Management Reforms in Activation Programmes and Public Employment Services The Turkish Case

Öz

There are many studies on the ways in which activation paradigm has been integrated into the reform of welfare states. Activation paradigm and related policies serve to activate citizens to take more responsibility for their own welfare through paid employment. Active labour market policies (ALMPs) have constituted one of the important policy fields in which active welfare understanding have been materialised and thus become a significant instrument of activation. These programs and relevant measures constitute formal policy reforms. There is also a rising literature on procedural policy reforms in the field of activation, which is about the ways that ALMPs are managed, that is, the governance of activation. Recent procedural reforms include measures shaped by the New Public Management thinking such as performance management or management by objectives, and the process of marketization through quasi markets. The debates on the governance of activation show the ways in which management reforms shape the content of activation reforms. This study attempts to evaluate those debates on procedural reforms in ALMPs through review of the relevant literature and based on the Turkish case. Turkey is a late comer in implementation of activation programmes but in the last two decades policy reforms both in ALMPs and in the ways formal policy reforms are governed and implemented have accelerated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Activation
• active labour market policies
• management reforms
• public employment services
• Turkey.

Aktivasyon Programlarında Yönetim Reformları ve Kamu İstihdam Hizmetleri: Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Etkinleştirme (aktivasyon) paradigmasının refah devletlerinin yeniden yapılandırılmasına etkisini konu alan birçok çalışma bulunmaktadır. Aktivasyon anlayışını yansıtan politikalar, yurttaşların ücretli çalışma yoluyla kendi refahları için daha fazla sorumluluk almaları yönünde etkinleştirilmelerine hizmet etmektedir. Aktif işgücü politikaları ise aktif refah anlayışının somutlaştığı önlemler olarak, aktivasyon anlayışının en önemli araçlarından biri olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Söz konusu politikalar formal politika reformlarına karşılık gelmektedir. İlgili yazında aktivasyon politikaları alanında prosedürel reformları konu edinen çalışmalar da önem kazanmaktadır. Bu yazın, aktif işgücü politikalarının yönetimi ya da aktivasyonun yönetişimi (management of activation) olarak tartışılmaktadır. Prosedürel reformlar özellikle Yeni Kamu Yönetimi anlayışı altında şekillenen amaçlar bağlamında yönetim ve yarı piyasalar yoluyla piyasalaşma gibi süreçleri içermektedir. Aktivasyonun yönetişimi tartışmaları yönetim reformlarının formal reformların içeriğini de etkilediğini de göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, aktif işgücü politikalarını ilgili yazındaki prosedürel reformların değerlendirilmesi ve Türkiye’de kamu istihdam hizmetlerinin sunumunda hayata geçirilen reformlar bağlamında ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Türkiye, aktivasyon programlarının uygulanması ve kamu istihdam hizmetlerinin reformu açısından geç kalan bir ülke olarak değerlendirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aktivasyon
• aktif işgücü reformları
• yönetim reformları
• kamu istihdam hizmetleri
• Türkiye.

Kaynakça

1. Acar, O.K. , Yabonava, E.K. (2017) ‘Aktif İşgücü Piyasası Politikaları Çerçevesinde Kütahya İşkur’un Mesleki Eğitim Faaliyetleri, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4 (2), 85-111.
2. Aile, Çalışma ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı (AÇSHB) (2018) 2018 Yılı Faaliyet Raporu.
3. Aldan, A., Çirakli, M.E, Torun, H. (2021) “Covid 19 and the Turkish labour market: Heterogenous effects across demographic groups, Central Bank Review, xxx, 1-9.
4. Alper, Y. (2003) “İş ve İşçi Bulma Kurumu’ndan Türkiye İş Kurumu’na”, İş, Güç Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 5(2), 1-5.
5. Aşkın, U., Aşkın, E.Ö (2017) ‘Aktif İstihdam Politikası Olarak Toplum Yararına Programlar’, Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 3 (3), 1-16.
6. Aygun, A.H, Koksal, S., Uysal, G. (2021) “The Effects of Covid-19 on Labour Market Outcomes in Turkey”, ERF Policy Brief No: 72, 1-6.
7. Bonvin, J.M. (2008) “Activation Policies, New Modes of Governance and the Issue of Responsibility”, Social Policy and Society, 7(3), 367-377.
