Download ekoloji̇k sorunlara karşi beni̇msenen yaklaşimlarda

Administration Thinking in
the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
Ahmet Mutlu
Abstract: The subject of this study is administration ideas prevailing in the
approaches towards ecological problems. The study aims to compare administration ideas of ecological thought and environmental protectionism that
are considered as two different types of approaches to ecological problems.
The first section of the study will focus on the basic concepts relating to the
issues discussed in the study. In the second part, the problem of the difference between ecological thought and environmental protectionism will be
scrutinized. Thirdly, the relationship between ecological problems and administration ideas will be discussed. Then, these two viewpoints will be examined in respect of their ideational structures, principles, approaches towards ecological problems as well as their goals and objectives. The study
has been conducted on a common systematic that involves the basic problem
in administration thinking, an outlook to the sovereign system and the principles of administration approach. Accordingly, the status of the state in the
administrative process and the outlook on its functioning have been discussed along with the various levels of administration policies.
Key Words: Ecological problems, ecological thought, environmental protectionism, administration.
Introduction
Ecological issues should be discussed within the context of different disciplines. The complex nature of ecological issues allows these
issues to be approached from the viewpoint of every discipline.
Hence, in this study, the issue in question will be addressed within
the framework of the “administration” discipline. The subject of the
study is the “administrative approach” to ecological thinking 1 and en-

This article is the revised, simplified version of a section of a dissertation titled, “Ecology and Administration” defended at Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences,
The Department of Social Environmental Sciences in 2006.

Assistant Professor, Hitit University FEAS.
1 In the ecology literature, there are other concepts with the same meaning as the concept of “ecological thinking”. “Ecology Movement”, “Ecological Movement”, “Ecology
Thinking”, “Ecological Approach” and “Ecologism” are among such concepts. In this
study, the concept of “ecological thinking” has been preferred, which is believed to be
more descriptive.
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration, Volume 2 No 4 December 2008, p. 113-139.
114
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
vironmental protectionism,2 which are widespreadly categorized as
two separate approaches in respect of the differences in their handling of archaeological issues.
The emergence of ecological thinking and environmental protectionism is attributed to the same factors (Bookchin, 1996: 78). It is
known that efforts to protect nature against the negativities of industrialization started in the 1800s and at first, environmental protection associations were established for this purpose. The Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution constituted the basic dynamic of
these movements. Ecology movements continued after the 1900s as
well. The defending of decentralist thinking, calls for the return to rural, organic farming movements along with some utopic ideas were
among suggestions set forth by ecology movements. It can be said
that ecological awareness started to develop and to muster up support especially at the end of the World War. Ecological thoughts and
awareness were transformed into actions following World War II
(Görmez, 2003: 74, 79).
Differences in the approaches of cycles interested in the issue began to become apparent with the transformation from thoughts to actions on ecological issues, which consequently brought such issues to
the forefront. Thus, after that time, while some radical ideas calling
for a return to nature-based living were raised on the one hand and
there were optimistic opinions asserting that current technological
developments would produce solutions for ecological problems on
the other hand (Görmez, 2003: 7). Such approaches that have been
categorized as “Environmental protectionism” as a reformist approach and “ecological thinking“ as a radical approach (Garner, 1996:
2) confronted each other in the course of time as they both approached ecological issues as “problematic” and in respect of the nature of their potential solutions. Even after such a long time, the conflicts between these two approaches still persist to the extent that
one of the basic issues, which ecological movements3 have compro-
There are similarities between the concepts of “environmental protection” and “environmentalism” in respect of dealing with ecological problems and these are mostly
used in the same meaning. Though environmentalism is one of the approaches to ecological problems, it can also be used as an ‘adjective’ that refers to all individual and
social interests and practices relation to ecological issues. There is no such problem
in environmental protection. Therefore, the term “environmental protectionism” will
be used in the study due the difference between “environmentalist person” and “the
parson who has adopted an environmental protectionist approach”.
3 For instance, there are significant differences of opinion betweenthe Social Ecology
and Deep Ecology Movements.
2
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
115
mised on, is that the standpoints of environmental protectionism differ from those of ecological thinking.
In this study, the relationship between ecological problems and
administration will be handled within the context of the historicalideational-ideological dimensions of “ecological problem-related administrative decision-making processes” adopted by a political authority or private sector rather than the decision-making processes
themselves. The role of administration in the emergence of ecological
problems can be understood by looking at the historical nature of the
thinking dimension of the phenomenon of administration. Therefore,
the relationship between ecological problems and administration necessitates investigating how administrative thinking developed and
changed during the transformation that led to ecological problems.
The subject of this study is not limited to a relatively narrow investigation of “the relationship between administration and ecology/environment”. On the contrary, the subject of administration is
addressed from a holistic point of view and its relationship with ecology is established within this context. In this framework, in view of
the fact that there is a very close relationship between political science and administration science, which cannot be easily disconnected
(Ergun, 1997: 3), the subject of the study will be discussed within the
context of both administrative science and political science.
Ecological Problems and Administration
There exist various definitions of administration. These definitions vary from discipline to discipline in line with their disciplinespecific approach. For instance, while according to economists, administration is one of the factors of production along with land, capital and labor force, it is an authoritarian system for administration
scientists and a system of class and prestige for social scientists. A
common characteristic of these approaches is noteworthy. Administration is the process of achieving goals through other individuals’
efforts (Can, 1997: 22).
In administration science, the concept of administration refers to
both organizing actions of the State (goals) and the “machine” (tool)
that performs these actions. With its “goal” dimension, administration
is a sequence of actions that concretize in determinative characteristics of administrative institutions in different sectors of social life; an
organization’s objective embodying individual with the same purposes to achieve its goals through the shortest and most direct way;
“chaos” consisting of the elements of planning, organizing, recruitment, directing, coordination and supervision. The “tool” dimension
116
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
embodies (regional, productional or functional) central and local administration relations as well as issues such as rules for personnel
choice and job assignment, and methods of motivation (Fişek, 1975:
13-14).
In the first instance, the relationship between ecological problems
and administration suggest environmental protection-related- administrative decision-making processes of the political authority or
private sector. Administrative decision-making processes are a relatively limited aspect of this issue. However, the role of administration
in the emergence of ecological problems can be seen by looking at the
historical and ideational dimensions of administration. The reason is
that the origin of ecological problems lies in the ideational/cultural
milestones that led to deep transformation in nature’s design. The
processes that are deemed as the reasons for ecological problems are
the products of this transformation (Önder, 2001: 11-12). Therefore,
the abovementioned relationship necessitates knowing how administrative thinking developed and changed during the transformation
that led to ecological problems. The social structure and way of thinking of society in the pre- and post-Enlightenment Era should be explored by taking the opinions, which consider ecological problems
the outcomes of historical-scientific-ideational transformation, as the
starting point.
Ever since it started to live in communities, mankind has struggled to survive by adapting to the changing environmental conditions
and in the meantime, it underwent biological and cultural changes
(Alpagut, 1997: 113-115). In this process, which is also called the
“bio-cultural evolution”, the phenomenon of “administration” assumed a central importance. Administrative thinking went through
an evolutionary development in the period of time between the transition from the non-governed period to the governed period, in other
words, the time since primitive societies were divided into “governors and the governed” in the Neolithic Era, until today. Physical and
technical foundations of administration started to be laid down with
the emergence of the first human communities, which rescued themselves from passivity against nature by starting animal breeding and
cereal production and entered “active cooperation” with nature in
Mesopotamia nearly 10-12 thousand years ago. In other words, with
the Neolithic Era, there was a transition from matriarchalism4 to the
governed period.5
4
Matriarchalism refers to the periods during which the ancestors of today’s mankind
(hominoid), whose existence dates back to two millions year ago, lived in little, scat-
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
117
The increase in physical surpluses, labor force resources and invented tools due to the application of agricultural techniques with the
Neolithic Era led to a complex economy and political structure, which
had never been witnessed until that time. The first knowledge of first
systematic food growth, wheels, furnaces, and complicated tools such
as a smelter and handloom became determinant in the development
of civilization in early periods. The reason is that all these led to
abundance in food, shelter, clothing, tools and transportation. Mankind, who had plenty of spare time thanks to food reserves and technology, began to question natural processes. Thus it established permanent settlements, which would result in the construction of towns
and provinces (Bookchin, 1994: 151). Major factors that determined
the transition from the guiding institutions of matriarchal society to
the forms of organizing in towns and provinces are; 1) The institutionalization of continuous fight and defense, 2) The replacement of
matriarchalism with patriarchalism in the exercise of power with
welfare, 3) The elimination of the forms of primitive possession by
private property based on the wealth gained from trading animal and
slavery (Fişek, 1975: 33-34). The construction of towns and provinces and hence, the transition to a settled life is an important stage in
terms of the evolution of administrative thinking. Provinces can be
regarded as concrete indicators of the idea of escaping /being liberated from passivity against nature.
The first cities that conformed to the conditions such as “ecological foundation, technology and complex social organizations” as suggested by Sjoberg emerged in Mesopotamia in B.C.4000-3500
(Görmez, 1997: 20). As a matter of fact, in the classical sense of administration, “being based on the economic foundation provided by
social collaboration, becoming legalized through the phenomenon
called “authority” and performing social/administrative tasks via the
hierarchy that separated political authority into graded ranks” first
developed in the first big settlement sites like Babylon and Ninova.
The Neolithic Age appears to be the actualized form of mankind’s
awareness of confronting nature and at least his own determining
power despite nature. Available agricultural methods, urbanization
and the development of some techniques clearly reveal this situation.
Even though the thought of civilization that developed during and aftered, separate social clusters under a system that was not based on the distinction of
governor and the governed.
5 Even though the transition to administration thinking started with the Neolithic era, it
cannot be said that this was valid for all human communities of that age. There were
still matriarchalistic communities until the mid-Neolithic era (Fişek, 1975: 33-34).
118
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
ter the Neolithic Age involved the idea of resisting nature, it had no
purpose of dominating nature (Görmez, 2003: 29). In this mentality,
which is also defined as “organic thinking”, knowledge production is
based on reason and belief and aims solely to explain natural events.
The development stages of social organizing such as the clan,
tribe, village, town, site, polis, community, canton and independent
city-state, which started with the Neolithic Age, (Görmez, 1997: 22),
reached its peak with the formation of “national states”. Thus, the
idea of administration underwent a radical change with the emergence of nation-states in Northwest Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. The nation-state, which is described as “a social institution
that organizes/regulates the resolution of society and the most common consciousness at the top level in an action-oriented manner
(Coşkun, 1997: 95), is a form of organization, which is developed
with a view to bring solutions to the problems of mankind that cannot be solved in his natural processes and natural relations outside
these relations and to make these solutions permanent. The structure
and dynamics of society not only determine the content of this form
of organization, but also influence the institutional and functional
structure of the State (Şaylan, 1995: 13).
It would not be wrong to say that the direct relationships between
ecological problems and the phenomenon of administration have
emerged with the nation-state and its ideational infrastructure. In
view of the fact that the State institution is affected by the social
structure and it is shaped accordingly, it assumes great importance to
analyze the social structure of the period, during which the statenation emerged, in the context of the above-mentioned relations. The
philosophical and pragmatic effects of the “Enlightenment Era” and
the Industrial Revolution also lie behind the administrative thinking
that emerged with the nation-state. The reason is that the birth of the
nation-state coincides with the birth of Enlightenment. Moreover, the
nation-state has an organic bond with Enlightenment thinking.
Enlightenment philosophy bears the dynamics of the break from
the “organic viewpoint” and the transition to the mechanical approach. The organic point of view and the idea of “explaining the
knowledge of nature” changed to a “domineering nature” with the
pragmatic viewpoint of Enlightenment. Hence, corruption of the ecosystem or intervention in the ecological equilibrium occurred in a
more systematic manner after that period.
It can be said that the most significant change that occurred with
Enlightenment starting from the 17th century was observed in scien-
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
119
tific understanding. As the founder of modern science and methodology, Bacon’s statement that the primary objective of science is “to
understand nature, the laws of nature and secrets” and “to use this
knowledge to domineer nature” (Uslu, 1995: 65) expresses new scientific understanding.
Another important characteristic of this period was the establishment of modern philosophy under the pioneership of Descartes
and the emergence of “Cartesian dualism (the duality of immaterial
mind and material body)” and thus, the abandonment of the organic
way of thinking. Another major characteristic of Enlightenment philosophy was the Newtonian mechanical philosophy of the world.6
“Scientific knowledge”, one of the main determinants of Enlightenment, and particularly the developments in natural sciences are
considered an overall methodological guide and model for social sciences. In this context, the findings of the science of physics are frequently used in scientific analyses relating to social sciences.7
The search for “freedom” lies in the essence of social and state understanding that has been transformed with Enlightenment philosophy. In the beginning, the State was considered as the “fundamental
institution” for providing and protection freedoms in society. In this
sense, it was defined as the “lawmaking machine” (Sartori, 1993:
334). The State, which ceased to be a tool of social services by using
every instrument, which was the reason for it existing, turned into a
social purpose. As a result, a central state emerged that later produced a centralized society (Görmez, 2003: 38).
The thought of the “nation-state”, whose foundations were laid in
the Enlightenment Era, was equipped with additional qualities along
with its quality in the past, which was “to protect everyone’s life, liberty, and property …” (Rousseau, 1997: 18). The field and object of
administration were re-defined with the transition from the “Government of Souls” to the political government. Accordingly, in the 17 th
and 18th centuries, the State was seen as a mass of knowledge and
methods that would intervene in every field of life from religion to
The mechanical approach asserts that the living world consists of individual parts
that comprise the whole and therefore, mankind can change the parts of nature however he likes.
