Public Management Reform in Turkey: The Impact of Europeanization and Beyond (Public Administration, Governance and Globalization, 20) 303041647X, 9783030416478

Citation preview

Public Administration, Governance and Globalization

Fatih Demir

Public Management Reform in Turkey The Impact of Europeanization and Beyond

Public Administration, Governance and Globalization Volume 20

Series Editor Ali Farazmand, School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

The aim of Public Administration, Governance and Globalization (PAGG) is to publish primary research and theoretical contributions as well as practical reports on fieldwork to help advance the knowledge and understanding about public, nonprofit, private, and nongovernmental organizations and institutions. The governance, administration, and management of these organizations at local, national, regional, and international levels will be discussed in the context of this age of rapid change and globalization. This series on public management offers original materials that contribute to our better understanding of the critical issues as well as routine processes of governance and public administration, now more than ever because of the intricate forces of globalization that affect almost every nation-states and their policy choices at all jurisdictions across the world. The series covers a wide range of topics that address the key issues of interest to scholars, educators, practitioners, and policymakers in public administration capacities around the globe. Books in the series could be research monographs, edited volumes, textbooks, reference volumes or handbooks.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8656

Fatih Demir

Public Management Reform in Turkey The Impact of Europeanization and Beyond

123

Fatih Demir Manisa Celal Bayar University Yunusemre, Manisa, Turkey

Public Administration, Governance and Globalization ISBN 978-3-030-41647-8 ISBN 978-3-030-41648-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For my sons, Enes and Eymen

Preface

The purpose of this book is to set out how the European Union accession process of Turkey has affected public administration beginning in early 2000s. In this context, the subject of this book is the analysis of the transformation and basic features and problems of Turkish public administration in relation to the EU accession process. The book consists of six chapters and a conclusion. In Chap. 1, which sets the stage for the following chapters, the public administration reforms in Turkey are evaluated from the perspective of Europeanization and European Administrative Space. Chapter 2 deals with the administrative procedures based on the draft law and explains its relationship with the accountable government and democracy. In Chap. 3 the steps taken to improve civic participation in decision-making processes are examined. Chapter 4 evaluates local governance reforms in Turkey with reference to Europeanization processes and “policy windows” approach developed by Kingdon. Chapter 5 is about regionalization in Europe and its reflections on Turkey especially in the example of the foundation of regional development agencies. Chapter 6 presents the reactions to the fragmentation of government envisaged by new public management reforms and sees practices beyond fashioning an integrated administration. In this chapter, the transformation of the executive organ, especially in the second decade of 2000s, is examined in terms of the change of its status vis-à-vis other centers of political power. The conclusion offers an overview of the apparent oscillation of Turkish public administration in the twenty-first century in terms of Europeanization processes. Manisa, Turkey

Fatih Demir

vii

Introduction

In the aftermath of the 1980s, a significant paradigm shift was observed in the area of government in line with efforts to reduce the size of the state while increasing its efficiency and effectiveness. Within the scope of reforms carried out in public administration, concepts such as total quality, governance, strategic planning and performance occupy a special place. The factors that force public administration to change are aligned along three main axes. The first of these is the burden of public expenditures on the budget and the problems caused by the budget deficits in the financial system. The second is the rapid change in information and communication technologies. The third axis is the fact that public sector’s performance in the face of social demands is seen as inadequate. Parallel to these reasons, public administration reform is structured on two main bases. The first is the role of public administration, which is also referred to as the role of the state. The second is about the ways of performing these tasks. In a nutshell, what to do and how to do it is the most important element in determining the fundamental strategy of the reform. In a public administration system that is forced to reform due to financial pressures, the role of the state in economic and social life is reduced. This approach, which re-defines the role of the state in a narrowing sense, adopts the principle of making the most use of the market mechanisms while carrying out the services that the state has to continue to offer. To be honest, restructuring efforts in Turkish public administration go back to before the EU accession process. Throughout history, countries in political, social, economic and cultural exchange with Europe have undergone comprehensive changes. In the process, the Turkish public administration system naturally had to comply with this change. In the beginning of modernization process, Turkish public administration system was inspired by the French system as a result of Westernization efforts in the nineteenth century. Its change over time was again largely parallel to the developments in Europe. However, the reconstruction efforts became more concrete in the last two decades when they finally reached a certain level within the framework of the reform packages predicting a holistic change in public administration in early 2000s. In this context, the traditional tendencies that dominate the central and local governments in the Turkish political system in terms ix

x

Introduction

of administrative, political and financial organization of the state apparatus, and relations between central authority and other actors in the society began to change. This could well mark the beginning of a transition to a public administration approach that is in line with contemporary forms introduced by the new public management paradigm which, for example, argues that local governments should be more powerful in terms of duties, powers and resources, and governance should become more participatory and democratic in operation. As a result, it has been observed that a significant transformation is being experienced in the Turkish public sector for the last 20 years. The starting point of these regulations is the new understanding of public administration adopted in the European Union in reaction to the economic and political conditions. Over time, a general consensus has emerged among the democratic states of Europe on the key elements of good governance, which include, but are not limited to, the principles of rule of law, reliability, predictability, accountability and transparency, citizen engagement, as well as technical, administrative and organizational capacity. Due to the lack of a uniform community legislation regulating the issue, this consensus has led to the establishment of principles of public administration that are accepted by EU member states with different legal traditions and governance systems. Over time, these principles have been defined, re-defined and refined through the judicial case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities as well as the national courts. Although there is a long history and an interesting story of administrative reforms in Turkey, it is often argued that the distance taken is not satisfactory and a holistic perspective cannot be put forward due to the discordant focus on different aspects of the issue. It is also emphasized that the administrative reform efforts should be taken into consideration in relation to the social, cultural and organizational change process. It is fair to suggest that the success of the administrative reform efforts, which are somehow isolated from the social structure, cultural characteristics and organizational environment, depends on coincidences and will not make sense in the long run. Within this framework, it is a fact that the efforts of restructuring the Turkish public administration, which has been on the agenda for a long time, faced new dynamics and realities in the late 1990s. In the process where these efforts are driven by the dynamics of globalization, regionalization and localization with their economic, social, cultural and political-administrative implications, the relations with the European Union seem to be a decisive factor. Meanwhile, with Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership in December 1999, it became important to realize the reforms that would enable integration to the EU. In this context, the solution of the problems of public administration will be realized through the rearrangements that will be discussed during the process of harmonization with the EU. Thus, it is obvious that one of the important issues in Turkey’s EU accession process highlights was a comprehensive reform of the public administration. Indeed, Turkey’s reform agenda was mostly suggested in the 2003 Accession Partnership Document on its accession to the European Union and the subjects covered in the National Program associated with this document. In this framework,

