İngiltere’de “En İyi Değer” Rejimi ve Denetim Sistemi

Yıl 2008, Sayı: 68, 47 - 63, 01.03.2008

Sefa Çetin

Öz

Özellikle 1980’li yıllardan sonra İngiltere, ABD, Yeni Zelanda ve Kanada gibi ülkelerde kamu hizmetlerinin sunulmasında farklı yaklaşımlar uygulanmaya başlamıştır. Kamu kuruluşlarını taleplere cevap veremeyen, pahalı ve tekelci bürokrasiler haline getiren klasik yönetim anlayışları yerini, serbest piyasa mekanizmasını da kullanmak ve kamu sektörünü küçültme yollarını aramaya yönelmek suretiyle, daha az harcama yaparak daha hızlı ve daha etkin kamu hizmeti sunulması hedefine odaklanan bir anlayışa bırakmıştır.

Kaynakça

• Ashwort, R. and Boyne, G. (2000), Promises and Performance. In Clark, T. and Hoggart, K., People, Parties and Policies (Westview, Boulder).
• Audit Commission (1983), Performance Review in Local Government: a Handbook for Auditors and Local Authorities, London: HMSO
• Audit Commission (1998), Consultation on local authority performance indicators. London: Audit Commission.
• Audit Commission (2000a), Seeing is Believing: How the Audit Commission Will Carry Out Best Value Inspections in England (Audit Commission, London).
• Audit Commission (2000b), A step in the right direction: Lessons from best value performance plans (Audit Commission, London).
• Audit Commission (2008), Benefits Inspection Methodology, Scoring Benefits Inspections, http://www.audit- commission.gov.uk/bfi/inspection.asp
• Boyne, G. (1998), ‘Public Services Under New Labour: Back to Bureaucracy?’, Public Money and Management, vol,18.
• Boyne, G. A. (1999), Processes, performance and Best Value in local government. Local Government Studies, 25, 3, pp.1-15.
• Boyne, G. (2000). External Regulation and Best Value in Local Government. Public Money & Management, July-September.
• Demirkaya, Y. (2006) The Changing Management of Local governments Under New Labour in England: Best Value Policy, Public Administration and Management, Volume:11, Number:2, pp.44-74.
• DETR (1998a) Modernising local government: Improving local services through Best Value, London: DETR.
• DETR (1998b) Modern local government: In touch with the people, Cm 4014, London: The Stationary Office.
• DETR (1999a) Summary of responses to 'Modernising local government: Improving services through Best Value', London: DETR.
• DETR (1999b) Protocol on intervention powers, London: DETR.
• DETR (1999d) Implementing Best Value: A consultation paper on draft guidance, London: DETR.
• DETR (1999e), Circular 10/99 Local Government Act 1999: Part I, Best Value, (DETR, London).
• Doig, A. and Wilson, J. (2000) ‘Local Government Management: A Model For the Future?’. Public Management, Vol.2, Issue 1.
• Geddes, M., and S.J. Martin. (2000). The Policy and Politics of Best Value: Currents, Cross-currents and Under-currents in the New Regime’, Policy and Politics. Vol.28, num.3, July 2000: The Policy Press.
• HMSO, (1999), Local Government Act. London: The Stationary Office.
• Horton, S. and Farnham, D. (1999), 'Public Management in Britain'. London, Macmillan.
• Inlogov, (2000). Inlogov informs on Best Value: Part 1, Institute of local government studies. The University of Birmingham.
• Lawton, A. and Rose, A. (1999), Public Services Management. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
• Martin, S.J. (1999), 'Picking winners or piloting best value? An analysis of English Best Value bids', Local Government Studies 25, 2, pp.53-57.
• Power, M. (1997), The Audit Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Waine, B. and Cutler, T. (1994), 'Managing the Welfare State, The politics of public sector management' Berg, Oxford.