Derleme
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

KARAR ALMA SÜREÇLERİ VE DENETİM, TÜRKİYE ve AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ ÖRNEKLERİ

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 22, 89 - 115, 30.01.2021

Öz

Politikacılar ve yöneticilerin güçlü kararlar alabilmek için yasalarla belirlenmiş karar alma süreçlerine uymaları, hesap verebilirliği ve kurum hedeflerine ulaşmayı
sağlamaları beklenmektedir. Politikacılar veya karar vericiler genellikle kararlarından dolayı kendilerini hesap vermek zorunda hissetmezler. Denetim ise, kararların
sonuçları, etkileri ve maliyetlerini inceleyerek kararlarının doğru veya yanlış olup olmadığını değerlendirmek yerine, yalnızca bu kararın uygulanmasına odaklanmaktadır. Karar alma süreci, karar vericilere karar destek danışmanlığı veren ve denetim programlarını karar verme sürecine odaklayan bir denetim ekibi tarafından desteklenmelidir. Bu çalışma, karar alma süreçlerinin uygulama aşamasından önce denetlenmesinin önemini vurgulamayı amaçlamaktadır. Etkili bir karar alma mekanizması uygulamanın rolü vurgulanacak ve denetim profesyonellerinin ve karar vericilerin dikkati karar verme süreçlerinin denetiminin önemine çekilmeye çalışılacaktır. Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) karar alma süreci ile Türkiye’nin karar alma süreci incelenmekte ve karşılaştırılmaktadır. Çalışma, teorik karar verme modellerinin
tanımlanması ve tanıtılması ile başlar. Bunu takiben, sosyal politikanın uygulanmasına odaklanan AB karar alma süreci tartışılmaktadır. Türkiye’deki karar alma süreçleri ve karar verme sürecinin nasıl işlediği incelenmektedir. Son olarak, AB ve Türkiye’deki karar alma sürecinin denetim metodolojisi ve denetim yaklaşımı açıklanmaktadır. AB karar alma modelleri ile Türkiye’nin fiili uygulamaları arasında bir karşılaştırma yapılmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Akbulut, Ö. Ö., Mimaroğlu Özgen H., Findik, D., Seymenoğlu, Ö. & Almiş, O. (2012). Türk kamu yönetiminde teftiş ve iç denetim (1. baskı). Ankara: TODAİE Yayın No: 364.
  • Ambrus, M., Arts, K. & Hey, E. (2014). The Role of experts in international an EU decision making processes, advisors, decision makers or irrelevant actors?. United Kingdom: Cambrige University Press.
  • Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J. & Sorenson, K. (2002). Guidebook to decision-Making methods, USA: WSRC-IM-2002-00002, Department of Energy.
  • Brenninkmeijer, A. (2015). The need for principles of good audit. European Court Of Auditors, Journal, (SEPTEMBER 2015, 8), 11-16.
  • Commission of The European Communities (2008). Impact Assessment Board report for the year 2007, Commission staff working document, Brussel: SEC(2008), 120, 2-4.
  • Dean, J. & Sharfman, M. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, (9), 96–368.
  • Dionigi, M. K. & Koop, C. (2017). Investigation of informal trilogue negotiations since the Lisbon Treaty - Added value, lack of transparency and possible democratic deficit. European Economic and Social Committee study, (July), 6.
  • Drucker, P. F. (2006). Classic Drucker, essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from The Pages of Harward Business Review, Harward Business Review Book, USA.
  • European Commission, (2012a). The European Union explained- How the European Union Works. Publications Office of the European Union, 1049 Brussels.
  • European Commission. (2012b). Smart regulation – Questions and answers, MEMO. Brussels. (12 December), 2012, 5.
  • European Commission. (2015). Communication to the Commission, Regulatory Scrutiny Board, C (2015), 3262 final; Decision of the President of the European Commission on the establishment of an independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board, C (2015), 3263 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.
