ANALYZING THE INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION OF ARMED FORCES: A PROPOSAL FOR A HOLISTIC THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Öz

The aim of this article is to propose a theoretical framework to examine the institutional transformation of the armed forces. The theoretical approaches put forward in political, economic and social domains after the 1970s are described as post-modern, post-fordist and/or neo-liberal. These approaches for restructuring the state and public administration have argued for institutional change of the armed forces, both representing the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force and organized according to modern bureaucratic state thought. It is observed that the armed forces have been reconstructed intellectually and practically through transforming both the monopoly on the legitimate use of force and the bureaucratic organization. This study argues that the transformation of armed forces cannot be handled independently from changing state apparatus and public administration. Public administration and its closely related disciplines comprise the main body of the theoretical framework proposed in this study. Theoretical framework incorporates economic (New Institutionalist Economics), political (Democratization) and administrative (New Public Management) dimensions. The study acknowledges that alternative or complementary theoretical frameworks can be formed using other scientific disciplines or through changing theoretical field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Armed Forces,Institutional Transformation,Theoretical Framework

SİLAHLI KUVVETLERİN KURUMSAL DÖNÜŞÜMÜNÜ İNCELEMEK: BÜTÜNCÜL BİR KURAMSAL ÇERÇEVE ÖNERİSİ

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı, silahlı kuvvetlerin kurumsal dönüşümünü incelemeye yönelik bir kuramsal çerçeve önermektir. 1970’lerden itibaren siyasal, ekonomik ve toplumsal alanlarda ileri sürülen kuramsal yaklaşımlar genellikle post-modern, post-fordist ve/veya neoliberal olarak nitelenmektedir. Devleti ve onun idari vasıtası olan kamu yönetimini yeniden yapılandırmayı amaçlayan bu yaklaşımlar, devletin meşru güç kullanma tekelini temsil eden ve modern bürokratik devlet düşüncesine göre örgütlenmiş olan silahlı kuvvetlerin kurumsal değişimini de hedeflemiştir. Bu süreçte, silahlı kuvvetlerin bir taraftan meşru güç kullanma tekelinin diğer taraftan bürokratik örgütlenme biçiminin dönüşümü üzerinden hem düşünsel olarak hem de uygulamada yeniden inşa edildiği gözlenmektedir. Bu çalışma, ülkelerin silahlı kuvvetlerindeki dönüşümün genel olarak devlet aygıtı ve kamu yönetimine ilişkin değişimden bağımsız ele alınamayacağını savunmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, çalışmada önerilen kuramsal çerçevenin ana gövdesini kamu yönetimi ve onun yakın ilişki içinde olduğu disiplinler oluşturmaktadır. Kuramsal çerçeve ekonomik (Yeni Kurumcu İktisat), siyasi (Demokratikleştirme) ve yönetsel (Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği) boyutları içermektedir. Çalışma, farklı bir bilimsel disiplin kullanarak veya kuramsal değişimlere göre farklı veya tamamlayıcı kuramsal çerçevelerin oluşturulabileceğini kabul etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Silahlı Kuvvetler,Kurumsal Dönüşüm,Kuramsal Çerçeve

Kaynakça

1. Amin, A. (1997). Post-fordism a reader. USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
2. Avant, D. (2005, Mart). Private security companies. New Political Economy, 10(1), 121-131. doi: 10.1080/13563460500031297
3. Basılgan, M. (2010, Eylül). Alman tarihçi okulu’nun Joseph Alois Schumpeter üzerine etkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 65(3), 23-50. doi: 10.1501/SBFder_0000002172
4. Bondy, H. (2004, Güz). Postmodernism and the source of military strength in the Anglo-West. Armed Forces & Society, 31(1), 31-61. doi: 10.1177/0095327X0403100103.
5. Bruneau, T. C. (2006). Introduction. T. C. Bruneau ve S. D. Tollefson (Ed.), Who guards the guardians and how: Democratic civil-military relations (ss. 1-14). USA: University of Texas Press.
6. Buchanan, J. M. (1991). Constitutional economics. J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, P. Newman (Ed.), The world of economics (ss. 134-142). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Bychenko, A. ve Polyakov, L. (2002). Civilian control over the military in the context of parliamentary elections. Ukraine: Razumkov Centre.
8. Cawthra, G. ve Luckham, R. (2003). Democratic control and the security sector: The scope for transformation and its limits. G. Cawthra ve R. Luckham (Ed.), Governing insecurity: Democratic control of military and security establishments in transitional democracies (ss. 305-327). UK: Zed Books.

9. Cilliers, J. (1996). Security and transition in South Africa. L. Diamond ve M. F. Plattner (Ed.), Civil-military relations and democracy (ss. 81-98). USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. Christensen, T. ve Lægreid, P. (2007, Kasım). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059-1066. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x
11. Coase, R. (1937, Kasım). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
12. Croissant, A. (2011). Civilian control over the military in East Asia. Republic of Korea: The East Asia Institute Fellows Program.
13. Croissant, A. ve Kuehn, D. (2010). Civilian control of the military and democracy: Conceptual and theoretical perspectives. P. Chambers ve A. Croissant (Ed.), Democracy under stress: Civil-military relations in South and Southeast Asia (ss. 21-61). Thailand: Chulalongkorn University.
14. Croissant, A. ve Kuehn, D., Lorenz, P. ve Chambers, W. (2013). Democratization and civilian control in Asia, UK: Palgrave McMillan.
15. Dahl, R. (2001). Demokrasi Üzerine (B. Kadıoğlu, Çev.). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
16. Deleon, L. ve Deleon, P. (2002, Mayıs). The democratic ethos and public management. Administration & Society, 34(2), 229-250. doi: 10.1177/0095399702034002005
17. Demsetz, H. (1967, Mayıs). Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 347-359.
18. Diamint, R. (2003). The military. J. I. Dominguez ve M. Shifter (Ed.), Constructing democratic governance in Latin America (ss.43-73). USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
19. Diamond, L. ve Plattner, M. F. (1996). Civil-military relations and democracy. USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
20. Diamond, L. (1997). Introduction: In search of consolidation. L. Diamond, M. F. Plattner, Y. Chu ve H. Tien (Ed.), Consolidating the third wave democracies: Regional challenges (ss. xxxi-xlv). USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
21. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
22. DiMaggio, P. J. ve Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. W. Powell ve P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.), The new institutionalism and organizational analysis (ss. 1-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Dobrowski, P. J., Gholz, E. ve Ross, A. L. (2002, Yaz). Selling military transformation: The defence industry and innovation. Orbis, 46(3), 523-536. doi: 10.1016/S0030-4387(02)00122-9.
24. Drechsler, W. (2009, Mart). The rise and demise of the new public management: Lessons and opportunities for south east Europe. Uprava, 7(3), 7-27.
25. Duncanson, C. ve Woodward, R. (2016, Şubat). Regendering the military: Theorizing women’s military participation. Security Dialogue, 47(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1177/0967010615614137.
26. Dunn, W. N. ve Miller, D. Y. (2007, Aralık). A critique of the new public management and the neo-Weberian state: Advancing a critical theory of administrative reform. Public Organization Review, 7(4), 345-358. doi: 10.1007/s11115-007-0042-3.
27. Durell-Young, T. (2006). Military professionalism in a democracy. T. C. Bruneau ve S. D. Tollefson (Ed.), Who guards the guardians and how: democratic civil-military relations (ss. 17-33). USA: University of Texas Press.
28. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989, Ocak). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 58-59. doi: 10.2307/258191.
29. Eren, E. (2009). Yönetim ve organizasyon (çağdaş ve küresel yaklaşımlar) (9. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
30. Esser, J. ve Hirsch, J. (1994, Ocak). The crisis of fordism and the dimensions of a post-fordist regional and urban structure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13(3), 417-436. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.1989.tb00128.x
31. Fayemi, J. K. (2003). Governing the security sector in a democratising polity: Nigeria. G. Cawthra ve R. Luckham (Ed.), Governing insecurity: democratic control of military and security establishments in transitional democracies (ss. 57-77). UK: Zed Books.