Introduction

xi

a comprehensive public administration reform was required to create the legal and institutional environment necessary for the efficient, transparent and participatory provision of public services. This issue became more concrete especially with the beginning of the negotiation process with the European Union in October 2005. It seems clear that Turkish public administration, like other national administrative systems, is directly affected by the changes and developments in global arena, and has to take into consideration the new international approaches and techniques in the administrative dimension in addition to the requirements of the national environment. Governance problems lead to and/or exacerbate political, social and economic issues; on the other hand, they are also affected by them. Therefore, it will be a proper approach to address the issue of managerial restructuring from a holistic perspective and to consider the interaction of the national governance system with other social systems inside and outside the country. The issue of whether the reform efforts that began in this process meet the expectations set by the EU, or whether the laws enacted constitute an adequate and favorable framework for such a process, is one of the most debated topics today.

Contents

1 Europeanization Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Europeanization as a Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Common Values and Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Principle of Obligatory Results . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Principle of Blank Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Right to Good Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 Openness and Transparency Principle . . . . . 1.2.5 Participation Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.6 Accountability Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.7 Effectiveness Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.8 Implementation of the Acquis and Public Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.9 Problems of Common Principles . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Common Processes and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Convergence and Divergence of Procedures 1.3.2 Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Resolutions of European Court of Justice . . 1.3.4 PHARE Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.5 Twinning and EUPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6 Action Plan for Simplifying and Improving Regulatory Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7 Regulatory Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.8 Common Assessment Framework . . . . . . . . 1.3.9 Annual Activity Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.10 Strategic Planning and Programming (SPP) and Annual Policy Strategy (APS) . . . . . . . 1.4 Common Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Amsterdam Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 SIGMA Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

1 1 5 7 7 8 8 11 13 15

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

16 17 20 21 23 23 25 26

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

27 29 30 32

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

32 33 33 34

xiii

xiv

Contents

1.4.3 Rules of Procedure of the Commission . . . . . . . . 1.4.4 White Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.5 Reports of the Committee of Independent Experts 1.4.6 European Code of Good Administrative Behavior 1.4.7 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe . . . 1.4.8 Rejection of Constitutional Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.9 Lisbon Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Common Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 European Economic and Social Committee . . . . . 1.5.2 Committee of the Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.3 Ombudsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.4 Internal Audit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.5 European Administrative School . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.6 European Personnel Selection Office . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 European Administrative Space and Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.1 Issues of Focus in Progress Reports . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.2 General Evaluation on Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 40 45 46 47 49 50 51 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61

.. ..

65 66

. . . .

. . . .

67 69 71 72

.. .. ..

73 78 80

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

83 84 86 87 88 91 92 93

.....

94

.....

95

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Administrative Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Concept of Administrative Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 The Relation Between Democracy and Administrative Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Examples of Administrative Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 The European Code of Good Administrative Behavior . 2.2 Administrative Procedure in Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 What Does the General Administrative Law Draft Offer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 General Evaluation of the Draft Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Participatory Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Deliberative Policy Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Democratization of Public Policy Process . . . . . . . 3.1.2 The Relation Between Public Policies and Citizens 3.1.3 Forms of Democratic Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Local Level and Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Governance and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Local Public Management and Public Policies . . . . 3.2.3 The Democratization of the Relationship Between the State and Society: The Re-definition of Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Citizen Participation in the Formulation and Management of Public Policies . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

3.3 Participatory Democracy in Turkey 3.3.1 Legal Foundations . . . . . . 3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. 99 . 100 . 108 . 111

4 Local Governance Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Concept of “Policy Windows” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Legal Aspects of Decentralization: 2004–2005 Legislations . 4.3 Political Aspects of Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Civil–Military Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Kurdish Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 AKP’s Attempts to Change the Domestic Balance of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 The Turn of the Tide: 2008 and 2012 Legislations . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Economies of Scale and Local Governments . . . . . 4.4.2 The Metropolitan Municipality Law of 2008 . . . . . 4.4.3 The Law of 2012: The Search for “Optimal Scale” 4.4.4 Structural Changes Introduced by the New Model . 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

117 118 120 123 123 124

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

125 125 126 128 128 130 132 133

5 Regionalization Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Regionalization Processes in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Turkey’s Harmonization with European Regional Policy . 5.2.1 “NUTS” and Structural Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Regional Development Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

137 138 143 146 147 150 151

6 Re-centralization in Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 NPM Reforms in European Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Post-NPM Tendencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 NPM, Post-NPM and Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Post-NPM and Re-centralization in Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 General Institutional Review of the Government . . . . 6.4.2 Expansion of the Prime Minister’s Office After 2003 . 6.4.3 Transformation of Independent Regulatory Agencies . 6.4.4 Reform in the Cabinet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.5 Expansion of the President’s Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.6 Adoption of the Presidential Government System . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 155 156 159 160 161 161 162 163 164 165 168 169

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chapter 1

Europeanization Processes

One of the most crucial processes in understanding the transformation of Turkish public administration in the twenty-first century is European Union accession talks. They have shaped the structuring and functioning of Turkish state apparatus at a level which can only be compared to the revolution which replaced the Ottoman Empire with the Republic. Europeanization can also be seen as a litmus test for possible convergence in the field of public administration. To a certain degree, the themes and topics of public administration studies are becoming similar due to Europeanscale laws and policies. What is to be seen is whether the Europeanization in public administration will change not only the administrations in member countries but also the identity of public administration as an academic field (Randma-Liiv and Connaughton 2005: 358–9). But before one gets to examine this process in more detail, the concept which underlies European Union processes should be discussed.

1.1 Europeanization as a Concept This concept is Europeanization and, in terms of grammar, the word refers to a change. According to Merriam-Webster, it means “to cause to acquire or conform to European characteristics”. However, the word has far more connotations than merely referring to a non-European subject adopting European features. As a term, Europeanization is used to indicate the expansion of the European Union (EU) system. From public administration perspective, it can be used to imply administrative capacities and institutions at European level becoming more European-focused. Although administrative change cannot be realized overnight, European countries certainly traveled a long way in terms of changing the patterns with which they administered their states (Peters 2001: 41). As an expansion of this definition, it is related to the process of creating a European identity based on national identities and individual states. On the other hand, Europeanization is also a concept employed to describe the internationalization phenomenon at a regional scale. Europeanization also refers to © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. Demir, Public Management Reform in Turkey, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5_1

1

2

1 Europeanization Processes

the rapidly increasing economic, cultural and social convergence among EU member states in a variety of patterns which transcend national borders. It is a widely held opinion that this cooperation is necessary for the stability and growth in the region (Luijten-Lub et al. 2005). One of the objectives of this regional cooperation is the increase of competitive power of Europe as a whole as indicated in Lisbon agenda. In the literature there is strong emphasis on the Europeanization of sub-national norms and decision-making processes. For example, Börzel (1999) defined Europeanization as a process through which internal policy areas are becoming increasingly subject to European policy making. In this sense Europeanization is different from policy formation at EU level and European integration as a phenomenon; rather, it is related to the influence exerted by European dimension on national political and policy areas. Considered from this perspective, Europeanization refers to the sharing of national perspectives, values and applications of EU member states concerning politics, as well as mutual learning processes through such mechanisms as the decisions of European Commission, European Court of Justice, or other supranational bodies. Some researchers who take institutional stance, on the other hand, see Europeanization as the formation of political institutions. For example, Risse et al. (2001) stated that Europeanization could occur at a variety of levels which could emerge as institution-building at European level, as a response to globalization, or in the form of the reflections of EU membership at national level. Held and McGrew (2000) claim that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the concept of globalization. The interwoven nature of these concepts and their inconsistent employment leads to complications in studying the relevant processes. From conceptual perspective, these factors are used both for determining general tendencies (i.e. Europeanization of the society, globalization of economy) and specific policies (i.e. European policies for higher education, national policies toward internationalization of higher education, etc.). In addition, it can also be witnessed that the same concepts are used for activities which aim at the internationalization of a certain sector (such as student exchanges or internationalization of curricula). All these elements, legal behaviors and actions taken by various actors in European societies serve to shape a common European Administrative Space. Players in this game are rarely expected to present written norms; but they are expected to adopt a series of principles which, despite lacking a systematic body of rules, have ethical and even legal binding power and cross-cut the entire realm of public administration. These principles are often referred to as non-formulized acquis communautaire. It contributes to the unification of European Administrative Space and Europeanization of national public administrations and administrative laws of EU member (and candidate) states (OECD 1999: 19). Internationalization of administrative systems, on the other hand, is a specific yet interrelated area and is governed by its own codes of procedure, which will be discussed in detail below (Bauer et al. 2019). Börzel and Risse (2003: 58) also explained Europeanization from different perspectives such as rationalist institutional and sociological (or structuralist). Rationalist institutional perspective argues that Europeanization process leads to change in national systems through differential empowerment which aimed at various actors. This, in turn, is caused by the redistribution of resources among groups which have an

1.1 Europeanization as a Concept

3

interest in Europeanization: at the end of the process some actors obtain new opportunities whereas others find their maneuver ability more restrained. Sociological or structuralist perspective, on the other hand, gives more priority to persuasive policies. European policies, norms and the associated collective understanding impose pressure for harmonization on processes at national level. Other authors draw attention to the legal dimension of Europeanization. For example, Lawton (1999) claimed that Europeanization meant the transfer of sovereignty to EU-level institutions in legal terms.1 All in all, in order to mention Europeanization, it is a pre-condition that the aforementioned changes are caused by European effect. For this reason, it is essential to discriminate the degree to which national systems are modernized and reformed as a result of Europeanization compared to other factors (Radaelli 2003: 50). There are two basic perspectives concerning the direction of Europeanization. The first one brings to the fore the bottom-up interaction: accordingly, national tendencies are more influential on policy-making and/or institution-building processes at European level. The second perspective adopts a top-down approach which claims that institutions, policies and processes at EU level have more influence on the Europeanization of national systems (Börzel and Risse 2003: 57). For example, Twinning program was launched in May 1998 with the objective of helping develop modern and effective administrations with structures, human resources and management skills required to ensure that acquis communautaire is implemented in beneficiary countries in the way it is applied in EU member states. Twinning provides a framework for the personnel in public and semi-public institutions in beneficiary countries to cooperate with their counterparts in member states. As a result, administrators can develop and implement projects which aim at the transfer, enforcement and implementation of a specific portion of the acquis communautaire. Despite the national character of public administration studies, today European issues are affecting the daily lives of public officials more due to the accession processes and Europeanization of public policies. An increasing number of public officials have to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to handle European topics effectively. Europeanization has been a reality of daily life in Western European public bureaucracies for a long time now. Especially in recent years, in the Central and Eastern European countries public administration reforms gained ground to the extent that they were seen as a synonym for Europeanization. Randma-Liiv and Connaughton (2005: 356) claimed that eastern expansion of the EU made European policy-making processes even more complicated mainly due to the EU membership of states with different administrative cultures and approaches. Thus, the new situation is not a challenge only for the CEEC; it is equally challenging for the old members of the Union as well. As a profession, the Europeanization process in public administration should be reflected in academic programs and, more generally, in the search for identity in 1 For

an in-depth analysis of background concepts and systematic concepts of Europeanization, its cognitive and normative dimensions, and vertical and horizontal mechanisms, see Featherstone and Radaelli (2003). For other dimensions of Europeanization see Knill et al. (2001), Walters and Haahr (2005), Risse et al. (2001), Heritier and Knill (2001).

4

1 Europeanization Processes

the various national contexts of public administration. In addition, the creation of new public management programs in the new members of the European Union and candidate countries may give more momentum in developing their own identity and approach to the discipline. These developments have created an impetus for the design of academic programs with a European identity, which in turn may lead to the promotion of a specific form of public administration teaching and research based on European realities, and may contribute to the development of a common European Administrative Space. Governance in Europe is characterized as an interdependence that mostly felt at the administrative level (Kohler-Koch 2003; Paavola 2004; Dimitrova and Dragneva 2009). Therefore, the European Union is expected to ask member countries to comply with the basic rules regarding the organization and functioning of public administrations. However, the Treaty of Rome does not contain any provisions on public administration practices. No General Directive has been adopted in this regard. In other words, there are no community rules relating to public administration, except for exceptions, such as where community provisions require member states to encourage certain forms of organization (e.g. provisions relating to competition in services serving general economic interest in accordance with Article 90 of the Treaty). In accordance with the principle of locality in service, national administration is the responsibility of national governments (OECD 1998: 120). According to this principle, an authority or responsibility is carried out by the units closest to the public. If these closest units (municipality, county/province, state) find it too difficult to accomplish this authority and responsibility, or if it exceeds their budget, then a higher authority is referred to. According to the concept of subsidiarity in the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which was adopted in 1985, the process of transnational integration continues in Europe, while efforts are under way to increase participation at sub-national level. With the adoption of the Interagency Agreement on the Implementation of the Principle of Locality in Service in 1993 and the Protocol on the Implementation of the Principles of Locality and Proportionality in Service in 1997, the legal framework of this principle has been largely completed. The point is that there is no acquis in the European Union to establish standards for horizontal management or national public management systems. Therefore, from the perspective of EU membership, the objectives and orientations for public administration reform are less obvious. The Treaty of Rome (1957) and the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the basic legal texts of the European Union, do not define a public administration model or administrative structure and operation principles for the implementation of EU member states. However, over time, a consensus has been reached on the basic components of good governance among democratic countries. These include principles of the rule of law, such as credibility, predictability, accountability and transparency, technical and administrative competence, organizational capacity and citizen participation. Despite the lack of an acquis communautaire, this consensus has established principles of public administration that are shared by EU member states, which have different legal traditions and management systems. Over time, these principles have been defined by the decisions of the national courts and then by the decisions of the European Court of Justice (OECD 1999: 5).

1.1 Europeanization as a Concept

5

One of the main arguments is that although there is no formal acquis regulating the European Administrative Space, an informal acquis has emerged. Member states with different legal traditions and different management systems have created a whole with common doctrines and administrative law, good practice standards, and shared understandings of the principles of uniform and efficient implementation of EU laws. With the application of specific policies, the need to reach certain objectives and conclusions requires member states to amend their national administrative law systems and reform their administrative principles, structures and procedures. New administrative bodies and positions have been established, and the scope and degree of public sector as well as its role in the economy and society has been converged with even calendars; presentations, statistics and reference frames changed accordingly (OECD 1998: 3; Olsen 2003: 516). It is clear that agreements do not prescribe a specific model for administration, and there is no acquis for public administration. On the contrary, throughout the history of the EU, it is recognized that different administrative systems were legitimate and compatible with membership, and it was assumed that different regulations would be equally good in the implementation of EU law. In addition, the Union has restricted its powers in administrative matters. Debates on the distribution of administrative powers are linked to struggles regarding the general distribution and separation of powers within the Union (Olsen 2003: 514). The lack of a common acquis in the field of public administration in the European Union required that similarities in this area be built on the basis of some common values and principles, processes, documents and institutions, which will be detailed in the following sections.

1.2 Common Values and Principles In the European Union, public administration is largely shaped by common values and principles. The acquis continues to be implemented within the framework of these principles. The case-law of the European Court of Justice plays an important role in shaping public administration. In addition, the principles of good governance, openness and transparency, participation, accountability and efficiency affect the public administration practices in the European Union. Long political evolution has led to a consensus on the creation of shared principles for public administration among EU member states with different legal traditions and management systems. The European Administrative Space is concerned with basic institutional arrangements, processes, common administrative standards, public service values and administrative culture. In addition, the degree to which the above-mentioned principles are enforced in public administration and in practical life provides an insight into the competence of the new member states to implement the acquis reliably. Thus, the European Administrative Space, though a metaphor, refers to a convergence and the basic values of public administration as practice and occupation in Europe (Randma-Liiv and Connaughton 2005: 357). To the extent that the common principles mentioned above are

6

1 Europeanization Processes

shared among EU member states, it is possible to talk about a common European Administrative Space. In fact, the items listed by Fortsakis describe the qualities of EAS precisely. Fortsakis approaches the issue within the framework of public law and in particular in terms of the protection of the rights of the citizen. According to the author, the protection of the user has long been regarded as an important safeguard in administrative law as defined by the public interest. This protection operates in two ways: First, it contains a more negative meaning, and prevents administrative institutions from taking action that would harm the legitimate interests and rights of the user. Second, it requires a more positive meaning implying the administrative bodies using their status and their activities in support of the legitimate interests and practical activities of the citizens. These principles are listed as follows: • Principle of equality, meaning that users are subject to equality when acquiring public services. It is to be understood that the concept of the public service in a functional sense includes all state institutions, local or regional authorities, public companies, and all other legal entities (e.g. belonging to one of the aforementioned bodies and legal entities subject to private law). All of these institutions are obliged to produce and offer their services or products according to the principle of equality which is emphasized in the constitution. • Good governance (in narrow sense) or useful administration principle. • Principle of proper operation of the administration. According to this principle, administrations should conduct their activities not only in accordance with the relevant laws and rules but also in a professional manner and in accordance with the realities of the common experience. • The principle of appointing an ombudsman. The principle of appointing an ombudsman in various branches of the law in many European countries is a major step toward protecting the user. • Justification of administrative decisions. • Access to administrative documents. • The principle of creating independent administrative institutions. • Principle of establishing a legal protection. This policy expresses the authority not to impose or modify any administrative decisions that violate the legitimate interests or rights of users (Fortsakis 2005: 208–210). The extent to which a candidate country shares the principles of public administration and complies with the standards of the European Administrative Space demonstrates the capacity of national public administration to effectively implement the acquis in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Council of Europe summits in Copenhagen and Madrid (OECD 1997: 5). In particular, the Madrid Council is important in terms of putting forward the principles of public administration in Europe. The final declaration of the Madrid Council (1995) stated that the aim was to reach a new consensus on the European acquis and to prepare the union for further enlargements, which meant that the functioning, formation, working methods and

1.2 Common Values and Principles

7

decision-making mechanisms of institutions were discussed. In general, the emphasis would be on maintaining a single institutional framework and not disrupting the overall institutional balance. As can be seen, it is necessary to give importance to the institutions, their structure, working methods, and the operation of decision-making mechanisms in order to create a single institutional framework and to maintain a general balance between institutions. In a similar vein, the final declaration of the Madrid Council underlined the necessity of an appropriate administrative structure and argued that the countries that do not have this status cannot become a member of the EU (Balcı 2004: 118). In particular, two of the theoretical principles that constitute the intellectual background of public administration in the European Union have played a central role, since these principles are at the core of administrative law, which has a major impact on the shaping of the European Administrative Space. These are the Principle of Obligatory Results and the Principle of Blank Concepts.

1.2.1 Principle of Obligatory Results The principle of obligatory results first appeared in the 1998 SIGMA report of OECD. The report defined the principle as follows: …for one thing, the Union imposes on its Members obligations expressed in terms of results to be achieved (what is referred to legally as an obligation de résultat). States are free to set up their public administration as they please, but it must operate in such a way as to ensure that Community tasks are effectively and properly fulfilled to achieve policy outcomes which are set by the Union (OECD 1998: 121).

