Citizens’ Perceptions of Public Administration Ethics, Public Service Quality and Politicization of Public Organizations: A Study in Diyarbakır

Abstract

Citizens’ satisfaction with public sector has been a focus of interest especially in new public management literature for almost four decades. For this reason, investigating perceptions and evaluations of citizens for public service quality has become more vital for both scholars and practitioners. Field studies in different contexts can provide evidence for new public management scholars to expand theory and for governments to improve current policies and operations in the bureaucracy. Based on these arguments, this study aims to reveal how politicization in public organizations is harmful for ethics in public administration and public service quality and the importance of ethical public administration to increase the quality of public services. Results from a field survey study in Diyarbakır has provided support for the proposed arguments of the study. Citizens’ perceptions about the increased politicization in public organizations have shown negative relationships with ethical public administration and public service quality. Also, support is found for the positive relationship with ethical public administration and public service quality. Theoretical contributions and practical implications of these findings are also discussed with the limitations of field study in the last section.

Keywords

• Public Administration Ethics
• Politicization
• Service Quality
• Diyarbakır

Vatandaşların Kamu Yönetimi Etiği, Kamu Hizmet Kalitesi ve Kamu Kurumlarının Siyasallaşmasına Yönelik Algısı: Diyarbakır’da Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Vatandaşların kamu yönetiminden duyduğu memnuniyet ile ilgili çalışmalar yeni kamu işletmeciliği yazınında neredeyse kırk yıldır incelenen bir konu olmuştur. Vatandaşların kamu hizmet kalitesine dair algı ve değerlendirmelerini araştırmak hem akademisyenler hem de uygulayıcılar için önemli bir durum haline gelmiştir. Konuyla ilgili farklı bağlamlarda gerçekleştirilecek saha çalışmaları yeni kamu işletmeciliği konusunda araştırma yapan akademisyenlere mevcut kuramı genişletme imkanı verirken hükümetlerin de hali hazırdaki politikalarını ve bürokrasideki uygulamalarını geliştirme imkanı sağlayacaktır. Bu önermelerle bağlantılı olarak mevcut çalışma, kamu kurumlarının siyasallaşmasının kamu yönetimi etiği ve kamu hizmet kalitesine nasıl zarar verdiğini ve kamu hizmet kalitesinin artmasında kamu yönetimi etiğinin önemini açıklamayı amaçlamaktadır. Diyarbakır’da anket yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilen bir saha araştırmasından elde edilen bulgular bu önermeleri desteklemiştir. Vatandaşların kamu kurumlarının siyasallaşmasının artmasına yönelik algısı ile kamu yönetimi etiği ve kamu hizmet kalitesi algısı arasında olumsuz ilişkiler tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kamu yönetimi etiği ile kamu hizmet kalitesi arasında olumlu yönde bir ilişki olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmanın teorik katkıları ve uygulamaya yansımaları ile ilgili bulgular saha araştırmasının kısıtları ile birlikte son bölümde tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Kamu Yönetimi Etiği
• Siyasallaşma
• Hizmet Kalitesi
• Diyarbakır
• Public Administration Ethics
• Politicization
• Service Quality
• Diyarbakır

References

1. Arslan, A. (2009). Felsefeye giriş. Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
2. Bailey, S. K. (1964). Ethics and the public service. Public Administration Review. 24(4): 234–243.
3. Beeri, I., Dayan, R., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Werner, S. B. (2013). Advancing ethics in public organizations: The impact of an ethics program on employees’ perceptions and behaviors in a regional council. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 59-78.
4. Brown, P. G. (1986). Ethics and education for the public service in a liberal state. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 6(1): 56–68.
5. Çevikbaş, R. (2006). Yönetimde etik ve yozlaşma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1), 265-289.
6. Cevizci, A. (2002). Etiğe giriş. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
7. Collins, B. K., Kim, H. J., & Tao, J. (2019). Managing for citizen satisfaction: Is good not enough?. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 5(1), 21-38.
8. Cooper, C. A. (2021). Politicization of the bureaucracy across and within administrative traditions. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(7), 564-577.