32. Feaver, P. (2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight and civil-military relations. USA: Harvard University Press.
33. Freeman, C. ve Perez, C. (1988). Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg ve L. Soete (Ed.), Technical change and economic theory (ss. 38-66). London: Pinter Publishers.
34. Friedman, M. (2008). Kapitalizm ve özgürlük. (D. Erberk ve N. Himmetoğlu, Çev.) İstanbul: Plato Film Yayınları.
35. Gencel, U. (2001, Temmuz). Yükseköğretim hizmetlerinde toplam kalite yönetimi ve akreditasyon. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(3), 164-218.
36. Genç, N. ve Halis, M. (2006). Kalite liderliği. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
37. Grizold, A. (2001). Civilian Control of the Armed Forces in Slovenia. Politička Misao, 38(5), 123-136. doi: 10.20901/pm
38. Harries-Jenkins, G. (1982). Introduction. G. Harries-Jenkins (Ed.), Armed forces and welfare societies: challenges in the 1980’s (Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and the United States) (ss. 1-7). Great Britain: The Mcmillan Press Ltd.
39. Heywood, A. (2014). Siyaset teorisine giriş. (7. Baskı). (H. M. Köse, Çev.) İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
40. Hood, C. (1991, Mart). A public management for all seasons?. Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
41. Huntington, S. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. USA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
42. Huntington, S. P. (2011). Üçüncü dalga: Geç 20. yüzyılda demokratikleşme. (3. Baskı) (E. Özbudun, Çev.). Ankara: Kilit Yayınları.
43. Janowitz, M. (1960). The professional soldier a social and political portrait. USA: Free Press.
44. Janowitz, M. (1977). Military institutions and coercion in the developing nations. USA: The University of Chicago Press.
45. Jelusic, L. (2007). Democratic control over the armed forces. G. Caforio (Ed.), Cultural differences between the military and parent society in democratic countries (ss. 161-176). UK: Elsevier.
46. Jessop, B. (2000). The state and the contradictions of the knowledge driven economy. J. Bryson, P. Daniels, N. Henry ve J. Pollard (Ed.), Knowledge, space, economy (ss. 63-78). London: Routledge.
47. Jessop, B. (2002). Capitalism, the regulation approach, and critical realism. A. Brown, S. Fleetwood, J. M. Roberts (Ed.), Critical realism and Marxism (ss. 88-115). London: Routledge.
48. Kama, Ö. (2011, Eylül). Yeni kurumsal iktisat okulunun temelleri. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 183-204.
49. Kızılboğa, R. (2012, Nisan). Kamu tercihi ve anayasal iktisat teorilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Nevşehir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(1), 91-109.
50. King, A. (2006, Aralık). The post-fordist military. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 34(2), 359-374.
51. Klenk, T. ve Reiter, R. (2019, Şubat). Post-new public management: Reform ideas and their application in the field of social services. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 3-10. doi: 10.1177/0020852318810883
52. Krahmann, E. (2010). States, citizens and the privatization of security. USA: Cambridge University Press.
53. Kuehn, D. ve Lorenz, P. (2011). Explaining civil-military relations in new democracies: Structure, agency and theory development. Asian Journal of Political Science, 19(3), 231-249. doi: 10.1080/02185377.2011.628145
54. Lecours, A. (2005). New institutionalism: Theory and analysis. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
55. Levy, Y. (2020, Ocak). Theorizing desecularization of the military: The United States and Israel. Armed Forces & Society, 46(1), 92-115. doi: 10.1177/0095327X18806516
56. Liebert, U. (2004). Europeanizing the military: The EJC and the transformation of the Bundeswehr. H. Gottfried ve L. A. Reese (Ed.), Equity in the workplace: Gendering workplace policy analysis (ss. 325-340). UK: Lexington Books.
57. Lipietz, A. (1986). New tendencies in the international division of labor: Regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation. A. J. Scott ve M. Storper (Ed.), Production, work, territory (ss. 16-40). Boston: Allen and Unwin.