7 Hobbes, contemporary of Bacon, was among the philosophers, who believed that the
achievement in natural science could be repeated in the field of political theory too
(Sunar, 1986: 61-67). Besides, in his work the “Economic Table”, French economist
and physician François Quesnay, who was a member of the physiocratic group, based
his argument on the systemic circulation of blood discovered by William Harveyin
1649 in order to describe the circulation of economic goods in the social structure.
6
120
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
the economy, or from art to health care services and education as the
regulatory authority. Therefore, the ultimate goal of the government
was to increase the power of the State (Tezcan, 1998: 50).
In this process of development, the State made use of every instrument that would justify its existence. Hence, the State got rid of
scholastic burdens such as sustaining the Kingdom of God on earth or
uniting all nations under the right belief and it rose to the hierarchy,
where constant competition prevailed. Henceforth, its primary objectives were to identify resources and to find a way of using them in the
most efficient manner and, to continuously monitor the power of
neighbor countries with the help of modern diplomacy (Tezcan,
1998: 51). The State’s new functions and it being a regulatory mechanism resulted in the aggrandizement of “rationalism”, the basic
thought of Enlightenment, in the political field along with other fields.
As Sabine emphasized “…the State is naturally rationalistic, even during all changes and revolutions based on the immortal common interest of mankind, even in cases where the exact implementation of laws
might be destructive …” (1969: 207).
At the same time, the nation-state displayed a development parallel to the expansion of the market. The determinative characteristic of
the nation-state is that it is the monopolist power that lays down
rules and ensures their implementation. Meanwhile, the functionality
of the market mechanism necessitates uniformity in rules, decisiveness and domestic peace (Şaylan, 1995: 21). Therefore, the functions
of the nation-state have organic bonds with economic theory, which
was re-shaped after the Enlightenment.8
Especially with Industrial Revolution, economic theory became an
essential part of daily life as the practices of the nation-state. Human
force and skilled labor were replaced by machines, while living
sources of power by non-living things (such as the steam machine),
traditional raw materials by new and more efficient raw materials;
work life was restricted to organizing based on close supervision
(such as factories) (Landes, 1997: 22).
Hence, Enlightenment philosophy influenced nation-state thinking
both directly and indirectly via social and economic structures.
8
For instance, Liberal Society Theory conceived society as atomized individuals independent from one another. Individuals have rights and freedoms that cannot be restricted by anyone. The individual, who is a rational being, can decide how she/he
can be happy by using his/her mind. Individuals’ attempts to find happiness, i.e. to
have private property, should be secured by the State (Şaylan, 1995: 29). In other
words, according to the liberal approach, the reason for the existence of the State is to
protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
121
Though administration theory that emerged during the Enlightenment Era and materialized in the phenomenon of the State is perceived as a requirement, it embodies numerous problems mainly relating to human and societal life. Especially after the Industrial Revolution, the State turned into a bulky and totalitarian structure due its
“centralist organizing model”. The State, which was established for
the purpose of protecting human rights and freedoms, transformed
into a structure that embraced and surrounded human life (Görmez,
2003: 37). It is also known that the State, which was the focus of
power relations, was often reduced to the defender of power groups.
With the intermingling between the State and society, economic
thinking based on instrumental reason, nature-degraded, mechanical
and pragmatic approach and natural order discourse that emerged
with Enlightenment was brought to life. The nation-state, which expanded by producing central structures at every level of social, political and economic life, was a tool for establishing dominance over other states and the natural world (Bookchin, 1999: 334-335).
The change in nature of the nation-state continued with various
basic roles. It introduced the 18 th century liberal government, which
maximized political reason and profit based on individuals’ economic
performance against the police state understanding of the 17 th century. While in the 19th century, grave social problems led to a shift towards social security techniques in state understanding, at end-19th
century, social relations and methods of solidarity focused on the social state approach (Tezcan, 1998: 52).
Today, the relationship between ecological problems and administration is established in the infrastructure of the nation-state that
appeared after the Enlightenment Era. In other words, nation-state
ideology and organizing are said to be among the basic reasons for
ecological problems. In this context, the administrative structuring in
the contemporary nation-state,9 which is based on the principle of
“centralism” of the integrity of political power and administration, is
deemed as problem-increasing administrative processes due to its inconvenientness for the ecological system. National interest-oriented
organizing, vertical administrative and political integration and the
9
In the modern nation-state model, there are two forms of organizational structure:
“Unitarian” and “Federal”. Among a total of 220 countries worldwide, about 200
countries are unitarian states, while the remaning 20 are federal states (Güler, 2000:
22). Even though the form of government, which is criticized concerning ecological
problems, it is also known that in practice, federal states (like the USA) are also
blamed for ecological problems to the extent that they are even considered those
mostly responsible for such problems.
122
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
division of labor among vertical grades, which is based on power
sharing instead of not task sharing and the administration’s full responsibility of all functions, which are the determinative characteristics of the nation-state, (Güler, 2000: 22) are the target issues of criticism by ecological circles.
From the second half of the 20th century onwards, a democratization-oriented transformation was observed in state philosophy. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated that bulky and anti-democratic structuring of the state resulted in ecological problems (Görmez, 2003: 37). In
this context, today, countries governed by the industrial state model
of the West and the oppressive state model of the Eastern Bloc are
categorized as the most polluted countries.
In view of the fact that the enlightenment-equipped worldview
and industrial civilization lie behind ecological problems, the relationship between ecological problems and administrative thinking
cannot be restricted to developed countries. The reason is that citing
the nation-state model as the sole cause of ecological problems in
Western Europe will be a product of a linear reasoning and thus, ecological problems seen in other regions of the world cannot not be explained within the context of administrative thinking. This is the
point, where the relationship of ecological problems and the phenomenon of administration can be solved. The reason is that Enlightenment philosophy and industrial civilization are the basic reference
for all nations pursuing the ideal of “modernization. In this respect,
the nation-state approach is a desired/imposed model for the purpose of “development”. Therefore, nation-state thinking leads to ecological problems not only in Western Europe or North America, but
also in other places in the world.
Administration in the Search for Ecological Solutions
Today, significant transformation is observed in social life and
way of thinking. The modernity project that was developed after the
Enlightenment Era is changing; there is a transition from the world of
nation-states to a globalized world and, from the industrial society to
knowledge. Besides, there is an increasing tendency towards science,
ethics and aesthetics.
It will not be wrong to say that one of the dynamics that manipulate these changes is the formation of public opinion against ecological problems starting from the 1960s. This is an outcome of the public
awareness of ecological problems. Today, both political decisionmakers and private sector institutions review their methods of pro-
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
123
ducing services and goods re-design administrative processes. Public
awareness of ecology, which was underestimated and was not very
influential at the beginning, has become determinative on today’s
administrative thinking after decades of hard effort.
If associations and clubs of a “romantic” nature engaged in activities for the protection of nature are included, the origin of ecological
public opinion dates back to the end of the 1800s. However the first
social movements that exclusively focused on ecological problems
emerged towards the end of the 1960s. Among the chaos that started
with student movements and some other social movements in Western societies, Peace Movements, Anti-Nuclear Movements and Women’s Movements came to the forefront. The waves of action of these
movements, which were on the left side of the political spectrum at
the beginning, started to influence other sectors of society in the
course of time. Following studies 10 and international conferences11 on
environmental issues, these activities have turned into an ecological
opposition.
The formation of ecological public opinion at global level has reflected on the regional activities as well. The European Union, which
is an important example for the adoption of ecological and environThe first spark of public awareness of ecology is said to have been ignited by “Silent
Spring” written by R. Carson in 1962. See: (McCormik, 1989: 47; Bramwell, 1994:
39).Other works that laid the foundation of the ecological movements can be listed as
follows: (Dalton, 1994: 35-36): B. Commoner “Science and Survival” (1960); P. Erlich
“The Population Bomb” (1968); G. Hardin “The Tragedy of Common” (1968) and H.
Odum “Environment, Power and Society” (1971. Among other works published on
environmental protection in line with the increased impacts of ecological crisis and
with the influence of the above-mentioned books are the reports titled “Limits to
Growth” and “Humanity Milestone” published by the Club of Rome in 1972 and 1976,
respectively, E. Goldsmith’s book “Blueprint for Survival)” and E. F. Schumacher’s
book “Small is Beautiful”.
11 Stockholm Environment Conference, the first environmental conference, was held by
the United Nations in 1972 with the participation of more than 100 countries. Then,
“The United Nations Human Settlements Programme-UN-HABITAT I” was realized in
Vancouver/Canada in 1976. In 1983, the “Brundtland Report” was published by The
World Commission on Environment and Development comprising of the representatives from 19 countries, which was chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem
Brundtland. The “Sustainable Development” model, which was proposed in the
Brundtland Report, which is also known as “Our Common Future”, became the basic
issue of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Ecological opposition has become more evident with
the debates on sustainable development. Environmental conferences continued in
the coming years too. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme-UNHABITAT II was held in İstanbul in 1996. After the Rio conference, the second United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Johannesburg in 2002.
10
124
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
mental-sensitive policies (Kaplan, 1997: 150), is the leading regional
organization among other similar organizations with its environmental-sensitive policies and, specific objectives and policies since 1972.
There are numerous EU directives and legislations on environmental
law. It can be even said that the EU policies serve as guide in determining and directing global-scale environmental policies. In this context, the “European Urban Charter” adopted in the Congress of Local
and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe held in 1992 has a
significant role in the formation of ecological public opinion (Mutlu,
2002: 37).
Today, social opposition movements have merged for ecological
public opinion. The “World Social Forum (WSF)”, the most prominent
of all such movements, is an annual meeting attended by antiglobalization activists.12 The WSF is a movement, which suggests alternatives to problems, caused by globalization with the slogan “another world is possible” and that has a lot of sub-organizations in
many countries.
Nowadays, governments conduct studies on political administration and regulation. The State has assumed new responsibilities. Its
new duties involve collecting evidence relating to the state of nature
and the impacts of mankind on nature; introducing norms and laws
on indirect behavior and ensuring harmony between new rules. It
aims to ensure the continuity of certain things such as clean air, water
and atmospheric conditions on the one hand and to exercise sufficient control over numerous activities of society in order to direct the
exploitation of nature towards acceptable channels. To attain these
objectives, the State has to establish the necessary institutions such
as monitoring systems, regulatory mechanisms and administrative
organizations (Sachs, 2004: 64). The role of ecological opposition
movements in the emergence of new functions of the State is unquestionable.
The search for solutions to ecological problems and particularly
the ecological approach bring heavy criticism to the “centralist” and
“bulky” structure of the State. For instance, the adoption of ecotechnologies such as sun and wind energy is deemed meaningful by centralist administrations. The reason is that such types of technologies
do not have an important place on the agenda of nation-states (BookThe World Social Forum (WSF) WSF) is an annual meeting, whose foundations were
established in Porto Alegre/Brazil in 2001 and, which is held with the participation of
non-governmental organizations, people with an awareness of social issues, scientists, environmental organizations and activists at global level.
12
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
125
chin, 1999: 334). Today, the heavy use of ecotechnologies by individuals or local communities rather than nations confirms the abovementioned assertion. Therefore, it is maintained that other ecological
principles such as prudent use of technology can only be possible in a
local-oriented political society (Bookchin, 1999: 334-335). The transition to a survival-oriented, equalitarian and participatory production and consumption system seems possible not by the change in
personal values or the establishment of environment-sensitive systems, but by radical or reformist changes in administrative approach.
The nation-state’s approach to nature is determined by a few scientific, economic, political and social changes. As ecological problems
stem from these changes, the administrative attitude in search for solutions appears to be a vicious cycle. However, the administrative approach to ecological solution should be determined not solely by reducing the issue to a political, economic or social field, but with an integrated approach that encompasses every aspect of social life.
Metzner’s comparison of “industrial era and ecological era”, which he
made on the basis of dialectical relationship of ecological approaches
with the sovereign system (Chart 1) gives an idea of the reductive
and integrated points of view (1994: 33-34).
Chart 1. Ideational Differences Between The Industrial Era and The
Ecological Era
Industrial Era
Human/ So- The conquest of nature,
Dominance over nature,
cial
Individual vs. Earth,
Values
Feeling of superiority,
Directing of resources,
Gender discrimination, patriotism,
Racism, ethnocentrism,
Class and caste hierarchies.
Political
Systems
The nation-state sovereignty,
Central national authority,
Patriarchal oligarchies,
Cultural homogeneity,
Obsession for national security,
Militarism.
Multinational corporations,
The assumption of scarcity,
Competition,
Unlimited progress,
Economic development,
Ignorance of Nature.
Approach to Nature as Resource,
Exploiting or protecting,
Nature
Human-centered/humanist,
Instrumental value of nature.
Economic
Systems
Ecological Era
Life as a part of nature,
Common evolution, symbiosis,
Expanded egoism,
Thinking and creativity,
Ecological administration,
Eco-feminism, partnership,
Respect and value differences,
Social ecology, equalitarianism
Multinational federations,
Decentralized bioregions,
Equalitarian democracies,
Pluralist societies,
Obsession for human beings and
environment
Commitment to non-violence.
Community-based economies,
The assumption of mutual dependence,
Collaboration,
Limitations to growth,
Borrowing, sustainability,
Ecology-based economy.
Protecting biodiversity,
Protecting the integrity of ecosystem,
Biocentric/ecocentric,
Special valuableness of nature.
