From Traditional Public Administration To Digital Hybrid Public Administration

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 81 - 93, 06.06.2024

Alper Tunga Şen

Abstract

When the process from past to present is examined, it can be seen that digitalization and technology are increasingly making themselves felt in daily life. This digitalization and technology not only causes many innovations in every field, but also causes many changes in the field of public administration. On the other hand, with the effects of this change, public administration is increasingly gaining a hybrid structure. Many different studies argue that the digital public management approach and the hybrid public management approach are different from each other. The purpose of this study is to reveal that the hybrid structure of today's public administration approach is actually realized together with digitalization. In addition, it is emphasized that today's public administration approach should actually be called a digital hybrid public administration approach. The study was carried out by the literature review method, and the works of many local and foreign scientists were examined. As a result, it is understood that today's public administration approach should be described as digital hybrid public administration. It is also important as it is a study that can be expanded with field research in the future.

Keywords

Public Administration, Hybrid, Digitalization, Technology

Ethical Statement

Etik ilkelere uyulduğunu beyan ederim.

References

• Abdou, A. M. (2021). Good Governance And COVID-19: The Digital Bureaucracy To Respond to the Pandemic (Singapore As A Model), Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4), 1–10.
• Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2021). The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Game-Changer for Public Administration and Leadership? The Need for Robust Governance Responses to Turbulent Problems, Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960.
• Aristovnik, A., Murko, E., and Ravelj, D. (2022). From Neo-Weberian to Hybrid Governance Models in Public Administration: Differences Between State and Local Self-Government, Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 1–19.
• Bałdys, P., Piątek, K. (2017). Does The Internet Change Everything? Transformations in Social Life And Media İn The 21st Century, MEDIA I SPOŁECZEŃSTWO, 7, 35–53.
• Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital Transformation: Opportunities To Create New Business Models, Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 16–24.
• Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, Responsible And Respected Government: Towards A New Public Administration Theory, International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(1): 7–26.
• Boyalı, H. (2023). Kamuya Değer Katma Bağlamında Yeni Kamu Yönetiminde İnovasyon: Dijital Yönetişim, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 25(44), 539–555.
• Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 1–10.
• Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management, Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.
• Chen, J., Walker, R. M., and Sawhney, M. (2020). “Public Service Innovation: A Typology." Public Management Review, 22(11), 1674–1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1645874
• Chris A., Alison G. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (4), 543–571.
• Christensen, T., and Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity And Hybrid Public Administration, Theoretical And Empirical Challenges, Public Organiz Review, 11, 407–423.
• Ciancarini, P., Giancarlo, R., & Grimaudo, G. (2024). Digital Transformation in Public Administrations: A Guided Tour for Computer Scientists. IEEE Access.
• Denhardt, R. B., and Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering, Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.
• Denhardt, J. V., and Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The New Public Service Revisited, Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664-672.
• Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L. (2020). Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Performance: Evidence From the Airport Industry, International Journal of Information Management, 52, 1–16.
• Dunleavy, P., and Hood, C. (1994). From Old Public Administration to New Public Management, Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9–16.
• Y. Emery, G. E., and Giauque, D. (2014). The Hybrid Universe of Public Administration in the 21st Century, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(1), 23–32.
• Endres, H., Stoiber, K., and Wenzl, N. M. (2020). Managing Digital Transformation Through Hybrid Business Models, Journal of Business Strategy, 41(6), 49–56.
• Eryılmaz, B. (2019). Kamu Yönetimi Düşünceler Yapılar Fonksiyonlar Politikalar, Umuttepe Yayınları, Kocaeli.
• Ford D., Storey M. A., Zimmermann T., Bird C., Jaffe S., Maddila C., Butler J. L., Houck B., and Nagappan N. (2021). A Tale of Two Cities: Software Developers Working From Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 31(2), 1–37.