58. Lodge, M. ve Gill, D. (2011, Ocak). Toward a new era of administrative reform? the myth of Post-NPM in New Zealand. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24(1), 141-166. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
59. Miles, R. E. ve Snow, C. C. (1986, Nisan). Network organizations: New concepts for new forms. California Management Review, 28(3), 62-73. doi: 10.2307/41165202
60. Mills, C. W. (1956). Power elites. USA: Oxford University Press.
61. Nielsen, K. (1991). Towards a flexible future-theories and politics. B. Jessop, H. Kastendiek, K. Neilsen ve O. Pedersen (Ed.), The politics of flexibility: restructuring state and industry in britain, germany and scandinavia (ss. 3-32). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
62. North, D. C. (1991, Kış). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
63. O’Donnell, G. ve Schmitter, P. C. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. USA: The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
64. Onyszkiewicz, J. (1996). Poland’s road to civilian control. L. Diamond ve M. F. Plattner (Ed.), Civil-military relations and democracy (ss. 99-109). USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
65. Osborne, D. Ve Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York Penguin Books.
66. Özkan, A. (2019). Toplam kalite yönetiminin kamu kesiminde uygulanabilirliği. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
67. Pfeffer, J. ve Salancik, G. R. (2003). External control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. USA: Stanford University Press.
68. Pion-Berlin, D. (Ed.) (2003). Civil-military relations in Latin America: New analytical perspectives. USA: The University of North Carolina Press.
69. Piore, M. J. ve Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
70. Pollitt, C. (2001, Aralık). Clarifying convergence: Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review, 3(4), 471-492. doi: 10.1080/14616670110071847
71. Prahalad, C. K. ve Hamel, G. (1990, Mayıs). The core competence of corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
72. Pretorius, J. (2008, Şubat). The security imaginary: Explaining military isomorphism. Security Dialogue, 39(1), 99-120. doi: 10.1177/0967010607086825
73. Pridham, G. (2001). The dynamics of democratization a comparative approach. Great Britain: Continuum.
74. Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the market: political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. UK: Cambridge University Press.
75. Quelin, B. ve Duhamel, F. (2003, Ekim). Bringing together strategic outsourcing and corporate strategy: Outsourcing motives and risks. European Management Journal, 21(5), 647-671. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(03)00113-0
76. Rahbek-Clemmensen, J., Archer, E. M., Barr, J., Belkin A., Guerrero, M., Hall, C., Swain, K. E. (2012, Ekim). Conceptualizing the civil-military gap: A research note. Armed Forces & Society, 38(4), 669-678. doi: 10.1177/0095327X12456509
77. Sarıgil, Z. (2007, Mart). Europeanization as institutional change: The case of the Turkish military. Mediterranean Politics, 12(1), 39-57. doi: 10.1080/13629390601136822
78. Sarıgil, Z. (2011, Haziran). Civil-military relations beyond dichotomy: With special reference to Turkey. Turkish Studies, 12(2), 265-278. doi: 10.1080/14683849.2011.572633
79. Schreier, F., ve Caparini, M. (2005). Privatising security: Law, practice and governance of private military and security companies. Geneva: DCAF.
80. Serra, N. (2010). The military transition: democratic reform of the armed forces (P. Bush, Çev.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
81. Trinkunas, H. A. (2005). Crafting civilian control of the military in Venezuela: A comparative perspective. USA: The University of North Carolina Press.
82. Uzun, T. (2009, Aralık). Kamu tercihi ve anayasal iktisat kuramı üzerine bir değerlendirme. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23, 1-27.
83. Van Waeyenberge, E. (2006). From Washington to Post-Washington consensus: Illusions of development. B. Fine ve J. K. Sundaram (Ed.), The new development economics after the Washington consensus (ss. 21-45). UK: Zed Books.
84. Watts, L. L. (2001). Whose professionalism?: Separating the institutional roles of the military & police. UK: Royal Military Academy.
85. Welch, C. E. (1976). Civilian control of the military: Theory and cases from developing countries. USA: State University of Newyork Press.
86. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.
87. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.