Yıl 2019, Cilt 26 , Sayı 3, Sayfalar 763 - 782 2019-12-25

Neoliberalizm ve Yerel Yönetişim Bağlamında Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirliklerinin Yerel Girişimcilik Üzerine Etkileri
The Effects Of Public Private Partnerships On Local Entrepreneurs In The Context Of Neoliberalism And Local Governance

Burcu GEDİZ ORAL [1] , Tuğba ARPAZLI FAZLILAR [2]


Neoliberalizmin yükselişi ile yerel girişimcilik olarak tanımlanan yeni bir yönetim düzeninin ortaya çıkması arasında doğrudan bir ilişki vardır. Yeni yerel politika, kamu faaliyet alanının sınırlandırılması ve uluslararası sermaye hareketliliğinin artmasından etkilenmektedir. Bu yüzden sermaye birikimini teşvik etmek ve yerelin karşılaştırmalı üstünlüklerini artırmak için dönüşüm çağrısında bulunulmaktadır. Girişimci yönetişim biçimlerine geçiş, kamu hizmetleri tedariğinde değişimi ve yeni sosyal aktörleri yönetim alanına dâhil etmek için yönetişimin yerel uygulamalara ve düzenlemelere indirgenmesi anlamlarına gelmektedir. Yerel hizmetlerde hem kamu özel sektör işbirliklerine (KÖSİ) hem de girişimciliğin kabiliyetine olan ilgi artmaktadır. Bu çalışmada KÖSİ’lerin yerel girişimcilik için önemi ve KÖSİ yönetim boyutlarının karmaşıklığı analiz edilmiştir. Yerel projeler, farklı beklentileri olan birden fazla oyuncuyu içerdiklerinden oldukça karmaşıktır. Bu durum yerel veya bölgesel düzeyde yönetişim rejimlerinin varlığını gerektirmektedir. KÖSİ'ler finansman programlarını optimize etmek için yerel otoriteleri, finans sektörünü ve kar amacı gütmeyen kuruluşları bir araya getirirler. Bu nedenle bu işbirlikleri yerel finansmanın etkili yollarından biridir. KÖSİ'ler, yerel işletmeler tarafından kolayca erişilebilen ve onların ihtiyaçlarına göre uyarlanmış destek mekanizmaları sağlamaktadır.   Bu çalışma, çok oyunculu yönetişimin karmaşıklıklarının yerel projelerin uygulanmasını nasıl etkilediği üzerine teorik bir bakışla odaklanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Girişimcilik, Yerel Girişimcilik, Girişimci Şehirler, Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirlikleri

            JEL Sınıflandırması: L26, R11, L32

There is a direct relationship between the rise of neoliberalism and the emergence of a new system of governance defined as local entrepreneurship. The new local policy is affected by the limitation of the public sector and the increase in international capital mobility. Therefore, it is called for transformation to promote capital accumulation and to increase the comparative advantage of the local.Transition to forms of entrepreneurial governance means that reducing governance in public services and reducing governance to local practices and local regulations for involve new social actors in the sphere of government. Local services in both the public private partnerships (PPPs) as well as the ability is increasing interest in entrepreneurship. In this study analized that the importance of PPPs for local entrepreneurship and the complexity of the PPPs management dimensions.  Local projects are quite complex because they contain more than one actor with different expectations. This requires the existence of governance regimes at the local or regional level. PPPs bring together local authorities, the financial sector and non-profit organizations to optimize their financing programs. Therefore, these cooperation is one of the effective ways of local financing. PPPs provide support mechanisms that are easily accessible by local businesses and adapted to their needs. This study focuses on a theoretical view of how complexity of multi-player governance affects the implementation of local projects.

Key Words: Entrepreneurship, Local Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Urbanism, Public Private Partnerships