The same concept is repeated in the SIGMA report dated 1999 as well. The Introduction section of the report contained the following statements: The lack of general EC legislation applicable in the domains of public administration and administrative law poses a problem for candidate countries. Candidate countries are required to have administrative systems and public administration institutions capable of transposing, implementing and enforcing the acquis according to the principle of obligatory results (obligation de résultat). Candidate countries have to meet the criteria required for EU Membership as adopted by the European Council in Copenhagen, Madrid and Luxembourg. In addition, candidate countries’ progress will be measured against those criteria, i.e. in the wording of the European Commission’s Regular Reports, in terms of their administrative and judicial capacity to apply the acquis, which signifies implicitly that their progress will be assessed against European administrative standards. (OECD 1999: 6).

1.2.2 Principle of Blank Concepts The difficulty in describing the principles of administrative law is the most important reason why blank concepts are so widely used in administrative law and in civil

8

1 Europeanization Processes

service legislation (Rutgers and Schreurs 2000). Blank concepts in legal doctrine are defined by the courts as concepts that are wide, even uncertain and difficult to describe, which must be filled and refined on a case-by-case basis. This feature is the cause of several legal conflicts being referred to the courts, which have to match their earlier definitions with the social values and perceptions that have evolved over time. Consequently, the conceptual limits of such principles are always destined to remain vague. Blank concepts are concepts such as goodwill, plausibility, public interest and loyalty. Almost all legal principles can be considered as blank concepts. Although it is difficult to describe, blank concepts are crucial in law making and implementation (OECD 1999: 9).

1.2.3 Right to Good Governance The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was adopted on December 7, 2000, in Nice, France, includes various provisions on human rights and democratization in public administration. In particular the 41st Article of the Charter regulates the right to good governance. In the first paragraph of this article, it is stated that all persons have the right to be seen in an impartial, fair and reasonable time by the institutions and organizations of the Union. In the second paragraph it is stated that this right includes the following elements: • Everyone has the right to rest before taking measures that may adversely affect him/herself, • Everyone has the right to access files related to him by observing confidentiality of professional or trade secrets, • The administration has to provide justification for its decisions. • A closer look shows that these elements indicate fundamental principles such as the openness and transparency, the right to defense, the right to information, and administrative procedures.

1.2.4 Openness and Transparency Principle Openness and transparency are frequently referred to concepts in EU documents and speeches and are directly related to the problem of democratic deficit of EU institutions that has long been criticized. Factors such as the low level of participation in the European Parliament (EP) elections, the lack of information and interest on the EU, and the refusal of the constitutional treaty by referendum in founding member states reduced the level of adoption of and enthusiasm for the EU. These developments led to the advocacy of the procedural and structural changes among the EU elite that would improve the EU’s openness and transparency. In many Commission

1.2 Common Values and Principles

9

documents, statements and political speeches, the need to make the EU more visible, accessible and closer to the citizens has been championed (Lodge 2003: 96). Openness and transparency have also come to the fore for two main reasons. First, the inter-agency change in the balance between the legal powers meant that the members of the European Parliament needed access to information to become effective legislators. Second, the reforms introduced by the Single European Charter in some member states could only be implemented if they were adopted in accordance with the national constitutional provisions of the member states. This implied the necessity of holding a referendum in several countries. Even a negative result in a single country would endanger all constitutional reform; thus, the benefits of these reforms would also be jeopardized. As a result, citizens should have been involved in a process that affected the constitutional design of the EU (Lodge 2003: 101). Confidentiality in the EU is also linked to decisions taken by the Council of Ministers behind closed doors. References to a democratic legitimacy gap and a democratic deficit are particularly relevant to the negligible level of influence and powers of the Ministers of the European Parliament on the laws adopted by the Commission and by the Council of Ministers as co-legislative bodies of the Union. The text of the Constitutional Treaty, which was rejected in France and the Netherlands, included a section titled the Democratic Life of the EU. In the last article of this section (Article I-50) it was stated that in order to promote good governance and to ensure civil society participation, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies would make their work as open as possible. Therefore, it is very important to increase transparency in the basic stage of formal decision-making. Citizens can only take account of community lawmakers if decisions and public disclosures are made public. The idea that the public’s insecurity and apathy would decrease if the public’s knowledge of the European Union increases has been the major motivation behind the efforts to make the EU more open, visible and accessible. In this context, the right to information has been an important step in ensuring transparency. In particular, the right to information available on the Internet has enabled EU citizens to learn more about the processes of EU institutions. It is mentioned in several European Union policy documents that the internet would increase its transparency by providing more information to citizens. The EU’s main portal, www.europa.eu.int, is known as the world’s largest website with its millions of pages (Curtin and Meijer 2006: 109). However, the right to information under the scope of transparency has its limitations. Disclosures of sensitive documents such as court minutes and inspection reports that would jeopardize public interests (in particular related to public security, defense and military matters, international relations, community or member state fiscal policies), privacy protection and the commercial interests of a legal or real person are subject to exceptions. However, if public interest requires such to be disclosed, there can be no exception. Applications for access to the document should be processed within 15 days of the application. In annual reports, the cases in which access is denied are stated on the basis of their reasons and the number of sensitive documents in the registry is given (Lodge 2003: 107). In the midst of the debates on the deficiencies of European democracy, the Commission was accused of being arrogantly detached from the public (Lodge 1994: 343).

10

1 Europeanization Processes

It was also criticized for making decisions behind closed doors and in technocratic manner within groups of experts, which were seen as characteristics of comitology.2 According to the Maastricht Treaty, after the Commission’s legislative power increased, the criticism was further exacerbated. Therefore, in the final declaration of the Lisbon Summit, it was stated that more attention should be paid to transparency in the member countries (Heritier 2003: 822). With a deep-rooted transparency management tradition, Sweden and Finland had entered the Union in 1995, and discussions on the European opening of decisionmaking processes to the public deepened. In the same year, the Council instructed COREPER (the Committee of the Permanent Representatives to prepare the agenda and minutes of the Council) to ensure public access to the minutes of the Council. One year later, the Council asked for more rapid response to requests for access to the documents.3 The ongoing efforts to bring the EU closer to citizens have enabled an arrangement under Article 255 of the EU Treaty.4 Here, the principles, conditions and limitations on the right of access to information, based on public and personal interests are defined; in addition, measures to facilitate access are introduced and actions for good administrative practices are encouraged. At this point, the decision of 2001, which intended to make available free of charge the decisions of all institutions on the internet under the EUR-Lex portal, is particularly important. Article 207 of the Constitutional Treaty envisaged that when the Council acted in accordance with the legislative power, the results and justifications of the votes and the statements on the minutes should be disclosed to the public. The Guidelines on Access to Commission Documents published by the Commission, together with some exceptions to protect public and personal interests, envisage that most comprehensive access to the documents in the Commission is a fundamental principle. Access to the documents is one of the main elements of the Commission’s policy of openness which aims to initiate discussion on community affairs on the basis of “full knowledge” of the facts. The Commission also developed the principle of transparency through access pending the citizens to approach the commission for information, and the Council emphasized the issue of transparency through communication to explain and justify the results (Grønbech-Jensen 1998; Lord 1998). As a result, transparency facilitates access to information about policy-making processes and strengthens the legitimacy of both inputs and outputs. At the same time, transparency increases social legitimacy; that is, citizens’ commitment to the 2 The

