VALİDİTY OF PUBLİC ADMİNİSTRATİON REFORM OUTCOMES: THE AMERİCAN EXPERİENCE WİTH STRATEGİC PLANNİNG AND THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

Devlet Performans ve Sonuçlar Yasası (GPRA), Amerikan federal devletinde stratejik planlama uygulamasını zorunlu kılan 1993 tarihli bir kanundur. GPRA ve ABD başkanının talebi doğrultusunda, söz konusu kanunun önemli hükümlerini test etmek, yenilikleri teşvik etmek elde edilen sonuçları diğer kamu kurumlarıyla paylaşmak üzere pilot projeler ve “yeniden keşfetme laboratuarları” oluşturulmuştur. Bu araştırma söz konusu pilot projeler ve yeniden keşfetme laboratuarlarında elde edilen sonuçların geçerliğini Karl Popper’in bilim felsefesi ve Donald Campbell’ın yöntemini kullanarak değerlendirmektedir. Çalışma, GPRA’nın yöntemini sorgularken, stratejik planlama uygulaması açısından Türk kamu politikası yapıcılarına Amerikan uygulamasından elde edilen dersler hakkında bilgi vermektedir. Çalışmanın bulguları, reform hareketlerinin, alınan sonuçların geçerliğini arttıracak deneysel bir toplum anlayışını oluşturan sağlam bir yönteme ihtiyaç duyduğunu göstermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kamu işletmeciliği, GPRA, stratejik planlama, deneysel toplum, bilimsel geçerlik

VALİDİTY OF PUBLİC ADMİNİSTRATİON REFORM OUTCOMES: THE AMERİCAN EXPERİENCE WİTH STRATEGİC PLANNİNG AND THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

The US Government performance and results act of 1993 (GPRA) was a public law that enforced the implementation of strategic planning in the American Federal Government. GPRA and a presidential request established pilot projects and reinvention labs respectively to experience the important provisions of the act, fostering innovation, and share the experience with other agencies in the US. This research explores the validity of the results produced by the pilot projects and reinvention labs by using Karl Popper’s philosophy of science and Donald Campbell’s methodology. While the paper questions the methodology of GPRA, it provides lessons for public policy makers for strategic planning in Turkey. The findings of the paper suggest that reform proposals need a firm methodology that creates an experimental society for increasing the validity of reforms

Keywords:

Public management, GPRA, strategic planning, experimental society, scientific validity,

PDF

___

Argyris, C. ve Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory,
Method and Practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Campbell, D. T. (1998). “The Experimenting Society.” In N. W. Dunn (Ed),
The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell. Transaction Boks: New Brunswick, NJ Campbell, D. T. (1987). "Guidelines for Monitoring the Scientific
Competence of Preventive Intervention Research Centers: An Exercise in the Sociology of Scientific Validity." Science Communication, 8 (3): 389-430
Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Houghton Mifflin Co.: Boston, MA.
Diesing, P (1991). How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice.
University of Pittsburgh Pres: Pittsburgh. Dunn, W. N. (1998). Dunn, N.W. 1998. Pragmatic Eliminative Induction:
Proximal Range and Context Validation in Applied Social Experimentation. In N. W. Dunn (Ed), The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell. Transaction Boks: New Brunswick, NJ Edwards J. D. (1998). “Managerial Influences in Public Administration”,
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 1(4) Http://www.utc.edu/Academic/MasterofPublicAdministration/managerialis m.htm Çorbacıoğlu, S. (2005). “Reinventing Government Movement in the American Federal Government: A Critical Evaluation of the Implementation
Process”, E-Akademi: Hukuk, Ekonomi ve Siyasal Bilgiler Aylık İnternet Dergisi, Ağustos 2005 Sayı 42.http://www.e-akademi.org/arsiv.asp?sayi=42
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., and Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital Era
Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and e-Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Government Accounting Office (Report No: 96-69). “Status of Agency Reinvention Labs” http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96069.pdf (05/02/2008)
Gore, A. (1993). The Gore Report on Reinventing Government. The USA: Random House.
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Law No: 103-62. http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109/d109laws.html (15/03/2008)
Hood, C. (1991). “A Public Management for All Seasons?”, Public Administration, 69 (1): 3-19.
Kettle, F.D.(1994). Reinventing government? Appraising the national performance review. Washington: Brookings Institute.
Nadler, D.A., Shaw,R.B., and Walton, A.R. (1995). Discontinuous Change.
San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Office of Management and Budget. “OMB's Mission” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/organization/role.html (16/05/2008)
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. New York: Plum.
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management Reform : A
Comparative Analysis. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Radin, A.B. (1998). “The government performance and results act (GPRA):
Hydra Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tool?”, Public Administration Review, 58 (4): 307-316. Savas, E.S. (1982). Privatizing the Public Sector. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Third Edition.
New York: Wiley Publishers. Shafritz, J.M. and Russell E.W. (2005). Introducing Public Administration,
New York: Pearson Longman Press. The U.S. Government Accountability Office. “About GAO” http://www.gao.gov/about/index.html (16/052008)
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (Report No: 97-109). “Government performance results act. Government wide implementation will be uneven”, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97109.pdf (19/02/2008)
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (Report No:97-113).”Managing for Results: Prospects for Effective Implementation of GPRA”, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97113t.pdf (19/02/2008)
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (Report No: 97-138). Managing for results. Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/h297138.pdf (19/02/2008)
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (Report No: 1997-83 ). “Managing for results. Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant Barriers for Focusing on Results”, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97083.pdf (19/02/2008)