JEL Classification: L26, R11, L32 

kösi, girişimcilik, yerel yönetişim
  • Banerjee-Guha, S. (2010). “Introduction: Transformative Cities in the New Global Order”, In S. Banerjee-Guha (Ed.), Accumulation by Dispossession: Transformative Cities in New Global Order, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1-16. Bel, G., Brown, T., & Marques, R.C. (2013). “Public–Private Partnerships: Infrastructure, Transportation and Local Services”, Local Government Studies, 39(3), 303-311.Bloomfield, P. (2006). “The Challenging Business of Long Term PPPs: Reflections on Local Experience”, Public Administration Review, 66(3), 400-411.Casady, C. B., Eriksson, K., Levitt, R. E., & Scott, W. R. (2019). “(Re)Defining Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in The New Public Governance (NPG) Paradigm: An İnstitutional Maturity Perspective”, Public Management Review, doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1577909, 1-23. Cruz, C.O., & Marques, R.C. (2013). “Endogenous Determinants for Renegotiating Concessions: Evidence From Local Infrastructure”, Local Government Studies, 39(3), 352-374.Dannin, E. (2011). “Crumbling Infrastructure, Crumbling Democracy: Infrastructure Privatization Contracts and Their Effects on State and Local Governance”, Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 6(1), 47-105.Davies, J. S. (2007). “The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion”, Political Studies, 55(4), 779-800.Davies, J. S. (2009). “The Limits of Joined-Up Government: Towards a Political Analysis”, Public Administration, 87(1), 80-96.Edelenbos, J. ve Teisman, G. R. (2008). “Public–Private Partnership: On The Edge of Project and Process Management. Insights from Dutch Practice: The Sijtwende Spatial Development Project”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(3), 614-626.ESCAP (2012). A New Vision for Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) in Asia-Pacific, https://www.unescap.org/speeches/new-vision-public-private-partnerships-ppp-asia-pacific, (21.03.2019).Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). “Machiavellian Megaprojects”, Antipode 37, 18-22.Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., & Buhl, S. (2002). “Understanding Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?”, Journal of The American Planning Association, 68(3), 279-295.Gediz Oral, B. (2015). “Kamu Hizmet Arzında Değişim Temelinde Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirlikleri ve Yolsuzluk”, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15, 15(4), 185-225. Gediz Oral, B., Arpazlı Fazlılar T. (2015). Enerji Güvenliğinin Değisen İçeriği Kapsamında Enerji Sektöründe Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirliği ve Kısıtlar Enerji Projelerinde Yolsuzluk. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(4), 461-492., Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.18799. Gillen, J. (2009). “The Co-production of Narrative an Entrepreneurial City: An Analysis of Cincinnati, Ohio in Turmoil”, Series B. Human Geography, 91(2), 107-122. Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2004). Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Grimshaw, D., Vincent, S., & Willmmott, H. (2002). “Going Privately: Partnership and Outsourcing in UK Public Services”, Public Administration, 80(3), 475-502.Higgins, C., & Huque, A. S. (2014). “Public Money and Mickey Mouse: Evaluating Performance and Accountability in The Hong Kong Disneyland Joint Venture Public–Private Partnership”, Public Management Review, 1-21.Hodge, G. A., Greve, C., & Boardman, A. (2010). International Handbook on Public Private Partnerships, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2007). “Public–Private Partnerships: An İnternational Performance Review”, Public Administration Review, 67(3), 545-559.Jessop, B. (2002). “Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical Perspective”, Antipode, 34(3), 452-472. Jessop, B., & Sum, N. (2000). “An Entrepreneurial City in Action: Hong Kong’s Emerging Strategies in and for (inter) Urban Competition”, Urban Studies, 37(12), 2290-2315. Kuhle, H. (2007). “The Experience of Public-private Partnerships in Financing Entrepreneurship in Eastern Germany and Poland”, in Sylvain Giguère (ed.), Local Innovations for Growth in Central and Eastern Europe, OECD Publishing, Paris, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264038523-12-en, 215-226.Lamie, J., & Ball, R. (2010). “Evaluation of Partnership Working within a Community Planning Context”, Local Government Studies, 36(1), 109-127.Lee, Y. -I. (2012). “South Korea's Globalization in The Late Twentieth Century: An End to Economic Nationalism?”, In A. P. D'Costa (Ed.), Globalization And Economic Nationalism İn Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157-176.Linder, S. H. (1999). “Coming to Terms with The Public–Private Partnership”, American Behavioral Scientist, 43(1), 35-51.MacLeod, G. (2002). “From Urban Entrepreneurialism to a ‘Revanchist City’ on the Spatial İnjustices of Glasgow’s Renaissance”, Antipode, 34(3), 602-624. McCarthy, J. (2007). Partnership, Collaborative Planning and Urban Regeneration, Aldershot: Ashgate.Miraftab, F. (2004). “Public–Private Partnerships. The Trojan Horse of Neoliberal Development?”