Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 107 - 126 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.21121/eab.1166635 İndeks Tarihi: 11-07-2023

Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report

Öz:
Postmodernism has affected institutions and systems with its rejection of traditional, macro, and hierarchical approaches. Accordingly, it has also affected the structuring of public administration by popularising two new concepts: new public management (NPM) and digital age governance (DAG). Public administration systems have sought to escape the rigid confines of modernism with the understanding of NPM, which has evolved into a system in which governance is strengthened together with an understanding of DAG. In this sense, data-based digital governance approaches are being adopted in the postmodernist era, and states, citizens, and the private sector actively participate in digital platforms. Information and communication technologies have become increasingly important for countries in the framework of DAG. Along these lines, the European Commission publishes its Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report every year to evaluate the digital transformation performance of EU countries. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of postmodernism on public administration through NPM and DAG and to evaluate the digital governance performances of EU countries in the postmodern era using the entropy and MABAC methods. The dataset used in this research consists of 5 sub-criteria of the Digital Public Service (DPS) criterion included in the 2022 DESI Report. As a result of this analysis, the sub-criterion with the highest importance is found to be ‘Digital Public Services for Business’, while the sub-criterion with the least importance is ‘Pre-Filled Forms’. It is seen that the EU countries with the strongest performance according to the DPS criterion are Estonia, the Netherlands, and Finland, respectively.
Anahtar Kelime: Postmodernism Digital Age Governance DESI Entropy MABAC

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Aitken, K. (2018). Governance in the digital age (public policy forum), Canada. Accessed at Ppforum.ca on 22.07.2022.
  • Altıntaş, F., F. (2022a). Avrupa ülkelerinin enerji inovasyonu performanslarının analizi: MABAC ve MARCOS yöntemleri ile bir uygulama. İşletme Akademisi Dergisi, 3(2), 188-216.
  • Altıntaş, F., F. (2022b). G7 ülkelerinin siber güvenlik performanslarının analizi: entropi tabanlı MABAC yöntemi ile bir uygulama. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 263-286.
  • Ayçin,E.(2019).Kurumsalkaynakplanlama(KKP)sistemlerinin seçiminde MACBETH ve MABAC yöntemlerinin bütünleşik olarak kullanılması. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 33(2), 515-532.
  • Ayçin, E., Çakın, E. (2019). Ülkelerin inovasyon performanslarının ölçümünde entropi ve MABAC çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin bütünleşik olarak kullanılması. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 19(2), 326-351.
  • Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new. USA: University of California Press.
  • Baudrillard, J. (1976). Symbolic exchange and death. USA: SAGE Publications.
  • Beniger, J. R. (1986). The control revolution: technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Biswas, S., Bandyopadhyay, G., Guha, B., Bhattacharjee, M. (2019). An ensemble approach for portfolio selection in a multi-criteria decision-making framework. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 138-158.
  • Biswas, T. K., Das, M. C. (2018). Selection of hybrid vehicle for green environment using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison method. Management Science Letters, 8(2), 121-130.
  • Biswas, T. K., Saha, P. (2019). Selection of commercially available scooters by new MCDM method. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 3(2), 137-144.
  • Bogason, P. (2005). Postmodern public administration. E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Ed.), Handbook of public management (pp. 234-256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bogason, P. (2008). Public administration under postmodern conditions. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30(3), 359-362.
  • Castro, C., & Lopes, C. (2021). Digital government and sustainable development. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13, 880–903.
  • Cavalcante, P. & Lotta, G. (2022). Are governance modes alike? an analysis based on bureaucratic relationships and skills. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(4), 319-334.
  • Chohan, S. R., & Hu, G. (2020). Success factors influencing citizens’ adoption of IOT service orchestration for public value creation in smart government. IEEE Access, 8, 208427–208448.
  • Çınaroğlu, E. (2020). Yenilikçi girişimlere ait faaliyetlerin entropi destekli MABAC yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 9(1), 111-135.
  • Çınaroğlu, E. (2022). Entropi destekli MABAC yöntemi ile AB ülkeleri dijital dönüşüm performansı analizi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Dijitalleşme Özel Sayısı, 18-34.
  • Daves, S. S. (2009). “Governance in the digital age: a research and action framework for an uncertain future”. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 257–264.
  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Demirel, D. (2014). Modernizmden postmodernizme kamu yönetimi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(2), 169-178.
  • Deng, X., Lin, T. & Chen, C. (2020). Comparison and research on diversified portfolios with several entropy measures based on different psychological states. Entropy, 22(10), 1125-1150.
  • Dunleavy, P. & Margetts, M. (2000). The advent of digital government: public bureaucracies and the state in the internet age, Paper to the Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, 4 September 2000.
  • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, M., Bastow, S. & Tinkler, J. (2005). New public management is dead- long live digital- era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467-494.
  • Dunleavy, P. & Margetts, M. (2010). The second wave of digital era governance, Paper to the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, September.
  • European Commission. (2013). European public sector innovation scoreboard. Accessed at https://unece. org/fileadmin/DAM/ceci/documents/2013/ICP/TOS- ICP/JERZYNIAK.pdf on 08.11.2022.
  • European Commission. (2020). Digital public administration factsheet 2020 European Union. Accessed at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/ sites/default/files/inline-files/Digital_Public_ Administration_Factsheets_EU_vFINAL.pdf on 05.11.2022.
  • European Commission. (2022). DESI. Accessed at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ digital-economy-and-society-index-desi-2022 on 04.11.2022.
  • European Commission. (2022). Data governance and amending regulation data governance act. Accessed at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R0868 on 08.11.2022.
  • Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things an archaeology of the human sciences. New York Publishing: USA.
  • Fox, C. J., & Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: toward discourse. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  • Fransen, L. (2015). The politics of meta-governance in transnational private sustainability governance. Policy Sciences, 48(3), 293–317. Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368.
  • Gavelin,K.,Burall,S.,&Wilson,R.(2009).Opengovernment: beyond static measures. A paper produced by Involve for the OECD.
  • Genç, F. N. (2015). Yeni Kamu Hizmeti: Vatandaş ve Kamu YararıTemelinde Kamu HizmetiniYeniden Düşünmek. Ö. Köseoğlu and M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), Kamu yönetiminde paradigma arayışları yeni kamu işletmeciliği ve ötesi (pp.129-149). Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
  • Gigovic, L., Pamucar, D., Bozanic, D., & Ljubojevic, S. (2017). Application of the GIS-DANP-MABAC multicriteria model for selecting the location of wind farms: a case study of Vojvodina. Serbia. Renewable Energy. 103, 501–521.
  • Gil-Garcia, R., Dawes S. S. & Pardo A. T. (2018). Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review , 20(5), 633-646.
  • Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R., & Termeer, K. (2019). From government to governance...to meta-governance: a systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 22(12), 1760–1780.
  • Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 1–18.
  • Greve, C. (2010). Whatever happened to new public management?, Paper presented at Danish Political Science Association Annual Meeting 2010 , Vejle, Denmark.
  • Grimmelmann, J. (2015). The virtues of moderation. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 17, 42- 109.
  • Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17(4), 525–548.
  • Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management Journal, 4(1), 1–25.
  • Gül, H. (2018). Dijitalleşmenin kamu yönetimi ve politikaları ile bu alanlardaki araştırmalara etkileri. Yasama Dergisi, 36, 5-26.
  • Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Harvey, D. (1992). Post-modern morality plays. Antipode, 24(4), 300–326.
  • He, W. (2020). Governance in a digital age and Wuhan’s fight against the coronavirus. European Review, 29(6), 770–780.
  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2014). The two orders of governance failure: design mismatches and policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 317–327.
  • Jameson, F. (1984). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. USA: Duke University Press.
  • Janowski, T. (2016). Implementing sustainable development goals with digital government- aspiration-capacity gap. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 603-613.
  • Ji, P., Zhang, H., & Wang, J. (2018). Selecting an outsourcing provider based on the combined MABAC-ELECTRE method using single-valued neutrosophic linguistic sets. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 120, 429– 441.
  • Kapur, J. N. (1982) Entropy maximization models in regional and urban planning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 13, 693-714.
  • Karvalics, Z. L. (2008). Towards governing in the digital age. USA: DEMOS.
  • Kellner, D. (1992). Popular culture and construction of postmodern identities. S. Lash & J. Friedman, (Ed.). Modernity and Identity, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • King, C. S. (2005). Postmodern public administration: in the shadow of postmodernism. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(3), 517-532.
  • Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. UK: Manchester.
  • Lyotard, J. F., & Brugger, N. (2001). What about the postmodern? the concept of the postmodern in the work of lyotard. Yale French Studies, 99, 77-92.
  • Melin, U. & Wihlborg, E. (2018). Balanced and integrated e-government implementation - exploring the crossroad of public policy-making and information systems Project management processes. People, Process and Policy, 12(2), 191-208.
  • Meng, G., Li, X., Liu, H., Wu, B., Liu Y., Huang, W., Wang, Y., Xu, S. (2021). Risk identification and assessment during the excavation of the deep foundation pit, Hindawi Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 4291356, 1-14.
  • Olsen, J. P. (2005). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1-24.
  • Osborne, P. S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387.
  • O’Shea, N. (2005). Governance how we’ve got where we are and what’s next. Accountancy Ireland, 37(6), 33-37.
  • Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centres using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028.
  • Rhodes, R. (1996). New governance: governing without government. Political Studies. 44(4), 652-667.
  • Rhodes, R. (1997)Understanding governance, Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Scupola, A. & Zanfei, A. (2016). Governance and innovation in public sector services: the case of the digital library. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 237-249.
  • Simons, R. N., Fleischmann, K. R., & Roy, L. (2020). Levelling the playing field in ICT design: transcending knowledge roles by balancing division and privileging of knowledges. Information Society, 36(4), 183–198.
  • Spicer, M. W. (1997). Public administration, the state, and the postmodern condition: a constitutionalist perspective. American Behavioural Scientist, 41, 90-102.
  • Stanimirovic, D., & Vintar, M. (2013). Conceptualization of an integrated indicator model for the evaluation of e-government policies. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11(1), 293-307.
  • Şener, H. E. (2005). Kamu yönetiminde katılım ve çoğulculuk. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 38(4), 1-22.
  • Tianru, G. (2020). Comparative political communication research in the digital epoch: a typology of national communication spaces. Information Society, 36(2), 59-70.
  • Toprak Karaman, Z. (1997). Türk yerel yönetimlerinin işlevselliği ve 1997 mahalli idareler reformu. Türk İdare Dergisi, 417, 45-60.
  • Ulutaş, A. (2019). Entropi ve MABAC yöntemleri ile personel seçimi. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(19), 1552-1573.
  • Von Haldenwang, C. (2004). Electronic government (e-government) and development. The European Journal of Development Research, 16(2), 417–432.
  • Von Hayek, F. A. (1937). Economics and knowledge. Economica, 4(13), 33-54.
  • Wallerstein, I. (2001). Unthinking social science: the limits of nineteenth-century paradigms. USA: Temple University Press.
  • Wei, G., Wei, C., Wu, J. & Wang, H. (2019). Supplier selection of medical consumption products with a probabilistic linguistic MABAC method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 16(24), 5082-5097.
  • Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly, 21(5), 795–814.
  • Wu, Z., Sun, j., Liang, L., & Zha, Y. (2011). Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy. Experts Systems with Applications, 38, 5162- 5165.
  • Yong, X., Chen, W., Wu, Y., Tao, Y., Zhou, J., He, J. (2022). A two-stage framework for site selection of underground pumped storage power stations using abandoned coal mines based on multi-criteria decision-making period: An emprical study in China. Energy Conversion and Management, 260, 1-19.
  • Zanetti A. L. & Carr A. (1999). Exaggerating the dialectic: postmodernism’s “new individualism” and the detrimental effects on citizenship. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21(2), 2015-217.
  • Zhang, H., Gu, C., Gu, L. & Zhang, Y. (2011). The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by topsis & information entropy - a case in the Yangtze river delta of China. Tourism Management, 32, 443-451.
  • Zou, Z., Yun, Y., & Sun, J. (2006). Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 18(5),1020–1023.
APA DORU S, YILDIRIM B, YAZAR A (2023). Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. , 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
Chicago DORU SERKAN,YILDIRIM Burak,YAZAR Ahmet Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. (2023): 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
MLA DORU SERKAN,YILDIRIM Burak,YAZAR Ahmet Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. , 2023, ss.107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
AMA DORU S,YILDIRIM B,YAZAR A Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. . 2023; 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
Vancouver DORU S,YILDIRIM B,YAZAR A Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. . 2023; 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
IEEE DORU S,YILDIRIM B,YAZAR A "Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report." , ss.107 - 126, 2023. 10.21121/eab.1166635
ISNAD DORU, SERKAN vd. "Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report". (2023), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1166635
APA DORU S, YILDIRIM B, YAZAR A (2023). Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. Ege Akademik Bakış, 23(1), 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
Chicago DORU SERKAN,YILDIRIM Burak,YAZAR Ahmet Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. Ege Akademik Bakış 23, no.1 (2023): 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
MLA DORU SERKAN,YILDIRIM Burak,YAZAR Ahmet Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. Ege Akademik Bakış, vol.23, no.1, 2023, ss.107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
AMA DORU S,YILDIRIM B,YAZAR A Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. Ege Akademik Bakış. 2023; 23(1): 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
Vancouver DORU S,YILDIRIM B,YAZAR A Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report. Ege Akademik Bakış. 2023; 23(1): 107 - 126. 10.21121/eab.1166635
IEEE DORU S,YILDIRIM B,YAZAR A "Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report." Ege Akademik Bakış, 23, ss.107 - 126, 2023. 10.21121/eab.1166635
ISNAD DORU, SERKAN vd. "Analysing the Relationship Between Postmodernism and Digital Age Governance with Entropy and Mabac Methods: The Case of the 2022 EU Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report". Ege Akademik Bakış 23/1 (2023), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1166635