Yapay Zekâ ve İnsan Zekâsı İş Birliğiyle Kamu Değeri Yaratımı: Hibrit Yönetişim Modellerinin Rolü

Öz

Çağdaş kamu yönetimi, yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin sunduğu verimlilik fırsatları ile demokratik değerlerin korunması arasında stratejik bir denge kurma hedeflemektedir. Dijital çağ yönetişimi paradigması, teknolojinin artık yalnızca bürokratik bir araç olmanın ötesine geçerek politika oluşturma süreçlerini ve vatandaş-devlet ilişkilerini dönüştüren aktif bir aktör haline geldiğini ileri sürmektedir. Yapay zekâ sistemleri, veri işleme ve analiz yetenekleriyle kamu hizmetlerinde hız ve maliyet avantajı sağlamakla birlikte, şeffaflık eksikliği ve algoritmik önyargılar aracılığıyla kamu güvenini ve meşruiyeti tehdit etmektedir. Bu çalışma, makine zekâsının analitik kapasitesi ile insan yargısının etik derinliğini bütünleştiren “hibrit yönetişim” modellerinin, söz konusu riskleri yöneterek kamu değeri yaratımındaki rolünü incelemektedir. Kavramsal inceleme ve literatür sentezine dayalı nitel araştırma yönteminin benimsendiği çalışmada, ulusal ve uluslararası literatür ile güncel uygulama örnekleri betimsel analiz yöntemiyle ele alınarak kavramsal bir senteze ulaşılmıştır. İncelenen uygulama örnekleri, sağlık hizmetlerinden kolluk kuvvetlerine kadar geniş bir yelpazede insan-makine iş birliğinin somut çıktılarını ve karşılaşılan operasyonel darboğazları gözler önüne sermektedir. Araştırma, Mark Moore’un kamu değeri teorisi çerçevesinde yapay zekânın “operasyonel değer (etkinlik)” üretimini maksimize ederken, insan gözetiminin “stratejik değer (adalet ve hesap verebilirlik)” boyutunu güvence altına alabileceğini savunmaktadır. Bulgular, sürdürülebilir ve güvenilir kamu yönetimi için hibrit modellerle birlikte şeffaflık, eğitim ve etik temelli bütüncül bir yapay zekâ ekosisteminin gerekli olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu Yönetimi
• Yapay Zekâ
• Hibrit Yönetişim
• Kamu Değeri
• İnsan-Yapay Zekâ İş Birliği

Creating Public Value Through Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: The Role of Hybrid Governance Models

Öz

Modern public administration seeks to strike a strategic balance between the efficiency opportunities offered by artificial intelligence technologies and the protection of democratic values. The digital governance paradigm argues that technology has moved beyond being merely a bureaucratic tool and has become an active actor that transforms policy-making processes and citizen–state relations. While AI systems provide speed and cost advantages in public services through their data processing and analytical capabilities, they also threaten public trust and legitimacy through opacity and algorithmic bias. This study examines the role of “hybrid governance” models, which integrate the analytical capacity of machine intelligence with the ethical depth of human judgment, in managing these risks and creating public value. Adopting a qualitative research design based on conceptual review and literature synthesis, the study employs descriptive analysis to examine national and international literature as well as contemporary application examples, thereby arriving at a conceptual synthesis. The cases reviewed reveal both the tangible outcomes of human–machine collaboration and the operational bottlenecks encountered across a wide range of fields, from healthcare to law enforcement. Within the framework of Mark Moore’s public value theory, the study argues that artificial intelligence can maximize the production of “operational value (efficiency),” while human oversight can secure the “strategic value (justice and accountability)” dimension. The findings indicate that, for sustainable and trustworthy public administration, a comprehensive artificial intelligence ecosystem grounded in transparency, training, and ethics is necessary alongside hybrid models.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Administration
• Artificial Intelligence
• Hybrid Governance
• Public Value
• Human- Artificial İntelligence Collaboration

Kaynakça

1. Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2021). Algorithms as social actors: Empowering or censoring algorithmic decision-making? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa030
2. Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2022). Human-AI interactions in public sector decision-making: ‘Automation bias’ and ‘selective adherence’ to algorithmic advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007
3. Amershi, S., Chickering, M., Drucker, S. M., Lee, B., Simard, P., & Suh, J. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302272
4. Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., & Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 481–518. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3
5. Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003
6. Binns, R. (2018). Algorithmic accountability and public reason. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5
7. Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
8. Brantingham, P. J., & Mohler, G. O. (2018). Predictive policing and crime forecasting: Challenges and opportunities. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62119-2

9. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
10. Bryson, J. J., & Theodorou, A. (2019). How society can maintain control of artificial intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 377(2157), Article 20180256. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0256
11. Bryson, J. J., & Winfield, A. F. T. (2017). Standardizing ethical design for artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Computer, 50(5), 116–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.154
12. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238
13. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
14. Carroll, J. M. (2019). Human-computer interaction: Brief intro. MIT Press.
15. Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), Article 20180080. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080
16. Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the ‘good society’: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7
17. Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D. (2018). Implementing machine learning in health care—Addressing ethical challenges. The New England Journal of Medicine, 378(11), 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1714229
18. Christensen, J., Aarøe, L., Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2020). Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen–state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13134
19. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
20. Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature, 538(7625), 311–313. https://doi.org/10.1038/538311a
21. Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108–116.
22. Dekker, S. (2014). The field guide to understanding human error (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
23. Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(5), 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2
24. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608
25. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press.
26. Elish, M. C. (2019). Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 5, 40–60. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2019.260
27. Endsley, M. R. (1999). Situation awareness in aviation systems. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0903_4
28. Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049499
29. Engin, Z., Crowcroft, J., Hand, D., & Treleaven, P. (2025). The algorithmic state architecture (ASA): An integrated framework for AI enabled government. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.08725
30. Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056
31. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
32. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation on artificial intelligence. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206
33. Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. NYU Press.
34. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
35. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(3), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1145/230538.230561
36. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). M. E. Sharpe.
37. Gritsenko, D., & Wood, M. (2022). Algorithmic governance: A modes of governance approach. Regulation & Governance, 16(2), Article e12367. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12367
38. Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7), 1645–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010
39. Ho Dac, M., & Martinez, B. (2024). Human oversight of artificial intelligence and technical standardisation. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17481
40. Hoffman, R. R., & Woods, D. D. (2011). Beyond Simon’s slice: Toward a science of the integrative role of cognition in naturalistic decision making. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5(3), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411414295
41. Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016). The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.001
42. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
43. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
44. Keppeler, F., Borchert, J., Pedersen, M. J., & Nielsen, V. L. (2025). How ensembling AI and public managers improves decision-making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf009
45. Khatri, V., & Brown, C. V. (2020). Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM, 63(6), 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3376895
46. Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. Sage Publications.
47. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087
48. Kling, R. (1991). Cooperation, coordination and control in computer-supported work. In J. F. Nunamaker & R. H. Sprague (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 213–222). IEEE.
49. Köchling, A., & Wehner, M. C. (2020). Discriminating customers? A systematic literature review on algorithmic decision-making and fairness. Electronic Markets, 30(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00358-9
50. Lindgren, I., & De Oliveira, J. (2021). Chatbots in public sector customer service: Exploring adoption and impact. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), Article 101521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101521
51. Lum, K., & Isaac, W. (2016). To predict and serve? Significance, 13(5), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x
52. Mergel, I. (2019). Digital transformation in government: The emerging public sector ecosystem. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.04.001
53. Mergel, I. (2020). Digital tools in the public sector: Lessons from digital government research. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13147
54. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
55. Misuraca, G., & van Noordt, C. (2020). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: Opportunities and challenges of cross sectoral and cross border collaboration. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), Article 101414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101414
56. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 397–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0074-5
57. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
58. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
59. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books.
60. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
61. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
62. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
63. Rahwan, I. (2018). Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-6
64. Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W., Christakis, N. A., Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., Jennings, N. R., Kamar, E., Kloumann, I. M., Larochelle, H., Lazer, D., McElreath, R., Mislove, A., Parkes, D. C., Pentland, A., … Wellman, M. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y
65. Raisch, S., & Fomina, K. (2025). Combining human and artificial intelligence: Hybrid problem-solving in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 50(2), 467–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0421
66. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33–44). https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
67. Reyna, A., Martín, C., Chen, J., Soler, E., & Díaz, M. (2018). On blockchain and its integration with IoT: Challenges and opportunities. Future Generation Computer Systems, 88, 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.05.046
68. Rhodes, R. A. W., & Wanna, J. (2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x
69. Roe, D., & Schulkin, J. (2019). Context in human factors: Balancing generalizability and specificity. Human Factors, 61(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818779561
70. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
71. Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
72. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991
73. Topol, E. (2019). Deep medicine: How artificial intelligence can make healthcare human again. Basic Books.
74. Vaithianathan, R., Maloney, T., Putnam-Hornstein, E., & Jiang, N. (2013). Children in the public benefit system at risk of maltreatment: Identification via predictive risk modelling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(3), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.022
75. Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
76. van Noordt, C., & Tangi, L. (2023). The dynamics of AI capability and its influence on public value creation within public administration. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101860
77. Veale, M., & Binns, R. (2017). Fairer machine learning in the real world: Mitigating discrimination without collecting sensitive data. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717743530
78. Vepsäläinen, J., & Juntunen, P. (2025). Perspectives and potential issues in using artificial intelligence for computer science education. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.13730
79. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Transparent, explainable, and accountable AI for robotics. Science Robotics, 2(6), Article eaan6080. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aan6080
80. Wagner, B. (2018). Ethics as an escape from regulation: From ethics-washing to ethics-shopping? In E. Bayamlioğlu, I. Baraliuc, L. A. W. Janssens, & M. Hildebrandt (Eds.), Being profiled: Cogitas ergo sum (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam University Press.
81. Wang, W., & Siau, K. (2023). Ethics of artificial intelligence: A review of artificial intelligence ethics in AI governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04584-0
82. Woods, D. D. (2002). Operating at the sharp end: The complexity of human error. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive science (pp. 235–260). MIT Press.
83. Zhang, R., & Nie, L. (2025). Enhancing citizen-government communication with AI: Evaluating the impact of AI-assisted interactions on communication quality and satisfaction. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.10715
84. Zhao, Y., Wang, X., & Zhang, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence in traffic management: Advances and challenges. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 134, Article 103459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103459
85. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017). An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends. In 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress) (pp. 557–564). https://doi.org/10.1109/BigDataCongress.2017.85
86. Zhou, Z.-H. (2012). Ensemble methods: Foundations and algorithms. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
87. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.