AVRUPA BLOK ZİNCİRİ HİZMETLERİ ALTYAPISININ (EBSI) SÜREÇ ANALİZİ MODELİ İLE İNCELENMESİ

Öz

ÖZET Kamu sektöründe blok zincirine ilişkin projelerin yaşama geçme ya da uygulama aşamasında sorunlar olduğu gözlemlenmektedir. Bu çalışmada Avrupa’da devlet çapında en önemli ve daha önce örneği bulunmayan bir proje olan Avrupa Blok Zinciri Hizmet Altyapısı (EBSI) ele alınmıştır. EBSI, Avrupa Birliği üye ülkeleri ile Norveç ve Lihtenşyan’ın dahil olduğu blok zinciri tabanlı sınır ötesi kamu yönetimi hizmet altyapısı kurmayı amaçlayan bir projedir. EBSI sürecini kamu politikası analizi perspektifinden ele alarak hangi süreçlerde tıkanma olduğu, bu tıkanmaların nedenleri ve sorun alanlarına yönelik üretilen cevapları tespit etmek amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda nitel yöntem kullanılmış olup, doküman incelemesi ve saha gözlemlerinden yararlanılarak EBSI süreç analizi modeli ile incelenmiştir. EBSI teknik altyapısı ile proje uygulamalarını destekleyecek kapasiteye gelmiş olmakla beraber uygulama aşamasına geçilmemiştir. EBSI’nin uygulamaya geçmesinin önündeki temel zorluklar yönetişim yapısı, yasal/düzenleyici çerçeveler, kurumsal hazırlıklar, EBSI aktörler arası birlikte çalışabilirlik (işbirliği) ve uygulama araçlarının geliştirilme sürecinin devam etmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. EBSI politika geliştirme sürecinde karşılaşılan zorluklar yeni bir kurumsal yapının, Europeum EDIC (Avrupa Dijital Altyapı Konsorsiyumu) doğmasına neden olmuş ve bazı hukuksal düzenlemeleri beraberinde getirmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• blok zinciri teknolojisi
• EBSI
• kamu politikası süreç analizi
• kamu yönetimi
• yönetişim

POLICY ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN BLOCKCHAIN SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE (EBSI)

Öz

ABSTRACT In the public sector, problems have been observed in the implementation or production phases of projects related to blockchain. To understand better the challenges, this article studies the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure (EBSI), which is the most salient project of its kind at the supra-state level in Europe. EBSI is a project that aims to establish a cross-border public administration service infrastructure based on blockchain, involving EU member states as well as Norway and Liechtenstein. This study aims to identify where bottlenecks occur in the EBSI process from a public policy analysis perspective, the reasons for these bottlenecks, and the responses produced for problem areas. Towards this aim, the study adopts the process analysis model and methodologically utilizes document analyses and field observations. Findings suggest that even though EBSI has reached the capacity to support project applications with its technical infrastructure, it has not yet transitioned to the full production phase. The main challenges for the transition to the full production phase include governance structure, legal/regulatory frameworks, institutional preparedness, interoperability of existing systems, and the ongoing development process of the application tools. To overcome certain challenges encountered in the policy development process of EBSI, a new institutional structure, Europeum EDIC (European Digital Infrastructure Consortium) and a number of regulative adjustments are initiated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blockchain technology
• EBSI
• public policy process analysis
• public administration

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, D. (2022). “Blok Zinciri Teknolojisinin Kamu Yönetimine Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi”. Uluslararası İzmir İktisat Kongresi 25-26 Şubat 2022.
2. Anderson, J. E. (2011), Public policymaking: An Introduction (Seventh Edition), Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Birkland, A. T. (2007), “Agenda Setting in Public Policy”, Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods (Ed. Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller ve Mara S. Sidney), Boca Raton CRC Press, s.62-78.
4. Birkland, A. T. (2010), An Introduction to Policy Process; Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making (Third Edition), New York: Routledge.
5. Blaikie, P. ve J. Soussan (2001) . Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Understanding Policy Processes. Working Paper 8 prepared for DFID, UK: Department for International Development (DFID).
6. Cohen, M. D., G.M. James, ve P.O. Johan (1972). “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1): 1-25.
7. Dror, Y. (1964). “Muddling Through- ‘Science’ or Inertia?” Public Administration Review, 24 (3), 153-157.
8. Dye, T. R. (2012). Understanding Public Policy, Yorkshire: Pearson.

