MAX WEBER: BUREAUCRACY THEORY AND ACCOUNTING APPROACH

Öz

Among Weber's many theories, especially the theory of bureaucracy, although it is often used on the basis of management discipline, is still reflected in many different disciplines today. In this theory, where concepts such as division of labour, hierarchy, specialization and objective evaluation are emphasized, certain notions and their relations that seem to develop in complex bureaucratic structures are discussed. The discipline of accounting is also among the disciplines that have common peculiarities with the theory of bureaucracy. In the sense of a scientific discipline, in addition to the fact that some principles such as money measurement and reliability, which are among the basic principles of accounting and can be explained by the aforementioned theory, there are phenomena that can be explained by bureaucracy theory such as the importance of certification and retention of documents in accounting as a profession. While rationalism is a concept that emphasizes objectivity and logic, a closeness can be established between these two concepts because the outputs are put forward as numbers calculated in an unbiased way in accounting. Financial statements, footnotes and all reports are issued within the framework of certain accounting standards. This is in line with the fact that the rational bureaucracy emphasized in the theory of bureaucracy gains its legitimacy through written rules. The fact that these and similar sociological theories are still valid today proves that it is possible to evaluate theories from different angles with studies on various times, fields, perspectives and disciplines and to reach rich results in this way.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Accounting
• Bureucracy Theory
• Max Weber
• Sociology.

MAX WEBER: BÜROKRASİ TEORİSİ VE MUHASEBE YAKLAŞIMI

Öz

Weber’in birçok teorisi gibi bürokrasi teorisi de işletme disiplini çerçevesinde sıklıkla konu ediliyor olsa da günümüzde bu teorinin birçok farklı disiplinde de yansımaları görülebilmektedir. İş bölümü, hiyerarşi, uzmanlaşma, objektif değerlendirme gibi konseptlerin vurgulandığı bürokrasi teorisinde, karmaşık bürokratik yapılarda geliştiği söylenen belirli kavramlar ve bu kavramlar arasındaki ilişkiler konu edinilmiştir. Muhasebe disiplini, bürokrasi teorisi ile paralellik taşıyan yönlere sahip disiplinler arasındadır. Bilimsel açıdan muhasebenin temel prensipleri arasında yer alan parayla ölçülme ile tarafsızlık ve belgelendirmenin bahsi geçen teori ile açıklanabiliyor olmasının yanı sıra, mesleki anlamda muhasebede vurgulanan belgelendirmenin ve belgeleri muhafazanın önemi, alansal uzmanlaşma ve hiyerarşi gibi olgular bu teori ile açıklanabilmektedir. Rasyonalizm objektivite ve mantığı vurgulayan bir kavramken, muhasebede çıktılar tarafsız bir şekilde hesaplanan sayılar olarak ortaya konduğu için bu iki kavram arasında yakınlık kurulabilmektedir. Finansal tablolar, dipnotlar ve tüm raporlar belli muhasebe standartları çerçevesinde düzenlenmektedir. Bu da bürokrasi teorisinde vurgulanan rasyonel bürokrasinin meşruiyetini yazılı kurallarla kazanıyor olması ile paralellik taşımaktadır. Bu ve benzeri sosyolojik teorilerin günümüzde halen geçerliliğini sürdürüyor olması, farklı zaman, alan, bakış açısı ve disiplinler bağlamında yapılacak çalışmalar ile teorilerin farklı açılardan değerlendirilmelerinin ve bu şekilde zengin sonuçlara ulaşmanın mümkünatını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bürokrasi Teorisi
• Max Weber
• Muhasebe
• Sosyoloji.

Kaynakça

1. 1. AKCAKAYA, M. (2016). Weber'in bürokrasi kuramının bugünü ve geleceği [The present and future of Weber's theory of bureaucracy]. Gazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 3(8), 275-295. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kaytek/issue/64162/927834
2. 2. BEETHAM, D. (1991). Max Weber and the legitimacy of the modern state. Analyse & Kritik, 13(1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-1991-0102
3. 3. COCKERHAM, W. C., ABEL, T., & LÜSCHEN, G. (1993). Max Weber, formal rationality, and health lifestyles. Sociological Quarterly, 34(3), 413-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00119.x
4. 4. COCKERHAM, W.C. (2015). Max Weber: Bureaucracy, formal rationality and the modern hospital. In: Collyer, F. (Eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Social Theory in Health, Illness and Medicine. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137355621_8
5. 5. COLIGNON, R. & COVALESKI, M. (1991). A Weberian framework in the study of accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(2), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90010-C
6. 6. DASH, S. S. & PADHI, M. (2020). Relevance of Max Weber’s rational bureaucratic organizations in modern society. Management Revue, 31(1), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2020-1-81
7. 7. DERKS, H. (2008). Religion, capitalism and the rise of double-entry bookkeeping. Accounting, Business & Financial History, 18(2), 187-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585200802058735
8. 8. DOGAN, K. C. (2020). Max Weber’de patrimonyalizm ve bürokrasi kavramları: Antik ve Çin İmparatorluğu üzerine analizler [Patrimonialism and bureaucracy concepts in Max Weber: Analysis on Antique and the Chinese Empire]. Kafkas University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 11(21), 410-433. . https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2020.019