8. Bonvin, J. M, Moachon,E. (2007) “The Impact of Contractualism in Social Policies”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27 (9/10), 401-412.

9. Borghi, V., Van Berkel, R. (2007) “New Modes of Governance in Italy and the Netherlands: the Case of Activation Policies, Public Administration, 85 (1), 83-101.
10. Bredgaard, T., Larsen, F. (2007) “Implementing Public Employment Policy: What Happens When Non-Public Agencies Take Over?”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27 (7/8), 287-300.
11. Breidahl, K. N, Larsen, F. (2015) “The Developing Trajectory of The Marketization of Public Employment Services in Denmark-A New Way Forward or the End of Marketization”, European Policy Analysis, 1(1), 92-107.
12. Brodkin, E. Z. (2011) “Public Work: Street-Level Organizations under New Managerialism”, Journal of Public Administration, 21, 253-277.
13. Brodkin, E. Z. (2006) “Bureaucracy Redux: Management Reformism and the Welfare State, Public Management Research Association, 17 (1), 1-17.
14. Coletto, D., Guglielmi, S. (2018) “Activation policies in action: Unemployed people and public officers in face of the economic crisis”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38 (3-4), 329-344.
15. Considine, M., O’Sullivan, S., Mcgann, M., Nguyen, P. (2019) “Locked-in or Locked-out: Can a Public Services Market Really Change”, Journal of Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279419000941, 1-22.
16. Considine, M., Nguyen, P., O’Sillivan, S. (2018) “New Public Management and the Rule of Economic Incentives: Australian Welfare-to Work from Job Market Signalling Perspective”, Public Management Review, 20 (8), 1186-1204.
17. Considine, M., O’Sullivan, S., Nguyen, P. (2014) “New Public Management and Welfare-to-Work in Australia: Comparing the Reform Agendas of the ALP and the Coalition”, Australian Journal of Political Science, 49 (3), 469-485.
18. Considine, M., Lewis, J. M., O’Sullivan S. (2011) “Quasi-Markets and Service Delivery Flexibility Following a Decade of Employment Assistance Reform in Australia”, Journal of Social Policy, 40 (4), 811-833.
19. Considine, M.,Lewis, M.L (2003) “Bureaucracy, Network, or Enterprise? Comparing Models of Governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand”, American Society for Public Administration, 63 (2), 131-140.
20. Coşkun, B. (2017) “Türkiye İş ve İşçi Bulma Kurumunun Yeniden Yapaılanma Süreci”, Turkish Journal of Marketing, 2 (3), 125-155.
21. Çetinkaya, E. (2011) “Türkiye İş Kurumu ve Hizmetlerinin Dönüşümü Konusunda Sosyal Tarafların Görüşleri, Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları, 61 (2): 39-41.
22. Çiner, U. (2007) “Türkiye’de Çalışma YönetimininDönüşümü: İstihdamın Yönetimindeki Dönüşüm, Ataman, B.A. (ed.) in Prof. Dr. Cahit Talas Anısına Güncel Sosyal Politika Tartışmaları, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 259-284
23. Deeming, C., Smyth, P. (2015) “Social Investment after Neoliberalism: Policy Paradigms and Political Platforms”, Journal of Social Policy, 44 (2), 297-318
24. Dostal, J. M. (2008) “The workfare Illusion: Re-examining the Concept and the British Case”, Social Policy and Administration, 42 (1), 19-42.
25. Dur, V. (2017) “Marketization in Public Employment Services: Lessons from UK Experience for Turkey” Sosyal Güvence, 12 (6), 89-104.
26. Ehrler, F. (2012) “New Public Governance and Activation”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32 (5/6), 327-339.
27. European Commission (2013) “Performance Management in Public Employment Services: Benchmarking, Clustering and Individual Performance Management”, Follow up to Peer Review: Performance Management in PES, Copenhagen. European Commission (2012) Performance Management in Public Employment Services, Analytical Paper, 1-49.
28. European Commission (2011) Decentralization of Public Employment Services, Analytical Paper, i-29.
29. Fırat, Z. (2018) “İstihdam Politiklarının Oluşturulmasında İşkur’un Etkinliği ve Özel İstihdam Kurumları”, Paradoks Ekonomi, Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi, 14 (1), 31-44.
