Özet:

Hierarchical coordination and Keynesian interventionist understanding, which achieved remarkable successes in the context of economic development and delivering a wide range of basic services after World War II, were seen as the cause of administrative inefficiency, poor economic performance, and financial deficits in the early 1970s. The proponents of New Public Management, based on neoliberal ideas, claimed that these failures stemmed from the state's intervention in the market, which caused the loss of market dynamism. They also claimed that while the state provided many public services, due to its monopolistic position, the services were provided in a monolithic way, and the demands of the citizens were not taken into account, whereas if these services are provided by the private sector, the services will be diversified, the service quality will increase and customer demands will be given priority. According to neoliberal thought, the realization of customer empowerment could only be realized through market mechanisms on the axis of competition. As a result of increasing neoliberal prominence in the early 1980s, many public properties were privatized, and many public services previously provided by the state were transferred to the private sector. However, the main motive of the market actors was profit maximization, and, unlike the Weberian period, services were delivered not to all citizens but only to the ones who could pay the service fee. In addition, market players could perform some activities contradicting the expectations about positive outcomes of competition. In order to dominate the market, the market players came together and set common prices, and giant ones eliminated small players, which initiated the emergence of the belief that the market could harm the public interest. In spite of the fact that various services were transferred to the private sector, the state was still held responsible for the problems experienced in these areas, which weakened the legitimacy of the state. The regulation deficit that emerged as a consequence of the withdrawal of the state from the market displayed the necessity of the state's involvement in the market activities. This article tries to study the period that required the return of the state to the market with regulatory roles and the background of this period.

Anahtar Kelimeler: