Kamusal Karar Alma Süreçlerinde Sosyal Tercih Duyarlılığı ve Sürece İlişkin Yapısal Çözümlemeler

Öz

In the study, we aim to bring up the social preferences location that have an important influence on the components of process consisting of social-economics together with the dynamics which should be considered by decision makers as the balanced component between the central government characteristics and the social preferences in public decision making process. Also, the dynamics’ negative effects as under approaches management of central governments’ politic strategies on the socially choices by taking shape publically point of view have been aimed to analyze connected with participation process. Hence, it is appear that the decisions’phenomenon directed towards to analyzes appear in very important the structural models in order to ensure the desired reality participation in decision making and also, the provided participation sensitive that lay the gramework for overtaking some paradox related to decision making process must be required to take into consideration and and check over as the primary point especially in the countries that have the structural politics matters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Decision Making Process, Social Preferences, Structural Politics, Participation Process Dynamics, Central Government Characteristics.

Kamusal Karar Alma Süreçlerinde Sosyal Tercih Duyarlılığı ve Sürece İlişkin Yapısal Çözümlemeler

Öz

Bu çalışmada, kamusal karar alma sürecinde merkezi hükümet nitelikleri ile sosyal tercihler arasında bir denge unsuru olarak karar alıcılar tarafından göz önüne alınması gereken dinamiklerle birlikte, sosyo-ekonomik yapıya ilişkin dinamiklerinin sürece ilişkin oluşturduğu unsurlar üzerinde önemli bir etkisi olan sosyal tercihlerin konumunun ortaya konulmasını amaçladık. Ayrıca kamusal bakış açılarıyla biçimlendirilen sosyal tercihler üzerinde merkezi yönetimin tek yönlü stratejik siyasaları olarak söz konusu olan dinamiklerin negatif etkilerinin katılım süreciyle ilişkili olarak analiz edilmesi amaçlandı. Bu bağlamda görülmektedir ki, kararların alınmasında istenilen gerçekçi bir katlımın sağlanması için bu kararlar fenomenin analizlerine yönelik oldukça önemli yapısal modellerin varlığı söz konusudur ve ayrıca karar süreciyle ilgili bazı paradoksların aşılmasına ilişkin zemin hazırlayan söz konusu katılım duyarlılığının da, özellikle yapısal politik sorunlara sahip ülkelerde öncelikli olarak dikkate alınması ve gözden geçirilmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamusal Karar Alma Süreci, Sosyal Tercihler, Yapısal Politikalar, Katılım Süreci Dinamikleri, Merkezi Yönetim Nitelikleri.

Kaynakça

1. Abelson, Julia – Forest, Pierre Gerlier – Eyles, John – Smith, Particia – Martin, Elisabeth – Gauvin, Francois Pierre (2003), “Deliberations About Deliberative Methods: Issues in The Design and Evaluation of Public Participation Process”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol.57, pp. 239-25
2. Arrow, Kenneth J. – Lind, Robert C. (1970), “Uncertainty and The Evaluation of Public Investment Decision”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No: 3, Jun, pp. 364-378.
3. Beierle, Thomas C. (2002), “The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisons”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Official Publication of The Society for Risk Analysis, Vol. 22, No: 4, August, pp. 739-749.
4. Borger, Bruno De and Kerstens, Kristiaan (1996), “Cost Efficiency of Belgian Local Governments: A Comparative Analysis of FDH, DEA, and Econometric Approaches”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 26, No: 2, April, pp. 145-170.
5. Brooks, Arthur C. “Is There a Dark Side to Government Support for Nonprofits?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 60., No: 3, May/Jun, pp. 211-218. Carpini, Michael X. Delli – Cook, Fay Lomaks – Jacops, Lawrence R. (2004), “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participaton, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of The Emprical Literature”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.7, No: 1, pp. 315-344.
6. Charles, Caty - Gafni, Amiram- Whelan, Tim (1999), “Decision Making in The Physician-Patient Encounter: Revisiting The Shared Treatment Decision-Making Model”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol.49, No: 5, pp. 651-661.
7. Charnes, Abraham - Cooper,W.W. - Rhodes Robert E. (1978), “Measuring The Efficiency of Decision Making Units”, European Journal of Operational Resarch, Vol.27, No:1, pp. 429-4
8. Creighton, James L. (2005), The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement,: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint by John Wiley and & Sons, Inc., San Francisco.

9. Dienel, Peter C. (1989), “Conributing to Social Decision Methodology Citizen Reports on Technological Projects”, Viek, Charles and Cvetkovich, George (Ed.), Social Decision Metholodolgy for Technological Projects, Kluwer Academic Publichers, Dordrech, pp. 133-15
10. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. – Zbaracki, Mark J. (1992), “Strategic Decision Making”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.13, pp. 13-37.
11. Faguet, Jean-Paul (2000), “Does Decentralization Increase Responsivenees to Local Needs? Evidence from Bolivia”, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/477/1/WP-2516.pdf (20.04.2011).
12. Gerrand, Adam - Orr, Simon (1998), “Management Decision Classification: A System for Zoning Land Managed by Foresry Tasmania”, Tasforests, Vol. 10, December, pp. 1-14.
13. Goldfinger, Johnny (2002), “The Value of Social Choice Theory for Normative Political Theorists”, The Good Society, Vol. 11, No: 2, pp. 33-37.
14. Hammond, Peter J. (1986), “Consequentialist Social Norms for Public Decisions”, Heller, Walter P. – Starr, Ross M. – Starrett, David A. (Eds.), Social Choices and Public Decision Making, Vol. I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-31.
15. Hauwe, Ludwig Van Den (1999), “Public Choice, Constitutional, Political Economy and Law and Economics”, http://encyclo.findlaw.com/0610book.pdf (25.05.2011).
16. Homer, Jack - Milstein, Bobby (2004), “Optimal Decision Making in a Dynamic Model of Community Health”, The 37th. Havaii International Conference on System Sciences-2004, Havaii 2004, pp.1-11.
17. Jenkins, J. Craig (1983), “Resource Mobilization Theory and The Study of Social Movements”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.9, No: 1, pp. 527-553.
18. Jones, Bryan D. (1994), Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
19. Kaplan, David M. (2008), “Political Choises: The Role of Political Skill in Occupational Choise”, Career Development International, Vol. 13, No: 1, pp. 46-55.
20. Keeney, Ralph L. – Renn, Ortwin – Winderfeldt, Detlof Von (1987), “Structuring West Germany’s Energy Objectives”, Energy Policy, Vol. 15, No: 4, pp. 352-362.
21. Kirmanoğlu, Hülya (2009), Kamu Ekonomisi Analizi, 2. b., Beta Basım Yayım A.Ş. Ankara.
22. Kloot, Louise and Martin, John (2000), “Strategic Performance Management: A Balanced Approach to Performance Management Issues in Local Government”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, No: 1, pp. 231-251.
23. Kunreuther, Howard (2002), “Risk Analysis and Risk Management in an Uncertain World”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Official Publication of The Society for Risk Analysis, Vol. 22, No: 2, August, pp. 655-664.
24. Lapsey, Irvine and Pallot, June (2000), “Accounting, Management and Organizational Change: A Comparative Study of Local Government” Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, No: 2, pp. 213-229.
25. McClenen, Edward F. (1990), Rationality and Dinamics Choise: Foundational Explorations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Martin, Brian - Richards, Evelleen (1995), “Scientific Knowledge, Controversy, And Public Decision-Making”, Jasanoff, Sheila – Markle, Gerald E. - Petersen, James C., - Pinch, Trevor (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995, pp. 506-526.
27. Modell, Sven (2001), “Performance Measurement and Institutional Processes: A Study of Managerial Responses to Public Sector Reform”, Management Accounting Reseach, Vol. 12, pp. 437-464.
28. Moravcsik, Andrew (1997), “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 51, No: 4, pp. 513-553.
29. Nelkin, Dorothy (Ed.) (1979), “Controversy: Politics of Technical Decision”, Beverly Hills: Sage. Otake, Hideo. 1982. Corporate power in social conflict: vehicle safety and Japanese motor manufacturers. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, Vol. 10, p.75-103.
30. Ogden, Laura (2006), “Public Participation in Environmental Decision –Making: A Case Study of Ecosystem Restoration in South Florida”, Chaiers D’economie et Sociologie Rurales, No: 80-2006, pp. 54-73.
31. Petersen, James C. (1984), Citizen Participation in Science Policy, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
32. Renn, Ortwin – Webler, Thomas – Rakel, Horst – Dienel, Peker – Johnson, Branden (1993), “Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step Procedure”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 26, No: 3, pp. 189-214.
33. Rowen, Henry S. (1970), “Assessing The Role of Systematic Decision Making in The Public Sector”, Margolis, Julius (Ed.), The Analysis of Public Output, National Bureau of Economic Resarch, UMI Publisher Inc., USA, pp. 219-230.
34. Samulson, William – Zeckhauser, Richard (1998), “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 1, pp. 7-59.
35. Schubert, Glendon A. Jr. (1957), “The Public Interest in Administrative Decision-Making: Theorem, Theosophy, or Theory”, The American Political Science Review”, Vol. 51, No: 2, pp. 346-368.
36. Scott, Clayton – Nowak, Robert (2004), “Minimax-Optimal Classification with Dyadic Decision Trees”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 20, No: 5, pp.1-43.
37. Sen, Amartya (1986), “Information and Invariance in Normative Choise”, Heller, Walter P. – Starr, Ross M. – Starrett, David A. (Eds.), Social Choices and Public Decision Making, Vol. I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 32-51.
38. Shulock, Nancy (1999), “The Paradox Policy Analysis: If It is not used, Why do We Produce so much of It?”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management”, Vol. 18, No: 2, Spring 1999, pp. 226-244.
39. Splettstoesser, Dietrich (1998), “Electronic Decision-Making for Developing Countries”, Group Decision and Negotiaion, Vol. 7, No: 1, pp. 417-433.
40. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2000), Economics of Public Sector, 3 rd. ed., W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York.
41. Sudgen, Robert (1990), “Rules for Choosing among Public Goods: A Contractarian Approach”, Constitutional Economy, Vol.1, pp. 63-82.
42. Şener, Orhan (2008), Kamu Ekonomisi, 10. bask., Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş., İstanbul.
43. Theunissen, Cristopher (1999), “Managing Inteligence in an Age of Knowledge” African Security Review, Vol. 8, No: 3, pp. 1-9.
44. Uzun, Turgay – Tok, Seher (2009), “Kamu Tercihi Kuramı ve Anayasal İktisat Yaklaşımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Muğla Ünv. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 23, Güz, pp. 223-2
45. Varela-Ortega, Consuelo, Sumpsi, Jose M. - Garrido Alberto - Blanco Mario - Iglesias Eva (1998), “Water Pricing Policies, Public Decision Making and Farmers’ Respons: Implications for Water Policy”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No: 1-2, (September 1998), pp. 193-202. Wheaton, Linda M. (Ed.), (2007), Public Participation and Community Engagement: Selected Resources, Department of Housing and Community Development State of California, California.