Kinnock Reforms and Change In The European Commission

Öz

Kinnock reforms - based on the New Public Management (NPM) model - are the most extensive reform initiatives in the European Commission’s administrative history. When asked to staff at the Commission, they argue that the reforms have put a burden on the organization by introducing unnecessary documentation procedures. However, they also acknowledge that they have got used to these procedures and life is back to normal at the Commission. It would be an underestimation of the complex nature of public administration reform if one simply states that reforms are successful or not successful. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that ‘maintain’ and ‘modernize’ reform strategies have caused some change in the functioning of the European Commission. Despite the agreement among majority of scholars that the ‘maintain’ strategy has been more successful than the ‘modernize’ strategy, it could be argued that the Commission has moved away from the Weberian model of administration; albeit, not towards NPM but towards Neo-Weberian administrative style.

Keywords: European Commission, Public Management Reform, Kinnock Reforms, New Public Management

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Europe,Commission,Kinnock

Kinnock Reformları ve Avrupa Komisyonu’nda Değişim

Öz

Avrupa Komisyonu’nun tarihindeki en kapsamlı kamu yönetimi reformu girişimi, Kinnock reformları olarak bilinen Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği (YKİ) reformlarıdır. Komisyon çalışanlarına sorulduğunda Kinnock reformlarının gereksiz evrak işleri doğurduğundan söz edilse de çalışanların bu yeni düzenlemelere alıştıklarını söylemek mümkündür. Genele baktığımızda, Kinnock reformlarını tamamen başarılı ya da başarısız olarak nitelemek kamu yönetiminin karmaşık yapısını hafife almak olur. Fakat yapılan araştırmalara bakıldığında reformlarda dile getirilen ‘koruma’ ve ‘modernleşme’ amaçlarının belli değişikliklere yol açtığını söylemek mümkündür. Reform olarak ‘koruma’ ve ‘modernleşme’ stratejileri ile ilgili değerlendirmelerde, ‘koruma’ politikalarının daha başarılı olduğuna değinilse de, Avrupa Komisyonu’nda son gerçekleşen reformların ardından Weberci bir Komisyon’dan uzaklaşıldığı iddia edilebilir.  Buna rağmen, ‘yeni’ örgütün YKİ ile uyumlu yönetimsel bir organizasyon değil Yeni-Weberci bir organizasyona dönüştüğü söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Avrupa Komisyonu, Kamu Yönetimi Reformu, Kinnock Reformları, Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avrupa,Komisyonu,Kinnock

Kaynakça

1. Alonso, J. M. ve Andrews, R. (2016), “How Privatization Affects Public Service Quality: An Empirical Analysis of Prisons in England and Wales, 1998–2012”, International Public Management Journal, 19( 2): 235-263.
2. Alonso, J. M., Clifton, J. ve Díaz-Fuentes, D. (2015), “Did New Public Management Matter? An Empirical Analysis of the Outsourcing and Decentralization Effects on Public Sector Size”, Public Management Review, 17(5): 643-660.
3. Andrews, R., Guarneros-Meza, V. ve Downe, J. (2016), “Public Management Reforms and Social Cohesion in Europe: The View from the Top”, Public Management Review, 18(4): 558-582.
4. Balint, T., Bauer, M. W. and Knill, C. (2008), “Bureaucratic Change in the European Administrative Space: The Case of the European Commission”, West European Politics, 31(4): 677-700.
5. Ban, C. (2013), Management and Culture in an Enlarged European Commission: From Diversity to Unity?, Palgrave Macmillan, Londra.
6. Bauer, M. W. (2008a), “Introduction: Organizational Change, Management Reform and EU Policy-Making”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5): 627-647.
7. Bauer, M. W. (2008b), “Diffuse Anxieties, Deprived Entrepreneurs: Commission Reform and Middle Management”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5): 691-707.
8. Bauer, M. W. (2009), “Impact of Administrative Reform of the European Commission: Results from a Survey of Heads of Unit in Policy-making Directorates”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(3): 459-472.

