Journals / Sosyal Güvence / 2017 / Sayı 12

MARKETIZATION IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT SERVICES: LESSONS FROM UK EXPERIENCE FOR TURKEY

Pages
89–107
Publication Date
2017-07-31
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 this scope, the study aims to derive lessons from UKcase for Turkish public employment services from objective point of view.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:With its liberal welfare regime and different understanding on social issues, UnitedKingdom separates from continental European countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These differences createopportunities for UK’s governments to materialize “most advanced” neo-liberalreforms in the fi eld of public employment services.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this scope, the study aims to derive lessons from UKcase for Turkish public employment services from objective point of view.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Public employment services · marketization · work programme

Abstract

With its liberal welfare regime and different understanding on social issues, UnitedKingdom separates from continental European countries. These differences createopportunities for UK’s governments to materialize “most advanced” neo-liberalreforms in the fi eld of public employment services. Not only the current situation ofmarketized employment services in UK, but also its historical developments providenumbers of positive and negative examples for the countries planning to implementsimilar reforms..This study does not reach a conclusion indicating that UK has best or worst practicesin this fi eld. However, it suggests that the UK’s example contains very valuableinputs about pros and cons of marketization in public employment services and howthis process should manage. In this scope, the study aims to derive lessons from UKcase for Turkish public employment services from objective point of view.

Özet

With its liberal welfare regime and different understanding on social issues, UnitedKingdom separates from continental European countries. These differences createopportunities for UK’s governments to materialize “most advanced” neo-liberalreforms in the fi eld of public employment services. Not only the current situation ofmarketized employment services in UK, but also its historical developments providenumbers of positive and negative examples for the countries planning to implementsimilar reforms..This study does not reach a conclusion indicating that UK has best or worst practicesin this fi eld. However, it suggests that the UK’s example contains very valuableinputs about pros and cons of marketization in public employment services and howthis process should manage. In this scope, the study aims to derive lessons from UKcase for Turkish public employment services from objective point of view.

🔖

Cite This Article

DUR, V. (2017). MARKETIZATION IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT SERVICES: LESSONS FROM UK EXPERIENCE FOR TURKEY. Sosyal Güvence, Sayı 12, 89–107. https://ajindex.com/articles/2045

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Aydoganoglu, Erkan., (2016, 9 Mart). Özel İstihdam Büroları ve Kiralik Işçilik: Amaç Işçilerin Tüm Yaşamini Denetim Altina Almak [Private Employment Agencies and Renting Workers: The Aim is to Control All Life of Workers], Evrensel Newspaper. Berkel, Rik Van., & Vando, Borghi (2008), Introduction: The Governance of Activation Social Policy and Society, 7(3). Berkel, Rik Van., Sager, Fritz., & Ehrler, Franziska (2012). The Diversity of Activation Markets in Europe, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32 (5/6). Colin, Lindsay., Mcquaid Ronald W., & Dutton Matthew (2007). New Approaches to Employability in the UK: Combining ‘Human Capital Development’ and ‘Work First’ Strategies?, Journal of Social Policy, 36. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, 1990.
  2. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  3. Flemming, Larsen., & Wright Sharon (2014). Interpreting the Marketization of Employment Services in Great Britain and Denmark, Journal of European Social Policy, 1 –15. General National Assembly of Turkey (2002). Türkiye İş Kurumu Kanunu Gerekçesi ve Komisyon Tutanakları [Turkish Employment Agency Act’s Preamble and Related Commission Minutes]. Guler, Mehmet Atilla., (2015). Ulusal İstihdam Stratejisi Bağlamında Türkiye’de Güvencesiz Çalışma [Unsecure Working in Turkey in the Scope of National Employment Strategy], Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, 2015/3. Heidenreich, Martin., & Aurich-Beerheide, Patrizia., (2014). European Worlds of Inclusive Activation: The Organisational Challenges of Coordinated Service Provision, International Journal of Social Welfare, 23. Meyers, M., Glaser, B. & Mac Donald, K. (1998). On the Front Lines of Welfare Delivery: Are Workers Implementing Policy Reforms?, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(1). Pascual A. Serrano (2016, Mart 4). Reshaping Welfare States: Activation Regimes in Europe, http://www.peterlang.com/PDF/Buecher/Intro/21048_Intro.pdf adresinden ulaşılmıştır. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) (2013). Department for Work and Pensions: Work Programme Outcome Statistics, Thirty-third report of session 2012–13, London: The Stationery Offi ce. Prime Ministry of Turkey (2016, Mart 15), Justifi cation of Amendments on Labour Law and Turkish Employment Agency Act, http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d26/1/1-0597. pdf adresinden ulaşılmıştır. Rees, James,. Taylor, Rebecca,. & Damm, Chris (2013). Does Sector Matter? Understanding the Experiences of Providers in the Work Programme, Third Sector Research Cen