Bürokrasi-Demokrasi İlişkisi ve Bürokratların Seçilmişlerce Kontrolü Sorunu

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Bürokrasi-Demokrasi İlişkisi ve Bürokratların Seçilmişlerce Kontrolü Sorunu

Öz

Bu çalışmada uluslararası literatürde bürokrasinin siyasi/demokratik kontrolü ile ilgili olarak yapılan bazı tartışmalar, ortaya atılan teoriler ve geliştirilen modeller ele alınacaktır. Çalışma idare hukuku ve anayasa hukukunda öngörülen meclis soruşturması, kamu denetçisi gibi idarenin denetlenme biçimlerine fazla değinmeksizin, konuyla ilgili teorik tartışmalara odaklanmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bürokrasinin demokratik kontrolünün nasıl sağlanacağı uzun zamandır tartışılan bir konudur; asil-vekil kuramı, temsili bürokrasi yaklaşımı, idari prosedürler ve bürokrasinin politizasyonu bu sorun için önerilen çözümler arasında sayılabilir. Bunların her birinin ideal bürokrasi tipinden uzaklaşma riski taşıdığı bir gerçektir, ancak bu, halkın egemenliğinin idareye yansıması için ödenmesi gereken bir bedel olarak kabul edilebilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bürokrasi, Demokratik Kontrol, İdare, Politizasyon

Kaynakça

1. ATALAY, Mehmet (2008), Kamu Yönetimi Disiplininde Waldo Düşüncesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
2. AUCOIN, Peter (1996), “Political Science and Democratic Governance”, Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 29, No. 4 (December),ss. 643-660.
3. BALLA, Steven J. (1998), “Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy”, American Political Science Review, 92:3, September, ss. 663-673.
4. BERTELİ, Anthony (2006), The Role of Political Ideology in the Structural Design of New Governance Agencies, Public Administration Review; Jul/Aug; 66: 4; Research Library, ss. 583-595.
5. BRECHT, Arnold (1937), “Bureaucratic Sabotage”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Cilt 189, Improved Personnel in Government Service (Ocak), ss. 48- 57.
6. BRESSER-PREIRA, Luiz Carlos (2004), Democracy and Public Management Reform: Building the Republican State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. DAHL, Robert (1947), The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems, Public Administration Review 7:I-II, ss. 60-76.
8. DAHL, Robert (1961), Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven, CT ve London, Yale University Press.

