ÇOK DÜZEYLİ YÖNETİŞİM Mİ, YÖNETSEL HAKİMİYET Mİ? MAASTRICHT SONRASI DÖNEMDE AB YÖNETİŞİMİNE YENİ BİR BAKIŞ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Maastricht sonrası dönemdeki çok düzeyli AB yönetişimini, James Burnham tarafından “The Managerial Revolution” adlı eserde ortaya atılan ve Samuel T. Francis ve diğerleri tarafından iyileştirilen Yönetsel Devrim Kuramı merceğinden analiz etmektedir. Çalışma, yönetselciliği Maastricht Antlaşması'nın ardından önem kazanan çok düzeyli yönetişim (MLG) teorisiyle karşılaştırmaktadır. Esas olarak Avrupa yönetişimindeki uluslarüstü düzeye ve bu düzeyin diğer düzeylerle etkileşimine odaklanarak, ortaya çıkan yönetselci sınıfın/elitin baskın bir konuma yükseldiği savunulmaktadır. Çalışmada detaylı bir literatür taraması yapılmış, nitel ve kuramsal bir tartışma sunulmuş ve bunlar AB yönetişiminin büyüyen boyut ve ölçeği ile dış yönetişiminde çevre politikasının artan payı gibi ampirik gerçeklerle ilişkilendirilmiştir. Çalışma ilk olarak yönetselcilik üzerine detaylı bir kuramsal çerçeve sunmakta ve teknokrasi kavramından farklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Daha sonra bu çerçeve, ÇDY ile birlikte Maastricht sonrası AB yönetişimine uygulanmaktadır. ÇDY, yetkinin birden fazla düzeye dağıtılması yoluyla adem-i merkeziyetçiliği öngörse de, Maastricht sonrası dönemde AB yönetişiminin kitleselliğinin ve ölçeğinin büyümesinin yanı sıra karmaşık ve stratejik politika oluşturma ortamına yön vermek için yönetsel uzmanlığa duyulan ihtiyacın, gücün birleşik bir yönetsel elitin elinde merkezileşmesine yol açması nedeniyle gerçek sonucun bunun tam tersi olduğu savunulmaktadır. Bu olgu, ÇDY teorisinden ziyade yönetimselcilik teorisi ile daha iyi açıklanmaktadır. Çalışma ayrıca güvenlikleştirmeyi yalnızca yönetsel uygulamaların anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunan ikincil bir analitik bakış açısı olarak kullanmaktadır. Çalışmanın özgün kuramsal tartışması ve bulgularının, AB yönetişimi ve Avrupa bütünleşmesi üzerine yapılan çalışmalarda daha geniş bir tartışma başlatması beklenmektedir. Yönetselcilik, ÇDY'ye alternatif ve tamamlayıcı bir teorik bakış açısı olarak önerilmektedir. Çalışma esas itibariyle yeni bir kuramsal model önermeye odaklanmaktadır. Gelecekte yapılacak daha derin ampirik testlere yönelik araştırmalar için bir temel oluşturulması amaçlanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Yönetselcilik
• Teknokrasi
• Yönetselci elitler
• Çok düzeyli yönetişim
• Maastricht antlaşması
• Avrupa bütünleşmesi

MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE OR MANAGERIAL DOMINANCE? A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON EU GOVERNANCE IN THE POST-MAASTRICHT ERA