Commission’s implementation of the powers granted to it to implement Council decisions by using various committees is termed “Comitology”. It is criticized for being a closed-circuit decision-making system. 3 See Council resolution of December 6, 1996 amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents (OJ L 325/19 12 December 1996). 4 OJ L 111 numbered and April 9, 2001 dated regulation, as well as 1049/2001 numbered and April 20, 2001 dated regulation; also see resolution no 93/731/EC (OJ L 340 31.12.1993) on access to Council documents as amended by Resolution 2000/527/EC (OJ L 212. 23.8.2000) and proposed regulation of European Parliament and Council on access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents numbered OJ C 177E, 27.6.2000; COM (2000) 30; Bulletin 2–2000, article 1.9.2.

1.2 Common Values and Principles

11

EU. One of the aims of transparency, according to Curtin and Meijer (2006: 119), is to transfer information from the European level to the local level, so that citizens are aware of the developments, feel that they are part of the European structure and see their interest in their situation.

1.2.5 Participation Principle Participation cannot be considered independent of governance, which is one of the concepts representing the paradigm shift in public administration in the 1990s. Governance, which implies a more horizontal form of governance instead of a hierarchical one, is based on networks and the cooperation of self-organizing actors rather than governmental and institutionalized practices. In such a structure, besides the above-mentioned transparency, there is also an argument for participation in decisionmaking processes. Giorgi and Pohoryles (2005: 409) argue that in the case of Europe one of the two sources of governance is traditionally the pressure of actors, especially those excluded from the decision-making processes, and social movements; the other source is the fact that the functions of the nation-state become shallow as a result of the European integration process. The importance given to participation increased during the 1990s and in the 2000s during when an increasingly flexible form of government was advocated. This new meaning imposed on governance aimed to enable different public and private actors to learn mutually new methods of non-binding decision-making, thus maximizing participation. In order to cope with the problems created by the strict and blocked comitology method within the EU, such mechanisms as informal and variable advice, influence, monitoring, information sharing, comparison and/or decisionmaking are used. This idea has led to the development of the so-called Open Method of Cooperation (Bailey 2006: 23).5 In European Governance: A White Paper published in 2001, the section on civil society emphasizes the importance of civil society having its voice heard about Union policies either by giving feedback or by providing opposition: Civil society plays an important role in giving voice to the concerns of citizens and delivering services that meet people’s needs…The organizations which make up civil society mobilize 5 The

Open Method of Cooperation (OMC), which was developed during the Lisbon process in 2000, has been proposed as a new European model, especially in network governance, and has been presented as part of the important developments in the transition from governing to governance both within and between member states (Olsen 2003: 518). This method advocates preparation of guidebooks and making recommendations in order to spread good practices. It does so by making comparisons between public policy outputs rather than setting strict rules (Akdo˘gan 2008: 54). Thus, it is possible to democratize the process by breaking from the comitology which is a closed decision-making system. Decisions such as increasing labor-intensity of growth, reducing free labor costs, shifting from a passive labor market policy to an active one, increasing the effectiveness of employment policy and supporting groups most affected by unemployment are at the center of the European Employment Strategy which makes intensive use of OMC.

12

1 Europeanization Processes people and support, for instance, those suffering from exclusion or discrimination. The Union has encouraged the development of civil society in the applicant countries, as part of their preparation for membership. Non-governmental organizations play an important role at global level in development policy. They often act as an early warning system for the direction of political debate (COM (2001) 428: 13).

According to the Commission, civil society includes the following: trade unions and employers’ organizations (social partners); non-governmental organizations; professional associations; charities; grass-roots organizations; organizations that involve citizens in local and municipal life with a particular contribution from churches and religious communities.67 In the Commission Communication No. 704 on the development of a culture of consultation and dialogue, it is stated that civil society should be the actor that allows the creation of a broad policy dialogue: Although the target groups of consultations vary according to the circumstances, all relevant interests in society should have an opportunity to express their views. In this context, civil society organizations play an important role as facilitators of a broad policy dialogue. For this reason, the White Paper on European Governance stressed the importance of involving these organizations in its consultation processes. The Commission particularly encourages a coherent approach to representation of civil society organizations at European level. This specific role of civil society organizations in modern democracies is closely linked to the fundamental right of citizens to form associations in order to pursue a common purpose, as highlighted in Article 12 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (COM 2002b: 5).

Also in this document, it is emphasized that workers and employers’ unions among social partners are also important for social dialogue: Because of their representativeness, trade unions and employers’ organizations have a particular role. For instance, the EC Treaty requires the Commission to consult management and labor in preparing proposals, in particular in the social policy field. Under certain conditions, they can reach binding agreements that are subsequently turned into Community law (within the social dialogue) (COM 2002b: 6).

In a declaration issued in 2002, the Commission called for the refinement of participation in the member states. He recommended that the social partners adjust their various practices using such methods as harmonization, independent social dialogue, and participation in different processes of the open method of cooperation, to improve the efficiency of the Lisbon strategy (COM 2002a). In the White Paper on European Governance (2001) participation is one of the key words: it is defined as one of the five basic principles of good governance and is one 6 For a more precise definition of organized civil society, see the Opinion of the Economic and Social

Committee on “the role and contribution of civil society organizations in the building of Europe”, OJ C329, 17.11.99 p. 30. 7 The European Economic and Social Council (EESC) was created in 1957 to represent economic and social groups. The Council includes representatives of categories such as employers, workers, farmers, craftsmen, small trade and industrial organizations, professions, consumer representatives, scientists and teachers, cooperatives, families, environmental movements. After the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, the Council has been instrumental in wider areas such as new employment policy, new legal regulations on social issues, public health and equal opportunities.