30. Grover, C., Stewart, J. (1999) “Market workfare: Social Security, Social Regulation and Competitiveness in the 1990s”, Journal of Social Policy, 28 (1), 73-96.
31. Gön, E. (2011) “Kamu Kurumlarında Yeniden Yapılanmanın Müşteri Memnuniyetine Etkileri”, Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1 (1), 57-78.
32. Gün, S. (2013) ‘Toplum Yararına Çalışma Programı: İşsizlikle Mücadelede Yeni Bir Yöntem mi?’, Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 3(2), 76-95.
33. Graziano, P.R., Winkler, J. (2012) “Governance and implementation of activation policies: Czech Republic and Italy compared”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32 (5-6), 340-352.
34. Grubb, D. (2004) “Principles for the Performance Management of Public Employment Services, Public Finance and Management, 4(3), 352-398.
35. Güray, M. (2012) “A Case Study for Evaluation of Trainings under Active Labour Market Policies in Turkey for Women Empowerment”, Çalışma İlişkileri Dergisi, 3 (2), 90-108.
36. Haberler.Com (2018) İşkur’dan Vatandaşa Hizmet Noktaları. https://www.haberler.com/iskur-dan-vatandasa-hizmet-noktalari-11279403-haberi/. (19.12.2021).
37. Heidenreich, M., Graziano, P.R. (2014) “Lost in Activation? The Governance of Activation Policies in Europe”, International Journal of Social Welfare, 23, 1-5.
38. Hill, G. (2013) “The Marketization of Employment Services and the British Work Programme”, Competition and Change, 17 (2), 197-207.
39. Holden, C. (2012) “Commercial Welfare”, Alcock, P., May, M. and Wright, S. (eds.) in Student’s Companion to Social Policy, West Sussex: Wiley and Blackwell, 215-220.
40. ILO (2021), Impact of the Second Wave COVID Measure on Employment in Turkey, Research Brief, 1-15.
41. ILO (2020) “Covid-19: Public employment services and labour market policy responses”, Policy Brief, 1-25.
42. İŞKUR (2021a) Organization. https://www.iskur.gov.tr/en/corporate/organization/. (18.12.202)
43. İŞKUR (2021b) History. https://www.iskur.gov.tr/en/corporate/history/Accessed (18.12.2021).
44. İŞKUR (2017) Türkiye İş Kurumu 9. Genel Kurul Çalışma Raporu https://media.iskur.gov.tr/13592/9-genel_kurul_raporu.pdf. (18.12.2021)
45. İŞKUR (2019) Türkiye İş Kurumu 10. Genel Kurul Çalışma Raporu. https://media.iskur.gov.tr/33490/10-genel-kurul-raporu.pdf. (18.12.2021)
46. İŞKUR (2014) Türkiye İş Kurumu VI Genel Kurul Çalışma Raporu. https://media.iskur.gov.tr/13590/8-genel-kurul-raporu.pdf. (18.12.2021).
47. İŞKUR (2012) Türkiye İş Kurumu 7. Genel Kurul Çalışma Raporu. https://media.iskur.gov.tr/13588/7-genel-kurul-raporu.pdf. (18.12.2021).
48. İŞKUR (2011), Türkiye İş Kurumu VI Genel Kurul Çalışma Raporu. https://media.iskur.gov.tr/13586/6-genel-kurul-raporu.pdf. (18.12.2021).
49. İŞKUR (2005) 3. Genel Kurul Kararları: Ulusal İstihdam Politikaları ve İşsizlik Sorununa Çözüm Önerileri. https://media.iskur.gov.tr/13586/6-genel-kurul-raporu.pdf (18.12.2021).
50. Jenson, J. (2015) “Broadening the Frame: Inclusive Growth and the Social Investment Perspective”, McBride, S. Mahon, R. and G. W.Boychuk (eds.), in After’08: Social Policy and the Global Financial Crisis, Vancouver: UBC Press, 40-58.
51. Kalvane, I. (2015) “Business Model Choice for Latvian Public Employment Service: What is the Best for Labour Force Competitiveness”, 20th International Scientific Conference Economics and Management, Latvia.
52. Kapar, R. (2012) ‘Ulusal İstihdam Stratejisi Taslşağında İstihdam-Sosyal Koruma İlişkisi, Ulusal İstihdam Stratejisi Sempozyumu (ed.), İstanbul: Türk-İş, 64-87.
