Federal Almanya’da Yerindenlik İlkesi Çerçevesinde Sosyal Hizmetler: Göçmen Kökenli Müslüman STK’ların Temsiliyeti

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1 , 262 - 289 , 31.03.2026

Mehmet Gedik

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1821852

https://izlik.org/JA45HY35EY

Öz

Bu çalışma, Almanya’da sosyal hizmetlerin federal yapı ve yerindenlik (subsidiarite) ilkesi çerçevesinde nasıl örgütlendiğini inceleyerek, bu kurumsal yapı içerisinde sivil toplum kuruluşlarının (STK) rolünü ve özellikle göçmen kökenli Müslüman STK’ların temsiliyet durumunu analiz etmektedir. Federal Almanya’da sosyal hizmetler, federal düzeyde belirlenen çerçeve politikalar ile eyaletler ve yerel yönetimler tarafından yürütülen uygulamalar arasında kurulan çok katmanlı bir yönetişim modeli üzerinden sunulmaktadır. Bu modelde, kamu otoriteleri ile sivil toplum arasındaki iş birliği büyük ölçüde Serbest Sosyal Hizmet Federal Çalışma Topluluğu (BAGFW) çatısı altında kurumsallaşmıştır. Araştırma, nitel araştırma deseni çerçevesinde yürütülmüş; veri toplama tekniği olarak doküman analizi, veri çözümlemesinde tematik analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır. DergiPark, TR Dizin, Google Akademik, Scopus ve Web of Science veri tabanlarında 2020–2025 dönemine ait 204 yayın taranmış, belirlenen ölçütlere uygun 126 doküman analize dâhil edilmiştir. Veriler MAXQDA 2024 nitel veri analiz programı aracılığıyla çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, Almanya’daki sosyal hizmet uygulamalarının büyük ölçüde BAGFW çatısı altında yer alan üç seküler (AWO, DRK ve PARITÄTISCHE) ve üç dinî/manevî (DCV, EKG ve ZWST) çatı sivil toplum kuruluşu aracılığıyla koordine edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Buna karşılık, göçmen kökenli Müslüman STK’ların bu kurumsal yapı içerisinde karar alma süreçlerine katılım, kurumsal temsiliyet ve kamu kaynaklarına erişim açısından çeşitli yapısal sınırlılıklarla karşılaştıkları belirlenmiştir. Bu durum, yerindenlik ilkesine dayalı sosyal hizmet sisteminin standartlaşma ve erişilebilirlik kapasitesinin yüksek olmasına rağmen, kültürel çeşitlilik, eşit katılım ve temsiliyet adaleti boyutlarında güçlendirilmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir. Bu yaklaşımın, sosyal hizmetlerin sürdürülebilirliğini desteklerken toplumsal adaletin kurumsallaşmasına ve eşitlikçi uygulamaların yaygınlaşmasına katkı sağlayacağı öngörülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Federal Almanya , Yerindenlik (Subsidiarite) , Sosyal Hizmetler , Kurumsal Temsiliyet , BAGFW , Göçmen Kökenli Müslüman STK’lar

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, insan katılımcılardan veri toplamaya dayanmamaktadır. Araştırma kamuya açık dokümanların nitel analizi yoluyla yürütülmüş olup etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluş tarafından maddi olarak desteklenmemiştir.

Teşekkür

Yazar, çalışmanın geliştirilmesi sürecinde yapıcı değerlendirmeleri için hakemlere ve editör kuruluna teşekkür eder. Çalışmaya herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluş tarafından destek veya katkı sağlanmamıştır.

Social Services within the Framework of the Subsidiarity Principle in Federal Germany: The Representation of Migrant-Origin Muslim NGOs

https://izlik.org/JA45HY35EY

Öz

This study examines how social services in Germany are organized within the framework of the federal structure and the principle of subsidiarity, and analyzes the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within this institutional arrangement, with a particular focus on the representational position of migrant-origin Muslim NGOs. In Federal Germany, social services are delivered through a multi-level governance model established between framework policies formulated at the federal level and implementation processes carried out by state and local authorities. Within this model, cooperation between public authorities and non-governmental welfare actors has been largely institutionalized under the umbrella of the Federal Association of Non-Statutory Welfare (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege – BAGFW). The study adopts a qualitative research design, employing document analysis as the data collection technique and thematic analysis as the data analysis method. A total of 204 publications published between 2020 and 2025 were screened across the databases DergiPark, TR Dizin, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, of which 126 documents meeting the predefined inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. The data were analyzed using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA 2024. The findings indicate that social service provision in Germany is predominantly coordinated through six major umbrella NGOs operating under the BAGFW, comprising three secular organizations (AWO, DRK, and PARITÄTISCHE) and three faith-based organizations (DCV, EKG, and ZWST). In contrast, migrant-origin Muslim NGOs encounter various structural constraints within this institutional framework, particularly with regard to participation in decision-making processes, institutional representation, and access to public resources. These findings suggest that while the subsidiarity-based social service system demonstrates a high capacity for standardization and accessibility, it requires further strengthening in terms of cultural diversity, equal participation, and representational justice. Such an approach is expected to support the sustainability of social services while contributing to the institutionalization of social justice and the expansion of egalitarian practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Federal Germany , Subsidiarity Principle , Social Services , Institutional Representation , BAGFW , Migrant-Origin Muslim NGOs

