İki Kriz Arasında Yönetim: Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği

Year 2013, Issue: 30, 181 - 195, 01.08.2013

Aziz Tuncer Sefa Usta

Abstract

Refah Devleti ekseninde şekillenen Weberyen bürokrasi anlayışı1980’li yıllardan itibaren ne-liberal politikaların da katkısıyla dönüşmeye ve değişmeye başlamıştır. Bu değişimin asıl yansımasıYeni Kamu İşletmeciliği yaklaşımının yönetimde uygulanmaya başlamasıdır. Yen kamu işletmeciliği ile birlikte, planlıekonomi ve merkeziyetçi yönetimden vazgeçilerek, serbest piyasa düşüncesi ve âdem-i merkeziyetçi bir yönetim anlayışıyerleştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Devletin bu yapısındaki değişim ve dönüşüm çabaları, 2008 sonrasıdönemde, ortaya çıkan mali krizle birlikte sekteye uğramıştır. Bu minvalden hareketle, çalışmada, yeni kamu işletmeciliğinin tarihsel arka planı, ortaya çıkışı, gelişimi ve unsurlarıele alınmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, yeni kamu işletmeciliğinin sonuçlarıve yeni kamu işletmeciliğinin sorun alanlarıve eleştiriler irdelenmektedir. Bu kapsam çerçevesinde hazırlanan çalışmanın temel amacı, yeni kamu işletmeciliğinin sonuçlarının ele alınıp, beklenilen ve istenilen sonuçların alınıp alınmadığının tespiti ve buna yönelik görüşve eleştirilerin değerlendirilmesidir.

Keywords

Refah Devleti, Weberyen Bürokrasi, Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği, Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliğinin Sonuçları

The Case of Administration Between Two Crises: New Public Management

Abstract

It is generally accepted that, years between 1870 and 1914 were golden years of liberal practices; likewise, planned economy and centralization experienced heyday between 1945 and 1975. Thanks to the impact of welfare state approach, bureaucratic administration has carried on activities in a wide range within framework of planned development. Criticism appeared in the agenda regarding lower performance related to expanding public institutions following the oil shock. In addition, the existence of large scaled and inflexible public institutions that are close to the influence of environment and innovations. Those institution, perform on the basis of noncompetition and process rather output an efficiency. What is more, along with the increasing cost of public services and performance problem in expanding institutions, scarcity of financial resource was begun to emerge; and, in time it was perceived as the main outcome of the traditional administrative ills; and, this couldn’t be remedied through traditional administrative methods. It is impossible to attain goals only by cosmetic measures through Weberian mechanisms. So the planning, implementation and motivation processes were started to be scrutinized. First results of diagnostic studies related to the problems of bureaucratic administration system revealed that the problem stemmed from planning, which was founded upon insufficient knowledge. For the efficient solutions the capacities of planning processes and structures of planning units were to be enhanced. However, no successful results were obtained through efficient planning, hence, the causes of the problem were searched in different elements of administration, and implementation process became the focal point. By taking account of “Implementation Deficit”, insufficiency of executive agencies was emphasized. In order to overcome the implementation deficit, it was aimed to increase the institutional capacity. On the other hand, further studies showed that in addition to the “implementation deficit”, the impact of target groups’ low level motivation to participate administration could have been a factor of problem; and “motivation deficit” came to the fore. “Motivation deficit” means that the target group citizens , as the service receiver, is not eager enough to put into practice the government’s implementation targets. As long as individuals do not participate or contribute to the administrative and political processes willingly, implementations cannot be oriented to the desired directions. It is suggested that methods like briefing, incentive, and persuasions should be installed to make social groups a part of this process. However, more deeply-rooted reforms are necessary to solve the administrative problems. As the ungovernability appeared as the stem of the problem, the necessity of replacing bureaucratic administration with new public management mechanisms came into prominence. New public management emphasized the importance of output and gave priority to customer-citizens preferences. So day by day management techniques became pervasive to enhance competitiveness and increase performance. The most important point of new public management is to reduce the rise the public resources and to limit the numbers of administrative service areas by activating “cutback management”. Together with new public management, private and public sectors converged, and the belief that performance problem in public administration can be solved by using competitive and output-oriented management style, so and private sector’s management techniques became more and more dominant. New public management has been criticized after 1990s especially due to its democratic weaknesses. In the early 2000s, as tangible side effects of new public management were begun to be observed, the studies covering the general results of new public management implementations came to be visible. As a result of studies, the following items, like creating performance ranks, providing financial source through service purchase, and successful use of technologies were accepted as accomplishment of new public management, and they are continued to be applied. On the other hand, subjects like “distinction between service provider and purchaser developing semi-public institutions, strenghting competition by comparison, establishment of market-like intuitions, outsourcing, deregulation, performance related pay and build operate transfer based on private sector finance” were defined new public management’s partial or complete failures. The theoretical rules and policies were put into the practices on the basis of new public management became a subject of discussion in academic circles. Debates related to new public management were focused on the difficulty of system formation costs, construction of single purpose institutions on the basis of devolution, the increasing complexity of administration as a side effect of enriching variety of institution through deregulation and subsidiarity, privatization, contract system, motivation of personnel; and especially regarded public interest and legitimacy of new public management. The practices with respect to citizen as customer give birth to the problem of legitimacy and low level administrative accountability was perceived as the outcome “New Public Management” under valuation of democratic principles what’s more all including “Welfare State Policies” were terminated and “social exclusion” arose as the concrete product of new approach. In sum, new public management, overemphasized economic aspect administration while disregarding democratic aspects, which in midterm will create a fertile domain for the rise of “governance” approach which gave priority to democratic and cultural aspects as well as economic aspect. In the early 70’s there were dissents about bureaucratic administration yet observable outcomes appeared after the 1974 “oil crisis”. Likewise following the 2008 “financial crisis” initial indicators of turnaround from new public management obviously observed. This study tries to reveal that, there are reversals from New Public Management’s and a move toward regulatory policies and governance emphasizing citizenship and legitimacy