1.2 Common Values and Principles

13

of the most important principles in the White Paper and in other documents which are prepared for the White Paper. It is assumed that participation will increase both the quality and legitimacy of European governance. According to Magnette (2003: 147), if European governance follows a lesser top-down approach and makes policy making more inclusive and accountable, this will increase the quality, relevance and effectiveness of EU policies. The White Paper aimed to connect Europe with its citizens by addressing the distrust and indifference of citizens to the Union, and therefore asked the Commission to interact more strongly with civil society (COM 2001: 3–4). SIGMA reports are also important documents for European public administration. The report entitled “Preparing Public Administrations for the European Administrative Space”, published in 1998, is a guide for EU candidate countries. A year later, another SIGMA report, titled “European Principles of Public Administration”, was published. In this report, the European Administrative Space is of central importance. It is stated that the European Administrative Space represents an increasing process of affinity between the national administrative legal orders and administrative practices of the member states. In the same report, the characteristics of the European Administrative Space, which is common to the EU member states, are listed as reliability and predictability, openness and transparency, accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness. In particular, there is the view that participation in government expressed in the White Paper is not about the legitimacy of inputs, but rather about the legitimacy of the outputs. According to Michalowitz (2004: 148), this is where lobbying activities take place. In order to increase the legitimacy of inputs, civil society should focus on lobbying activities. However, these lobbies should not only represent their interests but also the common interests of society.8

1.2.6 Accountability Principle Accountability can be defined as the obligation to explain and justify the work done (Bovens 2006: 9). One of the ways to fulfill the general purpose of accountability is to ensure public participation in decision-making. This can be achieved through formal participation and representation, as well as through the responsiveness of public institutions to public debate and civil society.9 As explained by Christensen and Laegreid, “public organizations and their leaders are accountable to a number of 8 On

the other hand, if we look at the definition of lobbies, this is a paradox, because lobbies are organizations that promise support in the protection of their interests, that is, they rely on a special exchange. 9 In terms of accountability, literature refers to the following two concepts: accountability and responsibility. When these concepts are used together, it refers to the responsibility of public administrators to account for the public and their responsibilities to their superiors. In this section, the term “accountability” implies both dimensions. See Thym (2002), 219.

14

1 Europeanization Processes

different forums and there are different ways of categorizing who is accountable to whom” (2015: 209). There are two sources of EU’s democratic legitimacy. The first is the national parliaments; the other is the European Parliament, which is directly elected by voters. The fact that there is an executive body that is accountable to the parliament at the center of legitimacy is an indispensable element of democratic legitimacy. However, for certain reasons it cannot be claimed that the ministers who took decisions in the Council of Ministers has effective accountability. First of all, EU parliamentary elections always suffer from a low level of turnout.10 One of the consequences of the low level of participation in the EU parliamentary elections compared to national elections and the negligible level of knowledge among voters about the activities of the Parliament is that political parties and candidates entering the EU Parliament elections do not fully account for their actions and decisions at the EU level. Secondly, although the Council has a collective autonomy, the members of the Council are accountable to their national assemblies. But this does not work smoothly either as decisions are taken collectively, and it is not known which member has voted in what direction and why. At the intergovernmental conference held in Nice in 2000, it was decided that in the next 2004 conference the boundaries would be separated with more precise lines, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity between the European Union and the member states. In the Laeken Declaration (December 2001), the same issue was dealt with under the title of “better division and definition of powers within the European Union”. It is important that the powers of the European Review Committee are strictly separated, because transnational level of accountability is not as effective as at the national level (Cygan 2003: 391–2). In order to increase accountability, a mechanism requiring the distribution of powers has been adopted. This mechanism has three main features: 1. Continuous division of the executive area: The bodies, which are directly dependent on the center, such as ministerial departments, cabinets, decentralized authorities, or relatively independent bodies in decision-making processes such as central banks, independent administrative authorities, and regulatory agencies have begun to share the powers of the center. 2. Multiplication of access to decision-making processes: Nowadays, political parties have to compete with organizations such as non-governmental organizations, interest groups and unions partly due to the influence of the open method of cooperation. This is an innovation in Europe, which is thought to have a monopoly on the legitimate representation of unitary administrations. 3. Multiple mechanisms for the control of political officials: Because of the increasingly complex political systems, parliaments can no longer control public life

10 Turnout constantly fell in every EU election for 40 years between 1979 and 2019. In 1979, the turnout was 62% but it went down to as low as 42.5% in 2014. In 2019, turnout became 50%, which represents the only increase so far.

1.2 Common Values and Principles

15

alone. Since 1970s, various institutions have been established outside the parliamentary control, such as constitutional courts, auditing courts, ombudsmen and supervisory bodies, and their powers are increasing (Costa et al. 2003: 668–9). The European Ombudsman, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Committees of Independent Experts, the Court of Accounts, the Court of First Instance and the European Bureau of Combating Fraud (OLAF) are examples of control bodies established to ensure that the government complies with the budgetary obligations, is more responsive, and that corruption is prevented and punished properly. In this way, the level of accountability of the EU central government is expected to increase.

1.2.7 Effectiveness Principle Effectiveness can be defined as “achieving the goals set”. Effectiveness also means the capacity to produce an effect. Effectiveness for public administration implies the production of fundamentally acceptable policy outputs and their applicability. It is a fact that efficient and effective management is not easy in a transnational system with multiple levels such as the European Union. This kind of a structure necessarily lacks an understanding of problem-solving shared by all parties which makes it difficult to resolve conflicts of interest. On the other hand, these multinational decision-making actors suffer from the lack of the power to force member states to comply with EU laws. Given these factors, the causes of the EU’s effectiveness should be sought on the basis of consensus. According to Peterson, very few important political decisions in the EU are taken without the consent of all countries (Peterson 1995: 73). Similarly, Hayes-Renshaw and Wallace (1995: 565) report that there is an instinctive tendency to act based on consensus as a result of their impressions in the Council. In this context, voting is only one of the mechanisms of collective action. In joint decisionmaking processes, efforts to involve as many members as possible and to reconcile isolated individuals outweigh the merely voting-based decisions. However, as mentioned above, it should be kept in mind that the law enforcement sources of the EU are extremely limited. The effectiveness of any EU action depends on the ability of the member states to transfer this action to their own system without the opportunity to avoid excess. In an institutional setting like the EU where effective implementation of hierarchical law is non-existent, this is only possible if the parties are convinced that their legitimate concerns in the decision-making process to be accepted and protected. It is today argued that the EU is not a dichotomy between local/national and international management, but a third model that combines horizontal legal structures and vertical authority structures. Indeed, the legal outputs of the EU are easily comparable to those of an average nation-state and are far superior to the outputs of any other international organization. While the EU is not a state-like institution and its member states lack the “brute force” of imposition, their rules are almost

16

1 Europeanization Processes

always complied with. In areas where the pre-conditions for consultation, such as publicity, participation and legitimation cannot be met (e.g. common foreign and defense policy or intergovernmental conferences), decision-making is less feasible and political outputs cannot be effectively implemented (Neyer 2004: 35). In the areas where these conditions are fulfilled, it can be said that EU policies are more effective.

