Sosyal Uyum-Sosyal Sermaye Eksenli Kalkınma Yaklaşımının Sınıfsal Sonuçlarına İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

tanımlamak, günümüzde hegemonik bir yaklaşıma dönüşmekte ve “piyasanın” toplumun tüm bileşenleriyle uyum içinde olduğunu savunan bir sivil toplum anlayışı hâkim hale gelmektedir. Sınıfsal çelişki ve bunun belirlediği toplumsal güç ilişkilerini göz ardı eden bu yaklaşım, sınıf dışı öğeler ekseninde örgütlenmiş bir dayanışma pratiği yapılandırmakta ve sınıf dışı örgütlü yapıların siyaset alanında yaygınlaşması bir “demokrasi” diskuru halini almaktadır. Bu çerçevede devletin piyasayı denetleme işlevi bütünüyle ortadan kaldırılmakta ve yeni toplumsal kontrol mekanizmaları yapılandırılmaktadır. Yapılan birçok ampirik çalışma, bu yaklaşımın ortaya koyduğu dayanışma ve refah yaratma süreçlerinin işçi sınıfını kapsamadığını göstermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal uyum, Sosyal sermaye, Sivil toplum, Refah, Sınıfsal çelişki

Öz

Nowadays, defining social disputes according to state/public contradiction has becoming a hegemonic approach. Within this scope, a civil society view that claims market corresponds to each component of the society is rising. While ignoring class disputes and connected power relations, this approach constitutes solidarity out of class base. And proliferation of associations out of class base in political area becomes a discourse of “democracy”. Within this framework, the state loses its function to discipline the market entirely and new control mechanisms are structured. Many empirical researches show that such kind of solidarity and welfare processes do not involve the working class

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social cohesion, Social capital, Civil society, Welfare, Class dispute

Kaynakça

1. Acket, Sylvain, Monique Borsenberg, Paul Dickes, Francesco Sarracino (2011): Measuring And Validating Social Cohesion: A Bottom- Up Approach, CEPS Working Papers, No. 2011/08, (çevrimiçi), 17. 12. 2011, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/33/46839973.pdf
2. Başkaya, Fikret (1994): Kalkınma İktisadının Yükselişi ve Düşüşü, İmge Kitabevi, İstanbul.
3. Beauvais, Caroline, Jane Jenson (2002): Social Cohesion: Updating The State of The Research, CPRN Discussion Paper, F (22), (çevrimiçi), 09. 04. 2011, http://www.cprn.org/documents/12949_en.pdf
4. Berger Schmitt, Regina (2002): “Social Cohesion Between The Member States of European Union: Past Developments And Prospects For An Enlarged Union”, Czech Sociological Review, vol. 38 (6), pp. 721-748.
5. Berger Schmitt, Regina (2000): Social Cohesion As An Aspect of The Quality of Societies: Concept And Measurement, EU Reporting Working Paper, No. 14, (çevrimiçi), 14. 09. 2011, http://www . gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/pa per14.pdf
6. Berman, Yitzhak, David Philips (2004): Indicators for Social Cohesion, Paper Submitted to The European Network on Indicators of Social Quality of The European Foundation On Social Quality, Amsterdam, (çevrimiçi), 19. 04. 2011, http://www.socialquality.org/site/ima/Indicators-June-2004.pdf
7. Bernard, Paul (1999): Social Cohesion: A Critique, CPRN Discussion Paper, F (09), (çevrimiçi), 07. 02. 2011, (http://www.cprn.org /documents/15743_en.pdf)
8. Bourdieu, Pierre (1986): “The Forms of Capital”, (çevrimiçi), 07. 02. 2012, http://econ.tau.ac.il/papers/publicf/Zeltzer1.pdf

9. Byrne, David (1999): Social Exclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham.
10. Chan, Joseph, Ho- Pong To, Elanie Chan (2006): “Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing A Definition And Analytical Framework For Empirical Research”, Social Indicators Research, vol. 75 (2), pp. 273- 302.
11. Coleman, James S. (1988): “Social Capital In The Creation of Human Capital”, The American Journal of Sociology vol. 94 (supplement), pp. 95- 120.
12. Das, Raju J (2004): “Social Capital and The Poverty of The Wage Labor Class: Problems with the Social Capital Theory”, Transactions of The Institute of British Geographers, vlo. 29 (1), pp. 27-45.
13. De Filippis, James (2001): “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development”, Housing Policy Debate, vol. 12 (4), pp. 781- 806.
14. Di Ciaccio, Simona (2005), “Social Capital: Social Relations and Economic Rationality”, Crossroads, vol. 5 (1), pp. 43- 77.
15. Easterly, William, Jozef Ritzan, Michael Woolcock (2006): Social Cohesion, Institutions and Growth, Center For Global Development Working Papers, No. 94, (çevrimiçi), 05. 08. 2009, http://cdi.mecon. gov.ar/biblio/doc/cgdev/wp94.pdf
16. Ekim, Başak (2007): “Sosyal Dışlanma İle Mücadelede Hak Temelli Yaklaşım: Avrupa Yoksulluk İle Mücadele Ağı”, Tes- İş Dergisi (Haziran), s. 81- 82.
17. Fine, Ben (2008): Sosyal Sermaye Sosyal Bilime Karşı: Bin Yılın Eşiğinde Ekonomi Politik ve Sosyal Bilimler, Çev., Ayşegül Kars, Yordam Kitap, İstanbul.
18. Fontainha, Elsa (2005): “Social Cohesion Across Europe: Does Time allocation Matter”, Transfer: European Review of Labor and Research, vol. 11 (1), pp. 97- 111.
19. Fox, Jonathan, John Gershman (2000): “The World Bank And Social Capital: Lessons From Ten Rural Development Projects in The Philippines and Mexico”, Policy Sciences (33), pp. 399- 419.
20. Friedkin, Noah E. (2004): “Social Cohesion”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 30, pp. 409- 425.
21. Fukuyama, Francis (2000): Social Capital And Civil Society, IMF Working Paper, WP/00/74, (çevrimiçi), 05. 04. 2011, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp0074.pdf
22. Güney, Atilla, Yasemin Özuğurlu, Metin Altıok, Yüksel Akkaya (2005): “Sermaye Birikimi, Kriz ve Yeniden Üretim Sürecinde Devlet- Ekonomi İlişkisinin Tartışılması”, Türkiye Sosyalist İktisat Kongresi Bildirileri, İstanbul, s. 231- 270.
23. Jenson, Jane (2010): Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion, Commonwealth Secretariat, London.
24. Jenson, Jane (1998): Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research, CPRN Discussion Paper, F (03), (çevrimiçi), 08. 09. 2011, http://www.cprn.org/documents/15723_en.pdf
25. Kapar, Recep (2005): Sosyal Korumanın İşgücü Piyasasına Etkisi, DİSK Birleşik Metal- İş Yayınları, No: 17/2005, İstanbul.
26. Klein, Carlo (2011a): Do We Need Social Cohesion to Be Happy, CEPS Working Papers, No. 2011/06, (çevrimiçi), 01. 12. 2011, http://www.ceps.lu/pdf/3/art1612.pdf
27. Klein, Carlo (2011b): Social Capital or Social Cohesion: What Matters For Subjective Well- being (SWB), CEPS Working Papers, No. 2011/36, (çevrimiçi), 01. 12. 2011, http://www.ceps.lu/pdf/3 /art1651.pdf
28. Kovacı, Süreyya, Murat Belke, Ali Koç (2009): İktisadi Kalkınmaya Yeni Yaklaşımlar: Sosyal Sermayenin ve Kurumların Artan Rolü, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Uluslararası Davraz Kongresi, 24- 27 Eylül, (çevrimiçi), 11. 06. 2011, www.idc.sdu.edu.tr/tammetinler/kalkinma/kalkinma8.pdf
