MÜŞTERİ VATANDAŞA KARŞI: NEOLİBERAL DEREGULASYON ANLAYIŞININ DOĞASI VE ZAAFLARI

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 4, 335 - 347, 31.12.2021

Aziz Tuncer Mustafa Aykaç

Öz

II. Dünya savaşından sonra ekonomik kalkınma ve geniş sosyal hizmetler sunumu bağlamında kaydadeğer başarılara imza atan hiyerarşik koordinasyon ve Keynesyen müdahaleci anlayış 1970’lerin başlarında ise idari hantallık, ekonomik kötü performans ve mali açıkların sebebi olarak görülmekteydi. Neoliberal düşünceler üzerine kurulu yeni kamu işletmeciliği bu kötü sonuçların devletin piyasaya müdahalesi sonucu piyasanın dinamizmini kaybetmiş olmasından kaynaklı olduğunu iddia etmekteydi. Ayrıca devletin pek çok kamu hizmetini sunarken tekelci konumundan ötürü hizmetlerin tekdüze olduğunu ve vatandaş taleplerini göz önünde bulundurmadığını oysa bu hizmetlerin özel sektör aktörleri tarafından sunulması durumunda hizmetlerin çeşitleneceğini, hizmet kalitesinin artacağını ve müşteri taleplerine öncelik verileceğini iddia ediyordu. Bu vaadlerin gerçekleşmesinin teminatı olarak piyasa faaliyetlerinin rekabet ekseninde gerçekleşmesini gösteriyordu. 1980lerin başlarından itibaren üstünlük kazanmaya başlayan neoliberal düşüncelerin sonucu olarak yoğun özelleştirmeler ile pek çok kamu mülkiyeti özelleştirilirken daha önce devlet tarafından sunulan çok sayıdaki kamu hizmeti özel sektöre devredildi. Ancak piyasa aktörlerinin temel saiki kar maksimizasyonu idi ve sunulan hizmetler Weberyen dönemin aksine bütün vatandaşlara değil sadece hizmet ücretini ödeyebilenlere sunulmaktaydı. Ayrıca piyasa oyuncuları bir araya gelerek ortak fiyat belirleme veya büyük oyuncular küçük oyuncuları batırma yoluyla piyasaya hükmederek adil rekabetin gereğinden uzak faaliyetler gösterebiliyorlardı ki bu piyasanın kamu yararına zarar verdiği inancını güçlendirmeye başladı. Ayrıca çeşitli hizmetler özel sektöre devredilmiş olmasına rağmen bu alanlarda yaşanan sorunlardan hala devlet sorumlu tutulmaktaydı ve bu devletin meşruiyetini zayıflatmaktaydı. Devletin piyasadan çekilmesi sonucu ortaya çıkan düzenleme açığı devletin sürece dâhil olmasının gerekliliğini gösterdi ki bu makale devletin düzenleyici rollerle piyasaya tekrar dönmesini gerektiren dönemi ve bu dönemin arka planını anlatmaya çalışmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoliberalizm, Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği, Kamu Hizmetleri, Özelleştirme, Piyasa Başarısızlığı

