Course Description
| Course | Code | Semester | T+P (Hour) | Credit | ECTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUREAUCRACY | PPA3112119 | Fall Semester | 3+0 | 3 | 6 |
| Course Program | Çarşamba 15:30-16:15 Çarşamba 16:30-17:15 Çarşamba 17:30-18:15 Çarşamba 18:30-19:15 Çarşamba 19:30-20:15 Çarşamba 20:30-21:15 |
| Prerequisites Courses | |
| Recommended Elective Courses |
| Language of Course | English |
| Course Level | First Cycle (Bachelor's Degree) |
| Course Type | Elective |
| Course Coordinator | Prof.Dr. Bekir Berat ÖZİPEK |
| Name of Lecturer(s) | Prof.Dr. Ömer Faruk GENÇKAYA |
| Assistant(s) | |
| Aim | The course aims to help the students examine bureaucracy in a broader political, social, and economic context. To understand bureaucracy means to understand what it is, where it stands in the formulation and implementation of public policies, and what kinds of problems it encounters in its operations. In this regard, the course will both focus on theoretical approaches to bureaucracy and the practical implications of its daily functioning in different contexts at the domestic and international levels. The course will also have a special focus on bureaucracy in Turkey, especially reflecting the characteristics and changes it has experienced throughout the 2000s. |
| Course Content | This course contains; General Introduction,Theories of Modern Bureaucracy,Models of Bureaucracy,Bureaucracy, Culture and Leadership,Bureaucracy, liberalism and democracy,Politicization of bureaucracy,Mid-Term Week,Administrative reform,Bureaucracy, Public Policy and Service delivery,New Public Management and Governance,International Bureaucracy,State and bureaucracy in Turkey,Issues in Turkish bureaucracy,Accountability and Public Service Ethics. |
| Dersin Öğrenme Kazanımları | Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
| 1. Defines the concept of bureaucracy, explain its role in the administration, examine the reasons for the growth of the bureaucratic state, and assess arguments for and against its continued expansion. | 16, 9 | A |
| 2. Enhances his/her preliminary knowledge about Weberian and post-Weberian bureaucratic theories. | 16, 9 | A |
| 3. Analyzes how incrementalism and bureaucratic culture affect policymaking. | 16, 9 | A |
| 4. Identifies obstacles to effective policy implementation. | 16, 9 | A |
| 5. Compares the strengths and weaknesses of reform efforts aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the bureaucracy’s performance. | 16, 9 | A |
| 6. Links the bureaucratic ethos and administrative and political systems in practice. | 16, 9 | A |
| Teaching Methods: | 16: Question - Answer Technique, 9: Lecture Method |
| Assessment Methods: | A: Traditional Written Exam |
Course Outline
| Order | Subjects | Preliminary Work |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | General Introduction | Heper, 1985; Dahlström and Lapuente, 2022 |
| 2 | Theories of Modern Bureaucracy | Sager and Rosser, 2009 |
| 3 | Models of Bureaucracy | Toye, 2006 |
| 4 | Bureaucracy, Culture and Leadership | Olejniczak, 2018; Callahan, 2018; Peters, 2001 |
| 5 | Bureaucracy, liberalism and democracy | Farazmand, 2018; Stanisevski, 2018; Vigoda-Gadot, 2018 |
| 6 | Politicization of bureaucracy | D. Appiah&A. Abdulai, 2018; Rahman, 2018 |
| 7 | Mid-Term Week | |
| 8 | Administrative reform | Yıldız and Ömürgönülşen, 2009; Sezen, 2011; Sözen, 2005; Herbel, 2018 |
| 9 | Bureaucracy, Public Policy and Service delivery | Srivastava, 2018; Araya, 2018; Trondal, 2018; Puolokainen and Jaanso, 2018; Liao, 2018 |
| 10 | New Public Management and Governance | Vignieri, 2020; Üstüner, 2000; Rho, 2018 |
| 11 | International Bureaucracy | Benz et al., 2017; Geuijen et al., 2008 |
| 12 | State and bureaucracy in Turkey | Akçakaya, 2016; Örnek, 2020 |
| 13 | Issues in Turkish bureaucracy | Güler, 2018; Önder, 2019 |
| 14 | Accountability and Public Service Ethics | Farazmand, 2009: Gençkaya, nd.; Gençkaya, 2009; Neuby; Paudel and Gupta, 2019 |
| Resources |
