Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye

Erdal EROĞLU, (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, İktisat Fakültesi ve İdari Bilimler, Maliye Bölümü, Çanakkale, Türkiye)
Gulcin Tunc, (Siyaset ve Kamu Yönetimi, Bursa, Türkiye)
MİNE AYDEMİR (Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi, Ekonometri Bölümü, Bursa, Türkiye)
Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online)
4 2
Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 32 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 35 - 56 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238 İndeks Tarihi: 02-06-2023

Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye

Öz:
This study develops a new scale for measuring the active participation relation between municipalities and NGOs. While citizen participation at the local level is a widely explored topic, a scale that aims to get NGO members’ perceptions about their level of participation and focuses on the budgeting process is not available. We carried out an extensive review of the participation and budgeting literature and considered the inputs obtained from this review in developing our two-dimensional and 6-item participation scale. ‘Participation mechanism’ and ‘participation process’ were determined as two dimensions. This was a decision made based on the existence of an emphasis on the interplay between the participation mechanisms used and the participation process actualized in the relevant literature. As existing scales for examining local participation are designed to get data from public officials, we hope that obtaining data from NGOs will enrich our understanding of the complex participatory relationship between citizens and the local administration.
Anahtar Kelime:

Türkiye’de Belediyelerin Karar Alma Süreçlerine STK’ların Aktif Katılımının Ölçülmesi

