Çevirideki Sosyal Inovasyon: Türkiye’deki Yeni Refah Devleti Politika Aracı

Year 2019, Volume: 28 Issue: 1, 99 - 115, 31.03.2019

Ceren Ark Yıldırım Marc Smyrl

Abstract

Yönetim ve piyasa başarısızlığına bir çare olarak görülen, sosyal inovasyon politika çevrelerinde giderek popülerlik kazanmaktadır. Sosyal inovasyonu, bireyleri güçlendirerek ve kar getiren işletmelerin ve sivil toplum aktörlerinin katılımı ile sosyal ihtiyacın karşılanabileceğini kabul eden yenilikçi bir yaklaşım olarak tanımlayabiliriz. Bu yeni yaklaşımın ortaya çıkışı, politika çevirisi kavramıyla açıklanabilir. Biz, politika çevirisini (policy translation), kavramların öncelikli olarak sektörel sonra da ulusal sınırlar arasındaki hareketi olarak tanımlamaktayız. Bu süreçte, ithal edilen elemanlar, var olan elemanlar ile birleşip yeni bir politika aracı yaratmaktadır. İlk olarak, sosyal inovasyon yaklaşımının gelişimini, politika unsurların ekonomik sektörden sosyal sektöre çevirisi (translation) aracılığıyla tartışacağız.  Daha sonra da, ulusal sınırların ötesine geçen politika unsurların çevirisini sosyal refah yardımları için kullanılan iki akıllı kart örneği ile göstereceğiz. 

Keywords

Sosyal inovasyon, Türkiye, Politika transferi, Politika çevirisi, Akıllı kartlar

Social Innovation in Translation: New Welfare Instruments in Turkey

Abstract

The concept of social innovation has grown in popularity in policy circles as a remedy both to government and market failure. We can usefully define social innovation as a new approach to meeting social needs by the empowerment of individuals through collaborative actions of governments, private enterprises, and civil society actors. The emergence of this new approach is best explained as a process of translation, by which we mean the movement of concepts across first sectoral and then national boundaries. In this process, imported elements are combined with existing ones to create new policy instruments. We first discuss the development of the social innovation approach through the translation of policy elements from the economic to the social sector.   We then illustrate the further translation of policy elements across national borders through two Turkish examples of the use of smart cards to deliver social benefits. 

Keywords

Social innovation, Turkey, Policy transfer, Translation, Smart cards

References

• Ağartan, T. I. (2015). Explaining large-scale policy change in the Turkish healthcare system: Ideas, institutions, and political actors. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 40(5), 971–999.
• Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping Living Labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review., 12-18. https://timreview.ca/article/603
• Angelini et al. (2016). Senior Living Lab: An Ecological Approach to Foster Social Innovation in an Ageing Society. Future Internet , 8(4): 50, https://doi.org/10.3390/fi8040050
• Aydin, U. and Kirişçi K. (2013). With or without the EU: Europeanization of asylum and competition policies in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 18(3), pp. 375-395.
• Ark, C. & Smyrl, M. (2017). Innovation Ouverte et ‘Living Labs’: Production et Traduction d’un Modèle Européen. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, (161), 89-102.
• Ark-Yıldırım, C. (2018). Cash Assistance by Smart Card: from multiple functions to multiple legitimacies of a municipal social policy instrument. Turkish Studies, DOI: 10.1080/14683849.2018.1454836.
• Ayres, C. (1944 – reprinted 1975). The Theory of Economic Progress. Kalamazoo, MI: New Issues Press, Western Michigan University.
• Bache, I. and Jordan, A. (2006). Europeanization and domestic change. In The Europeanization of British politics, (Ed.) I. Bache and A. Jordan, 17–36. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Behrens, P. and Smyrl, M. (1999). A conflict of rationalities: EU regional policy and the single market. Journal of European Public Policy , 6(3) , 419-435.
• Bilgehan, Z., (2017, October,14) Mülteci Hesabı, Hürriyet, Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/amp/ multeci-hesabi-40644078
• Buğra A., & Candaş A. (2011), change and continuity under an eclectic social security regime: The case of Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 47(3), 515-528.
• Buğra A., & Keyder Ç., (2006). The turkish welfare regime in transformation. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3), 211-228.
• Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
• Chalmers, D. (2012). Social innovation: An exploration of the barriers faced by innovating organizations in the social economy. Local economy, 28(1), 17-34
• Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Curley, M., & Salmelin, B. (2013). Open Innovation 2.0: a New Paradigm. Brussels: European Commission.
• Davies, A., Caulier-Grice, J. & Norman, W. (2012). Introduction to Innovation: A literature review of the methods and policies for innovation’, a deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe’ (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Program. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.
• De Kort et al. (2015). Organization of labor, quality of work and relational conditions in Care Living Labs. Paper presented to the Open Living Lab Days conference, Istanbul.
• DG REGIO (Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy). (2014). Enabling Synergies Between European Structural and Investment Funds. Brussels: European Commission.
• DG CONNECT (Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology). (2014). Open Innovation Yearbook, 2014. Brussels: European Commission.
• DG CONNECT (Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology). (2015). Open Innovation Yearbook, 2015. Brussels: European Commission.
• DG INFSO. (Directorate General for Information Society and Media). (2009). Living Labs for User-Driven Open Innovation: An Overview of the Living Labs” Methodology, Activities and Achievements. Brussels: European Commission.
• Dubé, P., Sarrailh, J., Billebaud, C., Grillet, C., Zingraff, V. and Kostecki, I. (2014). Le Livre Blanc des Living Labs (1st ed.). Montréal : Umvelt.
• Duman Selman, Y. (2011). Regional Innovation Policy: An Analysis of Turkey’s Aegean, Marmara, East Anatolia and Southeast Anatolia Regions, Alternatives: Turkish Journal Of International Relations, Cilt: 10, Sayı :1 , ss: 37-57.
• Dutilleul, B. et ali. (2010). Unpacking European Living Labs : Analyzing Innovation’s Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy 4(1), 60-85.
• EU Commission. (1995). Green Paper on Innovation (Com 95-688). Brussels: European Commission.
• EU Commission. (2013). Guide to Social Innovation. Brussels: European Commission. EU Commission (2015) Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook : 2015. Brussels : European Commission.
• EU Commission (2016a) Fact Sheet, Managing The Refugee Crises, EU-Turkey Statement, Brussels, 4 October 2016, Retrieved, May 2018 from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-3218_en.htm
• EU Commission (2016b) Fact Sheet, Brussels 8 September 2016, Retrieved, May 2018 from: http://europa.eu/ rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-2989_en.htm
• EU Presidency. (2000). Presidency Conclusions: Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000.
• EU Presidency. (2006). Networked Business and Government: Something Real for the Lisbon Strategy. 20 November 2006.
• Esping-Andersen,, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Evans, P. & Hall R., (2015). Girls Making History: Summary report communities culture funded research pilot. Paper presented to the Open Living Lab Days conference, Istanbul.
• Franz, Y. (2015). Designing Social Living Labs in Urban Research. Technical Innovation Management Review. 2012. Special Issue on Living Labs (September 2012).
• Garcia-Robles, A. et ali. (2015). Introducing ENoLL and its Living Lab Community. Brussels: ENoLL.
• Hall, P. and Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hassenteufel, P. and De Maillard, J. (2013). Convergence, transfert et traduction: Les apports de la comparaison internationale. Gouvernement et Action Publique 3: 3, pp. 377-393.
• Heclo, H. (1974). Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven and London: Yale University Press
• Hochgerner, J. (2011). The analysis of social innovations as social practice. In: bridges vol. 30, July 2011, http:// ostaustria.org/325-categories-all/magazine/volume-30-july-20-2011/feature-articles/5708-the-analysis-ofsocial-innovations-as-social-practice.
• Holzinger, K. and Knill, C. (2005). Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy 12: 5, pp. 775-796.
• Kingdom, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
• Le Grand, Julian. (2003). Motivation, Agency and Public Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Leys et al. (2015). Care Living Lab Flanders: Social and Open Innovation. Paper presented to the Open Living Lab Days conference, Istanbul.
• Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated, Working Paper, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Oxford Saïd Business School
• Morel, N., Palier, B., Palme, J., eds. (2011). Toward a Social Investment Welfare State? Ideas, Policies and Challenges. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press.
• Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions. London: G. Duckworth.
• OECD. (2012) Science, Technology And Industry Outlook, http://www.oecd.org/turkey/sti-outlook-2012turkey.pdf
• OECD. (2016). Social Innovation Policy Framework for Croatia. Paris: OECD South East Europe Regional Programme.
• OECD (2018), Social spending (indicator). doi: 10.1787/7497563b-en (Accessed on 22 May 2018). https:// stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG;
• Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier K., Miller, D. T., (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. 6 (4 ), 37-43.
• Republic of Rwanda – Minsistry in Charge of Emergency Management. (2016). Smart Card Use for Refugees Launched. Retrieved November 2018 from: http://midimar.gov.rw/index.php?id=45&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=112&cHash =87ba18759c3cd3a8e181a06de5cd47ff
• Reynolds, S., Madeleine G., & Heales, C. (2016). Social Innovation Policy in Europe: where next? SI Policy in Europe. Social Innovation Community: an H2020 research and innovation Project under grant agreement no:693883.
• Saurruger, S. and Yves S. (2006). L’Européanisation comme procéssus de transfert de politique publique. Reveu Internationale de Politique Comparée, 13(2), pp. 179-211.
• Schuurman, D. (2015). Bridging the Gap Between Open and User Innovation? PhD Dissertation presented jointly to the University of Ghent and the Free University of Brussels.
• Schuurman D. et al. (2015). Living Labs: A Systematic Literature Review. Paper presented to the Open Living Lab Days conference, Istanbul.
• Smyrl, M. (2008). French Regional Elites and EC Regional Development Policy. In Smyrl, Marc & William Genieys. Elites, Ideas, and the Evolution of Public Policy. Palgrave-MacMillan.
• Smyrl, M. (2014). Beyond Interests and Institutions: US Health Policy and the Surprising Silence of Big Business. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 39: 1, pp, 5-34.
• TEPSIE (Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Social Innovation in Europe). (2012). An Introduction to Innovation Studies for Social Innovators. (Deliverable 1.3 of the FP7 project TEPSIE)
• World Food Program (WFP) – Turkey. (2017). The Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN) and the Grand Bargain, Retrieved, May 2018 from: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000021046/download/
• Yilmaz, G. (2017). It is voluntary transfer! Exploring Healthcare Reforms in Turkey. Turkish Studies 18: 4, pp. 665-687.
• Zito, A. ed. (2013) Learning and Governance in the EU Policy Making Process. London and New York: Routlage.