  • European Commission, (2017a). Mission charter of the internal audit service of the European Commission. ref. C (2017), 4435 final of 30 June 2017, 3.
  • European Commission, (2017b). Guideline on planning, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, SWD (2017) 350.
  • European Commission, (2017c). İmpact assesment guideline, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, SWD (2017) 350.
  • European Commission, (2017d). Better regulation guidelines, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, Swd (2017) 350.
  • European Commission. (2017e). Guideline on stakeholder consultation, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, SWD (2017), 350.
  • European Commission, (2017f). Communication to the Commission, Mission charter of The Internal Audit Service of The European Commission, Brussels, 30.6.2017 C (2017), 4435 final, 4-5.
  • European Commission, (2017g). Evaluations-Fitnesschecks, Commission staff working document, Brussels,7 July 2017, SWD (2017), 350, 50.
  • European Commission, (2017h). Annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2016, COM(2017) 497, 15 September 2017, p.11.
  • European Commission, (2018). Regulatory Scrutiny Board-Annual Report 2018. B-1049 Brussels.
  • European Ombudsman, (2015). The European code of good administrative behaviour, ISBN 978-92-9212-715-2, 6-24.
  • Erimez, E. & Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2016). Kamu düzenleme kalitesi ve yaşam düzeyi. İstanbul: Argüden Yönetişim Akademisi Yayınları No: 5, 13.
  • Frank, M. H. & Daniel N. (2013). The effect of codecision on Council decision-making: informalization, politicization and power, Journal of European Public Policy,20:7, 953-971, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2013.795372.
  • Fülöp, J. (2005). Introduction to decision making methods. Working paper 05-6, Laboratory of Operations Research and Decision Systems, Computer and Automation Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, November 2005, 15, http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/bdei/documents/decisionmakingmethods.pdf, adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 06.06.2019).
  • GAIN Report. (2017). How the European Union works - 2017 Guide to EU decision-making. GAIN Report number: E17059, Brussels, 4.
  • Golberg, E. (2018). Better regulation: European Union style, M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series No. 98.
  • Golberg, E. (2019). Do the results of the EU better regulation program match its ambitions?. The Regulatory Review, A publication of the Penn Program on regulation subscribe to updates. Opinion | International | Apr 1,20.
  • Güngör, M. & Evren, G. (2009). Düzenleyici etki analizikapsam, uygulama, deneyimler ve öneriler: Mobil ara bağlantı ücretlerinin düzenlenmesine ilişkin ardıl DEA çalışması. Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu, 37-70.
  • Harrison, E. F. (1996). A process perspective on strategic decision making, Management Decision, 34/1, 46–53.
  • Harrison, F. E. (1999). The managerial decision-making process (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  • Heisenberg, D. (2005). The institution of ‘consensus’ in the European Union: Formal versus informal decision-making in the Council. European Journal of PoliticalResearch, 44: 65–90.
  • Işık, H. M. (2003). Yasama erkinde karar verme süreci. Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, ISSN: 1300-2929, (8), 11 Kasım/Aralık, 11-71.
  • İç Denetim Koordinasyon Kurulu. (2011). Kamu İç Denetimi Strateji Belgesi (2011-2013).
