Daha Demokratik Bir Yönetimin İnşasında Açık Hükümet Uygulamasının Kullanılması: İsveç Örneği

Year 2018, Volume: 6 Issue: 6, 769 - 778, 02.12.2018

Ümmühan Kaygısız

https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.396086

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Açık hükümet kavramı hükümetleri daha açık, katılımcı ve işbirlikçi hale dönüştürmek için temel olarak e-hükümetten daha geniş bir anlayış sözü vermektedir. Açık hükümeti,  e-devlet bağlamında ve kamu idaresinin geleceği bağlamında değerlendirmek gereklidir. Günümüzde e-demokrasi ve e-hükümet, gelişmekte olan teknoloji tarafından etkinleştirilen demokratik uygulamaları idari kurumlarda birleştirmektedir. Hükümet ve vatandaşlar arasındaki etkileşim daha şeffaf, katılımcı ve işbirlikçi yani daha demokratik hale geldiğinde üretilen değeri tanımlamak için bir yöntem olarak açık hükümet çerçevesi kullanılmaktadır. Açık hükümet,  daha fazla şeffaflık, katılım ve işbirliği vasıtasıyla demokrasiyi güçlendirmenin bir yolu olarak görülebilir. Bu makalede, açık hükümetin bütünleyici bir tanımını ortaya koymak için mevcut açık hükümet literatürü incelenmiş, elde edilen veriler ışığında kavramsal çerçeve oluşturulmuş ve bir açık hükümet örneği olarak İsveç irdelenmiştir.  Genel olarak, makalede açık hükümet konseptinin net bir şekilde anlaşılması amaçlanmaktadır.

Keywords

E- Devlet, Açık Hükümet, Demokrasi, Kamu Yönetimi, İsveç

Use of the Open Government Implementation in a More Democratic Management: Swedish Example

Abstract

The open government concept promises a broader understanding of the e-government as the basis for transforming governments into more open, participatory and collaborative. It is necessary to assess the open government in the context of e-government and in the context of the future of the public administration. Today, e-democracy and e-government combine democratic practices activated by emerging technology into administrative institutions. The open government framework is used as a way to define the value generated when the interaction between government and citizens becomes more transparent, participatory and collaborative, ie, more democratic. Open government can be seen as a way of strengthening democracy through greater transparency, participation and cooperation. In this article, the current open government literature is examined to reveal a complementary definition of the open government, a conceptual framework is established in the light of the obtained data, and Sweden is examined as an example of an open government. In general, it is aimed to make clear the concept of open government in the article.

Keywords

E-Government, Open Government, Democracy, Public Administration, Sweden

References

• Bertelsen, D.A. (1992). Media Form And Government: Democracy As An Archetypal Image In The Electronic Age. Communication Quarterly, 40, 4, 325–337.
• Blanton, T. (2002). The World’s Right To Know. Foreign Policy, 131, 50–58.
• Blomqvist P., & Bergman P. (2010). Regionalisation Nordic Style: Will Regions in Sweden Threaten Local Democracy?. Local Government Studies, 36(1), 43-74.
• Casey, M., & Stephens, M. (2007). A Road Map To Transparency. Library Journal, 132(20), 37-39.
• Dahl, R. A., & Tufte. E. (1973). Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Eryılmaz, B. (2012) Kamu Yönetimi. İzmit: Umuttepe Yayınları.
• Ferranti, D.M.D. (2009). How to improve governance: a new framework for analysis and action. Brookings Institution Press.
• Fung, A. (2010). Open Government and Open Society. In: D. Lathrop and L. Ruma (eds.), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 105-113.
• Gavelin, K., Burall, S., & Wilson, R. (2009). Open Government: beyond static measures, A paper produced by Involve for the OECD.
• Geiger, C. P., & Von Lucke, J. (2012). Open government and (linked)(open)(government)(data). JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and open Government, 4(2), 265-278.
• Global Open Data Index (2016). Datasets. (Erişim: 03.02.2018), http://index.okfn.org
• Grønbech-Jensen, C. (1998). The Scandinavian tradition of open government and the European Union: problems of compatibility?. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 185-199.
• Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. London, England: Polity
• Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 540-555.
• Harrison, T. M., & Guerrero, S. (2011). Open Government and E-Government: Democratic Challenges from a Public Value Perspective, 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, June 12–15, 2011, College Park, MD, USA.
• Heckmann, D. (2011). Open government—Retooling democracy for the 21st century. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
• Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information systems management, 29(4), 258-268.
• Kassen, M. (2017). Understanding transparency of government from a Nordic perspective: open government and open data movement as a multidimensional collaborative phenomenon in Sweden. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 20(4), 236-275.
• McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401-413.
• McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public administration review, 66, 33-43.
• Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and voice. International review of administrative sciences, 78(1), 10-29.
• Mergel, I. (2015). Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to collaborate with external problem solvers. social science computer review, 33(5), 599-612.
• Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward open government and government 2.0. International review of administrative sciences, 78(2), 346-368.
• Noveck, B. S. (2012). Beth Noveck: Demand for a more open source government. (Erişim: 03.02.2018), https://www.ted.com/talks/beth_noveck_demand_a_ more_open_source_government
• Noveck, B. S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The Technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Noveck, B.S. (2009). Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Inst Pr.
• Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and open government. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. (Erişim: 12/01/2018), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparencyand OpenGovernment
• OECD (2015). Government at a Glance 2015. (Erişim: 10.02.2018), https://www.oecd.org/gov/Sweden.pdf
• Open Data Barometer (2016). Global rankings. (Erişim: 13.02.2018), http://opendatabarometer.org/2ndEdition/analysis/rankings.html
• Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia Univ. Press.
• Von Lucke, J. (2012). Open Government Collaboration. Offene Formen der Zusammenarbeit beim Regieren und Verwalten. Gutachten für die Deutsche Telekom AG zur T-City Friedrichshafen, Version vom 25.10.2012, Deutsche Telekom Institute for Connected Cities, Zeppelin Universität, Friedrichshafen 2012. (Erişim: 03.02.2018), http://www.zu.de/deutsch/lehrstuehle/ticc/JvL-121025-OpenGovernmentCollaborationV1.pdf
• Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381-396.
• Wirtz, B. W., Daiser, P., & Mermann, M. (2018). Social Media as a Leverage Strategy for Open Government: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(8), 590-603.
• WJP OGI (2015). World justice project – Open government index. (Erişim: 13.02.2018), http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/opengov
• Yagoda, J. A. (2010). Seeing is Believing: The Detainee Abuse Photos and Open Government's Enduring Resistance to Their Release during an Age of Terror. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 21, 273–304.