9. DAY, Patricia A., & KLEIN, Rudolph (1987), Accountabilities, London: Tavistock.
10. DENHARDT, Robert B. ve DENHARDT, Janet V. (2007), The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering, New York ve Londra, M.E. Sharpe Inc.
11. DREYFUS, Françoise (2007), Bürokrasinin İcadı: Fransa, Büyük Britanya ve ABD‟de Devlete Hizmet Etmek, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
12. DUDLEY, Larkin (1997). „„New Insights into Old Theories: Contracting Relationships and the Separation of Powers‟‟, Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 20, ss. 129–144.
13. ERYILMAZ, Bilal (1993), “Kamu Bürokrasisinin Denetlenmesinde Yeni Gelişmeler”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 26:4, Aralık, ss. 81-106.
14. FARAZMAND, Ali (2010a), Bureaucracy, Democracy and Public Administration: Editor‟s Brief Introduction to the Symposium, Public Organization Review, 10:3, ss. 205-207.
15. FARAZMAND, Ali (2010b), Bureaucracy and Democracy: A Theoretical Analysis, Public Organization Review, 10:3, ss. 245-258.
16. GOODNOW, Frank (1900), Politics and Administration, New York:Macmillan.
17. GREVE, Carsten (1999), “Quangos in Denmark and Scandinavia: Trends, Problems and Perspectives, içinde Matthew V. Flinders ve Martin J. Smith (editörler), Quangos, Accountability and Reform: The Politics of Quasi-Government, Basingstoke, İngiltere: Macmillan, ss. 83-108.
18. GRUBER, Judith E. (1987), Controlling Bureaucracies: Dilemmas in Democratic Governance, University of California Press, ABD.
19. GULICK, Luther (1937), “Science, Values and Public Administration”, Papers on the Science of Administration, der. Luther Gulick & Lyndall Urwick, Institute of Public Administration.
20. GÜLER, Birgül Ayman (2005), Kamu Personeli: Sistem ve Yönetim, İmge Yayınevi, Ankara.
21. HABERMAS, Jurgen (2002), Küreselleşme ve Milli Devletlerin Akıbeti, (Çev: Medeni Beyaztaş), Bakış Yayınları, İstanbul.
22. HERRING, E. Pendelton (1936), Public Administration and the Public Interest, New York and London : McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
23. HOOD, Christopher, JAMES, Oliver, PETERS, B. Guy, ve SCOTT, Colin (2004). Controlling modern government, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
24. KINGSLEY, Donald (1944), Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service, Yellow Springs: Antioch Press.
25. KRANE, Dale (2006), “Democracy, Public Administrators and Public Policy”, içinde Richard C. Box (der.), Democracy and Public Administration, Armonk, New York: M.E.Sharpe, Inc., ss. 21-39.
26. KRANE, Deborah ve MARSHALL, Gary S. (2003), “Democracy and Public Policy”, içinde Jack Rabin (der.), Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, New York: Marcel Dekker, ss. 1-7.
27. LEVITAN, David M. (1943) Political Ends and Administrative Means, Public Administration Review 3, ss. 353-359.
28. LEVITAN, David M. (1946), “The responsibility of administrative officials in a democratic society”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 4 (December), ss. 562-598.
29. LOWI, Theodore (1979) The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (2. Baskı), W.W.Norton&Company, New York & Londra.
30. MEIER, Kenneth J. (1975), “Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis”, The American Political Science Review, 69, s. 526-542.
31. MEIER, Kenneth J. (1997), “Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy”, Public Administration Review, 57:3, May/Jun, ss. 193-199.
32. MEİER, Kenneth J. ve O‟TOOLE, Larry J. (2006), Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
33. MITNICK, Barry M. (1973), “Fiduciary Rationality and Public Policy: The Theory of Agency and Some Consequences”, Amerikan Siyaset Bilimi Derneği‟nde sunulan bildiri, New Orleans.
34. NIEBUHR, Karl Paul Reinhold (1944), The children of light and the children of darkness, Macmillan 1985 baskısı.
35. NISKANEN, William (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago: Aldine.
36. OTT, J. Steven, BOONYARAK, Pitima ve DICKE, Lisa A. (2001), “Public Sector Reform, Moral and Ethical Accountability, and Performance Measurement Technology.” Public Productivity and Management Review, 3 (3), ss.277-289.
37. ÖZCAN, Ömer (2006), “Kamu yönetiminde şeffaflaşma ve bunun idari usul yasa tasarısı açısından değerlendirilmesi” (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
38. PETERS, Guy B. (2001). The Politics of Bureaucracy, Routledge, Londra-New York.
39. PETERS, B. Guy (2010), “Bureaucracy and Democracy”, Public Organization Review, 10, ss. 209- 222.
40. PETERS, B. Guy ve PIERRE, Jon (2004), “Politicization of the Civil Service: Concepts, Causes, Consequences”, içinde B. Guy Peters ve Jon Pierre (editörler), The Politicizaiton of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: The Quest for Control, London&New York: Routledge / Taylor&Francis Group, ss. 1-12.
41. PHARR, S., & Putnam, R. D. (2000). Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42. ROMZEK, Barbara S. ve HENDRICKS, J. Stephen (1982), “Organizational Involvement and Representative Bureaucracy: Can We Have It Both Ways?”, The American Political Science Review, 76, ss. 75-82.
43. ROSENBLOOM, David H. ve MCCURDY, Howard E. (2007), “Introduction: Dwight Waldo‟s - The Administrative State-”, in David H. Rosenbloom and Howard E. McCurdy (eds), Revisiting Waldo’s Administrative State: Constancy and Change in Public Administration, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
44. SUBRAMANIAM, V. (1967), “Representative Bureaucracy: A Reassessment”, American Political Science Review, 61, ss. 1010-1019.
45. SULEIMAN, Ezra N. (2003), Dismantling the Democratic State, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
46. SVARA, James H. (2001), „„The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarily of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration‟‟, Public Administration Review 61(2), ss. 176–182.
47. TIEREAN, O. ve BRATUCU, G. (2009), The Evolution of the Concept of Bureaucracy, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Vol.2 (51), s. 245-250.
48. VON MISES, Ludwig (2007), Bureaucracy (1944 tarihli Bureaucracy başlıklı orijinal eserin tekrar basımı), editör: Bettina Bien Greaves, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, ABD.
49. WALDO, Dwight (1952), “Development of Theory of Democratic Administration”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 46, No. 1 (March), ss. 81-103
50. WALDO, Dwight (1984), The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration, 2nd. Ed., New York: Holmes&Meier.
51. WATERMAN, Richard W. ve MEIER, Kenneth J. (1998), “Principal-Agent Models: An Expansion?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8:2, ss. 173-202.
52. WATTENBERG, M. P., & Dalton, R. J. (2002). Parties without Partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. WEBER, Max (1978), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (ed.: Guenther Roth ve Claus Wittich), California: University of California Press.
54. WILSON, Woodrow (1887), “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, II:2, ss. 197-222.
55. WOOD, Dan B. (1989), Principal-Agent Models of Political Control of Bureaucracy, American Political Science Review, Vol.83, No.3, Eylül 1989, s. 965-978.
56. WOOD, Dan B. ve Richard W. Waterman (1991), “The Dynamics of Political Control of Bureaucracy”, American Political Science Review, Vol.85, No.3, Eylül1991, ss. 801-826.