CUSTOMER VERSUS CITIZEN: THE NATURE AND FAILURE OF NEOLIBERAL DEREGULATION

Öz

Hierarchical coordination and Keynesian interventionist understanding, which achieved remarkable successes in the context of economic development and delivering a wide range of basic services after World War II, were seen as the cause of administrative inefficiency, poor economic performance, and financial deficits in the early 1970s. The proponents of New Public Management, based on neoliberal ideas, claimed that these failures stemmed from the state's intervention in the market, which caused the loss of market dynamism. They also claimed that while the state provided many public services, due to its monopolistic position, the services were provided in a monolithic way, and the demands of the citizens were not taken into account, whereas if these services are provided by the private sector, the services will be diversified, the service quality will increase and customer demands will be given priority. According to neoliberal thought, the realization of customer empowerment could only be realized through market mechanisms on the axis of competition. As a result of increasing neoliberal prominence in the early 1980s, many public properties were privatized, and many public services previously provided by the state were transferred to the private sector. However, the main motive of the market actors was profit maximization, and, unlike the Weberian period, services were delivered not to all citizens but only to the ones who could pay the service fee. In addition, market players could perform some activities contradicting the expectations about positive outcomes of competition. In order to dominate the market, the market players came together and set common prices, and giant ones eliminated small players, which initiated the emergence of the belief that the market could harm the public interest. In spite of the fact that various services were transferred to the private sector, the state was still held responsible for the problems experienced in these areas, which weakened the legitimacy of the state. The regulation deficit that emerged as a consequence of the withdrawal of the state from the market displayed the necessity of the state's involvement in the market activities. This article tries to study the period that required the return of the state to the market with regulatory roles and the background of this period.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoliberalism, New Public Management, Public Services, Privatization, Market Failures