126
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Simplified version (Metzner, 1994: 33-34).
The above-mentioned distinctions can be interpreted as the nature of searches for ecological solutions as a whole, thus as the principles that shape the administrative approach. The ecological approach harshly criticizes environmental protectionism with respect
to the holistic content of administrative thinking. The major criticism
is that however holistic or inclusive it appears to be, environmental
protectionism consists of solution suggestions within the boundaries
of the sovereign system and, which do not impose any pressure on
this system. As a matter of fact, the ecological approach defends approaches based on the above-given distinction as a whole. On the
other hand, for instance, while defending decentralization, environmental protectionism suggests that this should be effected within the
structure of the nation-state. According to environmental protectionism, while ensuring sustainability, the involvement of multinational
corporations is not rejected. Even their importance in the process of
sustainability is underlined. Moreover, “administration downsizing”
is attempted to be realized without questioning the current economic
system. Besides, it is observed that sometimes, environmental protectionism is mingled with the sovereign values of industrial civilization
(such as protecting nature, attributing instrumental value to nature,
etc.). Even “Reducing consumption”, which is considered to be the
most radical suggestion of environmental protectionism (Bora, 1992:
96), is criticized for not addressing issues such as social inequity and
distributive injustice. Therefore, though administrative approaches of
both ecological thinking and environmental protectionism are based
on the same (ecological) public opinion, they differ in terms of method and objectives. This differentiation involves minute and detailed
ideational characteristics even in cases where they are founded on
similar discourse and principles.
Administration Understanding in Ecological Thinking
The phenomenon of the “nation-state”, which emerged as an outcome of the collapse of feudalism-based political power towards the
end of the Medieval Age and which united people, who were divided
between scattered and clashing political powers, around the concepts
of country and nation (Kapani, 1998: 37), is criticized by ecological
thinking in many ways. According to the ecological approach, nationstates have qualitatively and quantitatively expanded since their
emergence and they have interfered in the integrity of social structure. Besides supervising freedoms; they decide on economic policies;
they represent the whole population and finally they make all citizens
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
127
dependent on the ideology of nation-state. What lies behind the said
functions of the nation-state is that the executive power of the government sees itself as the center of the social structure and aspires to
seize the administration of all bodies of this structure (Simonnet,
1990: 44-45).
The ecological approach maintains that the State is the manifestation of the monopolization of dominance, which was exercised by different power groups against the individual. According to ecological
thinking, which aims to eliminate all kinds of dominance, the dominance over society and individual and the feeling of possession is observed in the use of nature as well. The State, with a point of view,
which assesses everything in respect of efficiency and rationalization,
programs nature, considering agricultural fields as simple production; forests as wood; lakes and rivers as water resources and individuals as units of production and consumption (Simonnet, 1990:
45).
In Marcuse’s view, the “Welfare State is a state of freedom.” (1997:
48). But this freedom is different from the freedom suggested by the
ecological approach. For instance, “free time”, which is used in practice in the ideology of the nation-state’s administration, is the systematic restriction of the “human mind”, which is capable of deciding
the quality and quantity of goods and services suitable for the fulfillment of his/her individual needs and, which he/she knows what is
best for him/her. Ecological thinking goes against the State model
that breaks down civil society day by day by destroying its selfsufficiency, by reducing culture to uniformity and by leading to economic intensification.
Another criticism of social content is related to a development observed in the economic field in recent years. It does not seem possible
to prevent the destruction of the natural environment caused by today’s economic paradigm via the nation-state model. The reason is
that multinational corporations in pursuit of “more profit” have risen
to supranational level. These “economic powers”, which have
achieved a huge determining power, are progressively rendering the
nation-states dysfunctional and what is worse is that they are turning
these states into a “passive instrument” (Başkaya, 1994: 220).
Another criticism of the State by the ecological approach is related
to its political structure. Ecological thinking asserts that the political
structure of modern society indirectly prevents individuals from using their mind via institutional instruments such as the election system, political parties and Parliament (Köker, 1992: 158).
128
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Due to the other reasons along with those mentioned above, ecological thinking does not involve a centralist state model. In the ecological approach, a centralist State that covers everything is replaced
by a decentralized State. The dominance brought by hierarchy is criticized. The ecological approach asserts that in view of the fact that
human’s dominance over human leads to the dominance of human
over nature, hierarchy causes ecological problems. It is believed that
this can be avoided by the decentralization of political power and the
division of administrative power into “small” pieces. The necessity of
the substation of hierarchy by interdependence, collaborative work
and cooperation is emphasized. The strengthening of local and communal structure is deemed as the prerequisite of participation and
cooperation (Görmez, 2003: 100). In the light of these rules, the decentralization of “fundamental democracy” is aimed for. Besides, the
method of organizing and administration will be rendered transparent in such a way as to be seen by everybody and to be changed at
any time (Mellor, 1993: 52).
“Radicalism” is the common point of debates made on the approach of ecological philosophy to administration. The reason is
when the phenomenon of administration is approached within the
context of ecological problems, the problem goes beyond the “destruction of ecology” or “environmental pollution” turning into the issue of “living in dignity”. Therefore, such an approach is against reductionism. As Bora perfectly underlined, the reason is that ecological
problems not only bear the risk of leading to authoritarian social
tendencies, but they also might literally darken the future of humanity since they neutralize the social content of nature (1992: 100). In
this context, the administrative and political suggestions of environmental protectionism for ecological problems are considered inadequate due to “its reductionist approach to the environment”.
According to the ecological approach, “democracy” and “freedom”,
the subjects of important debates in the above-mentioned process,
are two basic phenomena for solving ecological problems. Patriarchy,
which is incorporated into the structure of the nation-state, and gender discrimination and domineeringness as the extensions of patriarchy are the factors that determine the critical content of the administrative model of the ecological approach. “Citizenship” understanding,
which denotes the unity of the individual’s private and public life as
well his/her free will to make decisions relating his/her life, constitutes the foundation of “democratization” of the ecological approach.
However, this understanding is impeded in the modern institutional
structure, -by means of the distinction of civil society and political so-
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
129
ciety (Köker, 1992: 161). Ecological thinking aims for the materialization of the individual’s whole being, thus the practice of democratization “in its real sense”.
Similar to the phenomenon of democracy, the phenomenon of
freedom is also subject to the restrictiveness or determinativeness of
the nation-state. The nation-state is the “sovereign authority”, which
possesses the “monopoly of using force. The individual is free to the
extent allowed by the said authority (Köker, 1992: 161). This is a
highly restricted understanding of freedom compared to that of the
ecological approach. For that reason, a new administrative approach
that incorporates freedom is feverishly defended by ecological understanding.