Abstract

This study analyses the post-Maastricht era multi-level EU governance through the lens of the Theory of Managerial Revolution, put forward by James Burnham in “The Managerial Revolution” and improved by Samuel T. Francis among others. The study contrasts managerialism with the multi-level governance (MLG) theory, which gained prominence following the Maastricht Treaty. Focusing mainly on the supranational level in European governance and its interactions with other levels, it is argued that the emerging managerial class/elite has been rising to a dominant position. The study employs a detailed literature review, presents a qualitative and theoretical discussion and links these to empirical facts such as the growing mass and scale of EU governance and the surging share of environmental policy in its external governance. The study first proposes a detailed theoretical framework on managerialism, presenting its differences from the proximate concept of technocracy. Then, the framework is applied to post-Maastricht EU governance in tandem with MLG. Although MLG envisions decentralization through dispersion of authority across multiple levels, it is argued that the real result has been quite the opposite, as the growth of mass and scale of EU governance and reliance on managerial expertise to guide the complex and strategic policymaking environment in the post-Maastricht era is argued to have led to centralization of power in the hands of a unified managerial elite. This phenomenon is better explained by the managerialism theory rather than the MLG theory. The study also employs securitization only as a secondary analytical lens contributing to understanding managerial practices. The unique theoretical discussion and findings of the study are expected to initiate a wider discussion in the scholarship on EU governance and European integration. Managerialism is offered as an alternative of complementary theoretical lens to MLG. The study focuses mainly on proposing a novel theoretical model. It is aimed to form as a basis for future research focusing on deeper empirical testing.

Keywords

• Managerialism
• Technocracy
• Managerial elites
• Multi-level governance
• Maastricht treaty
• European integration

References

1. Amiya-Nakada, R. (2004). “Constructing ‘Corporatist’ State-Society Relations?: Current Discourses on the European NGOs and Its Democratic Weakness”, Kobe University law review, 38, 1-20.
2. Bache, I. (2012). “Multi-Level Governance in the European Union”, The Oxford Handbook of Governance, (Ed: David L.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3. Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-level Governance. Oxford Academic, Oxford.
4. Bache, I., Andreou, G., Atanasova, G., and Tomsic, D. (2011). “Europeanization and multi-level governance in south-east Europe: the domestic impact of EU cohesion policy and pre-accession aid”, Journal of European Public Policy, 18:1, 122-141,
5. Bache, I., Bartle, I and Flinders, M. (2022). “Chapter 40: Multi-Level Governance”, Handbook on Theories of Governance, (Ed: C. Ansell and J. Torfing), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
6. Bacon, F. and Weinberger, J. (2016). New Atlantis and The Great Instauration, 2nd Edition, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey.
7. Boin, C. (2010). “Friends of the EU: The Costs of a Taxpayer-Funded Green Lobby”, Bruges Group Conference, London.
8. Burnham, J. (1941). The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World, John Day Company, New York.

