KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 44 Sayı: Civil Society Special Issue

Türkiye'de Kamu Hizmetleri Sunumunda Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Ortak Rolü: Odak Grup Tartışmalarından Elde Edilen Bulgular

Civil Society Organizations as Partners in Providing Public Services in Türkiye: Findings from Focus Group Discussions

İrem Didinmez(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1931-0688
Sayfa
19–40
Yayın Tarihi
2026-07-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular, STK’ların kamu hizmeti sunumuna katılımına yönelik tüm tarafların istekli olduğuna işaret etmektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Eskişehir, İzmir ve Trabzon'da gerçekleştirilen odak grup görüşmelerine (FGD'ler) dayanan nitel bir araştırma yöntemi benimseyerek, sivil toplum kuruluşlarının (STK'lar) kamu hizmeti sunmadaki rolünü analiz etmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bulgular, STK’ların kamu hizmeti sunumuna katılımına yönelik tüm tarafların istekli olduğuna işaret etmektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu bulgular, etkili kamu–STK iş birliğinin yalnızca katılıma yönelik normatif desteğe değil, uzun vadeli ortaklıkları sürdürebilecek istikrarlı yönetişim, finansman ve koordinasyon mekanizmalarının kurumsallaştırılmasına bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Yönetişim · Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları · Kamu Hizmeti Sağlanması

Özet

Bu çalışma, Eskişehir, İzmir ve Trabzon'da gerçekleştirilen odak grup görüşmelerine (FGD'ler) dayanan nitel bir araştırma yöntemi benimseyerek, sivil toplum kuruluşlarının (STK'lar) kamu hizmeti sunmadaki rolünü analiz etmektedir. Bulgular, STK’ların kamu hizmeti sunumuna katılımına yönelik tüm tarafların istekli olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu katılımın kamu sektörünün liderliğinde ve kamu sektörünü tamamlayıcı nitelikte olması gerektiği genel kabul görmektedir. Odak grup görüşmelerinde, Kamu-STK iş birliğinin sürdürülebilirliği önündeki en temel sorunlar kurumsal altyapının yetersizliği, rol belirsizlikleri, bürokratik süreçlerin katılığı, proje temelli finansman ve kapasite eşitsizlikleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılar sürdürülebilir iş birliği için rol ve sorumlulukların netleştirilmesi, öngörülebilir ve uzun vadeli finansman mekanizmaları ile kademeli ve performans esaslı ortaklık düzenlemelerinin geliştirilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu bulgular, etkili kamu–STK iş birliğinin yalnızca katılıma yönelik normatif desteğe değil, uzun vadeli ortaklıkları sürdürebilecek istikrarlı yönetişim, finansman ve koordinasyon mekanizmalarının kurumsallaştırılmasına bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Abstract

This study examines the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in public service delivery through a qualitative research design based on focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted in Eskişehir, İzmir, and Trabzon. The findings indicate a broad willingness among public actors to engage CSOs in service processes, while maintaining a public sector led, complementary model of involvement. The FGDs reveal several structural constraints that undermine the sustainability of public-CSO collaboration, including limited institutional infrastructure, ambiguity in roles and responsibilities, rigid bureaucratic procedures, project-based funding structures, and disparities in organizational capacity. Participants emphasize that sustainable collaboration requires clearer role definitions and accountability frameworks, the establishment of predictable and long-term financing mechanisms, and the development of phased and performance-based participation arrangements. Overall, the findings demonstrate that effective public-CSO collaboration depends not only on normative support for participation but also on the institutionalization of stable governance, financing, and coordination mechanisms that can sustain long-term engagement.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Didinmez, İ. (2026). Türkiye'de Kamu Hizmetleri Sunumunda Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Ortak Rolü: Odak Grup Tartışmalarından Elde Edilen Bulgular. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 44 Sayı: Civil Society Special Issue, 19–40. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1895391

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (51)

  1. Acar, M., & Özgür, H. (2004). Training of civil servants in Turkey: Progress, problems, and prospects. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(3-4), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120028660
  2. Aldret, A. D., Titova, E., & Gault, D. A. (2020). Legitimacy and transparency of civil society organizations in Mexico. Neutral or interested actors? [Legitimidad y transparencia de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en México. ¿Actores neutrales o interesados?]. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales, 65(239), 25–60. https://doi.org/10.22201/FCPYS.2448492XE.2020.239.68646
  3. Alici, N. (2024). Learning from civil society actors in Turkey: Using transitional justice in an ongoing conflict. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 18(2), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijae015
  4. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
  5. Atar, E., Hossain, F., & Ullah, A. K. M. A. (2023). Syrian refugees in Turkey: Exploring the role of I/NGOs in refugee crisis. Third World Quarterly, 44(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2144208
  6. Balcioğlu, Z. (2014). Civil society-state relations in Turkey: Analysis of legislative infrastructure and institutional reforms. Revista de Estudios Internacionales Mediterraneos, (17). https://doi.org/10.15366/reim2014.17.005
  7. Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208956
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. Blåka, S., & Jacobsen, D. I. (2025). Is buying cheaper than sharing? A study of the effect stand-alone contracting out versus public co-production has on cost in Norwegian local auditing services. Local Government Studies, 51(3), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2393101
  10. Bolleyer, N. (2021). State funding pressure in interest groups, political parties and service-oriented membership organisations. West European Politics, 44(7), 1577–1603. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1838193
  11. De Corte, J., Verschuere, B. (2014). The Autonomy of Organised Civil Society in Strategic Policy Decision-Making: A Resource-Dependence Perspective. In: Brandsen, T., Trommel, W., Verschuere, B. (eds) Manufacturing Civil Society. IIAS Series: Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137351630_9
  12. Doyle, J. L. (2018). Government co-option of civil society: Exploring the AKP’s role within Turkish women’s CSOs. Democratization, 25(3), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2017.1373096
  13. Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2014). Restoring trust through the co-production of public services: A theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16(3), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848920
  14. Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New Public Administration. University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press. Gupta, A. K., & Lamsal, B. P. (2023). From traditional to innovative public service: A review of paradigm shifts. Public Administration Issues, (6), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2023-0-6-137-156
  15. Hornsby, M. (2022). Focus groups. In R. Kircher & L. Zipp (Eds.), Research methods in language attitudes (pp. 114–128). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108867788.011
  16. Ignjatović, S. (2020). Qualitative applied research in social interventions and public policy programs: The case of focus group interviews [Kvalitativna primenjena istraživanja u okviru socijalnih intervencija i programa javne politike sa posebnim osvrtom na fokus grupe]. Sociologija, 62(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC2001042I
  17. Liddle, J. (2017). Public value management and new public governance: Key traits, issues and developments. In E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 967–990). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_49
  18. Kim, C., & Choi, T. (2023). Contracting out and the fiscal sustainability of public services. Public Performance and Management Review, 46(4), 890–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2204073
  19. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
  20. Köse, R., Akdoğan, M., Yıldırım, S., & Akdoğan, R. (2024). The transformative role of the European Union on Turkish civil society: A legal framework analysis from recognition to protection. Civil Szemle, 21(4), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.62560/csz.2024.04.8
  21. Mazlum, S., & Firidin, E. (2025). The effect of good governance principles on creating public value: Case of Ankara metropolitan municipality. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 43 (3), 567-588. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1583534
  22. McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x
  23. McMullin, C. (2025). “We’re not there to lead”: Professional roles and responsibilities in “citizen-led” co-production. Public Administration Review, 85(1), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13770
  24. Mikušová Meričková, B., Mališová, D., & Murínová, K. (2023). Market restrictions of contracting out the public service at the municipal level. In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics (pp. 37–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22749-3_3
  25. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  26. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287
  27. Mortensen, N. M. (2022). Frontmedarbejdere som professionelle samskabere: Dilemmaer og udfordringer i praksis. Academic Quarter, 24, 117–134. https://doi.org/10.54337/academicquarter.vi24.7255
  28. Mourey, D., Eynaud, P., & Cordery, C. (2013). The impact of governmental policy on the effective operation of CSOs: A French case study. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 5(1), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2012-0015
  29. Neumayr, M., Schneider, U., & Meyer, M. (2015). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013513350
  30. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069177338
  31. Ohemeng, F. L. K., & Grant, J. K. (2014). Neither public nor private: The efficacy of mixed model public service delivery in two Canadian municipalities. Canadian Public Administration, 57(4), 548–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12090
  32. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
  33. Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(S3), S31–S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12010
  34. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
  35. Palumbo, R., Vezzosi, S., Picciolli, P., Landini, A., Annarumma, C., & Manna, R. (2018). Fostering organizational change through co-production. Insights from an Italian experience. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-018-0205-7
  36. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th edition). Sage Publications
  37. Raipa, A. (2011). The possibilities of diagnosis of new public governance indicators [Naujojo viešojo valdymo indikatorių diagnozavimo galimybės]. Public Policy and Administration, 10(2), 167–182.
  38. Raipa, A. (2016). The essence and structure of metagovernance [Metavaldymo samprata ir struktūra]. Public Policy and Administration, 15(4), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.13165/VPA-16-15-4-01
  39. Rammelt, H. P., & Kołczyńska, M. (2025). Donor dependency, embeddedness and organizational structure of civil society: An analysis of a global sample of actors active in the field of corporate accountability. Global Networks, 25(3), Article e70024. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.70024
  40. Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
  41. Rosenau, J. N. (2009). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521775
  42. Sicilia, M., Sancino, A., Nabatchi, T., & Guarini, E. (2019). Facilitating co-production in public services: Management implications from a systematic literature review. Public Money and Management, 39(4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592904
  43. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50, 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106
  44. Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative appearances synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
  45. Topcuoglu, E. (2025). Civil society in action: Examining CSOs' influence on higher education policy in Turkey. Higher Education Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-025-00414-2
  46. Tuncel, O. (2023). Selective inclusion under competitive autocratic regimes: An example from the Turkish educational civil society. Journal of Civil Society, 19(2), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2023.2206152
  47. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1997). Governance for sustainable human development: A UNDP policy document. United Nations Development Programme.
  48. Wang, S. (2006). Money and autonomy: Patterns of civil society finance and their implications. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(4), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686301
  49. Willis, K., Green, J., Daly, J., Williamson, L., & Bandyopadhyaya, M. (2009). Perils and possibilities: Achieving best evidence from focus groups in public health research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00358.x
  50. Wren, D. A. (2001). Henri Fayol as strategist: A nineteenth century corporate turnaround. Management Decision, 39(6), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005565
  51. Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New Public Administration. University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press. Gupta, A. K., & Lamsal, B. P. (2023). From traditional to innovative public service: A review of paradigm shifts. Public Administration Issues, (6), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2023-0-6-137-156