AKILLI SOSYAL POLİTİKALAR: DİJİTAL DÖNÜŞÜM VE SOSYAL YARDIMLARIN DÖNÜŞÜMÜ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dijital dönüşümün sosyal politika üzerindeki etkisini analiz etmekte ve 'akıllı sosyal politika' kavramını teorik ve pratik düzeyde tartışmaktadır. Dijitalleşmenin kamu hizmetlerinin erişilebilirliğini, hesap verebilirliğini ve verimliliğini artırma potansiyeline sahip olduğunu vurgularken, veriye dayalı karar alma, algoritmik yönetişim ve dijital refah devleti gibi olgular aracılığıyla sosyal politika uygulamalarındaki dönüşümleri ve potansiyel tehditleri/riskleri araştırmaktadır. Çalışma, geleneksel mekanizmaların sınırlılıkları ve dijital dışlanma riski bağlamında dijital teknolojilerin sosyal yardım sunumu üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmekte; algoritmaların kamu hizmeti sunumundaki rolünü farklı yönetişim sonuçları üzerinden tartışmaktadır. Ayrıca dijital sistemlerin şeffaflık, hesap verebilirlik ve kamu güveni üzerindeki etkisinin yanı sıra mahremiyet, etik ve ayrımcılık gibi riskleri de tartışmaktadır. Makale, akıllı sosyal politikaların teknik çözümlerle sınırlı kalmaması gerektiğini, insani boyutu dikkate alan kapsayıcı ve esnek yapılarla bütünleştirilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Son olarak, sürdürülebilir ve adil bir sosyal düzen için dijitalleşmiş sosyal politikaların eleştirel ve disiplinler arası bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirilmesi gerektiği savunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Akıllı Sosyal Politika
• Dijital Refah Devleti
• Algoritmik Yönetişim
• Dijital Dışlanma. Şeffaflık ve Hesap Verebilirlik

SMART SOCIAL POLICIES: DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Abstract

This study analyses the impact of digital transformation on social policy and discusses the concept of 'smart social policy' at a theoretical and practical level. It emphasises that digitalisation has the potential to increase the accessibility, accountability and efficiency of public services, while exploring the transformations and potential threats/risks in social policy practice through phenomena such as data-driven decision-making, algorithmic governance and the digital welfare state. The study assesses the impact of digital technologies on the delivery of social assistance in the context of the limitations of traditional mechanisms and the risk of digital exclusion; it discusses the role of algorithms in public service delivery through different governance implications. It also discusses the impact of digital systems on transparency, accountability and public trust, as well as risks such as privacy, ethics and discrimination. The article argues that smart social policies should not be limited to technical solutions but should be integrated with inclusive and flexible structures that take into account the human dimension. Finally, it argues that digitalised social policies should be evaluated from a critical and interdisciplinary perspective for a sustainable and just social order.

Keywords

• Smart Social Policy
• Digital Welfare State
• Algorithmic Governance
• Digital Exclusion. Transparency and Accountability

References

1. Adler, M., & Henman, P. (2009). Justice beyond the courts: The implications of computerisation for procedural justice in social security. in e-justice: using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 65–86). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch005
2. Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9321-6
3. Braithwaite, V. (2020). Beyond the bubble that is Robodebt: How governments that lose integrity threaten democracy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.122
4. Bullock, J. B. (2019). Artificial Intelligence, Discretion, and Bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019856123
5. Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Info. Pol., 23(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170050
6. Considine, M., Mcgann, M., Ball, S., & Nguyen, P. (2022). Can robots understand welfare? Exploring machine bureaucracies in welfare-to-work. Journal of Social Policy, 51(3), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279422000174
7. Desiere, S., & Struyven, L. (2021). Using artificial intelligence to classify jobseekers: The accuracy-equity trade-off. Journal of Social Policy, 50(2), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279420000203
8. Ejim-Eze, E. (2025). The role of ai in effective social protection delivery: A focus on national cash transfer program. In: Ahrweiler, P. (eds) Participatory artificial intelligence in public social services. Artificial intelligence, simulation and society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71678-2_9

9. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Publishing Group.
10. Fronda, Y., & Moriceau, J.-L. (2008). I am not your hero: Change management and culture shocks in a public sector corporation. Post-Print, Article hal-02508036. https://ideas.repec.org//p/hal/journl/hal-02508036.html
11. Gillingham, P. (2017). Predictive risk modelling to prevent child maltreatment: Insights and Implications from Aotearoa/New Zealand. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 11(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2016.1255697
12. Graham, S., & Wood, D. (2003). Digitizing surveillance: Categorization, Space, Inequality. Critical Social Policy, 2(23), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018303023002006
13. Henman, P. (2011). Conditional Citizenship? Electronic networks and the new conditionality in public policy. Policy & Internet, 3(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1103
14. Henman, P. (2019). Of algorithms, Apps and advice: Digital social policy and service delivery. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 12(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2018.1495885
15. Henman, P. (2022). Digital Social Policy: Past, Present, Future. Journal of Social Policy, 51(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279422000162
16. Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Sunstein, C. R. (2020). Algorithms as discrimination detectors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48), 30096–30100. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912790117
17. Larsson, A., & Teigland, R. (2019). An introduction to digital welfare. In A. Larsson & R. Teigland, Digital Transformation and Public Services (1st ed., pp. 1–11). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429319297-1
18. Li, L., Wang, M., & Jian, M. (2025). Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Case Management in Social Work Services: A Systematic Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315251329531
19. Lupton, D. (2015). Digital sociology. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315776880
20. Malpas, J. (2020). The necessity of judgment. AI & SOCIETY, 35(4), 1073–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01021-y
21. Morrell K and Learmouth M (2017). Evidence Based Management. In Wilkinson A et al (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press
22. Neto, E.d.A.L., Bailiss, J., Finke, A. et al. Identifying early help referrals for local authorities with machine learning and bias analysis. J Comput Soc Sc 7, 385–403 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-023-00242-7
23. Notley, T., & Foth, M. (2008). Extending Australia’s digital divide policy: An examination of the value of social inclusion and social capital policy frameworks. Australian Social Policy (Canberra), 7, 87–110.
24. Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wphsz
25. OECD. (2025). AI and the future of social protection in OECD countries (42. bs, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers) [OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers]. https://doi.org/10.1787/7b245f7e-en
26. O’Brien, M. (2020). Social Investment in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Meaning and Implications. Social Sciences, 9(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9070111
27. O’Sullivan, S., & and Walker, C. (2018). From the interpersonal to the internet: Social service digitisation and the implications for vulnerable individuals and communities. Australian Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2018.1519064
28. Özdemir, N. E., Cerev, G., Sarıipek, D. B., & Tosun, S. (2024). Blockchain Technology and Social Policy Transformation: A Critical Examination and Recommendations. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 87, Article 87. https://doi.org/10.26650/jspc.2024.87.1468729
29. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hch
30. Sahraoui, C., & Zari, T. (2025). Targeting Social Assistance Beneficiaries Using Machine Learning: A Poverty Probability-Based Approach. International Journal of Accounting, Finance, Auditing, Management and Economics, 6(9), 303–318. Consulté à l’adresse https://ijafame.org/index.php/ijafame/article/view/2046
31. Zouridis, S., van Eck, M., & Bovens, M. (2019). Automated Discretion (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3453068). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3453068