Lifestyle

Seriye Sezen, The Impact of Globalization on the Organization of Public Administration: Turkish Case , Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 27-28, Year 2001-2002: 3-26

Description
Seriye Sezen, "The Impact of Globalization on the Organization of Public Administration: Turkish Case", Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 27-28, Year 2001-2002: 3-26
Categories
Published
of 22
10
Categories
Published
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
   THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON THE ORGANIZATIONOF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: TURKISH CASE * Seriye SEZEN ** Abstract:  This paper deals with the impact of globalization on the organization of public administration in Turkey. The most important consequence of the globalization process could be found in the building and therapid spreading of a new type of institution called “regulatory agencies” or “independent agencies.” Theseinstitutions differs from other public institutions by their broad authorities, their collective decision makingsystem, the presence of interest groups representatives in their decision body, the level of their autonomy fromthe political power, their budgetary possibilities and high personnel wages.After a description of national and international policies leading to this transformation, the generalcharacteristics of regulatory agencies and their peculiarities are examined. Afterwards the changes occurred in Turkish public administration with their creation are evaluated. Regulating agencies are studied from the standpoint of their place in the state organization chart, their impacts on relations between executive versus legislativepowers and also relations between politics and bureaucrats and accountability of the administration. Keywords:   regulatory agencies,   independent regulatory agencies, public administration, globalization, Turkey.   I. Introduction Either we tackle it as a concept or as a fact, the first thing we can say about globalization is that it ischewed up and swallowed a lot. Kettl (2000: 490) rightfully says that while approaching to the year2000 there is not a speech that ends up without making reference to globalization. Secondly, despitecertain emphasis there is a set of definition of globalization, which varies according to the standpointsand the ideologies of the persons concerned. According to some, this is a new ideology of capitalismand some describe it as a “new form of imperialism” (de Vries, 2001: 394). According to Cerny (1999:188) globalization is “the convergence of economics and politics across borders into single dominantmodel, a variant of liberal capitalism aligned with neo-liberal politics” or “the intersection of differentform of both convergence and divergence.” Giddens interprets these developments as “the emergenceof a world economy, a world polity and perhaps a culture, in short, the emergence of a world society”(Giddens, 1991). Lastly Chandler (2000: 13) touches upon the “Americanization”, which underlinesthe culture orientation. From a general point of view, globalization can be considered as a process inwhich extension of information, circulation rate of capital has gained a significant momentum and inwhich the obstacles in front of this circulation are eliminated. It is difficult to find an area that thisprocess did not affect and touch: national borders, values, cultures, policies, institutions and actors etc. This paper discusses the impact of globalization on the organization of the Turkish publicadministration. Turkey is one of the countries that have been deeply affected from the globalizationpolicies. New right policies were illustrated mainly by policies shaped by Mr. Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher. These policies have lead to the process of restructuring the state from the early 1980s untilrecent years. One of the concrete indications of the restructuring is the emergence of the “new sort” of public organizations, which are called as “independent regulatory agencies” or “independentadministrative authorities” and the proliferation of these public organizations. In this paper, firstly a *  This article is a revised version of the paper submitted to the Annual Conference of the InternationalAssociation of Schools and Institutes of Administration on “Public Administration Between Globalisation andDecentralisation: Implications for Education and Training”, held in Istanbul, on 17-20 June 2002. It waspublished in  Turkish Public Administration Annual , Vol. 27-28, 2001-2002, 3-26. It appears on this site bypermission of the publisher.    2 frame of general impacts of globalization on the public administration shall be drawn. Later on, thebasic policies, which provided the transition from interventionist state to regulatory state in Turkey,and the means of implementation of these policies, shall be mentioned. And then, in the followingsection, the general features of the regulatory agencies in Turkey shall be laid down and their status inpublic administration shall be defined. Lastly, the problems emanating from the regulatory agencies inone hand and in the other the impact of these agencies on the legislative body-executive body relationsand also executive body-bureaucracy relations will be discussed. In other words their impact on theway of policy making shall be reviewed on the axes of recent developments. II. Globalization and Its Impacts on the Public Administration  The main target of the globalization process, which affects many dynamics of social life, is thenation states. On one hand the area of the state’s sovereignty has been narrowed and on the other handits functions, functioning and responsibilities as shaped after the World War II were redefined. Thestate has abandoned to market forces, the areas that it occupied after 1945, under the influence of thenew right policies. With the applications of privatization and deregulation, state’s role on production,accumulation and distribution was weakened and its regulatory role came to the front line. Thistransformation symbolizes a transition from interventionist state to regulatory or arbitrator state. Notonly the state and its socio-economic functions were transformed, but also state’s institutionalorganization and its functioning, the judicial rules on which it is dependent, personnel regime andlastly conceptualization of public services entered into a thoroughly transformation process.  Thistransformation could be described as a shift from the public administration to new public management(NPM). NPM considers that public sector can be managed as in private sector and the values andoperational techniques of the private sector can be adapted to public sector. “It advocates treatingcitizens like customers, separating public administrators from the public policy process, andconvincing both that government is nothing more than a business within the public sector” (Box et al.,2001: 611).As a scholar has mentioned, “globalization has been accompanied by the creation of new legalregimes and legal practices and the expansion and renovation of some older forms that bypass nationallegal systems” (Sassen, 2000: 57). Within the context of elimination of transnational commercialdisputes, the role of national legislation was receded, yet the role of international commercialarbitration centers has gained significance. This development can be interpreted as the privatization of  jurisdiction. The concrete indicator of this development is the increasing number of internationalcommercial arbitration centers. In 1993, there were 127 arbitration centers (Sassen, 2000: 57, 58). Onthe other hand, in the countries, where there is a separate jurisdiction order for public administration, ** Public Administration Institute for Turkey and the Middle East, Ankara, Turkey. ssezen@todaie.gov.tr    3 the dependence of public administration to administrative law is seriously eroded and the function of administrative law is transformed. A scholar suggests that “in global era, administrative law nowappears to be moving from its role as a surrogate political process that legitimates new extension of public power, to one that legitimates new blends of public and private power and/or private powerused for public interest ends” (Aman, 1999: 270).While the globalization process has been eroding the state’s sovereignty within the nationalborders, it has also modified the way of using the existent authority of the state. In this context, we cansay that there were two-dimensions of authority delegation: authority delegation within the nationalborders and at international level. Therefore a two-dimensional erosion of state’s authorities is inquestion. While the state’s economic, political and judiciary authorities are transferred to thetransnational powers, it is forced to share its existing authorities with the other actors. The result of globalization is not only the loss of state’s power but also the change of ways and methods of usingthe remainder of its power. This transformation is expressed through the concepts of governance andnew public management. Governance has redefined the use of public competence and suggests the joint use of this authority not only by the official actors but also by the unofficial actors and it givesimportance to the role of non-governmental organizations. New public management considers thedelivery of public services as a technical issue and instead of the concepts like public interest,conformity to the law; it substitutes the management-related concepts such as profitability,productivity and the customer preferences. Briefly, both the governance and the new publicmanagement lead to the elimination of the political content of the public services and their reduction toa technical activity. The change of state’s role lies beneath the transformation resulting from globalization process.While the sovereignty is eroded, the nation state itself becomes the actor materializing thetransformations that is appropriate to the demands of globalization. In the era of globalization the mainfunction of state is to secure the functioning of the market mechanisms. It is the state itself that ensuresthe adaptation of structural and legal mechanisms based on the conceptualization of social state, orwelfare state, to the new function. The reflection of this transformation on the administrative structureof the state is the emergence of the new institutions that shall provide the functioning of the marketmechanism. Therefore in many European countries and in Turkey, while the state is under pressure forbeing reduced for the benefit of the market, it is continuing to widen its institutional structure in orderto secure a healthy competition environment. 