SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Amme İdaresi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 3

Development of Social Policy in Bureaucratic Regimes and Attributed Roles

Bürokratik Otoriteryan Rejimlerde Sosyal Politikanın Gelişimi ve Atfedilen Roller

DOĞA BAŞAR SARIİPEK
Pages
67–87
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In short, social policy is no more a "goal", but a "means" under bureaucratic authoritarian regimes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Development of social policy in a country is naturally directly related with the type of government, features of relationships among classes, and attitudes of the ruling class.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While the universal civil rights constitute the essential foundation of social policies and welfare programs in democratic societies, social policy in authoritarian regimes may take on different roles and responsibilities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In short, social policy is no more a "goal", but a "means" under bureaucratic authoritarian regimes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Development of social policy in a country is naturally directly related with the type of government, features of relationships among classes, and attitudes of the ruling class. While the universal civil rights constitute the essential foundation of social policies and welfare programs in democratic societies, social policy in authoritarian regimes may take on different roles and responsibilities. The main assumption of this study, which focuses on bureaucratic authoritarian regimes as a special type of oppressive regimes is the transformation of social policy from enabling social peace, justice, and integration to the means of provision of legitimacy and continuity of the regime itself. This unavoidably leads some certain social groups, who have the potential to threaten the regime, have welfare privileges and consequently, a fragmented social policy structure. In short, social policy is no more a "goal", but a "means" under bureaucratic authoritarian regimes.

Özet

Bir ülkede sosyal politikanın gelişimi o ülkedeki yönetim biçimiyle, sınıflar arası ilişkilerin niteliğiyle ve kural koyma gücüne sahip hâkim grupların davranış biçimleriyle doğrudan ilişkilidir. Demokratik yönetimlerde sosyal politikanın ve refah programlarının temel dayanağı evrensel vatandaşlık hakları olurken, otoriter rejimlerde sosyal politika daha farklı roller üstlenebilmektedir. Baskıcı rejimlerin özel bir türü olan bürokratik otoriteryanizmin incelendiği bu çalışmanın temel varsayımı, bürokratik otoriteryan rejimlerde sosyal politikanın kendisinden beklenen ve varlık sebebini de oluşturan toplumsal barışı, adaleti ve bütünleşmeyi sağlama hedeflerinden sıyrılıp, otoriter rejimin meşruiyetini ve sürekliliğini sağlama aracına dönüşmesidir. Bu da ister istemez rejimi tehdit etme potansiyeli bulunan grupların refah ayrıcalıklarına sahip olmasına ve sonuçta parçalı ve adaletsiz bir sosyal politika yapısının ortaya çıkmasına yol açmaktadır. Yani, sosyal politika bürokratik otoriter rejim altında "amaç" olmaktan çıkıp, pragmatik bir 'araç' haline dönüşmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARIİPEK, D. B. (2017). Development of Social Policy in Bureaucratic Regimes and Attributed Roles. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 3, 67–87. https://ajindex.com/articles/146060

References (14)

  1. Baeg Im, H. (1987), "The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in South Korea", World Politics, Vol. 39, No. 2, 231-257.
  2. Bossert, T. (1986), "The Promise of Theory", Klaren, P. ve Bossert, T. (Ed.), Promise of Development: Theories of Change in Latin America, 303-336.
  3. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  4. Breslauer, G. (1978), "On the Adaptability of Soviet WelfareGState Authoritarianism", Ryavec, K. W. (Ed.), Soviet Society and the Communist Party, Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
  5. Cook, L. (1993), The Soviet Social Contract and Why It Failed: Welfare Policy and Workers' Politics from Brezhnev to Yeltsin, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  6. Cook, L. (2007) Postcommunist Welfare States: Reform Politics in Russia and Eastern Europe, G GReference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, Cornell University Press.
  7. Draibe, S. M., De Castro, M. H. G. ve Azeredo, B. (Çev: Jenny K. Pilling ve Mara Conner) (1995), "The System of Social Protection in Brazil", Democracy and Social Policy Series, Working Paper No: 3. EspingGAndersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
  8. Ezrow, N. M. ve Frantz, E. (2011), Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. New York: Continuum. Forrat, N. (2012), "The Authoritarian Welfare State: a Marginalized Concept", Comparative-Historical Social Science (CHSS) Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 12-005, The Roberta Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies Northwestern University. Forrat, N. (2013) "Why Do We Need the Theory of Authoritarian Social Policy in Comparative Research?", APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper; American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2299167, (08/01/2017)
  9. Geller, D. S. (1982), "Economic Modernization and Political Instability in Latin America: A Causal Analysis of Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism", The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, 33-49.
  10. Goldthorpe, J. E. (1984)
  11. The Sociology of the Third World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Haggard, S. ve Kaufman, R. R. (2008),
  13. Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  14. Hardiman, M. ve Midgley, J. (1989) The Social Dimensions of Development. London: Wiley. Hoogvelt, A. (1986) The Sociology of Developing Societies. London: Macmillan. Kalogeraki, S. (2009) "The Divergence Hypothesis in Modernization