  • İç Denetim Koordinasyon Kurulu. (2018). 2016 yılı kamu iç denetim genel raporu. Ankara. https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2019/09/2016KamuicDenetimGenelRaporu.pdf adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 02.01.2020).
  • İç Denetim Koordinasyon Kurulu. (2018). 2017 yılı kamu iç denetim genel raporu. Ankara. https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2019/09/2017KamuicDenetimGenelRaporu.pdf, 01.01.2020.
  • Karaosmanoğlu, H. S. (2006). Düzenleyici etki analizi ve Türkiye uygulaması (DPT Uzmanlık Tezi). Yayın No:2691, 107-110.
  • Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, E., Posada, E. & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision-making: The view from the black stool, Organization Science, 6(3), 260–279.
  • Martin, N. T. (2016). Smart decision: The art of strategic thinking for decision making process, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 7-8.
  • Mehter Aykın, S. (2010). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne sürdürülebilir katılımı için düzenleyici etki analizinin gerekliliği. Yönetim ve ekonomi, Yıl:2010, 17(2), 237.
  • Mellar, B. (2009). Transposition, implementation and enforcement of consumer law, IP/A/IMCO/NT/2009-02, Directorate A - Economic and Scientific Policy, Bruxelles.
  • Meuwese, A. (2011). The European Court of Auditors steps out of its comfort zone with an ımpact assessment audit, European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 2, no. 1, 104-108. HeinOnline.
  • Negulescu, O. H. (2014). Using a decision-making process model in strategic management. Review of General Management, Volume 19, Issue 1, 114-117.
  • Nugent, N. (2003). The government and politics of the European Union. (Fifth Edition). Palgrave Macmillan. New York: 2003, 332.
  • OECD/Korea Development Institute (2017). Improving regulatory governance: Trends, practices and the way forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, 182-183.
  • Olgun Özen, Ş. (2020). EU Decision Making Process, Connection and Relation Between The Decision-Making Process And Audit in The Field of Social Policy, Research Report, (Jean Monnet Scholarship Program 2019-2020).
  • Önder, M. (2017). Mevzuat yapımında düzenleyici etki analizi ve uygulama sorunları. Türkiye İdare Dergisi, (485), 771-812.
  • Özer, M. A. (2015). Türkiye’de kamu yönetiminin denetiminde yeni arayişlar: kamu denetçiliği kurumu örneği. Sayıştay Dergisi, ( 98/Temmuz-Eylül).
  • Schout, A. & Sleifer, J. (2014.) Expertise at the crossroad of national an international policy making, public management perspective. Cambrige University Press, United Kingdom, 368.
  • Schagen, E. (2018). The better regulation guidelines and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board as a ‘support’ for judicial review: a case study of EU consumer law. Yearbook of European Law, Volume 37, P. 597–625.
  • Schwartz, M. S. (2015). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. Journal of Business Ethics, p. 755–776.
  • Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion, The Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 57–64.
  • Simon H.A. (1990). Bounded rationality. In: Eatwell J., Milgate M., Newman P. (Eds) Utility and probability. The New Palgrave. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  • Soybay, S., (1994). Devlet Denetleme Kurulu’nun konumu ve işlevi (I). İdare Hukuku ve İlimleri Dergisi, Yıl: 5, (1-3, Aralık), 109.
  • Tank, M., (2011). Meclisin kanun yapma usulü ve düzenleyici etki analizi, TAAD, 1(6).
  • TÜMİKOM, (2009). Türkiye Parlamentosunda açıklık ve şeffaflık, yasama süreçlerine sivil katılım. https://www.tusev.org.tr/usrfiles/files/TUMIKOM-raporu-TR.pdf, adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 28.11.2019).
