SEÇİLMİŞ TÜRK DEVLETLERİNDE DİJİTAL DEVLET YOLUYLA KAMU DEĞERİ YARATIMI: KARŞILAŞTIRMALI KURUMSAL BİR ANALİZ

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye, Kazakistan, Azerbaycan, Özbekistan ve Türkmenistan'da dijital devlet kapasitesinin hangi koşullarda kamu değeri yaratımını mümkün kılabileceğini incelemektedir. Kamu değeri, analitik olarak birbiriyle bağlantılı iki boyutta ele alınmaktadır: dijital hizmetlere erişim ve idari kapasiteyle ilişkili operasyonel değer ile şeffaflık, hesap verebilirlik, kapsayıcılık ve yönetişim kalitesiyle ilişkili normatif değer. Karşılaştırmalı ve kuram yönelimli ikincil veri analizine dayanan araştırmada Birleşmiş Milletler E-Devlet Gelişmişlik Endeksi (EGDI) ve alt bileşenleri (OSI, TII ve HCI); ekonomik göstergeler, insani gelişme, internet erişimi, yolsuzluk algısı ve basın özgürlüğü verileriyle birlikte değerlendirilmiştir. EGDI, gerçekleşmiş kamu değerinin doğrudan ölçümü olarak değil, kamu değeri yaratımını mümkün kılan kapasitenin dolaylı göstergesi olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bulgular, ekonomik kaynakların dijital devlet gelişimini kolaylaştırdığını ancak tek başına belirlemediğini göstermektedir. Türkiye ve Kazakistan görece güçlü dijital kapasiteyi daha yüksek insani gelişme düzeyleriyle birleştirirken, Türkmenistan gelir ve kaynak zenginliğinin kendiliğinden dijital kapasiteye veya normatif kamu değerine dönüşmediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Karşılaştırma ayrıca kurumsal düzenlemeler ve güç ilişkilerinin dijitalleşmenin hizmet kapasitesini genişletmesi ile merkezi yönetişimi güçlendirmesi arasındaki yönelimi koşullandırdığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, kamu değeri yaklaşımını kurumsal teori ve kaynak laneti literatürüyle bütünleştirerek seçilmiş Türk devletlerindeki farklılaşan ve bağlama bağımlı dijital devlet sonuçlarını açıklamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Devlet
• Kamu Değeri
• e-Devlet
• Kaynak Laneti
• Türkî Cumhuriyetler

PUBLIC VALUE CREATION THROUGH DIGITAL GOVERNMENT IN SELECTED TURKIC STATES: A COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

Öz

This study examines the conditions under which digital government capacity can enable public value creation in Türkiye, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Public value is conceptualized through two analytically distinct but connected dimensions: operational value, reflected in access to digital services and administrative capacity, and normative value, reflected in transparency, accountability, inclusion, and governance quality. Based on a comparative and theory-oriented secondary data analysis, the study evaluates the United Nations E-Government Development Index (EGDI) and its subcomponents (OSI, TII, and HCI) together with economic, human development, internet access, corruption perception, and press freedom indicators. The EGDI is treated as a measure of public-value-enabling capacity rather than as a direct measure of realized public value. The findings show that economic resources facilitate digital government development but do not determine it alone. Türkiye and Kazakhstan combine relatively strong digital capacity with higher levels of human development, whereas Turkmenistan demonstrates that income and resource wealth alone do not translate into digital capacity or normative public value. The comparison further indicates that institutional arrangements and power relations condition whether digitalization expands service capacity or reinforces centralized governance. By integrating the public value approach with institutional theory and the resource curse literature, the study explains the divergent and context-dependent results of digital government in selected Turkic states.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Government
• Public Value
• E-Government
• Resource Curse
• Turkic Countries

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Currency.
2. Akçaöz, M. & Akçaöz, V. (2023). Kamu yönetiminde dijitalleşme ve Türkiye’deki dijital devlet uygulamaları. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 9(69), 3648–3660.
3. Auty, R. M. (1993). Sustaining development in mineral economies: The resource curse thesis. Routledge.
4. Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A. & Dzhusupova, Z. (2013). Understanding e-government development barriers in CIS countries and exploring mechanisms for regional cooperation. In A. Kö & E. Francesconi (Eds.), Electronic government and the information systems perspective (pp. 87–101). Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40160-2_8
5. Bhuiyan, S. H. (2010). E-government in Kazakhstan: Challenges and its role to development. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0087-1
6. Bhuiyan, S. H. (2011). Trajectories of e-government implementation for public sector service delivery in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(9), 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.553258
7. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.
8. Deibert, R. J. (2015). Authoritarianism goes global: Cyberspace under siege. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0046