9. Bauer, M. W. ve Ege, J. (2012), “Politicization within the European Commission’s Bureaucracy”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3): 403-424.
10. Christensen, T. ve Laegreid, P. (2001), “New Public Management: The Effects of Contractualism and Devolution on Political Control”, Public Management Review, 3(1): 73-94.
11. Cini, M. (2014), “The European Commission after the Reform”, Magone, J. (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of European Politics, Routledge, Londra ve New York, s. 235-47.
12. Cini, M. (2015), “The European Commission – Politics and Administration”, Bauer, M. W. ve Trondal, J. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the European Administrative System, Palgrave, Basingstoke ve New York, s. 127-144.
13. Dan, S. (2014), “The Effects of Agency Reform in Europe: A Review of the Evidence”, Public Policy and Administration, 29(3): 221-240.
14. Dan, S. (2015), “The New Public Management is Not That Bad After All: Evidence from Estonia, Hungary and Romania”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 11(44): 57-73.
15. Dan, S. ve Pollitt, C. (2015), “NPM Can Work: An Optimistic Review of the Impact of New Public Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe”, Public Management Review, 17(9): 1305-1332.
16. De Vries, M. ve Nemec, J. (2013), “Public Sector Reform: An Overview of Recent Literature and Research on NPM and Alternative Paths”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1): 4-16.
17. Drechsler, W. ve Randma-Liiv, T. (2015), “In Some Central and Eastern European Countries, Some NPM Tools May Sometimes Work: A Reply to Dan and Pollitt’s ‘NPM can work’”, Public Management Review, 16(10): 1559-1565.
18. Ellinas, A. ve Suleiman, E. (2008), “Reforming the Commission: Between Modernization and Bureaucratization”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5): 707-725.
19. European Commission, (2000a), Reforming the Commission: White Paper, Part I, COM(2000) 200 final/2.
20. European Commission, (2000b), Reforming the Commission: White Paper, Part II, COM(2000) 200 final/2.
21. European Commission, (2005), Progress Report on the Commission Reform beyond the Reform Mandate, Com 668 final, 21.
22. Georgakakis, D. (2013), “Technocracy is dead. Long live bureaucracy! On Some Recent Changes to the Civil Service and the European Commission” Chang, M. ve Monar, J. (eds.), The European Commission in the Post-Lisbon Era of Crises: Between Political Leadership and Policy Management, Peter Lang, Brussels, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien, s. 53-66.
23. Gillingham, J. R. (2006), “The German Problem and European Integration”, Dinan, D. (Ed.), Origins and Evolution of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, s. 55-81.
24. Jones, R. A. (2000), “The European Union”, Chandler, J. A. (ed.), Comparative Public Administration, Routledge, Londra, s. 173-199.
25. Kanol, D. (2011), “Assessing the Legitimacy of the EU”, Interdisciplinary Political Studies, 1(0): 49-59.
26. Kassim, H. (2004a), “An Historic Achievement. Administrative reform under the Prodi Commission”, Dimitrakopoulos, D. (ed.), The Changing Commission, Manchester University Press, Manchester, s. 33-62.
27. Kassim, H. (2004b), “The Kinnock Reforms in Perspective: Why Reforming the Commission is a Heroic, but Thankless Task”, Public Policy and Administration, 19(3): 25-41.
28. Kassim, H. (2008), “Mission Impossible, but Mission Accomplished: The Kinnock Reforms and the European Commission”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5): 648-668.
29. Kassim, H. (2015), “Revisiting the ‘Management Deficit’: Can the Commission (Still Not) Manage Europe?” E. Ongaro (ed.) Multilevel Governance: The Missing Linkages, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, s. 41-62.
30. Kuhlmann, S., Bogumil, J. ve Grohs, S. (2008), “Evaluating Administrative Modernization in German Local Governments: Success or Failure of the ‘New Steering Model’?” Public Administration Review, 68(5): 851-863.
31. Levy, R. P. (2006), “European Commission Overload and the Pathology of Management Reform: Garbage Cans, Rationality and Risk Aversion”, Public Administration, 84(2): 423-439.
32. Ludlow, P. N. (2006), “From Deadlock to Dynamism: The European Community in the 1980s”, Desmond, D. (ed.), Origins and Evolution of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, s. 218-232.
33. Ma, L. (2014), “Does Super-department Reform Improve Public Service Performance In China?”, Public Management Review, 18(3): 369-391.