  • Türkiye Barolar Birliği. (2015). Kanun yapma tekniği sempozyumu. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları. 310, 30.
  • Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, (2011). Kanun yapım süreci sempozyumu. Ankara: TBMM Basımevi.
  • Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, (2018). Yeni sisteme göre yasama el kitabı, Kanunlar ve Kararlar Başkanlığı (1. Baskı)., Ankara:TBMM Basın, Yayın ve Halkla İlişkiler Başkanlığı Basımevi.
  • Uczkiewicz, J. (2013). The court as i remember it, the court as i see it. Special publication, Anniversary-Reflections, European Court of Auditors, 31-34.
  • Verbrugghe, G. (2014). Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). BRIEFING, Eurocommerce, 1-2.
  • Wiener, J. B. (2006). Better regulation in Europe. Duke Law School Faculty Scholarship Series. 65. https://lsr.nellco.org/duke_fs/65.
  • Wonka, A. (2008). Decision-making dynamics in the European Commission: Partisan, national or sectoral? Journal of European Public Policy, 15:8 December 2008: 1145–1163.
  • Yancı Özalp, N. (2006). Türkiye’de yasa yapımı: Nicelik sorunu mu, nitelik sorunu mu? Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 61(1), January.
  • Yasama Derneği. (2010). Sivil toplum için yasama sürecinekatılım el kitabı. https://www.yasader.org/wp/?p=244, adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 12.11.2019).
  • https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 25.06.2019).
  • https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/impact-assessments_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 25.06.2019).
  • https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/internal-audit-service/how-we-work_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 04.09.2019).
  • https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/202245, COM (2012). 746: EU Regulatory Fitness. (Erişim Tarihi, 12.09.2019).
  • https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/MissionAndRole.aspx. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.09.2019).
  • https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eulaw-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 29.10.2019).
  • https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/strategic-issues/strategic-inquiries. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.10.2019).
  • https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/areas-of-work. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.10.2019).
  • https://www.regwatcheurope.eu/ (Erişim Tarihi, 02.11.2019).
  • https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasari_teklif_sd.onerge_bilgileri?kanunlar_sira_no=258665. (Erişim Tarihi, 28.11.2019).
  • http://www.abdullahgul.gen.tr/ddk-raporlari/366/22504/devlet-denetleme-kurulu-raporlari.html. (Erişim Tarihi, 24.12.2019).
  • T.C. Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu. 2018 Faaliyet Raporu, https://www.ombudsman.gov.tr/idare-faaliyet-raporlari/kdk-faaliyet-raporu-2018/mobile/index.html#p=1. (Erişim Tarihi, 27.12.2019).
  • İçişleri Bakanliğı. 2009 Faaliyet Raporu. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/kurumlar/icisleri.gov.tr/IcSite/strateji/2009%20Y%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20%C4%B0dare%20 Faaliyet%20Raporu.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.12.2019).
  • https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2019/05/Hazine-ve-Maliye-Bakanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1-2018-Y%C4%B1l%C4%B1-Faaliyet-Raporu.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.12.2019).