53. Kasapoğlu, M., Murat, S (2018) ‘Aktif İstihdam Politikaları ve Türkiye’de İşkur tarafından uygulanan Aktif İstihdam Politikalarına Güncel Bir Bakış’, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20 (25), 485-502
54. Kirkpatrick, I., De Ruyter, A., Hoque, K., Lonsdale, C. (2011) “Practising What They Preach? The Disconnect Between the State as Regulator and the User of Employment Agencies”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22 (18), 3711-3726.
55. Klenk, T (2015) “The Governance of welfare markets-trends and challenges: Introduction to the special issue”, European Policy Analysis, 1(1), 35-40.
56. Klijn, E. H (2012) Public Management and Governance: A Comparison of Two Paradigms to Deal with Modern Complex Problems, Faur, D.L (ed.) in The Handbook of Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201-214.
57. Knotz, C. M. (2018) “A rising workfare state? Unemployment benefit conditionality in 21 OECD countries, 1980-2012., Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 34 (2), 91-108.
58. Korkut, G., Acar, O.K, Tetik, A. (2015) “Yeni Kamu Yönetimi Anlayışı ile Değişen Kamu Hizmeti ve Türkiye İş Kurumu”, İş ve Hayat, 1(2), 107-135.
59. Kumaş, H. (2010) “Türkiye İş Kurumu Faaliyetleri ve İşgücü Piyasası İhtiyaçları Arasındaki Uyum”, Sosyoekonomi, 1, 131-165.
60. McGann, M. (2020) “The political economy of welfare in a time of coronavirus: post-productivism as a state of exception”, Irish Journal of Sociology, 28 (2), 225-230.
61. McGann, M., Murphy, M.P. (2021) “Introduction: The Dual tracks of welfare and activation reform-Governance and conditionality, Administration, 69 (2), 1-6.
62. McGann, M. (2021) “Double Activation: Workfare meets marketization”, Administration, 69 (2), 19-42.
63. Mosley, H., Schütz, H., Breyer, N. (2001) “Management by Objectives in European Public Employment Services”, Discussion Paper, Berlin.
64. Newman, J. (2007) “The Double Dynamics of Activation”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy”, 27 (9/10), 364-375.
65. Nunn, A., Morgan, J. (2020) “The Political Economy of Public Employment Services: Measurement and Disempowerment Empowerment”, Policy Studies, 41 (1), 42-62.
66. Nunn, A. (2019) “Neoliberalization, Fast Policy Transfer and The Management of Labour Market Services”, Review of International Political Economy, https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1625424, 1-21.
67. Nunn, A. (2018) “Do Employment Services Need to Be Neoliberal”, Hooley, T., Sultana, R. Thomsen, R. (eds.) in Career Guidance for Emancipation, New York: Routledge, 166-182.
68. Nunn, A. (2010) "Performance management and neo-liberal labour market governance: the case of the UK”, Sun, W. Stewart, J., Pollard, D. (eds.) in Reframing Corporate Social Responsibility: Lessons from the Global Financial Crisis, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley,77-99.
69. OECD (2021), OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey. Overview, 1-78. OECD (2017) OECD Reviews on Local Job Creation: Employment and Skills Strategies in Turkey.
70. OECD (2005) “Public Employment Services: Managing Performance”, OECD Employment Look.
71. Özşahin, L. and Karabulut, K. (2017) ‘Post-Keynesyen İktisatta Toplum Yararına Çalışma Programlarının Analizi, Kafkas Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 8(16), 319-352.
72. Peck, J. (2002) “Political Economies of Scale: Fast Policy, Interscalar Relations, and Neoliberal Workfare”, Economic Geography, 78 (3), 331-360.
73. Penz, O., Sauer, B., Gaitsch, M., Hofbauer,J., Glinser, B. (2017) “Post-burecratic encounters: Affective Labour in Public Employment Services, Critical Social Policy, 37 (4), 540561.
74. Pollitt, C. (2001) “Clarifying Convergence. Striking Similarities and Durable Differences in Public Management Reform”, Public Management Reform, 4 (1), 471-492.
75. Sayın, A.K. (2005) “Istihdam Hizmetlerinin Yeniden Yapılandırılması Sürecinde Türkiye İş Kurumu”, Soyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 0 (49): 405-423.