In view of the fact ecological problems have arisen from “the ideology of domineering nature and exploitating it”, efforts towards protecting/developing the environment that exclude the individual and
society are actually nothing but temporary concealment of the problem. The reason is that the ignorance of certain inherent characteristics in the human being and society (such as freedom and equality)
with an approach that aims to ensure “naturality” of nature does not
seem reasonable. In this context, for instance, the experience of the
“Green Revolution”, which aimed for an increase in the quality and
quantity of agricultural production in the third world and fairness in
international division of labor has never been regarded as an administrative project of ecological nature. The reason is that though the
project in question had financial achievements to some extent, it also
had certain consequences that did not comply with, and even conflicted with ecological suggestions such as the deepening of the gap
between the rich and poor, possession of land by specific groups,
mass unemployment, migration to urban and industrial regions and
unfair situations in the international division of labor (Kaplan, 1997:
165).
In the administration design of the ecological approach, an organizational structure based on federations and confederations and the
formation of decentralized, self-sufficient, self-protective bioregions
that are based on pluralist communities gathered around ethical and
national groupings assume great importance. Values that are free of
military concerns bring concerns over mankind and the natural environment to the forefront (Metzner, 1994: 31). Different power
groups should be divided into small fractions. Accordingly, villages,
neighborhoods and towns are the main elements of the social structure that embodies the basic functions of life. Their small-scale will
allow the implementation of local democracy and establishment of a
130
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
lively social relationship (Simonnet, 1990: 80). As hierarchy brings
dominance, which reaches its peak in the institutional structure of
the State, local and communal structures should be strengthened
(Görmez, 1997: 90-91). The most appropriate administration scale
for such a social structure is “municipality”. Municipalities are the
most optimal unit that allows self-government. Besides, one of the
basic factors in idealizing these institutions is the belief that “The
State manifests itself very little in the institutions at municipality level (Bookchin, 1999: 186).
Both as an utopia and a project, an administration, where the individuals “can materialize themselves”, is one of the arguments,
which is most resorted to by ecological thinking. This way of thinking
constitutes a contradiction against the nation-state model designed
according to the philosophy that legalizes “leviathan”. 13 Rather than
constructing external mechanisms that suppress the internal development of individuals, internal and external barriers to their potential powers are removed. Freedoms are multiplied. With the aim of
reducing the effectiveness of the State; expanding the environment of
democracy and freedom and creating opportunities for individuals to
materialize themselves, a policy, according to which autonomous local administrations and people’s councils feature at the center of, is
defended. This system that involves people’s councils is based on
“referendum”. Therefore, the system is founded on “a social contract”.
The said contract suggests the involvement of people in the decisionmaking process (Bookchin, 1999: 313). Hence, in administrative
thinking based on organizational structures such as “municipality”,
“self-government” or “community”, “people’s participation“ and “referendum” assume vital importance.
The “radical” nature of the administrative design of the ecological
approach results from the suggestion for a radical transformation
program/revolution due to the non-applicability of the abovementioned suggestions in the sovereign system/nation-state model.
The administration model of ecological thinking is criticized for
being “utopic”. In a period, during which nation-states and corporations are progressively increasing and strengthening and administration, property, production, bureaucracy, capital flow and power are
increasingly centralized, an administration model with definite
boundaries, which takes collective living as the basis is undoubtedly
The reason is that this philosophy, which says “the human is the human’s wolf”, voices the necessity for “leviathan” asserting that individuals lack the capability of selfgoverning.
13
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
131
regarded as “imaginary”. This approach, which contends humanescale communal settlements with definite boundaries, is said to recall
puritanical, narrow-minded, patriarchal ideas of ancient times. In
brief, Bookchin’s question assumes vital importance in the criticism
of the administration model suggested by ecological thinking (1999:
318): “Is the governing of modern society by local groups possible at
a time where central authority is supposedly permanent?”. Ecological
thinkers are still trying to find an answer to this question.
Administration Understanding in Environmental Protectionism
The administration model suggested by environmental thinking in
the process of the elimination of ecological problems does not have
an anti-system and revolutionary nature. On the contrary, the environmental model, which is based on the utilization of the system
tools, is of a reformist nature. In this sense, it significantly differs
from ecological thinking, which adopts a critical approach to historical and ideational foundations that constitute the nation-state and assesses current problems within this context, thus, suggesting an administration model accordingly designed.
It would not be wrong to say that environmentalist thinking that
does not conflict with the system perceives the problems as to segmentive and reductionist qualities and provides solutions. The method of “conducting spot studies”, which is used usually for the solution
of a specific environmental problem, is expressed by the slogan,
“think globally, act locally”. Dealing with environmental problems anywhere; conducting training courses in order to raise environmental
awareness; working at the intersection points of professional or scientific fields and environmental problems; giving priority to concrete
studies relating to a specific problem without giving much credit to
debates at political or macro level are among the characteristics of
environmental protectionism. A single rescued turtle, a forest protected from fire; a revitalized wetland are efforts which produce concrete outcomes and lead to individual happiness and satisfaction (Şahin, 2003: 74). However, it is asserted that this method not only forces environmentalists to overlook the origin of the ecological problem,
which they are dealing with, but they also have to side with the actors
responsible for ecological problems (such as the State, capitalism and
oppression) from time to time or they have to compromise even if
they remain on the opposite side.
Major methods for the fight against ecological problems suggested
by environmental protectionism involve economic and political cooperation between countries; reduction in squandering resources; re-
132
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
duction of environmental pollution; adoption of sanctions such as
“the one who pollutes pays the price”; adoption of preventive
measures; development of alternative types of products and new infrastructure systems; recycling processes to be jointly developed by
production sectors (Keleş, 1997: 12-13). Accordingly, administrative
thinking is based on concrete political suggestions that would bring
such measures to life.
The administrative approach of environmentalism is shaped in
such a way so as “not to fuss over social and philosophical assumptions that lie behind industrialization and urbanization”. Therefore,
even though attitudes towards the sovereign administrative system
or the proposed alternatives sometimes seem critical, they are mostly
based on reforms. Despite the fact that the sole aim is to protect human health, the efforts cannot go beyond short-term and temporary
measures because of economic value supporters (Tamkoç, 1994: 95).
Even in a situation, in which the instrumental approach to nature is
rejected, basic thinking is based on concerns over the probable scarcity of consumable items in nature in the future.
It is possible to see typical reflections of the above-mentioned attitude in global meetings and decision-making mechanisms relating to
ecological problems. Exhaustion of resources and worldwide environmental pollution, which were especially aggravated at the end of
1980s, has started to give direction to international policies. While
multinational institutions distribute biological waste recycling
equipment and draw up forestry programs, economic summits discuss carbon dioxide emissions (Sachs, 2004: 66). As mentioned before, these methods also aim to cover up critical characteristics of the
system. Accordingly, as risks emerge one after another, new products,
processes and programs are introduced in order to avoid the threatening impacts of industrialization and to sustain the system.