| A. Benz , A. Corcaci , and J. W. Doser, “Multilevel Administration in International and National Contexts”, Michael W. Bauer, Christoph Knill and Steffen Eckhard (eds), International Bureaucracy Challenges and Lessons for Public Administration Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, 151-178. (to be distributed) A. Farazmand, “Public Service Ethics and Professionalism: A Primer for public officials”, Ali Farazmand (ed), Bureaucracy and Administration, Boca Raton New York London: CRC Press, 2009, 303-320. (to be distributed) A. K. Srivastava, “Bureaucracy and Public Policy”, in A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Bureaucracy and Leadership, Springer Cham, 2018, 597-602. (to be distributed) B. Guy Peters, Politics of Bureaucracy, 5th edition, London New York: Routledge, 2001, 33-84. (to be distributed) C. Dahlström and V. Lapuente, “Comparative Bureaucratic Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science 25, 2022:43-65, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543 C. Örnek, “The Bureaucracy and Its Discontents in Modern Turkey: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Anti-Intellectualism”, Emine Zeynep Suda, Ateş Uslu, Emre Eren Korkmaz (eds), İstanbul: Istanbul University Press, 2020, 129-147, https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/D43A898CD9B0473EBF87A2D69810F5CD D. Stanisevski, “Bureaucracy and Capitalism”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018 , 522-527. Eunju Rho, “Bureaucracy and Outsourcing”, ” in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 563-570. (to be distributed) E. Vigoda-Gadot, “Bureaucracy and Democracy”, in Farazmand (ed.), 2018, 532-543. (to be distributed) F.Sager and C. Rosser, “Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy”, Public Administration Review 69,6, 2009: 1136-1147, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230016364_Weber_Wilson_and_Hegel_Theories_of_Modern_Bureaucracy J.E. Herbel, “Administrative Reform”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 221-227. J. Toye, “Modern Bureaucracy”, Research Paper No. 2006/52 https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/rp2006-52.pdf J. P. Araya, “Bureaucratic Influence in Policy Formulation” in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 619-626. (to be distributed) J. Trondal, “Bureaucratic Structure” in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 631-636. (to be distributed) K. Eaton, “Parliamentarism versus presidentialism in the policy arena”, Comparative Politics, 32, 3, 2000: 355-376, https://www.academia.edu/1201688/Parliamentarism_versus_presidentialism_in_the_policy_arena K. Geuijen, P.Hart, S. Princen and K. Yesilkagit, The New Eurocrats: National Civil Servants in EU Policy-making, Amsterdam University Press, 2008, 13-30. (to be distributed) M. Akçakaya, “Bürokrasi Kuramları ve Türk Kamu Yönetiminde Bürokratik Sorunlar”, Gazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi 18,3, 2016: 669-694. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/286723 M. Heper, “The State and Public Bureaucracies: A Comparative and Historical Perspective”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 27,1, 1985:86-110. (to be distributed) Metin Heper, “The State and Bureaucracy: The Turkish Case in Historical Perspective”, içinde A. Farazmand (ed) Handbook of Comparative and Development Administration, Marcel & Dekker Inc. , 677-686. http://repository.bilkent.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11693/51424/The_state_and_bureaucracy_the_Turkish_case_in_historical_perspective.pdf?sequence=3 M.S. Rahman, “Bureaucracy and Politicians Relations”, in Farazmand (ed.), 2018, 579-585. M.Yıldız and U. Ömürgönülşen, “Why Do Bureaucrats Push for Administrative Reform? Proposing A Model of Bureaucratic Behavior”, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Social Sciences II, 1, 2009: 113- 140. http://dergi.neu.edu.tr/public/journals/7/yazardizini/yildiz-m-omurgonulsen-u-2009-april.pdf Ö. F. Gençkaya, “Kamu Yönetiminde Çıkar Çatışması”, 2009, https://slideplayer.biz.tr/slide/5598343/ Ö.F. Gençkaya, “Kamusal Etik: Rolü ve Amaçları”, https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/etik_komisyonu/belgeler/makale_KamusalEtik-OmerFarukGenkaya.pdf R.F. Callahan, Bureaucracy and Leadership, in Farazmand (ed.), 557-563, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319210640_Bureaucracy_and_Leadership S. G. Koven, “Bureaucracy, Democracy, and the New Public Management”, in Farazmand (ed), 2009, 139-154. (to be distributed) S. Sezen, “International versus domestic explanations of administrative reforms: the case of Turkey”, International Review of Administrative Sciences 77, 2, 2011: 322–346, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1026.7854&rep=rep1&type=pdf S. Sözen, “Administrative Reforms in Turkey: Imperatives, Efforts and Constraints”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60-3, 2005: 196-214, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/36098 T. Güler, “Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemi ve Kamu Yönetimine Etkileri”, Balıkesir University The Journal of Social Sciences Institute 21, 39, 2018: 299-323, http://sbe.balikesir.edu.tr/dergi/edergi/c21s39/c21s39m12.pdf T. Olejniczak, “Bureaucracy and Culture”, in Farazmand (ed.), 2018, 528-532. T. Önder, “Türkiye’de Bürokrasi-Demokrasi İlişkisi Üzerine”, OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 14(20) 2019: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/886840 T. Puolokainen and A. Jaansoo, “Bureaucracy and Service Delivery”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 602-607. V. Vignieri, “Old Public Administration, New Public Management and Public Governance: shifts in dominant modes of Public Administration”, 2020, https://www.vincenzovignieri.com/old-public-administration-new-public-management-and-public-governance-shifts-in-dominant-modes-of-public-administration/ Y. Liao, “Bureaucracy Responsiveness”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 607-612. Y. Üstüner, “Kamu Yönetimi Kuramı ve Kamu İşletmeciliği Okulu”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi 33, 2000: 15-31. https://www.academia.edu/17640980/Kamu_Y%C3%B6netimi_Kuram%C4%B1_ve_Kamu_%C4%B0%C5%9Fletmecili%C4%9Fi_Okulu_Y%C4%B1lmaz_%C3%9Cst%C3%Bcner |
| Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited and translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Wilson, Woodrow. “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly 2, 2, 1887: 197–222.Ludwig Von Mises, Bureaucracy, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944, https://cdn.mises.org/Bureaucracy_3.pdf |
Course Contribution to Program Qualifications
| Course Contribution to Program Qualifications | |||||||
| No | Program Qualification | Contribution Level | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| 1 | 1. Students will know basic concepts and theories of both research and application in political science and public administration. | ||||||
| 2 | 2. Students will be able to analyze facts about politics, political and constitutional systems, and public administration by taking different dimensions into account. They will also be able to understand the causes of new developments and problems in these fields, find solutions for these problems, and think systematically about them. | ||||||
| 3 | 3. Students will be able to work in processes such as strategic planning, policy making, project productions, auditing, decision making, evaluation and implementation both in public and private sector, political parties, and non-governmental organizations. | ||||||
| 4 | 4. Students will be able to deal with complexities stemming from natural or social systems and uncertainties about the facts and values. | ||||||
| 5 | 5. Students will be able to take active roles in teams formed for producing solutions to the problems related to their own majors, manage activities through planning, and do academic research. | ||||||
| 6 | 6. Students will be able to collect data in their own field, analyze these data by using technology effectively, and evaluate and critically interpret them. | ||||||
| 7 | 7. Students will be able to use basic concepts and methods that the administrators would need in various fields such as economics, management, international relations, and communication. | ||||||
| 8 | 8. Students will be able to use Turkish fluently and correctly in scientific and professional studies. They will also be able to read and understand at least one foreign language. | ||||||
| 9 | 9. Being always open to learning, students will be able to evaluate the facts with a critical approach. | ||||||
| 10 | 10. Students will be able to take responsibility in developing projects on voluntary basis and actively participate in them. | ||||||
| 11 | 11. Students will act with an ethical consciousness and have a respect for to human rights. They will be open to communication with people and able to work in cooperation. | ||||||
| 12 | 12. Students will be able to constitute high performance structures in public and private institutions by using modern management methods and instruments. | ||||||
| 13 | 13. Students will be able to enable other groups and institutions to participate in policy-making processes, make decisions open to collaboration, and manage negotiation processes. | ||||||
Assessment Methods
| Contribution Level | Absolute Evaluation | |
| Rate of Midterm Exam to Success | 40 | |
| Rate of Final Exam to Success | 60 | |
| Total | 100 | |
| ECTS / Workload Table | ||||||
| Activities | Number of | Duration(Hour) | Total Workload(Hour) | |||
| Course Hours | 14 | 3 | 42 | |||
| Guided Problem Solving | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Resolution of Homework Problems and Submission as a Report | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Term Project | 14 | 4 | 56 | |||