9. 9. GHOSH, P. (2006). Max Weber and William James: ‘Pragmatism', psychology, religion. Max Weber Studies, 6(1), 243-280. https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2005/2/6
10. 10. GIDDENS, A. (1973). Capitalism and modern social theory: An analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber (24th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
11. 11. GOLDSTEIN, W. S. (2009). Patterns of secularization and religious rationalization in Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Implicit Religion, 12(2), 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.v12i2.135
12. 12. GOULDNER, A. W. (1955). Metaphysical pathos and the theory of bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 49(2), 496-507. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951818
13. 13. GONC SAVRAN, T., GUNES, F., SUGUR, S., & GULLUPINAR, F. (2018). Klasik sosyoloji tarihi [History of classical sociology] (1st ed.). No. 2685, Anadolu University Press.
14. 14. HEISKALA, R. (2001). Theorizing power: Weber, Parsons, Foucault and Neostructuralism. Social Science Information, 40(2), 241-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901801040002003
15. 15. HOPF, T. (2010). The logic of habit in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 16(4), 539-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110363502
16. 16. KEYES, C. F. (2002). Weber and anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 233-255. https://doi.org/10.15543/maxweberstudies.21.1.67
17. 17. KING, R. (1980). Weberian perspectives and the study of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569800010102
18. 18. LAI, J. (2015). “Patrimonial bureaucracy” and Chinese law: Max Weber’s legacy and its limits. Modern China, 41(1), 40-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700414557423
19. 19. LAZARSFELD, P. F., & OBERSCHALL, A. R. (1965). Max Weber and empirical social research. American Sociological Review, 30(2), 185-199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091563
20. 20. MOMMSEN, W. J. (2000). Max Weber's “grand sociology”: The origins and composition of wirtschaft und gesellschaft. soziologie. History and Theory, 39(3), 364-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/0018-2656.00136
21. 21. MOMMSEN, W. J., & OSTERHAMMEL, J. (2013). Max Weber and his contemporaries (3rd ed.). Routledge.
22. 22. NAH, D. (2021). Hegel, Weber, and bureaucracy. Critical Review, 33(3-4), 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2021.2006900
23. 23. OZDEMIR, G. (2014). Weberyan anlamda Türklerde otorite ve meşruiyet ilişkisi (15. Yüzyıl Osmanlı dönemine kadar) [The relationship between authority and legitimacy in Turks from A Weberian perspective]. Journal of Academic Inquiries, 9(2), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.17550/aid.72794
24. 24. PENG, Y. (2005). Lineage networks, rural entrepreneurs, and Max Weber. In Entrepreneurship. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
25. 25. PETERS, B. G. (2011). The politics of bureaucracy: An introduction to comparative public administration (5th ed.). Routledge.
26. 26. ROWLINSON, M., TOMS, S., & WILSON, J. (2006). Legitimacy and the capitalist corporation: Cross-cutting perspectives on ownership and control. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(5), 681-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2003.10.006
27. 27. SAMIER, E. (2002). Weber on education and its administration: Prospects for leadership in a rationalized world. Educational Management & Administration, 30(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211X020301006
28. 28. SAMUELSSON, K. (2020). Religion and economic action: The Protestant ethic, the rise of capitalism and the abuses of scholarship. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487583620
29. 29. SPENCER, M. E. (1970). Weber on legitimate norms and authority. The British Journal of Sociology, 21(2), 123-134. https://doi.org/10.2307/588403
30. 30. SPENCER, M. E. (1979). The social psychology of Max Weber. Sociological Analysis, 40(3), 240-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/588403
31. 31. THE LAW 213 ON TAX PROCEDURES. (1985, December 11). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/18955.pdf
32. 32. THE LAW 3568 ON CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY AND SWORN-IN CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY. (1989, June 13). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/20194.pdf
33. 33. TURNER, B. S. (1998). Weber and Islam (7th ed.). Psychology Press.
34. 34. WEBER, M. (1913). Ueber einige kategorien der verstehenden soziologie [On some categories of interpretive sociology]. Rivista di Filosofia, 4(a).
35. 35. WEBER, M. (1995). Toplumsal ve ekonomik örgütlenme kuramı [The theory of social and economic organization]. (O. Ozankaya, Trans.). İmge Publications, (Original work published 1922).
36. 36. WEBER, M. (2013). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (S. Kalberg, Trans.). Routledge, (Original work published 1930).
37. 37. WEBER, M. (2012). Ekonomi ve toplum [Economy and society] (1st ed.). (L. Boyacı, Trans.). Yarın Publications, (Original work published 1921).
38. 38. WREN, D. A., & BEDEIAN, A. G. (2020). The Evolution of management thought (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
39. 39. YAYLA, H. E. (2010). Muhasebenin Sosyolojik Temelleri (1st ed.). Gazi Bookstore.
40. 40. YILMAZ, V., & TELSAC, C. (2021). Yerel yönetimler ve katılım [Local governments and participation]. Journal of Suleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, (40), 235-254. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1737930
41. 41. ZURNDORFER, H. T. (2004). Confusing Confucianism with capitalism: culture as impediment and/or stimulus to Chinese economic development. Third Conference of the Global History Development Network. Konstanz, Germany.