9. Etzioni, A. (1967). “Mixed Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision-Making.” Public Administration Review, 27 (5), 385-392.
10. Fisher, P. ve T. Pratt (2006). “Political Culture and the Death Penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review.” 17(1): 48-60.
11. Hogwood, B. ve G.B. Peters (1983). Policy Dynamics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
12. Jann, W., Wegrich, K. (2007), “Theories of the Policy Cycle”. Fisher, F., Miller, G. J., Sidney, M. S. (Ed.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, New Brunswick, N. J.: CRC Taylor & Francis: 43-62.
13. Janssen, M., V. Weerakkody, E. Ismagilova, U. Sivarajah, and Z. Irani. 2020. “A Framework for Analysing Blockchain Technology Adoption: Integrating Institutional, Market and Technical Factors.” International Journal of Information Management 50: 302–309. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.012
14. Köseoğlu, Ö. (2015). Kamu Politikası Sürecinde Karar Verme Modelleri, Kamu Politikası Kuram ve Uygulama içinde.(12.bölüm).
15. Lindblom, C. (1959). “The Science of Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88. Lindman, J., J. Berryhill, B. Welby, and M. Piccinin-Barbieri. 2020. “The Uncertain Promise of Blockchain for Government.” OECD Working Articles on Public Governance, No. 43. Paris: OECD Publishing.
16. Lipson, M. (2007). “A Garbage Can Model of UN Peacekeeping,” Global Governance, 13(1): 79-97.
17. Manaila, V. (2024). Navigating eIDAS 2.0. Intesi Group.
18. Ølnes, S., J. Ubacht, and M. Janssen. 2017. “Blockchain in Government: Benefits and Implications of Distributed Ledger Technology for Information Sharing.” Government Information Quarterly 34 (3): 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.09.007
19. Parsons, W. (1995). Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis, Aldershot: Edgar Elgar Publishing.
20. Sabatier, P. A. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
21. Sidney, S. M. (2007). Policy Formulation: Design and Tools, Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (Ed. Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller ve Mara S. Sidney), Boca Raton: CRC Press, s.79-87.
22. Simon, C. A. (2007). Public Policy: Preferences and Outcomes, Boston, USA: Pearson Education.
23. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, 3. Baskı, New York: Free Press.
24. Springate-Baginski, O. ve J. Soussan (2002). A Methodology for Policy Process Analysis. Researchgate.
25. Stewart, J, D.M. Hedge, ve J.P. Lester (2008). Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach, Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
26. Tan, E., S. Mahula, ve J. Crompvoets (2022). “Blockchain governance in the public sector: A conceptual framework for public management.” Gov. Inf. Q., 39, 101625.
27. Tan, E. (2023). “The missing piece: the link between blockchain and public policy design,” Policy Design and Practice, DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2023.2233160.
28. Tan, E., E. Lerounge, J.D. Caju, ve D.D. Seuil (2023). “Verification of education credentials on European Blockchain Services Infrastructure (EBSI): Action research in a cross-border use case between Belgium and Italy.” Big Data and Cognitive Computing. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx.
29. Tan, E., J. Crompvoets, A. Hondeghem, ve S.V. Walle (2024). Needs Assessment Report. Ongoing report.
30. Tan, E. and D. Du Seuil D.D (yakında gelecek 2024). ‘European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC): A Governance Framework for the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure’. In J. Goossens, E. Keymolen, et al. (eds) Public Governance and Emerging Technologies: Values, Trust, and Compliance by Design.
31. Yıldırım, A. ve H. Şimşek. (2021). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
32. Yıldız, M. ve M.Z. Sobacı. (2015). Kamu Politikası: Kuram ve Uygulama.
33. Zachariadis, M., G. Hileman, ve S. V. Scott, (2019). “Governance and Control in Distributed Ledgers: Understanding the Challenges Facing Blockchain Technology in Financial Services.” Information and Organization 29 (2): 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.03.001
34. Avrupa Blockchain Ortaklığı Konusunda İşbirliği Deklarasyonu (2018). 201804DeclarationonEuropeanPartnershiponBlockchainFINALpdf.pdf (innovationpost.it), (05.03.2024).
35. Avrupa Komisyonu (ab.gov.tr).(03.03.2024).
36. European Commission a. About us-EBSI. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EBSI/About+us.(03.03.2024).
37. European Commission b. European Blockchain Partnership. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/blockchain-partnership.(03.03.2024).
38. European Commission, c. Event. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/events/information-day-horizon-2020-blockchain-distributed-ledger-technologies-topics-and-fintech.(20.04.2024).
39. European Commission, ç. Blockchain Strategy. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/blockchain-strategy.(21.04.2024).
40. European Commission d. News&Views. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/overview-eu-funded-blockchain-related-projects.(20.04.2024).
41. European Commission e. Europe’s Digital Decade. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/europes-digital-decade.(03.03.2024).
42. European Commission f. eIDAS Regulation. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eidas-regulation.(20.04.2024).
43. European Commission g. EU Blockchain Observatory ve Forum. https://blockchain-observatory.ec.europa.eu/index_en.(21.04.2024).
44. European Commission h. Data Protection in the EU. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-protection-eu_en.(05.03.2024.)
45. European Commission ı. Communications Networks, Content and Technology. https://commission.europa.eu/about-european-commission/departments-and-executive-agencies/communications-networks-content-and-technology_en.(03.03.2024).
46. European Commission i. Directorate-General-DIGIT-Digital Services. https://commission.europa.eu/about-european-commission/departments-and-executive-agencies/digital-services_en#responsibilities.(03.03.2024).
47. European Commission j. Compliance Documents. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EBSI/Compliance+Documents.(05.03.2024).
48. European Commission k. Commission Welcomes Final Agreement on EU Digital Identity Wallet. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_5651.(20.04.2024).
49. European Commission l, EBSI’s Node Operators. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EBSI/Node+Operators.(03.03.2024).
50. European Commission m, Verifiable Credentials Success Stories-EBSI. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EBSI/Verifiable+Credentials+Success+Stories.(03.03.2024).
51. European Commission n, European Blockchain Regulatory Sandbox-EU Digital Finance Platform. https://digital-finance-platform.ec.europa.eu/cross-border-services/ebsi.(03.03.2024).
52. European Commission o, Tek Dijital Ağ Geçidi, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/single-digital-gateway_en.(14.03.2024).
53. European Commission p, European Digital Identity, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en. (03.03.2024).
54. European Parliament passes a blockchain resolution (openaccessgovernment.org) EBSI-NE | (grnet.gr).(05.03.2024).
55. TRACE4EU. https://www.intesigroup.com/en/news/trace4eu/.(05.03.2024).