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 89-101.Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, S. Gonzales & E. Swyngedouw (2007). “Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities: Urban Development between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation”, European Urban and Regional Studies 14,195-209.Osei-Kyei, R., & Chan, A.P. (2015). “Reviews of Studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Projects from 1990 to 2013”, International Journal of Project Management, 33, 1335–1346.Palcic, D., & Reeves, E. (2011). “Privatization, Employee Share Ownership and Governance: The Case of EIRCOM”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 82(4), 437-454.Pierre, J. (1999). “Models of Urban Governance: Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics”, Urban Affairs Review 34, 372-396. Putri, R. ve Wirahadikusumah, R.D. (2019). “Readiness of Local Government in PPP Project Development - Case of LRT Bandung”, MATEC Web of Conferences 270, 05002, https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201927005002. Roberts, A. (2010). The Logic of Discipline: Global Capitalism and The Architecture of Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rogerson, R., & Boyle, M. (2000). “Property, Politics and The Neoliberal Revolution in Urban Scotland”, Progress in Planning, 54(3), 133-196.Sagalyn, L. B. (2007). “Public/Private Development. Lessons from History, Research and Practice”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 7-22.Sager, T. (2011). “Neo-Liberal Urban Planning Policies: A Literature Survey 1990–2010”, Progress in Planning 76, 147-199. Santos Junior, O. A. (2017). “Entrepreneurial Governance: Neoliberal Modernization”, Luiz Cesar de Queiroz Ribeiro Ed., Urban Transformations in Rio de Janeiro, 273-286. Sclar, E. (2015). The Political Economics of Investment Utopia: Public–Private Partnerships for Urban Infrastructure Finance, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18(1), 1-15.Shin, H. B. (2009). “Residential Redevelopment and the Entrepreneurial Local State: The İmplications of Beijing’s Shifting Emphasis on Urban Redevelopment Policies”, Urban Studies, 46, 2815-2839. Siemiatycki, M. (2007). “What’s The Secret? Confidentiality in Planning Infrastructure Using Public/Private Partnerships”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 388-403.Siemiatycki, M. (2010). “Delivering Transportation Infrastructure through Public–Private Partnerships: Planning Concerns”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 43-58.Siemiatycki, M. (2013). “Public–Private Partnerships in Mega-Projects: Successes and Tensions”, In H. Premus, & B.V. Wee (Eds.), International Handbook On Mega-Projects, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 133-157.Smitha, K. C. (2017). “Entrepreneurial Urbanism in India: A Framework”, Entrepreneurial Urbanism in India The Politics of Spatial Restructuring and Local Contestation, Ed. Kanekanti Chandrashekar Smitha, ISBN 978-981-10-2235-7 ISBN 978-981-10-2236-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2236-4, 1-17. Soomro, M.A., & Zhang, X. (2013). “Roles of Private-Sector Partners in Transportation Public– Private Partnership Failures”, Journal of Management in Engineering, http:// Dx.Doi.Org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000263, 31(4).Swyngedouw, E. (2005). “Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governancebeyond- State”. Urban Studies 42, 1991-2006.Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert & A. Rodriguez (2002a). “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy”, In: N. Brenner&N. Theodore eds., Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 195–229.Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert & A. Rodriguez (2002b). “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy”, Antipode 34, 542-575.Taşan-Kok, T. (2010). “Entrepreneurial Governance: Challenges of Large-Scale Property-Led Urban Regeneration Projects”, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(2), 126-149.Theodore N, Peck J, Brenner N (2009). “Urbanismo Neoliberal: la Ciudad y el İmperio de los Mercados”, Temas sociales, 66. Van Ham, H., & Koppenjan, J. (2001). “Building Public–Private Partnerships: Assessing and Managing Risks in Port Development”, Public Management Review, 4(1), 593-616.Zheng, J. (2011). “Creative Industry Clusters’ and the ‘Entrepreneurial City’ of Shanghai”, Urban Studies, 48, 3561-3582.
Birincil Dil tr
Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0001-7096-9288
Yazar: Burcu GEDİZ ORAL (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0001-8838-8959
Yazar: Tuğba ARPAZLI FAZLILAR
Kurum: MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Tarihler

Yayımlanma Tarihi : 25 Aralık 2019

APA GEDİZ ORAL, B , ARPAZLI FAZLILAR, T . (2019). Neoliberalizm ve Yerel Yönetişim Bağlamında Kamu Özel Sektör İşbirliklerinin Yerel Girişimcilik Üzerine Etkileri. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi , 26 (3) , 763-782 . DOI: 10.18657/yonveek.572864