9. Cooper, T. L. (2004). Big questions in administrative ethics: A need for focused, collaborative effort. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 395-407.
10. Dahlström, C., & Niklasson, B. (2013). The politics of politicization in Sweden. Public Administration, 91(4), 891-907.
11. Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., & Teorell, J. (2012). The merit of meritocratization: politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 656-668.
12. De Graaf, G., Huberts, L., & Strüwer, T. (2018). Integrity violations and corruption in Western public governance: empirical evidence and reflection from the Netherlands. Public Integrity, 20(2), 131-149.
13. Dinçer, Ö. (1997). Kamu yönetiminde davranışların siyasallaşması ve yolsuzluk. Yeni Türkiye Dergisi, (14), 1112-1118. Eryılmaz B. 2010. Kamu yönetimi, Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları.
14. Eryılmaz, B. and Biricikoğlu H. (2011). Kamu yönetiminde hesap verebilirlik ve etik. İş Ahlakı Dergisi. 4(7): 19–45.
15. Evans, P., & Rauch, J. E. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian" state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748-765.
16. Feldheim, M. A., & Wang, X. (2004). Ethics and public trust: Results from a national survey. Public Integrity, 6(1), 63-75.
17. Frankena W. K. (1988). Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Press.
18. Fuenzalida, J., & Riccucci, N. M. (2019). The effects of politicization on performance: the mediating role of HRM practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 544-569.
19. Gilmour, J. B., & Lewis, D. E. (2006). Political appointees and the competence of federal program management. American Politics Research, 34(1), 22-50.
20. Goss, R. P. (1996). A Distinct Public Administration Ethics?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 6(4): 573–597.
21. Gowan, M., S., Ibarreche, S., & Lackey, C. (2001). Service quality in a public agency: same expectations but different perceptions by employees, managers, and customers. Journal of Quality Management, 6(2), 275-291.
22. Gürbüz, S. ve Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
23. Harper, S. J. (2009). Ethics versus morality: a problematic divide. Philosophy and Social Criticism. 35(9): 1063–1077.
24. Hollibaugh Jr, G. E. (2015). Naïve cronyism and neutral competence: patronage, performance, and policy agreement in executive appointments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 341-372.
25. Huberts, L. W. (2018). Integrity: what it is and why it is important, Public Integrity, 20(1), 18-32.
26. Josephson, M. (1989). Power, politics and ethics: ethical obligations and opportunities of government service. California: Marina Del Rey Press.
27. Kakabadse A, Korac-Kakabadse N. and Kouzmin A (2003) Ethics, values and behaviors: comparison of three case studies examining the paucity of leadership in government. Public Administration, 81(3), 477–508.
28. Kılavuz, R. (2002). Yönetsel etik ve halkın yönetsel etik oluşumuna etkileri. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 26(2): 255–266.
29. Kim, H., Jung, H., Kim, S. Y. (2022). Does politicization influence senior public officials’ work attitudes? Different forms and effects of politicization in the civil service. Public Management Review, 24(7), 1100-1123.
30. Kuçuradi, I. (2004). Yunus aran birlikteliği konferansı. Felsefe ve Etik, İstanbul, 1–14.
31. Lewis, B. R., & Mitchell, V. W. (1990). Defining and measuring the quality of customer service. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 8(6), 11 – 17.
32. Lewis, C. W., & Gilman, S. C. (2012). The ethics challenge in public service. a problem-solving guide, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
33. Lewis, D. E. (2008). The politics of presidential appointments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34. Linde, J. (2012). Why feed the hand that bites you? perceptions of procedural fairness and system support in post-communist democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 51(3), 410-434.
35. Marien, S., & Werner, H. (2019). Fair treatment, fair play? the relationship between fair treatment perceptions, political trust and compliant and cooperative attitudes cross-nationally. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 72-95.
36. Meyer, D. F. (2018). Predictors of good governance and effective government management: the case of Poland. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 18(1), 206-217.
37. Meyer-Sahling, J. H., & Mikkelsen, K. S. (2016). Civil service laws, merit, politicization, and corruption: The perspective of public officials from five East European countries. Public Administration, 94(4), 1105-1123.
