2020). State power legitimacy crisis in the era of globalization, Theoretical and Applied Law, 2020. No. 3(5). 34-42.
26. Öztekin, A., Öztekin, H. (2020). İktidarın Meşruiyeti ve Rıza Üretimi: Masallardan ve Mitlerden Kitle İletişimine Toplumsal Bilincin İnşası, OPUS-Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(30), 2911- 2940.
27. Reyes, G.E. (2010). Theoretical basis of crisis of legitimacy and ımplications for less developed countries: guatemala as a case of study, Revista Tendencıas. Vol. XI No. 1, 142-163.
28. Sciencewise-ERC, Expert Resource Centre, (webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk, 25.04.2024).
29. Severs, E. ve Mattelaer, A. (2014). A crisis of democratic legitimacy? it’s about legitimation, stupid!, Egmont Policy Brief 21(March 2014): 1-9.
30. STEPS (2010). Innovation, sustainability, development : a new manifesto, Brighton: STEPS Centre, (researchgate.net, 15.04.2024).
31. Stirling, A. (2015). Towards innovation democracy? Participation, responsibility and precaution in the politics of science and technology, In STEPS Working Paper 78. STEPS Centre Brighton.
32. Taylor‐Gooby, P. (2006). Social divisions of trust: scepticism and democracy in the GM nation? Debate. Journal of Risk Research, 9(1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870500288742
33. Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science, Science, Technology, ve Human Values, 16(1), 99-105.