Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Güvenlik Hizmetlerinde Devlet-Özel Sektör İşbirliği: Metodoloji ve Kriterler

Journal Name:

  • Polis Bilimleri Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2011

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Public security services are directly provided by public organizations in Turkey. Private security services, as described in the law, are a complementary component of public security. Developed western countries widely utilize private sector in provision of public security services. If carefully planned, several advantages of private sector including high performance and low cost can increase efficiency and quality of public security services. However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks have shown the possible cost of incorrect private security provision. Several factors such as service features, private sector characteristics, competitive market situation, and risk assessment should be evaluated before deciding to privatize security services. A security privatization methodology supported by theory can be useful for decision makers. This article aims to develop such a methodology with privatization criteria to help decision makers arrive at effective decisions. The principleagent theory, also known as contract theory, was used in specifying privatization criteria. The theory was applied to United States aviation security system that was provided by private sector before 9/11 terrorist attacks. The methodology developed in this article was exemplified through several public security services. As a conclusion, the methodology and criteria developed can guide decision makers on the privatization of public security services.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Türkiye’de kamu güvenliği hizmetleri bizzat devlet kurumları eliyle sağlanır. Özel güvenlik hizmetleri, kanunda belirtildiği şekliyle, kamu güvenliğini tamamlayıcı mahiyettedir. Özel sektörün güvenlik hizmetlerinde kullanımı, gelişmiş batı ülkelerinde çok daha yaygındır. Dikkatli bir şekilde planlandığı takdirde, yüksek verim, düşük maliyet gibi özel sektörün öne çıkan özellikleri, güvenlik hizmetlerinin verimini ve kalitesini artırıp, maliyetleri düşürebilir. 11 Eylül terörist saldırılarında görüldüğü gibi, güvenlik hizmetlerini yanlış bir şekilde özelleştirmek, olumsuz sonuçlar doğurabilir. Güvenlik hizmetinin özellikleri, özel sektörün karakteristikleri, piyasanın rekabet durumu, risk durumu gibi birçok faktör bir arada değerlendirilerek özelleştirmeye karar verilmelidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir özelleştirme metodolojisi geliştirerek, özel sektörden güvenlik hizmeti alımının belirlenen kriterler ışığında yapılması için altyapı oluşturmaktır. Teorik altyapısıyla geliştirilecek güvenlik hizmetleri özelleştirme metodolojisi, hizmetin bizzat devlet tarafından verilmesi veya özel sektörden satın alınması noktasında karar vericiler için kullanışlı olabilir. Bu kriterlerin belirlenmesinde, Sözleşme Teorisi olarak da bilinen “Principal-Agent” teorisi kullanılmıştır. Teori, örnek olay olarak seçilen 11 Eylül saldırıları öncesi özel sektörce işletilen Amerika Birleşik Devletleri sivil havacılık güvenliği sistemine uygulanmıştır. Geliştirilen metodolojinin kullanımı, belirlenen kriterlerin değişik kamu güvenliği hizmetlerine uygulanması ile örneklenmiştir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışmanın geliştirdiği metodoloji ve kriterler güvenlik hizmetlerinin özelleştirilmesinde karar vericiler için yol gösterici olması amaçlanmıştır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_295_13_pp_155-178.pdf
  • 1
155-178
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Bryer, Thomas A., (2007), “Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive
Public Administration”, Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, C.17, S.3, ss.479-500.
Cohen, Steven ve Eimicke, William, (1998), Tools for Innovators, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Costello, Frank J., (2005), “Post-9-11 Challenges for Aviation Security”,
W. Nicholson (Der.), Homeland Security Law and Policy,
Springfield: Charles Thomas Publishers, ss.234-248.
Dempsey, Paul S., (2003), “Aviation Security: The Role of Law in the
War against Terrorism”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,
S.41, ss.649-670.
Dillingham, Gerald L., (2000), Congressional Testimony on Airport
Screeners, Washington DC: General Accounting Office.
Dillingham, Gerald L., (2001), Aviation Security: Terrorist Acts Illustrate
Severe Weaknesses in Aviation Security, Washington DC: General
Accounting Office.
Donahue, J. D., (1989), The Privatization Decision: Public Ends, Private
Means, New York: Basic Books.
DOT Report, (1987), Congressional Testimony on Security at Highest-
Risk Airports, Washington DC: Department of Transportation.
DOT Report, (1999), Department of Transportation Inspector General's
Report on Airport Access Control, Washington DC: Department of
Transportation.
DOT Report, (2000), Inspector General’s Press Release on Sentences in
Background Check Case, Washington DC: Office of Inspector General.
DOT Report, (2003), Statement Before the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on Aviation Security,
Washington DC: Office of the Inspector General.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., (1989), “Agency Theory: An Assessment and
Review”, Academy of Management Review, C.14, S.1, ss.57-74.
GAO Report, (1987), Congressional Testimony on Passenger Screening,
Washington DC: General Accounting Office.
GAO Report, (2000), Aviation Security: Terrorists Acts Illustrate Severe
Weaknesses in Aviation Security, Washington DC: General
Accounting Office.
Gül, Serdar K., (2008), “Kamu Yönetiminde ve Güvenlik Hizmetlerinde
Hesap Verebilirlik”, Polis Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt 10, Sayı 4, ss.71-
94.
Hainmuller, Jens ve Lemnitzer, Jan M., (2003), “Why do Europeans Fly
Safer”, Terrorism and Political Violence, C.14, S.4, ss.1-36.
Kean, Thomas H. ve Zelikow, Philip, (2004), Final Report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Kelman, Steven J., (2002), “Contracting”, Lester M. Salamon (Der.), The
Tools of Government, A Guide to the New Governance, New York:
Oxford University Press, ss.282-318.
Kent, Calvin A., (1987), Entrepreneurship and the Privatization of
Government, Westport, Conn.: Quorum/Greenwood.
Kettl, Donald F., (1993), Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private
Markets, Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
Kettl, Donald F., (2000), “The Transformation of Governance:
Globalization, Devolution, and the Role of Government”, Public
Administration Review, C.60, S.6, ss.488-497.
Malcolmson, James M. ve Spinnewyn, Frans, (1988), “The Multiperiod
Principal-agent Problem”, Review of Economic Studies, S.55, ss.391-
408.
Moe, Ronald C., (1987), “Exploring the Limits of Privatization”, Public
Administration Review, C.47, S.6, ss.453-460.
Salamon, Lester M., (2002), The Tools of Government A Guide to the
New Governance, New York: Oxford University Press.
Sappington, David E. M., (1991), “Incentives in Principal-Agent
Relationships”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, C.5, S.2,
ss.45-66.
Savas, E. S., (1982), Privatizing the Public Sector: How to Shrink
Government, Chatnam, NJ: Chatnam House
Scott, Richard W., (1998), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open
Systems, Newark: Prentice-Hall.
Thomas, Andrew R., (2003), Aviation Insecurity, Amherst, New York:
Prometheus Books.
Thomas, Andrew R., (2008), Aviation Security Management, Westport,
CT: Praeger Security International.
Uryan, Yıldırım; Breen, Gerald M. ve Matusitz, Jonathan, (2009), “A
Comparative Analysis of Modern-Day Aviation Security:
Understanding Public and Private Systems at the Global Level”,
Journal of Homeland Security, Mayıs 2009.
Wilkinson, Paul ve Jenkins, Brian M., (1999), Aviation Terrorism and
Security, London: Frank Cass Publishers.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com