According to the environmentalist approach, saving the world refers to nothing, but maintaining the industrial system. In this context,
“ecocracy discourse” 14, which started in the 1990s, aimed at reaching
During the ecological crisis that increased after 1980, “capitalist, bureaucratic and
scientific” cycles known as the “Sacred Trilogy of Western capitalism” declared themselves “inevitable actors” of the new crisis and suggested that the problem could be
solved with good engineering, integrated planning and more complex models.The
implementation of all these strategies require more centralism and a stronger state
administration. Ecocracy discourse deals with ecological problems not as the deadend of civilization, but as a technical problem. The rise of ecology has outshined the
debates on moral issues such as how society should live; what, when and how it will
produce and consume. The ecolactic point of view cannot see the possibility of any
14
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
133
new levels of administrative control and monitoring and thus, reduced ecological problems and ecology – by overlooking the reasons
that lie behind the problems such as the competitive production mentality – to the administrative strategies directed towards “efficiency
of resources” and “risk management”.
The reformist nature of environmental protectionism is clearly
seen in its approach to the nation-state. In the Sustainable Growth
policies, which are a typical example of environmental protectionism,
the State is criticized because of its current structure and some new
suggestions are brought. These suggestions for change overlap with
the suggestions set forth by the globalization understanding. 15 Even
though the nation-state has lost some of its functions and former importance with the globalization process that started in the 1980s, in
fact, it is not possible to speak of radical changes in its institutional
infrastructure. The reason is that globalization and the “governance”
understanding that have appeared along with it suggest not the rejection of the nation-state, but the revision of its functions.
Considering the nation state’s organic relationship with mercantilist approach during its emergence process, it is clearly seen that the
State merely served as regulatory mechanism in the functioning of
capitalism and as an instrument in maintaining current relationships.
Even though the reduced role of the State in question seems to be
parallel to the ecological thinking, it aims at rendering capitalism
functional in ultimate analysis. Accordingly, the utmost importance
attributed to economic expansion, business activities and government-supported projects in the framework of searches for ecological
solutions can be considered as efforts to protect the environment
within the operating system of capitalism. This approach is closely related with the idea of “governing a passive community of citizens”. It
is believed that in the face of the said problems, citizens’ main concern is “services” rather than “social participation”. Even participation is offered, citizens give priority to higher quality public services.
In this sense, citizenship and citizens are deprived from social activity
and they are reduced to “a community of customers” (Bookchin,
1996: 173). The governing of the community of customer is naturally
diversity except the Western economic society. For more information about ecocracy,
see: (Sachs, 2004: 66-67).
15 New administration understanding known as “governance” that defends the involvement of the private sector and non-governmental organizations in the political
administration process along with the State attracts attention as the fundamental
administrative understanding both in Sustainable Development and globalization.
134
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
performed by “business cycles” and “government/bureaucracy” no
matter how inclusive policies are.
Another reason for reducing people to “customer” in environmental protectionism is the prejudice based on “the impossibility of convincing individuals of the necessity of social policies relating to ecological problems”. The reason for such prejudice is not the complexity
of such problems, but citizens’ “different” and “low” level values. In
other words, as there are doubts about public support of environmental protectionism, “more bureaucratic” and “less political” solutions are preferred (Ruff, 1978: 76). Therefore, environmental protectionism is elitist as much as ecological thinking is populist.
In view of the fact that ecological problems have been on the
world agenda since the 1960s, it can be asserted that the administration model of the environmental approach has been influenced by
“organizing forms of production”, which has undergone an evolutionary change. The basic principles of environmental protectionism display parallelism with the evolutionary development of the sovereign
administration approach that has been transformed from a disciplinary understanding to a relatively less disciplinary approach. This
administrative evolution process is said to create a number of problems in the context of democracy and freedom. Touraine’s comments
summarize this process (2002: 9):
“For centuries, we associated democracy with escape from the dungeons of ignorance, dependence, tradition and divine law which we succeeded thanks to economic development and people’s sovereignty. … We
counted on the bonds that seemed to link technological achievement, political freedom, cultural tolerance and personal happiness. But soon it
was time for concerns and fears: Hasn’t the society, which got rid of its
weaknesses, turned into the slave of its own power, technology and especially of the wheels of its own political, economic and military power?
Could workers, who adhered to Taylorist methods, see that the passion
for reason in industrial rationalization put them under the weight of a
social power disguised in technology? While public administrations and
private administrations were imposing supervision over private life and
formed it as they wished and on the top of it, while they valued both this,
could bureaucracy be defined as a rational/legal power as a whole? …”
The administration model of environmental protectionism aims
for concrete implementations as the model suggests that ecological
problems should be solved “now, instantly” whatever the reason. Environmentalism appears to be more dominant than ecological thinking because of these concrete implementations. Therefore, criticisms
towards policies of the ecological approach are intensified on this axis. Ecological thinking is criticized for suggesting utopic methods that
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
135
cannot be put into practice. Meanwhile, it is asserted that the era of
revolution has ended and therefore, suggestions for solutions can only be brought to life via well-designed reforms within the sovereign
system. The failure of the ecological approach to reach a consensus
on the solution of ecological problems is one of the arguments, which
is frequently used by environmental protectionism to legitimize itself.
It is widely accepted that today’s prevailing environmental policies have been established within the scope of environmental protectionism. Hence, it is clear that the changes in policies made in recent
years, which bear “radical” implications, is the extension of environmental protectionism. The reason is that expecting a sudden radical
transformation in policies based on rather old administrative thinking is nothing but dreaminess.
136
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Conclusion and Evaluation
In order to establish a relationship between ecological problems
and the phenomenon of administration, both concepts should be examined in different aspects other than their use in daily life. In this
context, it has been found that ecological problems do not merely refer to the deterioration that has occurred in nature and that they have
individual and social dimensions as well. Besides, the phenomenon of
administration cannot be investigated solely within the scope of administrative science. It involves the individual’s relation with other
individuals in social life as well as various elements in this process,
which suggest the existence of its sociological and political dimensions. It is obvious that administrative thinking plays a role not only
in the emergence of ecological problems, but also in their solution
process. It can be said that as past administrative approaches have
played a major role in the occurrence of ecological problems, importance should be attached to administrative thinking for the purpose of avoiding such problems in the future.
The literature that emphasizes the difference between ecological
thinking and environmentalism has progressively multiplied in recent years. The difference in their approach to administration somewhat confirms that these are two different ways of thinking.
The pragmatic aspect of the administrative approach adopted by
environmental protectionism is more applicable than the utopic approach of ecology thinking. Current environmental policies bear the
traces of environmental protectionism. On the other hand, there are
no examples of practices of ecological thinking. This indicates that in
the event ecological philosophy is approached solely in the context of
“applicability”, it might not assume much importance. However, current ideational and actual developments indicate that ecological
thinking is rapidly rising in social and political life. This development
shows that rather than a one dimensional approach to ecological
thinking such as “applicability”, its different aspects should be discussed. For instance, environmentalist policies, which are presented
as the ‘only alternative” should at least be questioned.
In a sense, both the emergence of ecological problems and the difference in the administrative approaches of ecological thinking and
environmental in the process of finding solutions to these problems
present an alternative for the critical evaluation of current policies,
which incorporate the typical characteristics of environmentalism. In
other words, it is evident that policies adopted to avoid ecological
problems are not non-alternative or indispensable. Current policies
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
137
should be questioned particularly in respect of administrative thinking from new and critical viewpoints and they should be revised or
totally changed if necessary. However, such an approach might require thinking over more issues and bringing the solutions to life in
order to introduce more liberalistic and humanistic procedures.
References
Acar, Mustafa (2003), “Küreselleşme, Beşeri Gelişme, Yoksulluk ve Yolsuzluk”, Liberal Düşünce, Sayı 32, Güz, s. 167-193.
Alpagut, Berna (1997), “Doğal Çevre ve İnsanın Evrimi”, Keleş, Ruşen (Ed.),
İnsan Çevre Toplum, 2. Baskı, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara, s. 113-119.
Başkaya, Fikret (2004), Kalkınma İktisadının Yükselişi ve Düşüşü, 4. Baskı,
Özgür Üniversite Kitaplığı, Ankara.
Bookchin, Murray (1996), Ekolojik Bir Topluma Doğru, (Çev. A. Yılmaz),
Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
Bookchin, Murray (1994), Özgürlüğün Ekolojisi, (Çev. A. Türker), Ayrıntı
Yayınları, İstanbul.
Bookchin, Murray (1999), Toplumu Yeniden Kurmak, Metis Yayınları, İstanbul.
Bora, Tanıl (1992), “Ekolojik Sorun ve ‘Bunalım İdaresi’nin Son Haddi”, Birikim, Sayı 38/39, Haziran/Temmuz, s. 94-101.
Bramwell, Anna (1989), Ecology in the 20th Century: A History, Yale University Press., New Haven and London.
Can, Halil (1997), Organizasyon ve Yönetim, 4. Baskı, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara.
Dalton, Russel J. (1994), The Green Rainbow Environmental Groups in Western Europe, Yale University Press, New Haven, London.
Ergun, Turgay (1997), “Postmodernizm ve Kamu Yönetimi”, Amme İdaresi
Dergisi, Cilt 30, Sayı 4, Aralık, s. 3-16.
Fişek, Kurthan (1975), Yönetim, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi
Yayınları, Ankara.
Garner, Robert (1996), Environmental Politics, T. J. International Ldt., Padstow, Cornwall.
Görmez, Kemal (2003), Çevre Sorunları ve Türkiye, Üçüncü Baskı, Gazi
Kitabevi, Ankara.
Güler, Birgül, “Yerel Yönetimleri Güçlendirmek mi? Adem-i Merkeziyetçilik
mi?”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Dergisi, Cilt 9, Sayı 2, Nisan, s. 14-29.
Illich, Ivan (1989), Şenlikli Toplum, (Çev. A. Kot), 2. Basım, Ayrıntı Yayınları,
İstanbul.
Kapani, Münci (1989), Politika Bilimine Giriş, 5. Basım, Bilgi Yayınevi, İstanbul.
138
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Kaplan, Ayşegül (1997), Küresel Çevre Sorunları ve Politikaları, Mülkiyeliler
Birliği Vakfı Yayınları, Ankara.
Keleş, Ruşen (1997), “İnsan, Çevre, Toplum”, İnsan Çevre Toplum, Keleş, R.
(Yay. Haz.), 2. Baskı, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara, s. 9-17.
Köker, Levent (1992), Demokrasi Üzerine Yazılar, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları,
Ankara.
Landes, David (1995), “Önsöz”, Landes, D. (Ed.), Kapitalizmin Doğuşu, (Çev. S.
E. Gündüz), İnsan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, s. 7-37.
Marcuse, Herbert (1997), Tek Boyutlu İnsan, (Çev. A. Yardımlı), 3. Basım,
İdeal Yayınevi, İstanbul.
McCormick, John (1989), The Global Environmental Movement, Belhaven
Press, London.
Mellor, Mary (1993), Sınırları Yıkmak, (Çev, O. Akınhay), Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
Metzner, Ralph (1994), “Ekoloji Çağı”, Tamkoç, G. (Der.), Derin Ekoloji, Ege
Yayınları, İzmir, s. 25-34.
Mutlu, Ahmet (2002), “Kentli Hakları Bakımından Avrupa Peyzaj Sözleşmesi
ve Türkiye”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Dergisi, Cilt 11, Sayı 3, Temmuz, s.
33-57.
Önder, Tuncay (2001), Bir “Yeni Toplumsal Hareket” Olarak Ekoloji Hareketinin Gelişimi ve İdeolojik Yönelimleri, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi,
Gazi Üniversitesi SBE, Ankara.
Rousseau, J. J. (1997), Toplum Anlaşması, (Çev. V. Günyol), Ankara, Milli
Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1997.
Ruff, Larry E. (1978), “Çevre Kirlenmesinin Ekonomik Anlamı”, Yönetim, Sayı
8,
s. 67-96.
Sabine, George (1969), Siyasal Düşünceler Tarihi, (Çev. H. Rızatepe), Türk
Siyasi İlimler Derneği Yayını, Ankara.
Sachs, Wolfgang (2004), “Çevre”, Üç Ekoloji, Kış-İlkyaz, s. 55-68.
Sartori, Giovanni (1993), Demokrasi Teorisine Geri Dönüş, (Çev. T. Karamustafaoğlu-M. Turhan), Türk Demokrasi Vakfı, Ankara.
Simonnet, Dominique (1990), Çevrecilik, (Çev. M. Selami), İletişim Yayınları,
İstanbul.
Sunar, İlkay (1986), Düşün ve Toplum, Birey ve Toplum Yayınları, Ankara.
Şahin, Ümit (2004), “Bir Truva Atı Olarak Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma”, Üç
Ekoloji, Sayı 1, Kış-İlkyaz, s. 9-30.
Şaylan, Gencay (1995), Değişim Küreselleşme ve Devletin Yeni İşlevi, İmge
Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara.
Tamkoç, Günseli (1994), “Doğa İle Bütünleşme”, Tamkoç, G. (Der.), Derin
Ekoloji, Ege Yayıncılık, İzmir, s. 106-112.
Administration Thinking in the Approaches Adopted Towards Ecological Issues
Tezcan, Levent (1998), “Modern Devlet ve Yönetim Teknolojisi”, Birikim,
Mart, s. 48-56.
Touraine, Alain (2002), Demokrasi Nedir?, Üçüncü Baskı, (Çev. O. Kunal),
Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Uslu, İbrahim (1995), Çevre Sorunları, İnsan Yayınları, İstanbul.
www.rupe-india.org, (24.08.2004).
139