| Presentation of Project / Seminar | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Quiz | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Midterm Exam | 1 | 30 | 30 | |||
| General Exam | 1 | 40 | 40 | |||
| Performance Task, Maintenance Plan | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Total Workload(Hour) | 168 | |||||
| Dersin AKTS Kredisi = Toplam İş Yükü (Saat)/30*=(168/30) | 6 | |||||
| ECTS of the course: 30 hours of work is counted as 1 ECTS credit. | ||||||
Detail Informations of the Course
Course Description
| Course | Code | Semester | T+P (Hour) | Credit | ECTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUREAUCRACY | PPA3112119 | Fall Semester | 3+0 | 3 | 6 |
| Course Program | Çarşamba 15:30-16:15 Çarşamba 16:30-17:15 Çarşamba 17:30-18:15 Çarşamba 18:30-19:15 Çarşamba 19:30-20:15 Çarşamba 20:30-21:15 |
| Prerequisites Courses | |
| Recommended Elective Courses |
| Language of Course | English |
| Course Level | First Cycle (Bachelor's Degree) |
| Course Type | Elective |
| Course Coordinator | Prof.Dr. Bekir Berat ÖZİPEK |
| Name of Lecturer(s) | Prof.Dr. Ömer Faruk GENÇKAYA |
| Assistant(s) | |
| Aim | The course aims to help the students examine bureaucracy in a broader political, social, and economic context. To understand bureaucracy means to understand what it is, where it stands in the formulation and implementation of public policies, and what kinds of problems it encounters in its operations. In this regard, the course will both focus on theoretical approaches to bureaucracy and the practical implications of its daily functioning in different contexts at the domestic and international levels. The course will also have a special focus on bureaucracy in Turkey, especially reflecting the characteristics and changes it has experienced throughout the 2000s. |
| Course Content | This course contains; General Introduction,Theories of Modern Bureaucracy,Models of Bureaucracy,Bureaucracy, Culture and Leadership,Bureaucracy, liberalism and democracy,Politicization of bureaucracy,Mid-Term Week,Administrative reform,Bureaucracy, Public Policy and Service delivery,New Public Management and Governance,International Bureaucracy,State and bureaucracy in Turkey,Issues in Turkish bureaucracy,Accountability and Public Service Ethics. |
| Dersin Öğrenme Kazanımları | Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
| 1. Defines the concept of bureaucracy, explain its role in the administration, examine the reasons for the growth of the bureaucratic state, and assess arguments for and against its continued expansion. | 16, 9 | A |
| 2. Enhances his/her preliminary knowledge about Weberian and post-Weberian bureaucratic theories. | 16, 9 | A |
| 3. Analyzes how incrementalism and bureaucratic culture affect policymaking. | 16, 9 | A |
| 4. Identifies obstacles to effective policy implementation. | 16, 9 | A |
| 5. Compares the strengths and weaknesses of reform efforts aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the bureaucracy’s performance. | 16, 9 | A |
| 6. Links the bureaucratic ethos and administrative and political systems in practice. | 16, 9 | A |
| Teaching Methods: | 16: Question - Answer Technique, 9: Lecture Method |
| Assessment Methods: | A: Traditional Written Exam |
Course Outline
| Order | Subjects | Preliminary Work |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | General Introduction | Heper, 1985; Dahlström and Lapuente, 2022 |
| 2 | Theories of Modern Bureaucracy | Sager and Rosser, 2009 |
| 3 | Models of Bureaucracy | Toye, 2006 |
| 4 | Bureaucracy, Culture and Leadership | Olejniczak, 2018; Callahan, 2018; Peters, 2001 |
| 5 | Bureaucracy, liberalism and democracy | Farazmand, 2018; Stanisevski, 2018; Vigoda-Gadot, 2018 |
| 6 | Politicization of bureaucracy | D. Appiah&A. Abdulai, 2018; Rahman, 2018 |
| 7 | Mid-Term Week | |
| 8 | Administrative reform | Yıldız and Ömürgönülşen, 2009; Sezen, 2011; Sözen, 2005; Herbel, 2018 |
| 9 | Bureaucracy, Public Policy and Service delivery | Srivastava, 2018; Araya, 2018; Trondal, 2018; Puolokainen and Jaanso, 2018; Liao, 2018 |
| 10 | New Public Management and Governance | Vignieri, 2020; Üstüner, 2000; Rho, 2018 |
| 11 | International Bureaucracy | Benz et al., 2017; Geuijen et al., 2008 |
| 12 | State and bureaucracy in Turkey | Akçakaya, 2016; Örnek, 2020 |
| 13 | Issues in Turkish bureaucracy | Güler, 2018; Önder, 2019 |
| 14 | Accountability and Public Service Ethics | Farazmand, 2009: Gençkaya, nd.; Gençkaya, 2009; Neuby; Paudel and Gupta, 2019 |
| Resources |