29. Kyu Park, Cheol (2002): “Social Capital In Structural Reform- Korea’s Exprience- ”, (çevrimiçi), 12. 12. 2011, http://www.esri.go.jp/jp/workshop/030325/030325paper7.pdf
30. Lin, Nan (2005): “A Network Theory of Social Capital”, (çevrimiçi), 07. 11. 2011, http://www.pro-classic.com/ethnicgv/SN/SC/paper-final-041605.pdf
31. Lin, Nan (1999): “Building A New Theory of Social Capital”, Connections, vol. 22 (1), pp. 28- 51.
32. Mc Neil, Desmond (2006): “The Diffusion of Ideas in Development Theory and Policy”, Global Social Policy, 6(3), pp. 334- 354.
33. Muntaner, Charles, Gary Oates, John Lynch (1999): “A Content Validity Analysis Using A Nonrecursive Structural Equation Model”, Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 896, pp. 409- 413.
34. Ongan, Nilgün (2009): “Ekonomik Kriz Çerçevesinde Değişen Sosyal Politika Anlayışı”, Tes- İş Dergisi (Mart), s. 102- 106.
35. Öngen, Tülin (2004): “Sermayenin Yeni Hegemonya Stratejileri”, I. Ulusal Sosyal Politika Kongresi, 22- 24 Ocak, Ankara, s. 246- 253.
36. Özdemir, Süleyman, Halis Başel, Hasan Şenocak (2009): “Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları (STK)’ nın Artan Önemi ve Üsküdar’da Faaliyet Gösteren Bazı STK’lar Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, S: 56, s. 152- 233.
37. Öztaş, Nail (2007): “Sosyal Sermayenin Ağbağ Kuram(lar)ı: Dayanışmacı ve Aracı Sosyal Sermaye”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, C: 40 (3), s. 79- 98.
38. Özuğurlu, Aynur (2006): “Kamunun Trajedisi Ya Da Emeğin Sömürgeleştirilmesinde Yeni Bir Eşik”, Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F Dergisi (12), s. 188- 213.
39. Rajulton, Fernando, Zenaida R. Ravanera, Roderic Beaujot (2007): “Measuring Social Cohesion: An Experiment Using The Canadian National Survey of Giving, Volunteering And Participating”, Social Indicators Research, vol. 80 (3), pp. 461- 492.
40. Sabatini, Fabio (2005): The Empirics of Social Capital and Economic Development: A Critical Perspective, Econ WPA Paper, No. 0512008, (çevrimiçi), 09. 06. 2010, http://129.3.20.41/eps/dev/papers/0512/0512008.pdf
41. Siisiainen, Martti (2000): Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam, ISTR Fourth International Conference, July 5- 8, (çevrimiçi), 03. 07. 2011, http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream /handle/10535/7661/siisiainen.pdf?sequence=1
42. Spies- Butcher, Benjamin (2003): “Social Capital in Economics: Why Social Capital Does Not Mean the End of Ideology”, Australian Review of Public Affairs, vol. 3, pp. 181- 203.
43. Wilson, William Julius (1996): When Work Disappears: The World of The New Urban Poor, New York.
44. Wood, Ellen Meiksins (2008): Kapitalizm Demokrasiye Karşı: Tarihsel Maddeciliğin Yeniden Yorumlanması, Çev., Şahin Artan, Yordam Kitap, İstanbul.
45. Woolcock, Michael, Deep Narayan (2000):”Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research and Policy”, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 15 (2), pp. 225- 249.
46. Woolley, Frances (1998): Social Cohesion And Voluntary Activities: Making Connections, Conference On The State of Living Standards And The Quality of Life In Canada, October 30- 31, Ottawa.
47. Wydick, Bruce (1999): “Can Social Cohesion Be Harnessed To Repair Market Failures”, The Economic Journal, vol. 109 (457), pp. 463- 475.
48. Zetter, Roger, David Griffiths, Nando Sigona, Don Flynn, Tauhid Pasha, Rhian Beynon (2006): Immigration, Social Cohesion and Social Capital: What Are the Links, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, London.