Kamu Politikası Formülasyonunda Hesaplamalı Modeller: Stratejik Bir Araç Olarak Kullanım Potansiyeli ve Türkiye Bağlamına Yansımaları

Öz

Kamu politikası formülasyonu, modern devletin toplumsal sorunlara analitik temelde yanıt üretme süreçlerinin en kritik aşamalarından birini oluşturmaktadır. Simon'ın sınırlı rasyonalitesinden Lindblom'un artırımcılığına, Etzioni'nin karma taramasından Cohen, March ve Olsen'in çöp kutusu modeline uzanan kuramsal birikim, kamu politikası karar süreçlerinin rasyonel-bütüncül modelin varsaydığından çok daha karmaşık olduğunu otuz yılı aşkın süredir ortaya koymaktadır. Ne var ki bu birikim, karar vericilere operasyonel düzeyde kullanılabilecek analitik araçlar üretme bakımından sınırlı kalmıştır. Bu çalışma, Epstein'ın üretici sosyal bilim programı temelinde gelişen ajan tabanlı modellemenin (ABM) bu boşluğu doldurmaya aday bir analitik paradigma olarak okunabileceğini ileri sürmektedir. ABM, klasik kuramların tarif ettiği üç temel sınırlılığı —heterojen aktör etkileşimi, sınırlı rasyonalite altında karar ve doğrusal olmayan sistem dinamikleri— modelin merkezine yerleştirmesi nedeniyle, karar verme kuramlarının kavramsal birikimini operasyonel bir araca dönüştürme potansiyeli taşımaktadır. Çalışma derleme/kavramsal nitelikte olup özgün ampirik veri analizi içermemektedir. OECD, IMF, Avrupa Komisyonu JRC, CECAN ve Sandia gibi uluslararası kurumsal uygulamalardan yararlanarak yöntemin politika analizindeki olgunlaşmış konumunu görünür kılmakta, Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi taramasıyla Türkiye'deki disipliner boşluğu belgelemektedir. Sonuç olarak Türkçe kamu yönetimi literatürü için kavramsal, kurumsal ve eğitsel düzeyde üç katmanlı bir yönelim çerçevesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karar Verme Kuramları
• Kamu Politikası Formülasyonu
• Ajan Tabanlı Modelleme
• Sınırlı Rasyonalite
• Karar Destek Araçları
• Hesaplamalı Sosyal Bilimler.

Computational Models in Public Policy Formulation: Usage Potential as a Strategic Tool and Reflections on the Turkish Context

Öz

Public policy formulation constitutes one of the most critical stages of modern state's analytically grounded response to societal problems. The theoretical accumulation extending from Simon's bounded rationality to Lindblom's incrementalism, from Etzioni's mixed scanning to Cohen, March and Olsen's garbage can model has demonstrated for over three decades that public policy decision processes are far more complex than presupposed by the rational-comprehensive model. However, this accumulation has remained limited in producing operationally usable analytical tools for decision-makers. This study argues that Agent-Based Modelling (ABM), developed on the basis of Epstein's generative social science programme, can be read as an analytical paradigm with the potential to fill this gap. By placing at its core three fundamental limitations described by classical theories —heterogeneous actor interaction, decision-making under bounded rationality, and non-linear system dynamics— ABM transforms the conceptual accumulation of decision-making theories into an operational tool. The study is of a review/conceptual nature and does not contain original empirical data analysis. Drawing on international institutional applications such as OECD, IMF, European Commission JRC, CECAN, and Sandia, it highlights the matured position of the method in policy analysis, and documents the disciplinary gap in Turkey through a national thesis database scan. Consequently, a three-tiered orientation framework at conceptual, institutional, and educational levels is proposed for the Turkish public administration literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Decision-making theories
• Public policy formulation
• Agent-based modelling
• Bounded rationality
• Decision support tools
• Computational social sciences

Kaynakça

1. Athey, S. (2017). Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems. Science, 355(6324), 483-485.
2. Bankes, S. C. (2002). Tools and techniques for developing policies for complex and uncertain systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl_3), 7263-7266.
3. Batty, M. (2005). Cities and complexity: Understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. MIT Press.
4. Bilim Akademisi. (2021). COVID-19 Modelleme Çalıştayları (I–III). https://bilimakademisi.org/covid-19-modelleme-calistayi/ Erişim Tarihi: 06.04.2026
5. Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl_3), 7280-7287.
6. Boz, C., & Gülgen, F. (2018). SUMO trafik simülasyonu kullanılarak kavşak düzenlemelerinin etkilerinin gözlenmesi. VII. UZAL-CBS Sempozyumu, Eskişehir.
7. Cairney, P. (2012). Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 346-358.
8. Calenbuhr, V. (2020). Complexity science in the context of policymaking. In Science for policy handbook (ss. 118-127). Elsevier.

9. Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press. Dye, T. R. (1992). Understanding public policy (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
10. Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), 41-60.
11. Epstein, J. M. (2006). Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press.
12. Epstein, J. M., ve Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. Brookings Institution Press.
13. Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A 'third' approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27(5), 385-392.
14. Ferguson, N. M., Cummings, D. A. T., Fraser, C., Cajka, J. C., Cooley, P. C., & Burke, D. S. (2006). Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature, 442(7101), 448-452.
15. Flaxman, S., Mishra, S., Gandy, A., Unwin, H. J. T., Mellan, T. A., Coupland, H., & Bhatt, S. (2020). Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature, 584(7820), 257-261.
16. Furtado, B. A., Sakowski, P. A. M. E., & Tóvolli, M. H. E. (2015). Modeling complex systems for public policies. IPEA.
17. Geyer, R., & Cairney, P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook on complexity and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
18. Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
19. Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P., Barbrook-Johnson, P., Narasimhan, K. P., & Wilkinson, H. (2018). Computational modelling of public policy: Reflections on practice. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 21(1).
20. Guven, D., Kayalica, M. O., & Sen, O. L. (2025). The impact of electricity generation on CO2 emissions in Türkiye: An agent-based simulation approach. Energies, 18(3), 655.
21. Güçlü, H., Yaylalı, E., İkiışık, H., Hızıroğlu Aygün, A. & Maral, I. (2023). Salgın hastalıkların epidemiyolojik ve ekonomik açıdan matematiksel ve ajan tabanlı yöntemlerle modellenmesi ve simülasyonu [TÜBİTAK projesi]. Aperta. https://aperta.ulakbim.gov.tr/record/263297
22. Heppenstall, A. J., Crooks, A. T., See, L. M., & Batty, M. (Eds.). (2011). Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer Science & Business Media.
23. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
24. İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Ulaşım Daire Başkanlığı Ulaşım Planlama Müdürlüğü. (2011). İstanbul metropoliten alanı kentsel ulaşım ana planı (İUAP). https://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr- TR/kurumsal/Birimler/ulasimPlanlama/Documents/%C4%B0UAP_Ana_Raporu.pdf
25. Johnson, L. (2015). A call for complexity: Integrated models to solve complex policy problems. Mind & Society, 14, 259-271.
26. Kaur, N., & Kaur, H. (2022). A multi-agent based evacuation planning for disaster management: A narrative review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 29, 4085-4113.
27. Kiel, L. D. (2014). Complexity theory and its evolution in public administration and policy studies. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1(1), 71-78.
28. Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. University of Maryland Press.
29. Lasswell, H., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. Yale University Press.
30. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A. L., Brewer, D., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721-723.
31. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
32. Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143-166.
33. Meadows, DH, Randers, J. & Meadows, DL (2013). Büyümenin sınırları (1972). Doğanın geleceği içinde (s. 101-116). Yale Üniversitesi Yayınları.
34. Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.
35. Moradi, H., Iskandar, R., Rodriguez, S., Singh, D., Dugdale, J., Tzempelikos, D., Sfetsos, A., Bakogianni, E. Pavlidi, E., Diaz, J. Ribas, M., Moragues, A., & Estrany, J. (2025). Improving evacuation policies through agent-based modeling and stakeholder engagement in hazard-prone areas. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 119, 105280.
36. Mostafizi, A., Wang, H., Cox, D., Cramer, L. A., & Dong, S. (2017). Agent-based tsunami evacuation modeling of unplanned network disruptions for evidence-driven resource allocation and retrofitting strategies. Natural Hazards, 88(3), 1347-1372.
37. Nagel, K., & Schreckenberg, M. (1992). A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. Journal de Physique I, 2(12), 2221-2229.
38. Peters, B. G. (2011). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism (3rd ed.). Continuum.
39. Rodríguez, P., Villanueva, A., Dombrovskaia, L. & Valenzuela, J. P. (2023). A methodology to design, develop, and evaluate machine learning models for predicting dropout in school systems: The case of Chile. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 10103–10149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11515-5
40. Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
41. Salgado, M. V., O'Flaherty, E., & Mejía, R. M. (2020). The role of computer simulation models in the design of public policies. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 7(1), 1-17.
42. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Westview Press.
43. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, Macmillan.
44. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 99-118.
45. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
46. Tapp, L., Kurchyna, V., Nogatz, F., Berndt, J. O. & Timm, I. J. (2022). School's out? Simulating schooling strategies during COVID-19. F. S. Melo ve F. Fang (Ed.), Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Best and Visionary Papers. AAMAS 2022 içinde (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, C. 13441). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20179-0_2
47. Tesfatsion, L., & Judd, K. L. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of computational economics: agent-based computational economics (Vol. 2). Elsevier.
48. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi. (2020). COVID-19 küresel salgın değerlendirme raporu. TÜBA.
49. Wu, S., Lei, Y., Yang, S., Cui, P., & Jin, W. (2022). An agent-based approach to integrate human dynamics into disaster risk management. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 818913.
50. Yap, M., Cats, O., & van Arem, B. (2020). Crowding valuation in urban tram and bus transportation based on smart card data. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 16(1), 23-42.