DECISION MAKING PROCESSES and AUDIT, EXAMPLES OF TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 22, 89 - 115, 30.01.2021

Öz

Politicians and managers are anticipated to comply with the decision-making processes for strong decisions and accountability and organization goals. Politicians or
decision-makers generally do not feel compelled to give account for their decisions. An audit also focuses on the implementations rather than examining the conclusion, effects or cost of true or false decisions. The auditors have a key role in facilitating decision-makers and politicians accountable. This article tries to show the importance of audits in the decision-making process before the implementation process of the decision. The importance of an effective decision-making process will be emphasized; the attention of audit professionals and decision-makers will be drawn on the importance of supervision of decision-making processes. European Union’s (EU) decision-making process and Turkey’s decision-making process are analyzed and compared. First, the definition and introduction of theoretical models of decision-making are clarified. Following this, the EU decision-making process is discussed. Decision-making processes in Turkey are explained and how the decision-making process work is examined. Finally, audit methodology and audit aspects of the decision-making process in the EU and Turkey are overviewed. A comparison is made between the EU decision-making models and Turkey’s actual practices.

Kaynakça

  • Akbulut, Ö. Ö., Mimaroğlu Özgen H., Findik, D., Seymenoğlu, Ö. & Almiş, O. (2012). Türk kamu yönetiminde teftiş ve iç denetim (1. baskı). Ankara: TODAİE Yayın No: 364.
  • Ambrus, M., Arts, K. & Hey, E. (2014). The Role of experts in international an EU decision making processes, advisors, decision makers or irrelevant actors?. United Kingdom: Cambrige University Press.
  • Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J. & Sorenson, K. (2002). Guidebook to decision-Making methods, USA: WSRC-IM-2002-00002, Department of Energy.
  • Brenninkmeijer, A. (2015). The need for principles of good audit. European Court Of Auditors, Journal, (SEPTEMBER 2015, 8), 11-16.
  • Commission of The European Communities (2008). Impact Assessment Board report for the year 2007, Commission staff working document, Brussel: SEC(2008), 120, 2-4.
  • Dean, J. & Sharfman, M. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, (9), 96–368.
  • Dionigi, M. K. & Koop, C. (2017). Investigation of informal trilogue negotiations since the Lisbon Treaty - Added value, lack of transparency and possible democratic deficit. European Economic and Social Committee study, (July), 6.
  • Drucker, P. F. (2006). Classic Drucker, essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from The Pages of Harward Business Review, Harward Business Review Book, USA.
  • European Commission, (2012a). The European Union explained- How the European Union Works. Publications Office of the European Union, 1049 Brussels.
  • European Commission. (2012b). Smart regulation – Questions and answers, MEMO. Brussels. (12 December), 2012, 5.
  • European Commission. (2015). Communication to the Commission, Regulatory Scrutiny Board, C (2015), 3262 final; Decision of the President of the European Commission on the establishment of an independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board, C (2015), 3263 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.
  • European Commission, (2017a). Mission charter of the internal audit service of the European Commission. ref. C (2017), 4435 final of 30 June 2017, 3.
  • European Commission, (2017b). Guideline on planning, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, SWD (2017) 350.
  • European Commission, (2017c). İmpact assesment guideline, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, SWD (2017) 350.
  • European Commission, (2017d). Better regulation guidelines, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, Swd (2017) 350.
  • European Commission. (2017e). Guideline on stakeholder consultation, Commission staff working document, Brussels, 7 July 2017, SWD (2017), 350.
  • European Commission, (2017f). Communication to the Commission, Mission charter of The Internal Audit Service of The European Commission, Brussels, 30.6.2017 C (2017), 4435 final, 4-5.
  • European Commission, (2017g). Evaluations-Fitnesschecks, Commission staff working document, Brussels,7 July 2017, SWD (2017), 350, 50.
  • European Commission, (2017h). Annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2016, COM(2017) 497, 15 September 2017, p.11.
  • European Commission, (2018). Regulatory Scrutiny Board-Annual Report 2018. B-1049 Brussels.
  • European Ombudsman, (2015). The European code of good administrative behaviour, ISBN 978-92-9212-715-2, 6-24.
  • Erimez, E. & Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2016). Kamu düzenleme kalitesi ve yaşam düzeyi. İstanbul: Argüden Yönetişim Akademisi Yayınları No: 5, 13.
