SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1

Is representative bureaucracy a zero sum game? An assessment within the scope of literature

Temsili bürokrasi sıfır toplamlı bir oyun mudur? Literatür kapsamında bir değerlendirme

Merve DURMUŞ
Pages
68–81
Publication Date
2021-01-08
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)

As a result, it has been revealed that the representative bureaucracy is not a zero-sum game and representative bureaucrats provide an increasing number of public services to other groups as well as their own groups, while delivering public services.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the criticisms against the representative bureaucracy, which suggests that representing disadvantaged groups in the bureaucracy will provide a more responsive public administration, is that it harms the distributional equity rather than benefiting.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, existing study aims to contribute to the relevant national literature discussing the percentage of correction of this claim for a theory (representative bureaucracy) which has seen very limited amount of importance in Turkey, and aims to offer a different perspective to this approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, it has been revealed that the representative bureaucracy is not a zero-sum game and representative bureaucrats provide an increasing number of public services to other groups as well as their own groups, while delivering public services.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Temsili Bürokrasi · Hizmet Dağıtımında Adalet · Sıfır Toplamlı Oyun

Abstract

One of the criticisms against the representative bureaucracy, which suggests that representing disadvantaged groups in the bureaucracy will provide a more responsive public administration, is that it harms the distributional equity rather than benefiting. According to this understanding, representative bureaucracy is a zero-sum game and the benefits it provides to minorities are at the expense of other groups. In other words, this situation brings disadvantaged groups a profit, while victimizing other groups (especially at the point of receiving public service), and so overshadowing the promise of equality for all social groups in the delivery of the representative bureaucracy. In this context, existing study aims to contribute to the relevant national literature discussing the percentage of correction of this claim for a theory (representative bureaucracy) which has seen very limited amount of importance in Turkey, and aims to offer a different perspective to this approach. For this purpose, the related literature has been reviewed and the claim in question has been tried to be evaluated by examining the researches made on representative bureaucracy. As a result, it has been revealed that the representative bureaucracy is not a zero-sum game and representative bureaucrats provide an increasing number of public services to other groups as well as their own groups, while delivering public services.

Özet

Dezavantajlı grupların bürokraside temsil edilmesinin daha cevap verebilir bir kamu idaresi sağlayacağını ileri süren temsili bürokrasiye karşı yöneltilen eleştirilerden biri, hizmet dağıtımında eşitliğe yarardan çok zarar verdiğine yöneliktir. Bu anlayışa göre temsili bürokrasi sıfır toplamlı bir oyundur (zero sum game) ve azınlıklara sağladığı yararlar, diğer grupların zarar görmesi pahasına sağlanmaktadır. Yani bu durum, dezavantajlı gruplara bir kazanç sağlarken diğer grupları (özellikle kamu hizmeti alma noktasında) mağdur etmekte, ve böylece temsili bürokrasinin hizmet dağıtımında bütün toplumsal gruplara eşitliği sağlama vaadine gölge düşürmektedir. Bu kapsamda mevcut çalışma, Türkiye'de oldukça sınırlı oranda önem görmüş bir teoriye yönelik bu iddianın, ne oranda doğru olduğunu tartışarak ilgili ulusal literatüre katkı sağlama ve söz konusu yaklaşıma farklı bir bakış açısı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu maksatla ilgili literatür taranmış ve temsili bürokrasiye yönelik yapılan araştırmalar incelenerek mevzu bahis iddia değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak ise temsili bürokrasinin aslında sıfır toplamlı bir oyun olmadığı, temsilci bürokratların kamu hizmeti sunarken kendi gruplarının yanı sıra diğer gruplara da artan oranda kamu hizmeti sağladığı ortaya çıkarılmıştır

🔖

Cite This Article

DURMUŞ, M. (2021). Is representative bureaucracy a zero sum game? An assessment within the scope of literature. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1, 68–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/155541

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Agocs, C. (2012). Representative Bureaucracy?. Employment equity in the public service of Canada. Retrieved from the Canadian Centre for Policy. Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association’ da sunulan bildiri, Edmonton, Canada, 13-15
  2. Haziran. Albrow, M. (1970). Bureaucracy. London: Pall Mall Press.
  3. Berg, B. (1984). Public choice, pluralism, and scarcity: Implications for bureaucratic behavior. Administration & Society, 16(1), 71-82.
  4. Çam, E., (1970) Oyun Teorisinin Mahiyeti ve Oyunlar. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 29(1-4).
  5. Çiftçi, C. (2017) Jenerasyon Y› nin Yatırım Aracı Tercihleri: Oyun Teorisi Yaklaşımı. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 698-712.
  6. Dolan, J. (2002). Representative bureaucracy in the federal executive: Gender and spending priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 353-375.
  7. Frederickson, H. G. (1971). Toward a new public administration. Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective, 309-331.
  8. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45-56.
  9. Groeneveld, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2010). A contingency approach to representative bureaucracy: Power, equal opportunities and diversity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(2), 239-258.
  10. Herman, J. A. (2007). Passive representation and the client-bureaucrat relationship: Communication and demand inducement in the patient-provider relationship (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri--Columbia). Keiser, L. R., Wilkins, V. M., Meier, K. J., & Holland, C. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American political science review, 96(3), 553-564.
  11. Kıngsley, J. D. (1944). Representative Bu reaucracy: An Interpretation of the Brit ish Civil Service. Pp. 324. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press.
  12. Lim, H. H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public administration review, 66(2), 193-204.
  13. Liang, J., Park, S., & Zhao, T. (2020).
  14. Representative Bureaucracy, Distributional Equity, and Environmental Justice. Public Administration Review, 9999(9999), 1-13.
  15. Marvel, J. D., & Resh, W. G. (2015). Bureaucratic discretion, client demographics, and representative bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administratio