1 The regulatory agencies have become the widespreadmodel of the organization of the global era. As it is known the pioneer of these agencies is theInterstate Commerce Commission, which was established independent from the executive body in    4 1887 in USA (Huntington, 1996: 58-59). According to Pauliat (1998: 7-8), there are more than 50regulatory agencies in the USA.When we take into consideration their organization, functioning and their status vis-à-vis theexecutive body, regulatory agencies fit well in line with requirements of the globalization. Their wideautonomy from the executive body, their outstanding budgetary and staff possibilities, theirindependence from the strict rules and in some cases, during the decision process, the representation of the interest groups are compatible for the expectations of governance and new public managementapproach. III. Transformation of the State in Turkey: From Interventionist to Regulatory State “Until 1980, in Turkey, the state was involved in the economic life as a producer and as a regulatorand was the engine of development” (Sezen, 1999: 216). The development policy, based on the mixedeconomy and the import substitution, was integrated to the conceptualization of planned developmentin 1960s. The State Economic Enterprises (SEEs) have been the means of implementation of thisdevelopment policy. SEEs were not only instruments for investment and creation of new jobs but theyhave also played “a significant role in the development of the private sector” (Heper, 1990: 209). Thestate’s intervention to the economic life was fulfilled through the compulsion of the conditions ratherthan the political preference. In the early years of the Republic, the national capital was so insufficientthat it has leaded the state to accumulate the domestic capital. The 1929 crisis has intensified theimplementation of etatism in 1930s. The state was the instrument of development and the appliedetatist policies had the features to promote, prevent and develop the private sector rather thanhindering it.In the Turkish economic history, decisions of 24 January 1980 represent a turning point (Aksoy,1993: 39). The development policy that has been implemented since the foundation of the countryuntil this date was abandoned. A new concept of development was adopted. The main characteristicsof this new concept were liberalization, integration to international trade and growth based on export.Following a military coup, the liberal policies were rapidly implemented in line with therecommendations of IMF in such a period when the social opposition was suppressed and thesepolicies have gained a new momentum in the aftermath of the elections in 1983. The period (1983-1991) when the Motherland Party under the leadership of Turgut Ozal, devout defender of the newright policies, came to the power alone, can be described by, in line with the new right policies, thestaggering of both the economic policies and conceptualization of the state; and of all of the valuesthat have directed the functioning of the state. 1 For example, in Britain, despite privatization, or partly because of it, the number of public agencies has increased rather than declinedduring the last 20 years (Chandler, 2000: 7).    5    The main objective of these policies that were implemented during this period was to provide thetransition to free market economy. The import regime, interest and price policies were liberated; thesectors like tea, tobacco were opened to the private enterprises by means of lifting the publicmonopolies and as from 1984 SEEs were initiated to be privatized. 2 We should not consider that theapplications of privatization, which are still continuing today, were solely confined of the transfer of property. The applications within the scope of privatization can be cited as follows: The privatecompanies have made important investments by means of build-operate-transfer method. The securityand mail services, radio and TV broadcasting were opened to the private enterprises. Some internalservices (e.g. food, cleaning) delivered by public institutions are now fulfilled by the private firms viathe tenders. The liberalization policies have changed the concept of the public service itself. According to thenew concept, since the state is considered as an enterprise and the ones, who benefit from the publicservices as a customer, it is agreed as a principle that the ones, who benefit from the services, shall paythe price. For instance, the Seventh Five-Year Development Plan has had such a purpose that thebeneficiaries of the public services shall pay the price of the individual benefit they obtained (YedinciBes Yillik Kalkinma Plani, 1995: 20). The examples concerning the pricing of health, education andurban services can be cited as follows: paid examination has been implemented in state and universityhospitals. The fees on the higher education were considerably increased. In primary and secondaryschools the families were asked to donate to meet the expenditure of the schools. The environment andcleaning taxes have been put into practice.In 1980s the status of the public bureaucracy under the influence of liberal policies was “set in thesidelines.” Prime Minister Ozal did not rely on high level public bureaucracy and preferred to workwith the personnel, known as the “princes”, whom he appointed to high positions in the public banks;and with a staff that consisted of advisors coming from the business circles. It is noticeable that thereis a similarity between the working style of Ozal and that of Thatcher, who preferred to work with the“outsiders” who came from business circles, instead of “insiders” (Evans, 1997: 54). This preferencewas actually a way to overcome the resistance of the conventional bureaucracy against the liberalpolicies. Another way to exclude the conventional bureaucracy from the decision mechanism was theuse of councils. The councils have been transformed into very important economic decision centerseither by endowing existing advisory councils with the decision competence of the or by establishingthe new councils that have broad competences. Meanwhile the Ministry of Finance, the powerfulinstitution of the conventional bureaucracy, has become a unit that solely collects revenues and its role 2 Since 1986, privatization implementations have gained momentum and 165 companies were privatized either via sale of shares or assetssale and in 147 companies no state shares were left. Total income from organizations included in privatization program during 1985-2001
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x