38. Mizrahi, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Cohen, N. (2021a). How well do they manage a crisis? the government's effectiveness during the covid-19 pandemic. Public Administration Review, 1-11.
39. Mizrahi, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Cohen, N. (2021b). Drivers of trust in emergency organizations networks: The role of readiness, threat perceptions and participation in decision making. Public Management Review, 23(2), 233-253.
40. Moynihan, D. P., & Roberts, A. S. (2010). The triumph of loyalty over competence: The Bush administration and the exhaustion of the politicized presidency. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 572-581.
41. Mulgan, R. (2007). Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice. Public Administration, 85(3), 569-586.
42. OECD, (2000). Trust in government ethics measures in oecd countries. Paris. https://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/48994450.pdf (27.12.2021)
43. Öktem, K. & Ömürgönülşen U. (2005, November). Kamu yönetı̇mı̇nde etı̇k çalışmalarına yönelik genel bir çerçeve arayışı. Siyasette ve Yönetimde Etik Sempozyumu, Sakarya. 231–237.
44. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
45. Peker, Ö. (1996), Toplam kalite yönetimi ve kamu hizmetinde kalite, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 5(6), 43-57.
46. Peters, B. G. (2013). Politicization: What is it and why should we care?. In Civil servants and politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
47. Peters, G. B., & Pierre, J. (2004). Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective. a quest for control, London: Routledge.
48. Plant, J. F. (2018). Responsibility in public administration ethics. Public Integrity, 20, 33-45.
49. Prasad, R. (2010). Applying Ethics: Modes, Motivesand Levels of Commitment, Shashi Motilal (Ed), Applied ethics and human rights: conceptual analysis and contextual applications. (pp. 3-32). Delhi: Anthem Press,
50. Rha, J. Y. (2012). Customer satisfaction and qualities in public service: an intermediary customer perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 32(12), 1883-1900.
51. Rhee, S. K., & Rha, J. Y. (2009). Public service quality and customer satisfaction: exploring the attributes of service quality in the public sector. The Service Industries Journal, 29(11), 1491-1512.
52. Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. Rothstein, B., Samanni, M., & Teorell, J. (2012). Explaining the welfare state: power resources vs. the quality of Government. European Political Science Review, 4(1), 1-28.
54. Rouban, L. (2005). Politicization of the civil service, in G. Peters and J. Pierre (Eds), Handbook of Public Administration. (pp. 310–320), London: Sage.
55. Sezer, Ö. (2008). Kamu hizmetlerinde müşteri vatandaş odaklılık: Türkiye’de kamu hizmeti anlayışı açısından bir değerlendirme. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(8), 147-172.
56. Ståhlberg, K. (1987). The politicization of public administration: notes on the concept, causes and consequences of politicization. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 53(3), 363-382.
57. Suzuki, K., & Demircioglu, M. A. (2021). Is impartiality enough? government impartiality and citizens' perceptions of public service quality. Governance, 34(3), 727-764.
58. Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176-183.
59. Svara, J. H., Braga, A., de Lancer, P., Massiah, M., Gilman, S., Ward, J., & Shields, W. (2015). Implementing the ASPA code of ethics: workbook and assessment guide, 1-26. https://www.aspanet.org/ASPADocs/Membership/Ethics_Assessment_Guide.pdf (14.12.2021)
60. TÜİK (2020). https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr (03.01.2022)
61. TÜİK (2021) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2020-37210 (03.01.2022)
62. Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 745–760.
63. Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Service quality, administrative process, and citizens' evaluation of local government in the US. Public Management Review, 17(3), 425–442.
64. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Citizens' perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 285-305.
65. Walsh, K. (1991). Quality and public services. Public Administration, 69(4), 503-514.
66. Wisniewski, M. (2001). Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public sector services. Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 380-388.
67. Yılmaz, A., & Kılavuz, R. (2002). Türk kamu bürokrasisinin işlemsel sorunları üzerine notlar. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 3(2), 17-31.
68. Yüksel, C. (2006). Kamu yönetiminde etik ve Türk kamu yönetiminde etik hakkında yeni yasal düzenlemeler. Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, 64(2), 167-211.
69. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.