| A. Benz , A. Corcaci , and J. W. Doser, “Multilevel Administration in International and National Contexts”, Michael W. Bauer, Christoph Knill and Steffen Eckhard (eds), International Bureaucracy Challenges and Lessons for Public Administration Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, 151-178. (to be distributed) A. Farazmand, “Public Service Ethics and Professionalism: A Primer for public officials”, Ali Farazmand (ed), Bureaucracy and Administration, Boca Raton New York London: CRC Press, 2009, 303-320. (to be distributed) A. K. Srivastava, “Bureaucracy and Public Policy”, in A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Bureaucracy and Leadership, Springer Cham, 2018, 597-602. (to be distributed) B. Guy Peters, Politics of Bureaucracy, 5th edition, London New York: Routledge, 2001, 33-84. (to be distributed) C. Dahlström and V. Lapuente, “Comparative Bureaucratic Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science 25, 2022:43-65, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543 C. Örnek, “The Bureaucracy and Its Discontents in Modern Turkey: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Anti-Intellectualism”, Emine Zeynep Suda, Ateş Uslu, Emre Eren Korkmaz (eds), İstanbul: Istanbul University Press, 2020, 129-147, https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/D43A898CD9B0473EBF87A2D69810F5CD D. Stanisevski, “Bureaucracy and Capitalism”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018 , 522-527. Eunju Rho, “Bureaucracy and Outsourcing”, ” in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 563-570. (to be distributed) E. Vigoda-Gadot, “Bureaucracy and Democracy”, in Farazmand (ed.), 2018, 532-543. (to be distributed) F.Sager and C. Rosser, “Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy”, Public Administration Review 69,6, 2009: 1136-1147, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230016364_Weber_Wilson_and_Hegel_Theories_of_Modern_Bureaucracy J.E. Herbel, “Administrative Reform”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 221-227. J. Toye, “Modern Bureaucracy”, Research Paper No. 2006/52 https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/rp2006-52.pdf J. P. Araya, “Bureaucratic Influence in Policy Formulation” in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 619-626. (to be distributed) J. Trondal, “Bureaucratic Structure” in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 631-636. (to be distributed) K. Eaton, “Parliamentarism versus presidentialism in the policy arena”, Comparative Politics, 32, 3, 2000: 355-376, https://www.academia.edu/1201688/Parliamentarism_versus_presidentialism_in_the_policy_arena K. Geuijen, P.Hart, S. Princen and K. Yesilkagit, The New Eurocrats: National Civil Servants in EU Policy-making, Amsterdam University Press, 2008, 13-30. (to be distributed) M. Akçakaya, “Bürokrasi Kuramları ve Türk Kamu Yönetiminde Bürokratik Sorunlar”, Gazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi 18,3, 2016: 669-694. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/286723 M. Heper, “The State and Public Bureaucracies: A Comparative and Historical Perspective”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 27,1, 1985:86-110. (to be distributed) Metin Heper, “The State and Bureaucracy: The Turkish Case in Historical Perspective”, içinde A. Farazmand (ed) Handbook of Comparative and Development Administration, Marcel & Dekker Inc. , 677-686. http://repository.bilkent.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11693/51424/The_state_and_bureaucracy_the_Turkish_case_in_historical_perspective.pdf?sequence=3 M.S. Rahman, “Bureaucracy and Politicians Relations”, in Farazmand (ed.), 2018, 579-585. M.Yıldız and U. Ömürgönülşen, “Why Do Bureaucrats Push for Administrative Reform? Proposing A Model of Bureaucratic Behavior”, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Social Sciences II, 1, 2009: 113- 140. http://dergi.neu.edu.tr/public/journals/7/yazardizini/yildiz-m-omurgonulsen-u-2009-april.pdf Ö. F. Gençkaya, “Kamu Yönetiminde Çıkar Çatışması”, 2009, https://slideplayer.biz.tr/slide/5598343/ Ö.F. Gençkaya, “Kamusal Etik: Rolü ve Amaçları”, https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/etik_komisyonu/belgeler/makale_KamusalEtik-OmerFarukGenkaya.pdf R.F. Callahan, Bureaucracy and Leadership, in Farazmand (ed.), 557-563, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319210640_Bureaucracy_and_Leadership S. G. Koven, “Bureaucracy, Democracy, and the New Public Management”, in Farazmand (ed), 2009, 139-154. (to be distributed) S. Sezen, “International versus domestic explanations of administrative reforms: the case of Turkey”, International Review of Administrative Sciences 77, 2, 2011: 322–346, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1026.7854&rep=rep1&type=pdf S. Sözen, “Administrative Reforms in Turkey: Imperatives, Efforts and Constraints”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60-3, 2005: 196-214, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/36098 T. Güler, “Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükümet Sistemi ve Kamu Yönetimine Etkileri”, Balıkesir University The Journal of Social Sciences Institute 21, 39, 2018: 299-323, http://sbe.balikesir.edu.tr/dergi/edergi/c21s39/c21s39m12.pdf T. Olejniczak, “Bureaucracy and Culture”, in Farazmand (ed.), 2018, 528-532. T. Önder, “Türkiye’de Bürokrasi-Demokrasi İlişkisi Üzerine”, OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 14(20) 2019: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/886840 T. Puolokainen and A. Jaansoo, “Bureaucracy and Service Delivery”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 602-607. V. Vignieri, “Old Public Administration, New Public Management and Public Governance: shifts in dominant modes of Public Administration”, 2020, https://www.vincenzovignieri.com/old-public-administration-new-public-management-and-public-governance-shifts-in-dominant-modes-of-public-administration/ Y. Liao, “Bureaucracy Responsiveness”, in Farazmand (ed), 2018, 607-612. Y. Üstüner, “Kamu Yönetimi Kuramı ve Kamu İşletmeciliği Okulu”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi 33, 2000: 15-31. https://www.academia.edu/17640980/Kamu_Y%C3%B6netimi_Kuram%C4%B1_ve_Kamu_%C4%B0%C5%9Fletmecili%C4%9Fi_Okulu_Y%C4%B1lmaz_%C3%9Cst%C3%Bcner |
| Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited and translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Wilson, Woodrow. “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly 2, 2, 1887: 197–222.Ludwig Von Mises, Bureaucracy, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944, https://cdn.mises.org/Bureaucracy_3.pdf |
Course Contribution to Program Qualifications
| Course Contribution to Program Qualifications | |||||||
| No | Program Qualification | Contribution Level | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| 1 | 1. Students will know basic concepts and theories of both research and application in political science and public administration. | ||||||
| 2 | 2. Students will be able to analyze facts about politics, political and constitutional systems, and public administration by taking different dimensions into account. They will also be able to understand the causes of new developments and problems in these fields, find solutions for these problems, and think systematically about them. | ||||||
| 3 | 3. Students will be able to work in processes such as strategic planning, policy making, project productions, auditing, decision making, evaluation and implementation both in public and private sector, political parties, and non-governmental organizations. | ||||||
| 4 | 4. Students will be able to deal with complexities stemming from natural or social systems and uncertainties about the facts and values. | ||||||
| 5 | 5. Students will be able to take active roles in teams formed for producing solutions to the problems related to their own majors, manage activities through planning, and do academic research. | ||||||
| 6 | 6. Students will be able to collect data in their own field, analyze these data by using technology effectively, and evaluate and critically interpret them. | ||||||
| 7 | 7. Students will be able to use basic concepts and methods that the administrators would need in various fields such as economics, management, international relations, and communication. | ||||||
| 8 | 8. Students will be able to use Turkish fluently and correctly in scientific and professional studies. They will also be able to read and understand at least one foreign language. | ||||||
| 9 | 9. Being always open to learning, students will be able to evaluate the facts with a critical approach. | ||||||
| 10 | 10. Students will be able to take responsibility in developing projects on voluntary basis and actively participate in them. | ||||||
| 11 | 11. Students will act with an ethical consciousness and have a respect for to human rights. They will be open to communication with people and able to work in cooperation. | ||||||
| 12 | 12. Students will be able to constitute high performance structures in public and private institutions by using modern management methods and instruments. | ||||||
| 13 | 13. Students will be able to enable other groups and institutions to participate in policy-making processes, make decisions open to collaboration, and manage negotiation processes. | ||||||
Assessment Methods
| Contribution Level | Absolute Evaluation | |
| Rate of Midterm Exam to Success | 40 | |
| Rate of Final Exam to Success | 60 | |
| Total | 100 | |