Keywords

Welfare State, Weberian Bureaucracy, New Public Management, The Concrete Results of New Public Management

References

• ALISTAIR, Coleandand Jones, Glyn (2005). “Reshaping the State: Administrative Reform and New Public Management in France”, Governance,Vol: 18, No: 4,pp.567–588.
• ASHWORTH, Rachel, Boyne, George and Delbridge, Rick (2007),“Escape from the IronCage? Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol: 19, No: 1, pp.165-187.
• AUCOIN, Peter (2012),“New Political Governance in Westminster Systems: Impartial Public Administration and Management Performance at Risk”, Governance, Vol: 25, No: 2,pp. 177–199.
• BEHN, Robert (1985),“Cutback Budgeting”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol: 4, No: 2, pp. 155-177.
• BUMGARNER, John and Chad B. Newswander (2012), “Governing Alone and with Partners: Presidential Governance in a Post-NPM Environment”, Administration&Society 44(5), pp.546–570.
• CAİDEN Gerald E. (1991),“What Really is Public Maladministration?”, Public Administration Review, Vol:51, No: 6, pp. 486-493.
• CARROLL, James(1995), “The Rhetoric of Reform and Political Reality in the National Performance Review”, Public Administration Review, 55(3), pp. 302-12.
• CLARK, David (2002),“Neoliberalism and Public Service Reform: Canada in Comparative Perspective”, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35 (4), pp. 771-793.
• DeLEON, Linda and Denhardt, Robert B. (2000), “The Political Theory of Reinvention”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 60, No:2, pp. 89-97.
• DENHARDT, Robert B. and Denhardt, Janet Vinzant (2000), “The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 60, No: 6, pp. 549-559.
• DRUCKER, Peter (1980), “The Deadly Sins in Public Administration”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 40, pp. 103-106.
• DUNLEAVY, Patrick, Margetts, Helen, Bastow, Simon and Tinkler, Jane (2005), “New Public Management is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol: 16, pp.467–494.
• DUNSIRE, Andrew (1994), “Modes of Governance”, (Editor:Jan Kooiman), Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, Sage Publications, pp.21-34.
• FELDMAN, Martha S. And Khademian, Anne M. (2001), “Principles for Public Management Practice: From Dichotomies to Interdependence”, Governance, Vol:14, No:3, pp.339-361.
• FELDMAN, Martha S. and Khademian, Anne M. (2002), “To Manage is to Govern”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 62, No: 5, pp. 541-554.
• FOUNTAIN, Jane E. (2001), “Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service”, Governance, Vol: 14, No:1, pp. 55-73.
• FREDERİCKSON, George H. (1976), “Public Administration in the 1970s: Developments and Directions”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 36, No: 5, pp. 564-576.
• HERBERT Kaufman (1974), Are Government Organizations Immortal?, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
• HOOD, Christopher (1974), “Administrative Diseases: Some Types of Dysfunctionality in Administration”, Public Administration, Vol: 52, pp. 439-454.
• HOOD, Christopher and Guy Peters (2004), “The Middle Aging of New Public Management: In to the Age of Paradox?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol: 14, No:3, pp.267- 282.
• KETTL, Donald F. (1990), The Perils and Prospects of Public Administration”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 50, No: 4, pp. 411-419.
• KICKERT, Walter (2008), “Distinctiveness in the Study of Public Management in Europe”, (Editor: Kickert Walter), The Study of Public Management in Europe and the USA Comparative Analysis of National Distinctiveness, Routledge, Newyork, pp1-14.
