HESAP VEREBİLİRLİĞİ SORGULAMAK: KAMUSAL HESAP VEREBİLİRLİĞİN ELEŞTİREL BİR DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Yıl 2018, Sayı: 110, 173 - 194, 01.09.2018

Murat İnce

Öz

Eleştirel retorik bir kavram olarak hesap verebilirlik, geleneksel yönetim anlayışı ile yeni kamu yönetimi arasındaki köklü farklılıkları betimlemede başlı başına bir gösterge niteliği taşır. Modern yönetimlerden beklenen ölçek ve işlevlerin zamanla genişlemesiyle birlikte, yönetimlerin sorumlu tutulmalarına yönelik taleplerin de giderek daha karmaşık hale geldiğini gözlemlemekteyiz. Bugün, hem demokratik yönetimin idealist beklentilerini ortaya koymak hem de bu yönetimin teknik gerekliliklerini açığa vurmak bakımından hesap verebilirlik kavramından daha çok ilgi uyandıran bir kavrama rastlamak neredeyse mümkün değildir. Bu çalışma, kavramın kırılgan ve parçalı içeriklerinin ortaya konulması ve de bürokrasi ile demokrasi arasındaki tartışmalı ilişkinin sorgulanması aracılığıyla geç modern hesap verebilirlik kavrayışının eleştirel bir değerlendirmesini yapmayı amaçlamaktadır. Hesap verebilirlik kavramı, demokratik kamu yönetiminin kritik bir unsuru olarak kavranmakla birlikte, söz konusu kavram ile demokrasi arasında kaçınılmaz bir ilişkinin var olup olmadığı sorusu oldukça önemli bir sorudur. Gerçekte, hesap verebilirliğin ideal bir uygulamasının en iyi şekilde merkezi bir kontrol yapısıyla mı yoksa dağınık bir iktidar ve devredilmiş bir yetki yapısıyla mı gerçekleştirileceği konusunda kesin bir fikre sahip değiliz. Hesap verebilirlik, birbirlerinin aleyhine olmak üzere demokrasi ve bürokrasinin her ikisine de hizmet etme potansiyeline sahiptir. Bu nedenledir ki, her iki kavram arasında hassas bir denge gözetmek adına, Aydınlanmanın başlangıcından günümüze tevarüs edildiği haliyle Akıl ve Özgürlük ilkeleri arasındaki kırılgan uyumu daima göz önünde bulundurmalıyız.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hesap Verebilirlik, Bürokrasi, Demokrasi, Yeni Kamu Yönetimi, Katılımcı Demokrasi.

ACCOUNTABILITY IN QUESTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

Öz

As a critical rhetoric term, accountability poses a per se signifier to describe the radical differences between traditional understanding of government and new public management. We observe that as the size and functions demanded from modern governments have expanded through time, the demands for the accountability of the governments have become increasingly more sophisticated. Today, one can hardly come across any term more stimulating than accountability revealing both the idealistic expectations and techninal requirements of democratic governance. This study intends to evaluate and criticize this late modern conception of accountability through depicting the fragile and fragmented contents of the term and questioning the controversial relationships between bureaucracy and democracy as well. Although accountability is fully considered as a critical element of democratic public administration, it is a crucial question to ask whether there exists an inevitable relation between accountability and democracy. In fact, we are not sure whether an ideal praxis of accountability is best achieved through a centralised concentration of control or through dispersed power and delegated responsibilities. Accountability has the potential to serve for both democracy and bureaucracy at the expense of each other. Therefore, in order to maintain a delicate balance between the two, we should always consider the fragile compatibility between the principles of Reason and Freedom as inherited from the onset of Enlightenment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Accountability, Bureaucracy, Democracy, New Public Management, Participatory Democracy

Kaynakça

• Behn, R. (2001), Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
• Bovens, M. (2003), “Public Accountability”, Paper for the EGPA Annual Conference, Oeiras Portugal September 3-6, Presented in Workshop 8 (Ethics and Integrity of Governance).
• Bovens, M. (2007), “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework 1”, European Law Journal, 13: 447–468.
• Bovens, M.A.P.; ‘t Hart, P.; Schillemans, T. (2008), “Does Public Accountability Work? An Assessment Tool”, Public Administration, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp. 225 - 242.
• Cameron, W. (2004), “Public Accountability: Effectiveness, Equity, Ethics”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4):59–67, December.
• Canada SAI (2002), “Chapter 9 Modernizing Accountability in the Public Sector”, December Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Available at: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200212_09_e_12403. html
• Cendon, A. B. (2000), “Accountability and Public Administration: Concepts, Dimensions, Developments”, Openness and Transparency in Governance: Challenges and Opportunities, 22-61.
• Day, P. and Klein, R. (1987), Accountabilities: Five Public Services, London, Tavistock Publications.
• Derrida, J. (1994), Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International, translated by Peggy Kamuf, New York, London: Routledge.
• Dowdle, M. W. (2006), “Public Accountability: Conceptual, Historical and Epistemic Mappings”, in Michael Dowdle (Editor), Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-29.
• Dubnick, M. J. (2002), “Seeking Salvation for Accountability”, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
• Edwards, M. (2003), “Participatory Governance”, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, No. 107, March.
• Farazmand, A. (1999), “Globalization and Public Administration”, Public Administration Review, 59(6), 509–522.
• Farazmand, A. (2001), “Globalization, the State and Public Administration: A Theoretical Analysis with Policy Implications for Developmental States”, Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 1: 437-463.
• Farazmand, A. (2006), “Global Administrative Reforms and Transformation of Governance and Public Administration”, Handbook of Globalization, Governance, and Public Administration, Edited by Ali Farazmand Jack Pinkowski, London and Newyork: CRC Press.
• Farazmand, A. (2010), “Bureaucracy and Democracy: A Theoretical Analysis”, Public Organization Review, 10:245–258.
• Flinders, M. (2001), The Politics of Accountability in the Modern State, Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Fuller, D. and Bet R. (1993), “Improving Public Sector Accountability and Strategic Decision-Making”, Journal of Public Administration, 52: 2.
• Hodge, G. (2009), “Accountability”, in Phillip Anthony O’Hara (Ed),. International Encyclopedia of Public Policy Volume 3: Public Policy and Political Economy, Gperu, Perth: Australia.
• Hodge, G., and Coghill, K. (2007), “Accountability in the Privatized State”, Governance, 20(4), 675-702.
• Ince, M. (2016). “A Critique of Agonistic Politics”, International Journal of Ži ek Studies, Volume 10, Number 1. Available at: http://zizekstudies.org/ index.php/IJZS/ issue/view/49.
• Ince, M. (2017). “Supreme Audit Institutions: A Vanishing Mediator for Democracy?”, International Public Management Review, Volume 18, Number 1.
• Available at: https://zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/view/95/378 Ince, M. and Taner A. (2017), “The Globalization and the Implications for Public Accountability: Turkey Case”, 3rd International Congress on Political, Economic and Social Studies (ICPESS), 09-11 Nov. 2017.
• Jenkins R. (2007), “The Role of Political Institutions in Promoting Accountability”, Performance Accountability and Combating Corruption, ed. Anwar Shah, Washington, D.C., The World Bank.
• Kim, P. S. (2009), “Enhancing Public Accountability for Developing Countries: Major Constraints and Strategies”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68: S89–S100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00626.x
• Korten, D. (2001), When Corporations Rule the World, Westport: Kumarian P. Madison, J. (1981), “Federalist 10” in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, eds. The Federalist Papers (1787), New York: Penguin.
• Mashaw, J. L. (2006), “Accountability and Institutional Design”, In Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, ed. M. W. Dowdle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 115–156.
• Maskin E. and Tirole J. (2004), “The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government”, Accountability in Government, Vol. 94 No. 4.
• Mouffe, C. (2006), On the Political, London: Routledge.
• Mulgan, R. (2000), “Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept”, Public Administration, 78 (3): 555-573.
• Mulgan, R. (2003), Holding Power to Account Accountability in Modern Democracies, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mulgan, R. (2008), “Public Sector Reform in New Zealand: Issues of Public Accountability”, Public Administration Quarterly 32(1):1–32.
• Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1993), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, New York, N.Y: Plume.
• Salawu, R. O. and Agbeja, O. (2007), “Auditing and Accountability Mechanism in the Public Sector”, The International Journal of Applied Economics and Finance, 1: 45-54.
• Stewart, J. D. (1984), “The Role of Information in Public Accountability”, Issues in Public Sector Accounting, J. D. Stewart, A. Hopwood and C. Tomkins, Philip Allen, Oxford.
• Waldo, D. (1992), The Enterprise of Public Administration, Novato: Chandler and Sharp.
• Willems, T. (2014), “Democratic Accountability in Public–Private Partnerships: The Curious Case of Flemish School Infrastructure”, Public Administration, 92: 340–358. doi: 10.1111/padm.12064
• Woods, N. (2006), The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and their Borrowers, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.