Kaynakça

• Althammer, J. W., Lampert, H. ve Sommer, M. (2021). Lehrbuch der Sozialpolitik. Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56258-1
• AWO (2025). Arbeiterwohlfahrt. Die AWO in Zahlen und Fakten. https://awo.org/
• BAGFW (2018). Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege. Gesamtstatistik 2016: Einrichtungen und Dienste der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege. https://www.bagfw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Veroeffentlichungen/Publikationen/Statistik/BAGFW_Gesamtstatistik_2016.pdf
• BAGFW (2025). Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der freien Wohlfahrtspflege: Unsere Mitgliedsverbände. http://www.bagfw.de
• Bury, Y. ve Feld, L. P. (2020). Fiscal federalism in Germany (Freiburger Diskussionspapiere zur Ordnungsökonomik, No. 20/4). Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Institut für Allgemeine Wirtschaftsforschung, Abteilung für Wirtschaftspolitik und Ordnungsökonomik. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/222976/1/1726719405.pdf
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2024). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (36. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• DCV-Caritas (2025). Caritas Germany. https://www.caritas-germany.org/
• DESTATIS (2024). Statistisches Bundesamt. Vereine in Deutschland 2013-2023: Bestände und Entwicklungen [Associations in Germany 2013-2023: Stocks and developments]. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Home/_inhalt.html
• Deutscher Bundestag. (2025). II. Der Bund und die Länder. https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz#2
• Doerr, N. M. (2018). Political translation: How social movement democracies survive. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108355087
• DRK (2025). Weltweite DRK Hilfe. https://www.drk.de
• EKG-Diakonie (2025). Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie. https://www.diakonie.de/
• Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
• Gedik, M. (2021). Ahsen sosyal hizmet modeli: İslami sosyal hizmet yaklaşımı. Efe Akademi.
• Grande, E. (2021). Wie wichtig ist die Zivilgesellschaft? Einführende Bemerkungen. In B. Grande, E. Grande ve U. Hahn (Ed.), Zivilgesellschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Aufbrüche, Umbrüche, Ausblicke (ss. 13–19). transcript Verlag. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/233848/1/Full-text-chapter-Grande-Wie-wichtig-ist.pdf
• Grasse, A. (2000). Das deutsche föderale System zwischen Kontinuität und neuer Dynamik. Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Giessen. https://www.uni-giessen.de/de/fbz/fb03/institutefb03/ifp/pifo/publikationen/weitere-publikationen/DasDeutscheFoederalsystem.pdf
• Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. ve Namey, E. E. (2014). Introduction to applied thematic analysis. In G. Guest, K. M. MacQueen ve E. E. Namey (Eds.), Applied thematic analysis (pp. 3–20). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436
• Healy, L. M. (2008). Exploring the history of social work as a human rights profession. International Social Work, 51(6), 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872808095247
• Heimbach, M. (2016). Die Deutsche Islam Konferenz. Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR), WDR 5 – ZeitZeichen.https://www1.wdr.de/radio/wdr5/sendungen/zeitzeichen/deutsche-islam-konferenz-100.html
• Hesse, K. (1962). Der unitarische Bundesstaat. Verlag C.F. Müller.
• Hohendanner, C., Priemer, J., Rump, B. ve Schmitt, W. (2018). Zivilgesellschaft als Arbeitsmarkt. In H. Krimmer (Ed.), Datenreport Zivilgesellschaft (pp. 93–112). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22958-0_5
• Hummel, S., Pfirter, L. ve Strachwitz, R. G. (2022). Zur Lage und den Rahmenbedingungen der Zivilgesellschaft in Deutschland: Ein Bericht (Opuscula, No. 159). Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft.
• IASSW (2018). International Association of Schools of Social Work. Global social work statement of ethical principles. https://www.iassw-aiets.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Global-Social-Work-Statement-of-Ethical-Principles-IASSW-27-April-2018-1.pdf
• Kalkan, M. (2023). Almanya’da sivil toplum anlayışı ve organizasyonu. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 84, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.26650/jspc.2023.84.1274999
• Klenk, T. ve Einhaus, M. (2024). Brauchen wir ein neues Modell der Subsidiarität? Verwaltung and Management, 30(6), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9856-2024-6-251
• Kotulla, M. (2008). Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte: Vom Alten Reich bis Weimar (1495 bis 1934). Springer Verlag. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-48707-4
• Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. https://vivauniversity.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/milesandhuberman1994.pdf
• Müller, N. (2021). Expertise zum Staatsvertrag. Akademie für Islam in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (AIWG), Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. https://doi.org/10.21248/gups.61036
• OECD (2023). Development Co-operation Report 2023: Debating the Aid System. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f6edc3c2-en
• Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research, 52(4), 817-868. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/New-Social-Movements.-Challenging-the-boundaries-of-institutional-politics-by-Claus-Offe.pdf
• PARITÄTISCHE (2025). Der Paritätische Wohlfahrtsverband: verband. http://www.der-paritaetische.de
• Recker, M. L. (2009). Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verlag C. H. Beck.
• Renzsch, W. (1989). German federalism in historical perspective: Federalism as a substitute for a national state. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 19(4), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a037817
• Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3033069
• Schubert, P., Tahmaz, B. ve Krimmer, H. (2023). Erste Befunde des ZiviZ-Survey 2023: Zivilgesellschaft in Krisenzeiten – Politisch aktiv mit geschwächten Fundamenten. Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377066673
• Schroeder, W. (2017). Konfessionelle Wohlfahrtsverbände im Umbruch: Fortführung des deutschen Sonderwegs durch vorsorgende Sozialpolitik? Springer VS. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-16299-3
• Schuler, R. ve Solms-Laubach, F. (2018). BILD. Heimat-Minister Seehofer: „Der Islam gehört nicht zu Deutschland“. https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/islam/heimat-minister-seehofer-islam-gehoert-nicht-zu-deutschland-55108896.bild.html
• Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: Thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(94)00050-8
• Siewert, P. ve Aigner-Foresti, L. (2005). Föderalismus in der griechischen und römischen Antike. Franz Steiner Verlag. https://www.steiner-verlag.de/Foederalismus-in-der-griechischen-und-roemischen-Antike/9783515087100
• Simonson, J., Kelle, N., Kausmann, C. ve Tesch-Römer, C. (2022). Freiwilliges Engagement in Deutschland: Der Deutsche Freiwilligensurvey 2019. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35317-9
• Strachwitz, R. G. (2020). Basiswissen Zivilgesellschaft (Opuscula, 140). Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/68884/ssoar-2020-strachwitz-Basiswissen_Zivilgesellschaft.pdf
• Sturm, R. (2013). Föderalismus in Deutschland: Demokratie als “Leitgedanke” des deutschen Föderalismus. Informationen zur politischen Bildung, 318. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/izpb/foederalismus-in-deutschland-318/159339/zusammenarbeit-im-deutschen-foederalismus/
• Süddeutsche Zeitung (2018). Lipkowski, C. Islamkonferenz: Bundesregierung und Muslime in Deutschland. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/islamkonferenz-bundesregierung-muslime-in-deutschland-1.4227208
• Şanlıoğlu, Ö. (2010). Almanya’nın birleşmesinin 20. yılı: Ekonomi politikalarının başarısı açısından bir değerlendirme. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2010(73), 73-101. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esad/article/81391
• Tennstedt, F. (1992). Die Spitzenverbände der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege im dualen Wohlfahrtsstaat: Ein historischer Rückblick auf die Entwicklung in Deutschland. Soziale Arbeit, 41(10–11), 342–356. https://www.academia.edu/78732154/Die_Spitzenverb%C3%A4nde_der_Freien_Wohlfahrtspflege_im_dualen_Wohlfahrtsstaat
• Thompson, N. (2016). Kuram ve uygulamada sosyal hizmeti anlamak. Dipnot Yayınları.
• Tettinger, P. J. (2005). Federalism in the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union. Duquesne Law Review, 44(1), 53–78. https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol44/iss1/6
• UNDP (2024). United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2023–2024: Press release. UNDP. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-03/hdr_2024_press_release_undp_0.pdf
• WELT. (2018). Horst Seehofer: „Der Islam gehört nicht zu Deutschland“. https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article174603526/Horst-Seehofer-Der-Islam-gehoert-nicht-zu-Deutschland.html
• Wohlfahrt, N. (2015). Subsidiaritätsprinzip, welfare mix, neue Subsidiarität: Vom individuellen Rechtsanspruch zum wohlwollenden Verwaltungshandeln? Theorie und Praxis der Sozialen Arbeit, 5, 329–338. https://content-select.com/en/portal/media/view/560d1d1e-4288-4873-91a0-3a68b0dd2d03
• ZWST (2025). Zentralwohlfahrtsstelle der Juden in Deutschland e.V. We care since 1917. https://zwst.org/de