• KOOİMAN, Jan (1994), “Social-Political Governance: Introduction”, (Editor: Jan Kooiman), Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interaction, Sage Publications, pp.1-8.
• KRAMER, Fred A. (1983), “Public Management in the 1980’s and Beyond”, American Academy of Political and Social Science,Vol: 466, pp. 91-102.
• LAN, Zhiyong and Rosenbloom, David H. (1992), “Editorial: Public Administration in Transition?”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 52, No: 6, pp.535-537.
• LEVINE, Charles H. (1978), “Organizational Decline and Cutback Management”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 38, No:4, pp. 316–325.
• LEVY, Roger (2010), “New Public Management: End of an Era?”, Public Policy and Administration, 25, pp. 234-240.
• LODGE, Martin and Derek Gill (2011), “Toward a New Era of Administrative Reform? The Myth of Post-NPM in New Zealand”, Governance, Vol: 24, No: 1, pp. 141–166.
• LYNN, Laurence E. Jr. (2001), “The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 61, No: 2, pp. 144-160.
• MAYNTZ, Renate (1994), “Governing Failures and the Problem of Governability: Some Comments on a Theoretical Paradigm” (Editor: Jan Kooiman), Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, SagePublication, pp. 9-20.
• McLAUGHLIN Kate and Osborne, Stephen P. (2002), “The New Public Management in Context”, (Editors: Kathleen, Mc Laughlin, Osborne, Stephen P. And Ferlie, Ewan), New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects, Routledge, pp.5-15.
• MEHDE, Veith (2006), “Governance, Administrative Science, and the Paradoxes of New Public Management”, Public Policy and Administration, Vol:21, No:4, pp.60-81.
• MINTZBERG, Henry(1996), “Managing Government, Governing Management”, Harvard Business Review, 74(3), pp.75-83.
• MOE, Ronald C. (1994), “The ‘Reinventing Government’ Exercise: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the Consequences”, Public Administration Review, 54(2), pp.111-122.
• MOE, Ronald C. AndGilmour, Robert S. (1995),“RediscoveringPrinciples of Public Administration: TheNeglectedFoundation ofPublicLaw”,Public Administration Review, Vol: 55, No:2, pp. 135-146.
• OECD (2005), Modernizing Government: The Synthesis”, OECD, Publishing, Paris.
• PETERS, Guy (2001), The Politics of Bureaucracy, Fifth Edition, Routledge.
• RICCUCCI, Norma M. (2001), “The ‘Old’ Public Management Versus the ‘New’ Public Management: Where Does Public Administration Fit in?”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 61, No: 2, pp.172-175.
• RIDLEY, F. F. (1996), “New Public Management in Europe: Comparative Perspectives”, Public Policy and Administration, 11, pp. 16-29.
• ROSE, Richard (1981),“What If Anything is Wrong with Big Government”, Journal of Public Policy, Vol: 1, No: 1, pp. 5-36.
• ROSE, Richard and B. Guy Peters (1978), Can Government Go Bankrupt?, New York: Basic Books.
• SANDFORT, Jodi R. (2000), “Moving Beyond Discretion and Outcomes: Examining Public Management from the Front Lines of the Welfare System”, Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory, Vol: 10, Issue: 4, pp. 729-756.
• SPICER, Michael (2004), “Public Administration, the History of Ideas, and the Reinventing Government Movement”, Public Administration Review, Vol: 64, No:3, pp.353-362.
• STOKER, Gerry (1998), “Governance as Theory: Five Propositions”, International Social Science Journal, 155, pp.17-28.
• TAYLOR Marilyn (2002), “The New Public Management and Social Exclusion: Cause or Response?”, (Editors: Kathleen, Mc Laughlin, Osborne, Stephen P. and Ferlie, Ewan), New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects, Routledge, pp. 109-129.
• TERRY, Larry D. (1993), “Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to Reconcile Public Entreprenuership with Democracy”, Public Administration Review, 53 (4), pp.393-395.