Temsili bürokrasi sıfır toplamlı bir oyun mudur? Literatür kapsamında bir değerlendirme

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 68 - 81, 08.01.2021

Merve Durmuş

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.697538

Cited By: 3

Öz

Dezavantajlı grupların bürokraside temsil edilmesinin daha cevap verebilir bir kamu idaresi sağlayacağını ileri süren temsili bürokrasiye karşı yöneltilen eleştirilerden biri, hizmet dağıtımında eşitliğe yarardan çok zarar verdiğine yöneliktir. Bu anlayışa göre temsili bürokrasi sıfır toplamlı bir oyundur (zero sum game) ve azınlıklara sağladığı yararlar, diğer grupların zarar görmesi pahasına sağlanmaktadır. Yani bu durum, dezavantajlı gruplara bir kazanç sağlarken diğer grupları (özellikle kamu hizmeti alma noktasında) mağdur etmekte, ve böylece temsili bürokrasinin hizmet dağıtımında bütün toplumsal gruplara eşitliği sağlama vaadine gölge düşürmektedir. Bu kapsamda mevcut çalışma, Türkiye'de oldukça sınırlı oranda önem görmüş bir teoriye yönelik bu iddianın, ne oranda doğru olduğunu tartışarak ilgili ulusal literatüre katkı sağlama ve söz konusu yaklaşıma farklı bir bakış açısı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu maksatla ilgili literatür taranmış ve temsili bürokrasiye yönelik yapılan araştırmalar incelenerek mevzu bahis iddia değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak ise temsili bürokrasinin aslında sıfır toplamlı bir oyun olmadığı, temsilci bürokratların kamu hizmeti sunarken kendi gruplarının yanı sıra diğer gruplara da artan oranda kamu hizmeti sağladığı ortaya çıkarılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Temsili Bürokrasi, Hizmet Dağıtımında Adalet, , Sıfır Toplamlı Oyun

Is representative bureaucracy a zero sum game? An assessment within the scope of literature

Öz

One of the criticisms against the representative bureaucracy, which suggests that representing disadvantaged groups in the bureaucracy will provide a more responsive public administration, is that it harms the distributional equity rather than benefiting. According to this understanding, representative bureaucracy is a zero-sum game and the benefits it provides to minorities are at the expense of other groups. In other words, this situation brings disadvantaged groups a profit, while victimizing other groups (especially at the point of receiving public service), and so overshadowing the promise of equality for all social groups in the delivery of the representative bureaucracy. In this context, existing study aims to contribute to the relevant national literature discussing the percentage of correction of this claim for a theory (representative bureaucracy) which has seen very limited amount of importance in Turkey, and aims to offer a different perspective to this approach. For this purpose, the related literature has been reviewed and the claim in question has been tried to be evaluated by examining the researches made on representative bureaucracy. As a result, it has been revealed that the representative bureaucracy is not a zero-sum game and representative bureaucrats provide an increasing number of public services to other groups as well as their own groups, while delivering public services.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Representative Bureaucracy, Distrubitional Justice, Zero Sum Game

Kaynakça

• Agocs, C. (2012). Representative Bureaucracy?. Employment equity in the public service of Canada. Retrieved from the Canadian Centre for Policy. Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association’ da sunulan bildiri, Edmonton, Canada, 13-15 Haziran.
• Albrow, M. (1970). Bureaucracy. London: Pall Mall Press.
• Berg, B. (1984). Public choice, pluralism, and scarcity: Implications for bureaucratic behavior. Administration & Society, 16(1), 71-82.
• Çam, E., (1970) Oyun Teorisinin Mahiyeti ve Oyunlar. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 29(1-4).
• Çiftçi, C. (2017) Jenerasyon Y› nin Yatırım Aracı Tercihleri: Oyun Teorisi Yaklaşımı. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 698-712.
• Dolan, J. (2002). Representative bureaucracy in the federal executive: Gender and spending priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 353-375.
• Frederickson, H. G. (1971). Toward a new public administration. Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective, 309-331.
• Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45-56.
• Groeneveld, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2010). A contingency approach to representative bureaucracy: Power, equal opportunities and diversity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(2), 239-258.
• Herman, J. A. (2007). Passive representation and the client-bureaucrat relationship: Communication and demand inducement in the patient-provider relationship (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri--Columbia).
• Keiser, L. R., Wilkins, V. M., Meier, K. J., & Holland, C. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American political science review, 96(3), 553-564.
• Kıngsley, J. D. (1944). Representative Bu reaucracy : An Interpretation of the Brit ish Civil Service. Pp. 324. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press.
• Lim, H. H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public administration review, 66(2), 193-204.
• Liang, J., Park, S., & Zhao, T. (2020). Representative Bureaucracy, Distributional Equity, and Environmental Justice. Public Administration Review, 9999(9999), 1-13.
• Marvel, J. D., & Resh, W. G. (2015). Bureaucratic discretion, client demographics, and representative bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 281-310.
• Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American political science review, 69(2), 526-542.
• Meier, K. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39-56.
• Meier, K. J., & Hawes, D. P. (2009). Ethnic conflict in France: a case for representative bureaucracy?. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(3), 269-285.
• Meier, K. J., & Morton, T. S. (2015). Representative bureaucracy in a cross-national context: Politics, identity, structure and discretion. In Politics of representative bureaucracy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Meier, K. J., & Nicholson‐Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850-860.
• Meier, K. J., & Nigro, L. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Representative Bureaucracy: Classic Readings and Continuing Controversies, 84-96.
• Meier, K. J., McClain, P. D., Polinard, J. L., & Wrinkle, R. D. (2004). Divided or together? Conflict and cooperation between African Americans and Latinos. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 399-409.
• Meier, K. J., Wrinkle, R. D., & Polinard, J. L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1025-1039.
• Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review, 193-199.
• Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service (Vol. 53). Oxford University Press: New York.
• Nicholson-Crotty, J., Grissom, J. A., & Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2011). Bureaucratic representation, distributional equity, and democratic values in the administration of public programs. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 582-596.
• Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspectives on Psychological science, 6(3), 215-218.
• Peters, B. G. (2014). The politics of bureaucracy. In The Politics of Bureaucracy (pp. 177-206). Routledge.
• Peters, H. (2015). Game theory: A Multi-leveled approach. Almanya: Springer.
• Pitkin, H. (1967). The Concept of Representation. California: University of California Press, Putnam. R. D. (1967) The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Riccucci, N. M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21-30.
• Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Lavena, C. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy?. Journal of public administration research and theory, 24(3), 537-551.
• Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Li, H. (2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121-130.
• Rocha, R. R., & Hawes, D. P. (2009). Racial diversity, representative bureaucracy, and equity in multiracial school districts. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 326-344.
• Selden, S. C., Brudney, J. L., & Kellough, J. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. Representative bureaucracy: Classic readings and continued controversies, 134-154.
• Shen, J., & Xia, J. (2012). The relationship between teachers’ and principals’ decision-making power: is it a win-win situation or a zero-sum game?. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(2), 153-174.
• Subramaniam, V. (1967). Representative bureaucracy: A reassessment. American Political Science Review, 61(4), 1010-1019.
• Theobald, N. A., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 409-426.
• Thompson, F. J. (1976). Minority groups in public bureaucracies: Are passive and active representation linked?. Administration & Society, 8(2), 201-226.