• Funck, E. K., and Karlsson, T. S. (2020). Twenty‐Five Years of Studying New Public Management in Public Administration: Accomplishments and Limitations, Financial Accountability & Management, 36(4), 347–375.
• Galati, F., and Galati, R. (2019). Cross-Country Analysis of Perception and Emphasis of Hotel Attributes, Tourism Management, 74, 24-42.
• Gray, P., El Sawy, O. A., Asper, G., and Thordarson, M. (2013). Realizing Strategic Value Through Center-Edge Digital Transformation in Consumer-Centric Industries, MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(1), 1–17.
• Gray, A., Jenkins, B. (1995). “From Public Administration to Public Management: Reassessing a Revolution?” Public Administration, 73(1), 75–99.
• Gupta, M., and George, J. F. (2016). Toward the Development of a Big Data Analytics Capability, Information & Management, 53(8), 1049–1064.
• Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 20(2-3), 93–109.
• Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons?, Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
• Iacovino, N.M., Barsanti, S., and Cinquini, L. (2017). Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration, New Public Management, and Public Governance: The Case of the Tuscany Region, Public Organization Review 17, 61–82.
• Kaboolian, L. (1998). The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs. . Administration Debate, Public Administration Review, 58(3), 189–193.
• Kariuki, S., & Tshandu, Z. (2014). Service Delivery Frameworks as Instruments of Citizen Empowerment: A Tale of Two Experiences, India and South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 31(6), 796–811.
• Kelly, R. (2019). Constructing Leadership 4.0. Swarm Leadership and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
• Kusumasari, B., Sajida, S., Santoso, A. D., and Fauzi, F. Z. (2023). The Reinventing of Public Administration in the New Hybrid World, Teaching Public Administration, 1, 1–24.
• Lan, Z., and Rainey, H. G. (1992). Goals, Rules, and Effectiveness in Public, Private, and Hybrid Organizations: More Evidence on Frequent Assertions About Differences, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 5-28.
• Larbi, G. A. (1999). The New Public Management Approach and Crisis States, Discussion, Paper No. 112, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.
• Leo, A. T. H., & Canedo, E. D. (2018). Best practices and methodologies to promote the digitization of public services that are citizen-driven: A systematic literature review. Information, 9(8), 1–19.
• Li, P. (2022). Research on Big Data-Driven Innovation in Public Management Mode, BCP Social Sciences & Humanities, 20, 322–327.
• Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2006). Public Management Old and New, Routledge, New York.
• Marchand, J. S., Brunet, M. (2019). The Emergence of Post-NPM Initiatives: Integrated Impact Assessment as a Hybrid Decision-Making Tool, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(2), 319–336.
• McMullin, C., and Raggo, P. (2020). Leadership and Governance in Times of Crisis: A Balancing Act for Nonprofit Boards, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1182-1190.
• Mülazımoğlu, M. E., Günal, C. N. (2023). Post Yeni Kamu Yönetimi Yaklaşımı Işığında Çin Kamu Yönetimi Reformları”, Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(1), 1-14.
• Ozan, M. S., and Yolcu, F. S. (2021). Geleneksel ve Yeni Kamu Yönetimi: Karşılaştırmalı Bir İnceleme, 4th International European Conference On Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, August 8–9, 2021, Warsaw, Poland, 582–583.
• Pieterse, J. N. (1993). Globalization As Hybridization, ISS Working Paper Series/General Series, 152, 1–18.
• Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the Public Service: The Anglo-American Experience, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge.
• Raharja, W. T., Suryanto, J. I., Suaedi, F., and Reindrawati, D. Y. (2019). Local Public Leadership Development Through Social Learning to Face the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 54(6), 1–9.
• Rowe, W., and Scehelling, V. (1991). Memory and Modernity: Popular Culture in Latin America, Verso, London.
• Soetanto, R., Hermawan, F., Milne, A., Hatmoko, J. U. D., As'ad, S., and He, C. (2020). Developing Sustainable Arrangements for “Proactive” Disaster Risk Financing in Java, Indonesia, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(3), 435–451.
• Sørensen, E., Torfing, J. (2021). Accountable Government Through Collaborative Governance?, Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 127–137.
• Ulusoy, T., & Şen, A. T. (2019). A Sociophysical Approach to the Relationship Between Politics and Economy: The Lagrange Model of the Crowds. Quantrade Journal of Complex Systems in Social Sciences, 1(1), 1–12.
• Virant, G. (2009). Javna Uprava [Public administration], Faculty of Administration, Ljubljana.
• Zehir, C., Yücel, M., Borodin, A., Yücel, S., & Zehir, S. (2023). Strategies in Energy Supply: A Social Network Analysis on the Energy Trade