Öz:
Bu çalışmanın amacı, belediyeler ile STK’lar arasındaki aktif katılım ilişkisinin incelenmesinde kullanılacak yeni bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Yerel düzeyde vatandaş katılımı literatürde farklı yönleriyle ele alınmasına karşın STK üyelerinin belediye karar alma süreçlerine katılım düzeyleri hakkındaki algılarını bütçe sürecine odaklanarak ortaya koymayı hedefleyen bir ölçek mevcut değildir. Yazındaki bu boşluğu doldurmak yönünde, katılım ve bütçeleme süreçleriyle ilgili geniş bir kaynak taraması yapılmış ve bu tarama sonucunda elde edilen girdiler iki boyuttan ve altı maddeden oluşan yeni ölçeğin geliştirilmesinde kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin içerdiği iki boyut, “katılım mekanizmaları” ve “katılım süreci” olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu kararda, seçilen katılım mekanizmaları ile pratikte gerçekleşen katılım süreci arasındaki karşılıklı etkileşime yazında sıklıkla vurgu yapılması etkili olmuştur. Yerel düzeyde vatandaş katılımını tespit etmeye yönelik mevcut ölçeklerin büyük oranda kamudaki yöneticilerin algısını ölçmeye odaklanmış olması dolayısıyla STK’ların algısını elde etmeye yönelen bu çalışmanın vatandaşlar ve belediyeler arasındaki karmaşık katılım ilişkisinin anlaşılmasına katkı yapacağı düşünülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Arıkboğa, E. (2013). Geçmişten geleceğe büyükşehir belediye modeli. Yerel Politikalar, 3, 48-96.
  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216–224.
  • Barnes, M., Newman, J. & Knops A, et al. (2003). Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation. Public Administration, 81(2), 379–99.
  • Beaumont, J. & Nicholls, W. (2008). Plural governance, participation, and democracy in cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 87-94.
  • Beckett, J. & King, C. S. (2002). The challenge to improve citizen participation in public budgeting: A discussion. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(3), 463-85.
  • Berner, M. M., Amos, J. M., & Morse, R. S. (2011). What constitutes effective citizen participation in local government? Views from city stakeholders. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 128-63.
  • Berner, M. (2003). Current practices for involving citizens in local government budgeting: Moving beyond method. Public Administration Quarterly, 27(3-4), 410-32.
  • Brannan, T. John, P. & Stoker, G. (2006). Active citizenship and effective public services and programmes: How can we know what really works? Urban studies, 43(5-6), 993-1008.
  • Brenner, N. (2004). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in Western Europe, 1960-2000. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 447-88.
  • Bulut, Y. & Ş. Taniyici. (2006). Representativeness and Attitudes of Municipal Council Members in Turkey: The Case of Erzincan Province. Local Government Studies, 32(4), 413-428.
  • Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179-96.
  • Chandler, D. (2001). Active citizens and the therapeutic state: The role of democratic participation in local government reform. Policy & Politics, 29(1), 3-14.
  • Cheema, G. S. (2011). Engaging civil society to promote democratic local governance: Emerging trends and policy implications in Asia. Working paper no 7, Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy (ICLD), Visby.
  • Chen, X., Yu, H., & Yu, F. (2015). What is the optimal number of response alternatives for rating scales? From an information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 3(2), 69–78. Chhotray, V., & Stoker, G. (2009) Governance Theory and Practice A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press.
  • Chirenje, L. I., Giliba, R. A., & Musamba, E. B. (2013). Local communities’ participation in decision-making processes through planning and budgeting in African countries. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11(1), 10-16.
  • Chyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., et al. (2017). Evidence based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10), 15-23.
  • Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–19.
  • Council of Europe (CoE). (2009). Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decision-Making
  • Process. CONF/PLE (2009) CODE1, Conference of INGOs at its meeting on 1st October 2009, Available at https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/code-of-good-pratice-for-civil--participation- in-the-decision-making-process-en.pdf, (Accessed 21 April 2020).
  • Cohen, J. & Rogers, J. (1992). Secondary associations and democratic governance. Politics and Society, 20(4), 393–472.
  • Devas, N. & Grant, U. (2003). Local government decision making—citizen participation and local accountability: Some evidence from Kenya and Uganda. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 23(4), 307-316.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Ebdon, C. (2000). The relationship between citizen involvement in the budget process and city structure and culture. Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(3), 383-393.
  • Ebdon, C. (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2), 273-294.
  • Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(1), 32-49.
  • Ebdon, C. & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437-447.
  • Eroğlu, E. and Serbes, H. (2018). Fiscal Autonomy of Sub-Central Governments in Turkey. in M. Rodríguez Bolívar, & M. López Subires (Ed.), Financial Sustainability and Intergenerational Equity in Local Governments (pp. 83-100). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3713-7.ch004.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
  • Fung, A. (2006). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001) Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5-41.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice- Hall.
  • Heinelt, H. (2013). Introduction: The role perception and behavior of municipal councilors in the changing context of local democracy. Local Government Studies, 39(5), 633-639.
  • Heper, M., & Keyman, E. F. (1998). Double faced state: political patronage and the consolidation of democracy in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 34(4), 259-277.
  • Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of management, 21(5), 967-988.
  • Ianniello, M. Iacuzzi, S. & Fedele, P., et al. (2019). Obstacles and solutions on the ladder of citizen participation: a systematic review. Public Management Review, 21(1), 21-46.
  • Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436.
  • Irvin, R. A. & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
  • Jenkins, G. D. & Taber, T. D. (1977). A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 392-398.
  • Jessop, B. (2016). Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1), 8-32.
  • Jurlina Alibegović, D., & Slijepčević, S. (2018). Attitudes towards citizen participation in the local decision- making process: A comparative analysis. Društvena istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena pitanja, 27(1), 155-175.
  • King, C. S., Feltey, K. M. & O’Neill Susel, B. (1998). The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-26.
  • Kissling, C., & Steffek, J. (2008). CSOs and the Democratization of International Governance: Prospects and Problems. In: Steffek, J. Kissling, C. & Nanz, P. (eds) Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance-A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press, 208-18.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  • Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  • Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2010). Inequalities in non-institutionalized forms of political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(1), 187-213.
  • Marquetti, A., Schonerwald da Silva, C. E. & Campbell, A. (2012). Participatory economic democracy in action: Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, 1989–2004. Review of Radical Political Economics, 44(1), 62-81.
  • Michels, A. & De Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477-491.
  • Novy. A., & Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2023-2036.
  • Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Citizens as Partners-OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policymaking. Paris, OECD Publications Service.
  • Orbista, C. (2012). NGOs Participation in Local Governance in the Philippines. MA Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
  • Orosz, J. F. (2002). Views from the field: Creating a place for authentic citizen participation in budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(3), 423-44.
  • Pandeya, G. P. (2015). Does citizen participation in local government decision-making contribute to strengthening local planning and accountability systems? an empirical assessment of stakeholders’ perceptions in Nepal. International Public Management Review, 16(1), 67-98.
  • Petrova, T. (2011). Citizen participation in local governance in Eastern Europe: Rediscovering a strength of civil society in the post-socialist world? Europe-Asia Studies, 63(5), 757-787.
  • Posner, P. WB (2004). Local democracy and the transformation of popular participation in Chile. Latin American Politics and Society, 46(3), 55-81.
  • Pratchett, L. (2004). Local autonomy, local democracy and the ‘new localism’. Political studies, 52(2), 358-375.
  • Rios, A. M., Bastida, F. & Benito, B. (2016). Budget transparency and legislative budgetary oversight: An international approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), 546-568.
  • Rivenbark, W. C., & Kelly, J. M. (2006). Performance budgeting in municipal government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 35-46.
  • Røiseland, A. & Vabo, S. I. (2015). Interactive − or counteractive − governance? Lessons learned about citizen participation and political leadership, In: ECPR General Conference, Montreal, 26-29th August 2015.
  • Sarıbay, A.Y. 1997. Türkiye’de Demokrasi ve Sivil Toplum. Liberal Düşünce, 32-43.
  • Sener, T. (2014). Civic and political participation of women and youth in Turkey: An examination of perspectives of public authorities and NGOs. Journal of Civil Society, 10(1), 69-81.
  • Shah, A., & Shen, C. (2007). Citizen-centric performance budgeting at the local level. In: Shah A (ed) Local Budgeting. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series, 151- 178.
  • Simmons, R. (2001). Questionnaires. In: N. Gilbert (ed) Researching Social Life. London: Sage Publications, 85-104.
  • Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164-178.
  • Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2007). Introduction: Governance network research- Towards a second generation. In: Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (eds) Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press, 1-21.
  • Steffek, J. & Nanz, P. (2008). Emergent Patterns of Civil Society Participation in Global and European Governance. In: Steffek, J., Kissling, C. & Nanz, P. (eds) Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance-A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press, 1-29.
  • Swyngedouw, E. (1992). Territorial organization and the space/technology nexus. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(4), 417-433.
  • Tekeli, İ. (2017). Katılımcı Demokrasi ve Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları. Sosyal Demokrasi Derneği Yayınları.
  • Toprak, Z. (2011). Yerel Yönetimlerde Başkanın Politik Lider Rolü. Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, 69(1-2), 299-315.
  • Tsang, S., Royse, C. F., & Terkawi, A. S. (2017). Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 11(1), 80-89.
  • Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411-427.
  • Veltmeyer, H. (2008). Civil society and local development. Interações Campo Grande, 9(2), 229-243.
  • Weber, P. S., Weber, J. E., Sleeper, B. R., & Schneider, K. L. (2004). Self-efficacy toward service, civic participation, and the business student: Scale development and validation. Journal of business ethics, 49(4), 359-369.
  • Weijters, B., Cabooter. E. & Schillewaert, N. (2010) The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International, Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247.
  • White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1), 6-15.
  • Yabanci, B. (2019). Turkey’s tamed civil society: Containment and appropriation under a competitive authoritarian regime. Journal of Civil Society, 15(4): 285-306.
  • Yang, K. (2005). Explaining citizen involvement efforts: SES, institutions, & managerial behavior, In: Public Management Research Association Conference. Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download ?doi=10.1.1.509.6966&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 15 April 2020).
  • Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2005). Assessing citizen involvement efforts by local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 191-216.
  • Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249-264.
  • Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880-92.
  • Zhang, Y., & Liao, Y. (2011). Participatory budgeting in local government: Evidence from New Jersey municipalities. Public Performance and Management Review, 35(2), 281–302.
  • Zhang, Y., & Yang, K. (2009). Citizen participation in the budget process: The effect of city managers. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(2), 289-317.
  • Zittel, T., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Introduction: Democratic reform and political participation. In: Zittel, T. & Fuchs, D. (eds) Participatory Democracy and Political Participation: Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back In? London and New York: Routledge, 1-5.
APA EROGLU E, Tunc G, AYDEMIR DEV M (2023). Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. , 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
Chicago EROGLU ERDAL,Tunc Gulcin,AYDEMIR DEV MINE Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. (2023): 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
MLA EROGLU ERDAL,Tunc Gulcin,AYDEMIR DEV MINE Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. , 2023, ss.35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
AMA EROGLU E,Tunc G,AYDEMIR DEV M Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. . 2023; 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
Vancouver EROGLU E,Tunc G,AYDEMIR DEV M Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. . 2023; 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
IEEE EROGLU E,Tunc G,AYDEMIR DEV M "Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye." , ss.35 - 56, 2023. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
ISNAD EROGLU, ERDAL vd. "Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye". (2023), 35-56. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
APA EROGLU E, Tunc G, AYDEMIR DEV M (2023). Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online) , 32(1), 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
Chicago EROGLU ERDAL,Tunc Gulcin,AYDEMIR DEV MINE Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online) 32, no.1 (2023): 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
MLA EROGLU ERDAL,Tunc Gulcin,AYDEMIR DEV MINE Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online) , vol.32, no.1, 2023, ss.35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
AMA EROGLU E,Tunc G,AYDEMIR DEV M Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online) . 2023; 32(1): 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
Vancouver EROGLU E,Tunc G,AYDEMIR DEV M Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online) . 2023; 32(1): 35 - 56. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
IEEE EROGLU E,Tunc G,AYDEMIR DEV M "Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye." Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online) , 32, ss.35 - 56, 2023. 10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
ISNAD EROGLU, ERDAL vd. "Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision- Making in Turkiye". Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences (Online) 32/1 (2023), 35-56. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 7:43

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları