Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Aldrich Ames and Adolf Tolkachev were both great spies respectively for the Soviet Union/Russia and for the United States because they both provided invaluable information to these respective countries. Both were caught; one was executed, the other is ser

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Public administrators' relationships with processes and outcomes of the court system have been of interest for decades. Studies come from almost every analytical perspective in public administration: new public administration's evaluation of the courts as protectors of service recipients to the post modern understanding of the legal-public administration perspective that draws on both disciplines in shaping the behavior of individuals acting in the public sector. Neo-classical organization theory's focus on the institutional role of the courts can be contrasted with the movement away from judicial involvement through the use of privitized public services inherent in the new public management movement. All of these perspectives are accepted as providing insight into the ways the judicial system affects the work of the public administrator. Yet there is a limited amount of work examining how public administrators might actively bring concepts of judicial activity into their work environments. The case studies reported in this paper begin to fill that void. Cases developed from interviews of administrators will be used to bring practice based insight into the theories of partnership found in the current literature.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In May 1995, European Union (EU) issued the White Paper “Preparation of the Associated Countries of the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) for the Integration into the Internal Market of the Union”, stating that the main challenge facing the associated countries lied in adapting their administrative machinery to the conditions necessary to make the legislation work (para 3.25). In December 1995 the future challenge became the “consolidated administration” accession criterion. Bridging the gap the literature on Europenisation generated by not deepening the study of EU provisions for public administration reform, I offer a possible, democratic reading of the “consolidated administration” criterion as presented by EU to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania during 1998-2006. My assumption is that EU nurtured the democratization of the organization and functioning of CEE public administrations by means of its “consolidated administration” criterion. My argument draws from Dahl’s democratization theory and makes use of the analysis of both strategic domestic documents of the countries in question and the Progress Reports designed by the European Commission during the fifth enlargement process.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Recent years have witnessed many changes in the public sphere in Turkey. One of these changes is the new public bodies which have been established to regulate and supervise sensitive areas such as capital market, competition and communication. The main concern was to separate the regulation and control of these areas from the rivalry of political interests by granting them autonomy from the government. These developments pose challenges for administrative law, since it is not clear which body of law will be applicable to them and how we should define their legal nature.

This work aims to discuss and define the legal nature of these public bodies. Are they independent administrative authorities as some authors suggest in Turkish doctrine or non-departmental organisations as in the English model?

They are similar to the traditional public bodies in the way that they have legal personality and they are created to manage certain public services, but on the other hand they deviate from the traditional administrative organisation model, since they are independent from government control and they have been given both regulatory and supervisory functions by their governing statutes.

Finally, we will try to examine certain examples of these public bodies and try to address the problems they are faced with.

Publication Type: Juried Paper
Abstract: The proposed paper focuses on the organization of the rural resettlement program of the Resettlement Administration (RA) and Farm Security Administration (FSA) during the mid-1930s in the southern United States. The theoretical focus of this paper concentrates on how states organize development schemes and the dynamic that exists between state and local management of communities and shared resources. Using social theories of state and anthropological commons theory, this paper will identify the rural resettlement program as an experiment in joint-management. Positioning the rural resettlement program of the RA/FSA as a co-management system, this paper also identifies the conditions that made this program successful, and the conditions that ultimately led to the failure of many of the initiated resettlement communities. Supporting data include a history of the organization of the resettlement program and a more focused history of two southern resettlement communities.