9. Burnham, J. (1943). The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, John Day Company, New York.
10. Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and Wilde, J. D. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienner, Boulder.
11. Christou, O. (2021). “Energy Security in Turbulent Times Towards the European Green Deal”, Politics and Governance, 9/3, 360–369.
12. Dąbrowski, M. (2014). “EU Cohesion Policy, Horizontal Partnership and the Patterns of Sub-National Governance: Insights from Central and Eastern Europe”, European Urban and Regional Studies, 21/4, 364–383.
13. Damro, C. (2012). “The Post-Lisbon Institutions and EU External Environmental Policy”, The External Environmental Policy of the European Union: EU and International Law Perspectives, (Ed: Elisa M.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Didin, E. (2024). “Why and How Central Power Grows: A Jouvenellian Perspective”, Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 62, 97-108.
15. ECAS. (2024). Assya Kavrakova. (2.12.2024) https://ecas.org/team/assya-kavrakova/
16. EEAS. (2024). Climate, Environment & Energy. (2.12.2024) https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/climate-environment-energy_en#:~:text=Climate%20change%20and%20environmental%20degradation,neutral%20economies%20and%20energy%20systems
17. Enteman, W. F. (1993.) Managerialism: The Emergence of a New Ideology, University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.
18. European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency. (2024). History of Life. (2.12.2024) https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life/history-life_en
19. European Commission. (2024). Priorities for 2021-2027. (2.12.2024) https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/how/priorities_en
20. European Commission. (2024). The 2021-2027 EU budget – What’s new? (2.12.2024) https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/whats-new_en
21. European Commission. (2024). Thematic Programme for Civil Society Organisations Multiannual Indicative Programme 2021-2027. (2.12.2024) https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/document/download/d5d623f8-9da5-49ec-96c8-cecb189acccf_en
22. European Council. (2024). European Green deal. (2.12.2024) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/
23. Ferry, M. and McMaster, I. (2013). “Cohesion Policy and the Evolution of Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe”, Europe-Asia Studies, 65/8, 1502–1528.
24. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
25. Francis, S. T. (2016). Leviathan and Its Enemies, Radix, New York.
26. Gottfried, P. E. (1999). After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
27. Hayek, F. (1941). “The Counter-Revolution of Science”, Economica, 8/31: 281–320.
28. Hooghe, L and Marks, G. (2002). “Types of Multi-Level Governance”, European Integration online Papers, 5/11, 65-96.
29. Hooghe, L, Marks, G., and Schakel, A. H. (2020). “Multilevel Governance”, Comparative Politics, (Ed: Daniele Caramani), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
30. Ifestos, P. (1987). “European Political Cooperation (EPC): Its Evolution from 1970 to 1986, and the Single European Act”, Journal of European Integration, 11/1, 47–62.
31. Keller, S. (1991). Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.
32. Keukeleire, S. and MacNaughtan, J. (2008). The Foreign Policy of the European Union, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
33. Keukeleire, S. and Delreux, T. (2014). The foreign policy of the European Union, Springer, New York.
34. Lavenex, S. (2004). “EU External Governance in ‘Wider Europe’”, Journal of European Public Policy, 11/4, 680–700.
35. Leonardi, R. (2005). Cohesion Policy in the European Union, Palgrave Macmillan London, London.
36. Marks, G. (1993). “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC”, The State of the European Community, (Ed: Alan W. C. and Glenda G. R.), Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder.
37. Maurer, H. and Wright, N. (2021). “How Much Unity Do You Need? Systemic Contestation in EU Foreign and Security Cooperation”, European Security, 30/3, 385–401.
38. Mendez, C. (2011). “The Lisbonization of EU Cohesion Policy: A Successful Case of Experimentalist Governance?”, European Planning Studies, 193, 519–537.
39. Mill, J. S. (2004). Principles of Political Economy With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Abridged), Hackett Publishing Company Inc., Indianapolis.
40. Official Journal of the European Union. (1999). Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘The role and contribution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe’. (2.12.2024) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A51999IE0851
41. Papageorgiou, F. and Verney, S. (1992) “Regional planning and the integrated Mediterranean programmes in Greece”, Regional & Federal Studies, 2:1-2, 139-161,
42. Parvini, N. (2022). The Populist Delusion, Imperium Press, Baldwin City.
43. Plato. (1943). Plato’s The Republic, Book Inc., New York.
44. Pomorska, K, and Vanhoonacker, S. (2013). “The European External Action Service and Agenda-Setting in European Foreign Policy”, Journal of European Public Policy, 20/9, 1316–1331.
45. Radaelli, C. (1999). Technocracy in the European Union, Routledge, London.
46. Schmitter, P. and Kim, S. (2005). “The experience of European integration and the potential for Northeast Asian integration”, East-West Center Working Papers, 10, 1–23.
47. Smith, M. (2003). Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
48. Smith, M. (2004). “Toward a Theory of EU Foreign Policy-Making: Multi-Level Governance, Domestic Politics, and National Adaptation to Europe’s Common Foreign and Security Policy”, Journal of European Public Policy, 11/4, 740–758.
49. Smyth, W H. (1919). “Technocracy—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy”, Journal of Industrial Management, 57, 211-215.
50. Stephenson, P. (2013). “Twenty Years of Multi-Level Governance: Where Does It Come From? What Is It? Where Is It Going?”, Journal of European Public Policy, 20/6, 817-837.
51. Tatar, D. B. (2019). Doğa bilimlerinin hukuk felsefesine etkisi: Modern ve postmodern paradigma ekseninde bir değerlendirme. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Hacı Bayram Veli University.
52. Wæver, O. (1995). “Securitization and Desecuritization”, On Security, (Ed: Ronnie D. L.), Columbia University Press, New York.
53. Wallace, H. (2005). “An Institutional Anatomy and Five Policy Modes”, Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th Edition, (Ed: Helen W, William W. and Mark A. P.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.