Public policy education in Turkey

Author(s):  
Mete Yıldız ◽  
Cenay Babaoğlu

This chapter examines the development and current state of public policy education in Turkey, based on the teaching of the subject in political science and public administration departments. The chapter analyses and explains the conditions under which public policy classes - among other relevant developments - have emerged and evolved over time, and the motivations of the faculty to introduce, develop and maintain public policy courses. To this end, studies on the teaching of public policy in the political science and public administration departments in Turkish universities at undergraduate and graduate levels are reviewed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the current and future challenges facing public policy education in Turkey, and recommendations for addressing these challenges.

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Douglas Kiel

This paper examines the evolution of the application of nonlinear dynamics and related methods to the study of political science and public administration throughout the 20th century. Some analysts understood the importance of nonlinearity to political and administrative studies in the early part of the century. More recently, a growing number of scholars understand that the political and administrative worlds are ripe with nonlinearity and thus amenable to nonlinear dynamical techniques and models. The current state of the application of both discrete and continuous time models in political science and public administration are presented. There is growing momentum in political and public administration studies that may serve to enhance the realism and applicability of these sciences to a nonlinear world.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Göktuğ Morçöl ◽  
Geert Teisman ◽  
Lasse Gerrits

From the introduction: 1. Yet Another Journal? Why is it necessary to publish a new journal about complexity, governance, and networks? There has been an increasing interest in complexity, governance, and network studies in recent decades. A number of these studies have been published in most prestigious journals in public policy, public administration, and political science. Also a few journals that specialize in these areas were launched in recent years. So, why this journal? And why now? The publication of this journal is not only a response to the surging demand for scholarly outlets that publish articles in these areas, but also a response to the need to create a venue to bring together the insights of complexity, governance, and network scholars. Complexity, Governance & Networks will serve as an incubator for conceptual and theory development, methodological advancements in these three areas of study, empiri- cal research, and idea exchanges among them for possible future syntheses. The articles that appear in this inaugural issue of the journal demonstrate how much the thinking and methods in these three areas have advanced. The authors, who are well-known experts in their areas, assess the current state of the advancements and possible directions for future research and conceptual development.


1973 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Vaison

Normally in political studies the term public policy is construed to encompass the societally binding directives issued by a society's legitimate government. We usually consider government, and only government, as being able to “authoritatively allocate values.” This common conception pervades the literature on government policy-making, so much so that it is hardly questioned by students and practitioners of political science. As this note attempts to demonstrate, some re-thinking seems to be in order. For purposes of analysis in the social sciences, this conceptualization of public policy tends to obscure important realities of modern corporate society and to restrict unnecessarily the study of policy-making. Public policy is held to be public simply and solely because it originates from a duly legitimated government, which in turn is held to have the authority (within specified limits) of formulating and implementing such policy. Public policy is public then, our usual thinking goes, because it is made by a body defined somewhat arbitrarily as “public”: a government or some branch of government. All other policy-making is seen as private; it is not public (and hence to lie essentially beyond the scope of the disciplines of poliitcal science and public administration) because it is duly arrived at by non-governmental bodies. Thus policy analysts lead us to believe that public policy is made only when a government body acts to consider some subject of concern, and that other organizations are not relevant to the study of public policy.


1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. McIlwain

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.


1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 660-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roscoe C. Martin

By tradition public administration is regarded as a division of political science. Woodrow Wilson set the stage for this concept in his original essay identifying public administration as a subject worthy of special study, and spokesmen for both political science and public administration have accepted it since. Thus Leonard White, in his 1930 article on the subject in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, recognizes public administration as “a branch of the field of political science.” Luther Gulick follows suit, observing in 1937 that “Public administration is thus a division of political science ….” So generally has this word got around that it has come to the notice of the sociologists, as is indicated in a 1950 report of the Russell Sage Foundation which refers to “political science, including public administration….” “Pure” political scientists and political scientists with a public administration slant therefore are not alone in accepting this doctrine, which obviously enjoys a wide and authoritative currency.But if public administration is reckoned generally to be a child of political science, it is in some respects a strange and unnatural child; for there is a feeling among political scientists, substantial still if mayhap not so widespread as formerly, that academicians who profess public administration spend their time fooling with trifles. It was a sad day when the first professor of political science learned what a manhole cover is! On their part, those who work in public administration are likely to find themselves vaguely resentful of the lack of cordiality in the house of their youth.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 31-38
Author(s):  
Budi Rizka ◽  
Lismalinda ◽  
Adnan ◽  
Moriyanti ◽  
Faisal