9. Di Giulio, M. & Vecchi, G. (2023). How 'institutionalization' can work: Structuring governance for digital transformation in Italy. Review of Policy Research, 40(3), 406–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12488
10. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
11. Faro, B., Abedin, B. & Cetindamar, D. (2022). Hybrid organizational forms in public sector's digital transformation: A technology enactment approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(6), 1742–1763. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-03-2021-0126
12. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
13. Gurbanov, N., Yagublu, N., Akbarlı, N., & Niftiyev, I. (2022). Digitalization and the COVID-19-led public crisis management: an evaluation of financial sustainability in the Azerbaijan business sector. SocioEconomic Challenges (SEC), 6(3), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.6(3).23-38.2022
14. Haug, N., Dan, S. & Mergel, I. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
15. Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T. & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: an institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
16. Janenova, S. & Knox, C. (2019). Civil service reform in Kazakhstan: trajectory to the 30 most developed countries? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(3), 419-439.
17. John, P., Hale, S., Margetts, H. & Yasseri, T. (2015). Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press.
18. Kalalo, E., Putri, I. N., Mariana, L. & Arifin, A. L. (2023). The influence of public administration science paradigm shift in its realization good governance. Jurnal Inovasi Ilmu Sosial Dan Politik (JISoP), 5(2), 171-178.
19. Karkın, N. & Cezar, A. (2024). The generation of public value through e-participation initiatives: A synthesis of the extant literature. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), Article 101935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101935
20. Karkın, N. & Janssen, M. (2014). Evaluating websites from a public value perspective: A review of Turkish local government websites. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.11.004
21. Karl, T. L. (1997). The paradox of plenty: Oil booms and petro-states. University of California Press. Kassen, M. (2010). E-government in Kazakhstan: Realization and prospects. Southern Illinois University, OpenSIUC, https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pnconfs_2010/24
22. Kassen, M. (2015). E-government as a universal political value. In M. Kassen (Ed.), Understanding systems of e-government (pp. 1–26). Lexington Books.
23. Kassen, M. (2016). E-government in Kazakhstan: A case study of multidimensional phenomena. Routledge. Kassen, M. (2019). Building digital state: Understanding the development of e-government. Online Information Review, 43(2), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2018-0065
24. Knox, C. & Janenova, S. (2019). The e-government paradox in post-Soviet countries. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(6), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2018-0178
25. Kornai, J. (2015). Hungary's U-turn: Retreating from democracy. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 34-48.
26. Kvashina, O., Vinokhodova, I., Belskya, O., Fadeeva, S., & Kudryavtseva, O. (2021). Public management system transformation in the conditions of digitalization. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 93, p. 05005). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219305005
27. Liu, F., Liu, G., Wang, X. & Feng, Y. (2024). Whether digital government alleviates the resource curse? Evidence from resource-based economies. Resources Policy, 90, Article 104811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104811
28. Mettler, T., Miscione, G., Jacobs, C. D. & Guenduez, A. A. (2024). Same same but different: How policies frame societal-level digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), Article 101932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101932
29. Moore, M. H. (1997). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press. Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. PublicAffairs.
30. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. OECD. (2014). Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (OECD/LEGAL/0406). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0406
31. OECD. (2020). The OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en
32. Ospanova, D., Kussainov, D., Suleimanov, A., Kussainov, A. & Abilsheyeva, R. (2018). Problems of administrative law in the system of public administration. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(6), 1255-1271.
33. Perlman, B. J. & Gleason, G. (2007). Cultural determinism versus administrative logic: Asian values and administrative reform in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(12–14), 1327–1342. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701229511
34. Pukhkal, O., Reiterovych, I., Kuprii, T., Sytnyk, S. & Novikov, O. (2023). Analysis of the modern functional field of effective implementation of public control in the system of public administration in Ukraine. Social Policy & Administration, 57(5), 760-769.
35. Ravshanbekov, B. (2024). Transition from Traditional Public Administration to Digital Public Administration and Adaptation of Public Administration to Emerging Technologies. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(5), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.183.
36. Reporters Without Borders. (2023). World press freedom index 2023. https://rsf.org/en/index
37. Ross, M. L. (2012). The oil curse: How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. Princeton University Press.
38. Sachs, J. D. & Warner, A. M. (2001). The curse of natural resources. European Economic Review, 45(4–6), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00125-8
39. Scupola, A. & Mergel, I. (2022). Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), Article 101650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650
40. Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M. & Noci, G. (2021). Digital government transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding factors. International Journal of Information Management, 60, Article 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356
41. Transparency International. (2022). Corruption perceptions index 2022. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
42. Twizeyimana, J. D. & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
43. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). United Nations e-government survey 2022: The future of digital government. United Nations. https://desapublications.un.org/publications/un-e-government-survey-2022
44. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). United Nations e-government survey 2024. United Nations. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb
45. Wang, C., Wang, D. & Deng, X. (2024). Role of digital government interfaces in mitigating the resource curse. Resources Policy, 93, Article 105089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105089
46. World Bank. (2024). World development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
47. Xue, Y., Chen, L., Feng, Z. & Huang, Y. (2024). Breaking the resource curse: Heterogeneous effects of digital government. Resources Policy, 90, Article 104828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104828
48. Zhuk, I., Khaletska, A., Stepura, T., Shchepanskiy, E., Sadova, U. & Pyla, V. (2022). Public administration system in the field of finance under the influence of digitalization. https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.3.2022.11
49. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.