Kaynakça

• AYRES, I. and BRAITHWAITE, J. (1992). Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. AUCOIN, P. (1997). “The Design of Public Organizations for The 21st Century: Why Bureaucracy Will Survive in Public Management”. Canadian Public Administration, 40 (2): 290–306.
• BLACK, J., LODGE, M. and THATCHER, M. (2005). Regulatory Innovation: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
• CHRISTENSEN, G. J. (2011). “Competing Theories of Regulatory Governance: Reconsidering Public Interest Theory of Regulation”. In Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, ed. David Levi-Faur, 96-111. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• CHRISTENSEN, R. K., GOERDEL H. T. and NICHOLSON-CROTTY, S. (2011). “Management, Law, and the Pursuit of the Public Good in Public Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (21): i125–i140.
• COCOPS (Coordinating for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the Future). (2013). “Choice and Equality – Citizens’ Switching Behaviour in Liberalized Public Service Markets Across the EU”. Working Paper 10. Sebastian Jilke. http://www.cocops.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/COCOPS_workingpaper_No10.pdf
• DRECHSLER, W. (2009a). “Towards a Neo-Weberian European Union? Lisbon Agenda and Public Administration”. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture (10), 6–21.
• DRECHSLER, W. (2009b). “The Rise and Demise of the New Public Management. Lessons and opportunities for South East Europe.” UDK: Uprava, letnik VII, 005:35(045).
• DRECHSLER, W. (2005). “The Re-Emergence of ‘Weberian’ Public Administration after the Fall of New Public Management: The Central and Eastern European Perspective.” Halduskultuur (6): 94-108.
• DUNN, W. N. and MILLER D. Y. (2007). “A Critique of the New Public Management and the Neo-Weberian State: Advancing a Critical Theory of Administrative Reform”. Public Organization Review (7), 345–358.
• ELIASSEN, K. A. and SITTER N. (2008). Understanding Public Management. Sage Publications.
• GREGORY, R. (2007). “New Public Management and the Ghost of Max Weber: Exorcized or Still Haunting?” In Tom Christensen and Per Laegreid, ed. Transcending New Public Management: The transformation of Public Sector Reforms. Aldershot: Ashgate.
• HANDLER, J. F. (1996). Down from Bureaucracy The Ambiguity of Privatizatıon and Empowerment. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• KING, R. (2007). “The Regulatory State in an Age of Governance: Soft Words and Big Sticks”. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• LEVY, R. (2010). “New Public Management End of an Era?” Public Policy and Administration, 25(2): 234-240.
• LYNN, L. E. Jr. (2008). “What is a Neo-Weberian State? Reflections on a Concept and its Implications”. Draft: 24 January 2008. http://iss.fsv.cuni.cz/ ISS-50-version1-080227_TED1_Lynn_Whats_neo-Weberian_state.pdf
• MAJONE, G. 1997. “From the Positive to the Regulatory State. Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance.” Journal of Public Policy, 17 (2): 139–67.
• OECD. The organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1997). The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform: Synthesis. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD. The organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2009. “Privatisation in the 21st Century: Recent Experiences of OECD Countries Report on Good Practices, Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceofstate-ownedenterprises/ 48476423.pdf
• OLSEN, J. P. (2005). “Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (1): 1-24.
• PAINTER, M. and PIERRE, J. (2005). “Unpacking Policy Capacity: Issues and Themes” In Challenges to State Policy Capacity Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Martin Painter, and Jon Pierre, 1-18,.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• PETERS B. G. (2004). “The Search for Coordination and Coherence in Public Policy: Return to the Center?” http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2004/download/peters_f.pdf
• PETERS, B. G. and PIERRE J. (2000). “Citizens Versus the New Public Management: The Problem of Mutual Empowerment.” Administration & Society, (32): 9-28.
• PIERRE, J. (1995). “The Marketization of the State: Citizens, Consumers and The Emergence of Public Market.” In Governance in a Changing Environment, ed. Guy B. Peters and Donald J. Savoie, 55-81. Montreal and Kingston: Canadian Centre for Management Development and McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• POLLITT, C. and BOUCKAERT. G. (2011). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• RANDMA-LIIV, T. (2008). “New Public Management versus Neo-Weberian State in Central and Eastern Europe” Trans-European Dialogue 1 Towards the Neo-Weberian State? Europe and Beyond. http://iss.fsv.cuni.cz/ISS-50-version1-080227_TED1_RandmaLiiv_NPMvsNWS.pdf
• RHODES, R. A. W. (1994). “The Hollowing Out of the State: The Changing Nature of the Public Service in Britain.” The Political Quarterly, 65 (2): 138-51.
• RICCUCCI, N. M. (2001). “The "Old" Public Management versus the "New" Public Management: Where Does Public Administration Fit in?” Public Administration Review, 61 (2): 172-175.
• SCHICK, A. (2002). “The Performing State: Reflection on an Idea Whose Time Has Come but Whose Implementation Has not.” https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/3423/The%20Performing%20State%3A%20Reflection%20on%20an%20Idea%20Whose%20Time%20Has%20Come%20but%20Whose%20Implementation%20Has%20Not.pdf?sequence=1
• SKELCHER, C. (2000). “Changing Images of The State: Overloaded, Hollowed-out, Congested.” Public Policy and Administration, 15 (3): 1-16.
• SCOTT, C. (2004). “Regulation in The Age of Governance: The Rise of the Post-regulatory State”, In The Politics of Regulation Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance, ed. Jacint Jordana and David Levi-Faur, 145-176. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• SPICER, M. (2004). “Public Administration, the History of Ideas, and the Reinventing Government Movement.” Public Administration Review, 64 (3): 353-362.
• STEWART, J. and WALSH K. (1992): Change in the Management of Public Services. Public Administration, 70 (4): 499-518.
• THOMPSON, G., FRANCES, R. L. and MITCHELL. J. (1991). Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. The Coordination of Social Life. London: Sage Publications.
• THOMPSON, G. (2010). Between Hierarchies and Markets: The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• THYNNE, I. (2006). “Privatisation by Divestment”. In Handbook of Public Policy, ed. Guy B. Peters and Jon Pierre, 379-393. London: Sage Publications.
• VIBERT, F. (2007). The Rise of the Unelected; Democracy and the New Separation of Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• VICKERS, J. (1991). “New Directions for Industrial Policy in The Area of Regulatory Reform”. In Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. The Coordination of Social Life, ed. Thompson Grahame, Jennifer Frances , Rosalind Levacic and Jeremy Mitchell, 163-171. London: Sage publications
• VIDLER, E. and CLARKE. J. (2005). “Creating Citizen-Consumers: New Labour and the Remaking of Public Services.” Public Policy and Administration, 20 (2): 19-37.