Purpose of the study: The study aims are to investigate levels of language politeness and its violations in the political communication of Jokowi and Prabowo and to describe the types of politeness and its violations in political communication of Jokowi and Prabowo as Indonesian president candidates in 2019. Methodology: This research was used a qualitative approach with the descriptive method by paying attention to the Interactive Model theory to describe the object in analysis data through a pragmatic approach to identify the politeness principles and its violation following Leech’s (1983) theory. The subject of data on this research has conducted the utterances of Indonesian president candidates 2019 in the second debate session. Main Findings: The result of the study can be concluded that five principles of politeness seen in the utterances of the presidential candidate. They are tact, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy maxim. Furthermore, in this research, Prabowo was more polite than Jokowi where he has produced utterances of approbation, agreement, and less violation of modesty, while Jokowi more violated the modesty maxim. Applications of this study: The study has an impact on political behavior. Other areas of study include social and political science and communication Novelty/Originality of this study: This research is the new way in the context of language politeness study where combined the language politeness principles with socio-political science especially political communication.


2021 ◽  
pp. 128-148
Author(s):  
Ariadna Ripoll Servent ◽  
Olivier Costa

The European Parliament (EP) symbolizes many of the struggles that characterize the process of European integration and is at the core of many theoretical and empirical debates about representation, accountability, and legitimacy. This chapter draws on a variety of theoretical approaches to explain the complex role the EP plays in the political system of the European Union (EU). It starts with a brief overview of the history and functions of the assembly, followed by a theoretical explanation of its empowerment over time. Then, it determines the extent to which the EP is capable of influencing policymaking, both in legislative and non-legislative domains, as well as for the appointment of the Commission. It presents the political structure of the assembly and underlines the role of parliamentary groups and committees. It discusses the representativeness of the EP and the democratic quality of its internal functioning. Finally, it addresses current and future challenges for the EP.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 473-487
Author(s):  
Jeb Barnes ◽  
Thomas F. Burke

The concept of adversarial legalism has been widely used by scholars of law, public administration, public policy, political science, sociology, and Law and Society, but the varying ways in which the concept has been employed raise concerns that it has become stretched to the point of incoherence. We argue that adversarial legalism entails both a style, an everyday practice of dispute resolution and policy making with distinct attributes, and a structure of governance that can be compared to other structures of authority. Untangling these aspects of adversarial legalism allows us to make sense of its different uses and identify future avenues of inquiry. Despite its wide application, adversarial legalism is in fact underutilized, especially in studies aimed at understanding consequences of judicialization, legalization, and juridification in the United States and abroad.


2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 751-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael M. Atkinson

Abstract.Political scientists are increasingly studying public policy in interdisciplinary environments where they are challenged by the political and normative agenda of other disciplines. Political science has unique perspectives to offer, including a stress on the political feasibility of policy in an environment of power differentials. Our contributions should be informed by the insights of cognitive psychology and we should focus on improving governance, in particular the competence and integrity of decision makers. The discipline's stress on legitimacy and acceptability provides a normative anchor, but we should not over invest in the idea that incentives will achieve normative goals. Creating decision situations that overcome cognitive deficiencies is ultimately the most important strategy.Résumé.Les politologues étudient les politiques publiques dans des contextes de plus en plus interdisciplinaires, où ils sont remis en question par les préoccupations politique et normatives d'autres disciplines. La science politique a des perspectives uniques à offrir, y compris un accent sur la faisabilité politique des politiques publiques dans un contexte de relations de pouvoir asymétriques. Nos contributions doivent être informées par les idées associées à la psychologie cognitive et nous devrions nous concentrer sur l'amélioration de la gouvernance, et notamment la compétence et l'intégrité des décideurs. L'accent de notre discipline sur la légitimité et l'acceptabilité fournit un point d'ancrage normatif, mais il ne faut pas trop investir dans l'idée que des mesures incitatives permettront nécessairement d'atteindre des objectifs normatifs. Créer des situations de décision qui surmontent les lacunes cognitives des acteurs est finalement la stratégie la plus importante à adopter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document