  • Frank, M. H. & Daniel N. (2013). The effect of codecision on Council decision-making: informalization, politicization and power, Journal of European Public Policy,20:7, 953-971, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2013.795372.
  • Fülöp, J. (2005). Introduction to decision making methods. Working paper 05-6, Laboratory of Operations Research and Decision Systems, Computer and Automation Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, November 2005, 15, http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/bdei/documents/decisionmakingmethods.pdf, adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 06.06.2019).
  • GAIN Report. (2017). How the European Union works - 2017 Guide to EU decision-making. GAIN Report number: E17059, Brussels, 4.
  • Golberg, E. (2018). Better regulation: European Union style, M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series No. 98.
  • Golberg, E. (2019). Do the results of the EU better regulation program match its ambitions?. The Regulatory Review, A publication of the Penn Program on regulation subscribe to updates. Opinion | International | Apr 1,20.
  • Güngör, M. & Evren, G. (2009). Düzenleyici etki analizikapsam, uygulama, deneyimler ve öneriler: Mobil ara bağlantı ücretlerinin düzenlenmesine ilişkin ardıl DEA çalışması. Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu, 37-70.
  • Harrison, E. F. (1996). A process perspective on strategic decision making, Management Decision, 34/1, 46–53.
  • Harrison, F. E. (1999). The managerial decision-making process (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  • Heisenberg, D. (2005). The institution of ‘consensus’ in the European Union: Formal versus informal decision-making in the Council. European Journal of PoliticalResearch, 44: 65–90.
  • Işık, H. M. (2003). Yasama erkinde karar verme süreci. Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, ISSN: 1300-2929, (8), 11 Kasım/Aralık, 11-71.
  • İç Denetim Koordinasyon Kurulu. (2011). Kamu İç Denetimi Strateji Belgesi (2011-2013).
  • İç Denetim Koordinasyon Kurulu. (2018). 2016 yılı kamu iç denetim genel raporu. Ankara. https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2019/09/2016KamuicDenetimGenelRaporu.pdf adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 02.01.2020).
  • İç Denetim Koordinasyon Kurulu. (2018). 2017 yılı kamu iç denetim genel raporu. Ankara. https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2019/09/2017KamuicDenetimGenelRaporu.pdf, 01.01.2020.
  • Karaosmanoğlu, H. S. (2006). Düzenleyici etki analizi ve Türkiye uygulaması (DPT Uzmanlık Tezi). Yayın No:2691, 107-110.
  • Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, E., Posada, E. & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision-making: The view from the black stool, Organization Science, 6(3), 260–279.
  • Martin, N. T. (2016). Smart decision: The art of strategic thinking for decision making process, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 7-8.
  • Mehter Aykın, S. (2010). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne sürdürülebilir katılımı için düzenleyici etki analizinin gerekliliği. Yönetim ve ekonomi, Yıl:2010, 17(2), 237.
  • Mellar, B. (2009). Transposition, implementation and enforcement of consumer law, IP/A/IMCO/NT/2009-02, Directorate A - Economic and Scientific Policy, Bruxelles.
  • Meuwese, A. (2011). The European Court of Auditors steps out of its comfort zone with an ımpact assessment audit, European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 2, no. 1, 104-108. HeinOnline.
  • Negulescu, O. H. (2014). Using a decision-making process model in strategic management. Review of General Management, Volume 19, Issue 1, 114-117.
  • Nugent, N. (2003). The government and politics of the European Union. (Fifth Edition). Palgrave Macmillan. New York: 2003, 332.
  • OECD/Korea Development Institute (2017). Improving regulatory governance: Trends, practices and the way forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, 182-183.
  • Olgun Özen, Ş. (2020). EU Decision Making Process, Connection and Relation Between The Decision-Making Process And Audit in The Field of Social Policy, Research Report, (Jean Monnet Scholarship Program 2019-2020).
  • Önder, M. (2017). Mevzuat yapımında düzenleyici etki analizi ve uygulama sorunları. Türkiye İdare Dergisi, (485), 771-812.
  • Özer, M. A. (2015). Türkiye’de kamu yönetiminin denetiminde yeni arayişlar: kamu denetçiliği kurumu örneği. Sayıştay Dergisi, ( 98/Temmuz-Eylül).
  • Schout, A. & Sleifer, J. (2014.) Expertise at the crossroad of national an international policy making, public management perspective. Cambrige University Press, United Kingdom, 368.
  • Schagen, E. (2018). The better regulation guidelines and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board as a ‘support’ for judicial review: a case study of EU consumer law. Yearbook of European Law, Volume 37, P. 597–625.
  • Schwartz, M. S. (2015). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. Journal of Business Ethics, p. 755–776.
  • Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion, The Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 57–64.
  • Simon H.A. (1990). Bounded rationality. In: Eatwell J., Milgate M., Newman P. (Eds) Utility and probability. The New Palgrave. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  • Soybay, S., (1994). Devlet Denetleme Kurulu’nun konumu ve işlevi (I). İdare Hukuku ve İlimleri Dergisi, Yıl: 5, (1-3, Aralık), 109.
  • Tank, M., (2011). Meclisin kanun yapma usulü ve düzenleyici etki analizi, TAAD, 1(6).
  • TÜMİKOM, (2009). Türkiye Parlamentosunda açıklık ve şeffaflık, yasama süreçlerine sivil katılım. https://www.tusev.org.tr/usrfiles/files/TUMIKOM-raporu-TR.pdf, adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 28.11.2019).
  • Türkiye Barolar Birliği. (2015). Kanun yapma tekniği sempozyumu. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları. 310, 30.
  • Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, (2011). Kanun yapım süreci sempozyumu. Ankara: TBMM Basımevi.
  • Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, (2018). Yeni sisteme göre yasama el kitabı, Kanunlar ve Kararlar Başkanlığı (1. Baskı)., Ankara:TBMM Basın, Yayın ve Halkla İlişkiler Başkanlığı Basımevi.
  • Uczkiewicz, J. (2013). The court as i remember it, the court as i see it. Special publication, Anniversary-Reflections, European Court of Auditors, 31-34.
  • Verbrugghe, G. (2014). Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). BRIEFING, Eurocommerce, 1-2.
  • Wiener, J. B. (2006). Better regulation in Europe. Duke Law School Faculty Scholarship Series. 65. https://lsr.nellco.org/duke_fs/65.
  • Wonka, A. (2008). Decision-making dynamics in the European Commission: Partisan, national or sectoral? Journal of European Public Policy, 15:8 December 2008: 1145–1163.
  • Yancı Özalp, N. (2006). Türkiye’de yasa yapımı: Nicelik sorunu mu, nitelik sorunu mu? Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 61(1), January.
  • Yasama Derneği. (2010). Sivil toplum için yasama sürecinekatılım el kitabı. https://www.yasader.org/wp/?p=244, adresinden alındı. (Erişim Tarihi, 12.11.2019).
  • https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 25.06.2019).
  • https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/impact-assessments_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 25.06.2019).
  • https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/internal-audit-service/how-we-work_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 04.09.2019).
  • https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/202245, COM (2012). 746: EU Regulatory Fitness. (Erişim Tarihi, 12.09.2019).
  • https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/MissionAndRole.aspx. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.09.2019).
  • https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eulaw-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform_en. (Erişim Tarihi, 29.10.2019).
  • https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/strategic-issues/strategic-inquiries. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.10.2019).
  • https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/areas-of-work. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.10.2019).
  • https://www.regwatcheurope.eu/ (Erişim Tarihi, 02.11.2019).
  • https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasari_teklif_sd.onerge_bilgileri?kanunlar_sira_no=258665. (Erişim Tarihi, 28.11.2019).
  • http://www.abdullahgul.gen.tr/ddk-raporlari/366/22504/devlet-denetleme-kurulu-raporlari.html. (Erişim Tarihi, 24.12.2019).
  • T.C. Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu. 2018 Faaliyet Raporu, https://www.ombudsman.gov.tr/idare-faaliyet-raporlari/kdk-faaliyet-raporu-2018/mobile/index.html#p=1. (Erişim Tarihi, 27.12.2019).
  • İçişleri Bakanliğı. 2009 Faaliyet Raporu. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/kurumlar/icisleri.gov.tr/IcSite/strateji/2009%20Y%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20%C4%B0dare%20 Faaliyet%20Raporu.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.12.2019).
  • https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2019/05/Hazine-ve-Maliye-Bakanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1-2018-Y%C4%B1l%C4%B1-Faaliyet-Raporu.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi, 30.12.2019).
Toplam 79 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Ekonomi
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Şerif Olgun Özen Bu kişi benim 0000-0002-3588-2395

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Ocak 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Sayı: 22

Kaynak Göster

APA Olgun Özen, Ş. (2021). DECISION MAKING PROCESSES and AUDIT, EXAMPLES OF TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION. Denetişim(22), 89-115.

TR Dizin'de yer alan Denetişim dergisi yayımladığı çalışmalarla; alanındaki profesyoneller, akademisyenler ve düzenleyiciler arasında etkili bir iletişim ağı kurarak, etkin bir denetim ve yönetim sistemine ulaşma yolculuğunda önemli mesafelerin kat edilmesine katkı sağlamaktadır.