34. McDonald, M. (2002), “Identities in the European Commission”, Nugent, N. (Ed.), At the Heart of the Union: Studies of the European Commission, Basingstoke, Palgrave, s. 51-72.
35. Metcalfe, L. (1992), “After 1992: can the Commission Manage Europe?”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 17(1): 117-130.
36. Mele, V. ve Ongaro, E. (2014), “Public Sector Reform in a Context of Political Instability: Italy 1992–2007”, International Public Management Journal, 17(1): 111-142.
37. Messenger, D. A. (2006), “Dividing Europe: The Cold War and European Integration”, Desmond, D. (Ed.), Origins and Evolution of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, s. 31-54.
38. Nugent, N. (2001), The European Commission, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
39. Nugent, N. (2006), The Government and Politics of the European Union, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
40. Ongaro, E. (2009), Public Management Reform and Modernization: Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham ve Northampton.
41. Ongaro, E. (2013), “The Administrative Reform Trajectory of the European Commission in Comparative Perspective: Historical New Institutionalism in Compound Systems”, Public Policy and Administration, 28(4): 346-363.
42. Ongaro, E. (2015), “Administrative Reforms in the European Commission and the Neo-Weberian Model”, Bauer, M. W. ve Trondal, J. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the European Administrative System, Palgrave, Basingstoke ve New York, s. 108-123.
43. O’Toole, L. J. Jr. ve Meier, K. J. (2015), “Public Management, Context, and Performance: In Quest of a More General Theory”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1): 237-256.
44. Overman, S. ve van Thiel, S. (2016), “Agencification and Public Sector Performance: A Systematic Comparison in 20 countries”, Public Management Review, 18(4): 611-635.
45. Peterson, J. (2008), “Enlargement, Reform and the European Commission: Weathering a Perfect Storm?”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5): 761-780.
46. Peterson, J. ve Birdsall, A. (2008), ‘The European Commission: Enlargement as Reinvention?”, Best, E., Christiansen, T. ve Settembri, P. (eds.), The Institutions of the Enlarged European Union: Continuity and Change, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, s. 54-81.
47. Pollitt, C. (2000), “Is the Emperor in his Underwear? An Analysis of the Impacts of Public Management Reform”, Public Management Review, 2(2): 181-200.
48. Pollit, C. ve Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
49. Pollitt, C. ve Bouckaert, G. (2011), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis - New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian state, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
50. Pollitt, C. (ed.) (2013), Context in Public Policy and Management: The Missing Link?, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham ve Northampton.
51. Pollitt, C. ve Dan, S. (2013), “Searching for Impacts in Performance-oriented Management Reform: A Review of the European Literature”, Public Performance & Management Review, 37(1): 7-32.
52. Rieder, S. ve Lehmann, L. (2002), “Evaluation of New Public Management Reforms in Switzerland”, International Public Management Review, 3(2): 25-43.
53. Schön-Quinlivan, E. (2008), “Implementing Organizational Change: The Case of the Kinnock Reforms”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5): 726-742.
54. Schon-Quinlivan, E. (2011), Reforming the European Commission, Palgrave Macmillan, Londra.
55. Sezen, S. (2009), “Kamu Yönetimi Reformları: Küresel bir Düzenlememi?”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 42(1): 23-41.
56. Stevens, A. ve Stevens, H. (2001), Brussels Bureaucrats?: The Administration of the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, Londra.
57. Stirk, P. (2006), ‘Integration and Disintegration before 1945’, Desmond, D. (Ed.), Origins and Evolution of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, s. 9-28.
58. Tambulasi, R. I. (2009), “All that Glisters is not Gold: New Public Management and Corruption in Malawi's Local Governance”, Development Southern Africa, 26(2): 173-188.
59. Tobin, I. (2003), “Bureaucratic Power and the NPM Reforms in Korea”, International Review of Public Administration, 8(1): 89-102.
60. Trondal, J. (2012), “On Bureaucratic Centre Formation in Government Institutions: Lessons from the European Commission”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3): 425-446.
61. Wille, A. (2012), “The Politicization of the EU Commission: Democratic Control and the Dynamics of Executive Selection”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3): 383-402.