76. Selek Öz, C. (2008) “4857 Sayılı İş Kannu Döneminde İş ve İşçi Bulmaya Aracılık Faaliyetleri, TÜHİS İş Hukuku ve İktisat Dergisi, 21 (5-6): 18-30.
77. Soantken, M., Weishaupt, J. T. (2015) “When Social Parties Unite-Explaining Continuity and Change in Austrian and Dutch Labour Market Governance”, Social Policy and Administration, 49 (5), 59
78. Sol, E. (2010) “Vouchers, NPM and The Provision of Public Employment Services”, European Journal of Social Security, 12(4): 343-356.
79. Şahin, M., Nal, M., Kaya, F. (2019) “Aktif İşgücü Politikları İşsizliği Nasıl Etkiliyor? İşkur Eşleştirme Hizmeti Etki Analizi”, Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 9(1), 161-176.
80. Şahin, Ç.E. (2014) ‘Ulusal Istihdam Stratejisinin Dayanağı olarak Avrupa İstihdam Stratejisinin Analizi ve Türkiye Emek Piyasalarının Dönüşümü, Müftüoğlu, Ö., Koşar, A. (eds.) in Türkiye’de Esnek Çalışma, İstanbul: Doğa Basın Yayın, 43-67.
81. Şen, M. (2016) ‘Aktif İşgücü Piyasası Politikaları Kapsamında Türkiye’de Mesleki Eğitim Kurslarının Analizi’, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi ,2 (1): 67-89.
82. Terziev, V. (2020), “Provision of Integrated Employment and Social Assistance Services”, Economy and Production Proceeding of the International Science and Technology Conference “FarEastСon-2018” Volume 138, October 2-4, 201, Vladivostok, Russian Federation.
83. TÜİK (2021a) Veri Portalı https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=D%C3%B6nemsel-Gayrisafi-Yurt-%C4%B0%C3%A7i-Has%C4%B1la-III.-%C3%87eyrek:-Temmuz---Eyl%C3%BCl,-2021-37183&dil=1. (19.12.2021).
84. TÜİK(2021b)VeriPortalı.https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=%C4%B0%C5%9Fg%C3%BCc%C3%BC-%C4%B0statistikleri-Ekim-2021-37491&dil=1.(19.12.2021).
85. TÜİK (2021c)https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Isgucu-Istatistikleri-Ekim-2021-37491. (19.12.2021).
86. TÜİK(2021d)https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Isgucu-Istatistikleri-2020-37484. (19.12.2021).
87. TÜİK(2020)https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Isgucu-Istatistikleri-2019-33784. (19.12.2021).
88. WAPES (2021) Turkish Employment Agency. https://wapes.org/en/node/268. (19.12.2021).
89. Wolfgang, L.M, Behrend, O., Sondermann, A. (2014) ‘Activation, Public Employment Services and their Clients: The Role of Social Class in Continental Welfare State”, Social Policy and Administration, 18 (5), 594-612.
90. Weishaupt, J. T. (2010) “A Silent Revolution? New Management Ideas and the Reinvention of European Employment Services”, Socio-Economic Review, 8, 461-486.
91. Whitworth, A., Carter, E. (2014) “Welfare to Work Reform, Power and Inequality: FOM Governance to Governmentalities”, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 22 (2), 104-117. World Bank (2013) Turkey: Evaluating the Impact of İşkur’s Vocational Training Programs, v-46.
92. Van Berkel, R. (2014), “Quasi-markets and the Delivery of Activation-A Frontline Perspective”, Social Policy and Administration, 48 (2), 188-203.
93. Van Berkel, B., De Graaf, W., Sirovatka, T. (2012a) “Governance of the Activation Policies”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32 (5/6), 260-272.
94. Van Berkel, R., Sager, F., Ehrler, F. (2012b) “The Diversity of Activation Markets in Europe”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32 (5/6), 273-285.
95. Van Berkel, R. (2009) “The Provision of Income Protection and Activation Services for the Unemployed in Active Welfare States. An International Comparison”, Journal of Social Policy, 39 (1), 17-34
96. Van Berkel, R., Borghi, V. (2008) “Review Article: The Governance of Activation”, Social Policy and Society, 7(3), 393-402.
97. Yeh, H., Wan, L. (2018) “Disability Employment Services Under New Public Management: A Comparison of Australia and Taiwan, International Social Work, 61 (3), 437-450.