1.2.8 Implementation of the Acquis and Public Administration EU membership requires the public sector and the industrial sector of a member state to reflect the acquis communautaire. It is the task of national public administration institutions to implement and enforce the acquis communautaire. In order to do the same, the public administration of a candidate country must abide by the general principles of good governance and meet the administrative standards as specified in the union. The OECD-SIGMA report states: …the general horizontal governance systems of a candidate country must also meet the requirements of the EU, since they are crucial for the reliable functioning of the entire administration, including the areas of the acquis. Successful implementation and enforcement is clearly dependent on horizontal governance structures and systems, such as procedures for administrative actions and mechanisms to ensure that the performance of civil servants is in line with EU standards (OECD 1999: 6).

Any failure or non-compliance in the application of the acquis has legal implications, and member states should take these into account. There are a large number of laws relating to comprehensive, sectorial administrative law that forms the structure known as the acquis communautaire. When a member state fails to implement EU law referred to in directives and regulations, it may face significant legal consequences. For example, the state shall be considered liable for non-contractual responsibilities when it is unable to transmit an EU directive or to implement EU legislation. This is sufficient to allow the state to be prosecuted for damages, as stated in the SIGMA report (OECD 1999: 16). After having finished reading both reports, we can join Rutgers and Schreurs, who concluded that “the SIGMA report published in 1999, which was a continuation of the previous year’s report, was based on the organization of internal public administration, policy making, implementation, etc. No specific conditions were formulated. Negotiations with Central and Eastern European countries have resulted in the idea that national public authorities should comply with certain standards for the realization of the acquis communautaire (Rutgers and Schreurs 2000: 622).” However, as mentioned above, SIGMA has listed the principles of morality that must be obeyed, that is, it has at least created a framework. The filling of this framework is left to proper application.

1.2 Common Values and Principles

17

1.2.9 Problems of Common Principles The European Commission is the most influential body in the EU’s decision-making processes. The majority of the decisions at the level of the Union are taken in the Commission consisting of only 28 persons. It is generally accepted that non-governmental organizations are not sufficiently influential to the Commission, which is a relatively closed box compared to the other institutions of the Union, and that this adversely affects participation. Despite the European Commission’s view that integration is a great achievement, most Europeans have been alienated from the work of the EU. According to Höreth (2002: 9), a majority of the public lost their confidence in a system that is too little understood and complex to offer the policies they want. The general decline in the rate of participation in the elections for the European Parliament reflects a perception that European policy is either ineffective or highly detailed and unintentionally implemented. Those directly involved in EU institutional reforms who think that the EU is an international regime primarily governed by the governments of the member states suggest that two basic reforms can be made to improve the situation. The first is that the EU institutions, and in particular the Council, should be transparent in their day-to-day operations and give national councilors the power to learn more about EU activities and review them. The second is that real control practices on the governments of national parliaments should be guaranteed by giving them longer time and more information to study EU law. According to this analysis framework, what is understood from civic engagement and accountability is primarily related to national institutions and practices and should remain so (Magnette 2003: 145–6). The main difference between the European Union and national democracies is that the irrelevant public is much larger at the supranational level. According to Hix (1999), the Euro-barometer surveys have often shown that most European citizens do not understand the European issues and its political system; in addition, the rate of participation in European elections is much lower than in national elections. Alternative forms of participation, such as petitioning, lobbying and moving to the legislative space, are the forms used by organized interests and groups. Magnette (2003: 148) states that the idea that these groups are fed by strong financial and/or conceptual sources is widespread. On the other hand, the Union is not indifferent to encourage member states to take steps in the same direction as they strive to make new initiatives regarding participation. In a 2002 Commission notice, it was stated that member states should rationalize internal procedures by establishing mechanisms to ensure that authorities responsible for the transposition and implementation of directives (central, regional or local) participate in the legislative process at an earlier stage as possible (COM 2002c: 17). The task of the European Parliament has so far only been considered as a limited recommendation. Similarly, national parliaments have also been marginalized. The problem of political accountability (because of the marginalization of representative institutions) can be partially compensated by other democratic mechanisms. The

18

1 Europeanization Processes

explicit intention of the Open Method of Cooperation to involve a wide range of actors in the process implies a broader understanding of democracy as a participatory mechanism (Borrás and Jacobsson 2004: 199). The parties discussing the future of European administration are now divided on the role of independent agencies. Some academics and European Commission officials support the transfer of powers by supporting the European Commission’s capacity to deliver a greater mandate to European regulatory bodies through the creation of strong coordinating bodies. Those who oppose this view put forward the institutional and legal obstacles to such a development and emphasize the problems brought about by the semi-autonomous institutions for democracy and management (Flinders 2004: 526). In order to increase the level of transparency and accountability, the Commission prepared an action plan led by its responsible member, Neil Kinnock. The strategic objective of the plan was to ensure that the Commission was focused on the core issues at the highest quality, integrity and service level and to ensure that it was a well-managed policy making and implementation administration that performs them in an efficient, independent, transparent, responsible and accountable manner (Massey 2004). The Commission members initiated this process by declaring their own financial interests and adopting new standards and codes of conduct for the Commissioners.11 It was followed by the preparation of the Code of Good Administrative Behavior, which sets new standards of conduct for all officers working in the Commission. The shortcomings in technical and human resources have been addressed together with new staff policy proposals that strengthen the need for accountability and responsiveness, and are combined with training programs to fill in incomplete skills in some areas.12 Kinnock even defined the emphasis on accountability and transparency as a “regime in itself” (Massey 2004: 29). Strategic Planning and Activity Based Management in the action plan would bring a radical structural change in accountability, because for the first time in the history of the Commission all employees would be given certain responsibilities, the results expected from them would be presented as a written document and the employees would know that their performance would be measured according to these objectives. According to the action plan, the Commission’s financial management obligations increased significantly: from 1988 to 1999, the number of financial transactions carried out by the Commission increased from 60,000 to 620,000 per year. The EU general budget increased from e44 billion to e95 billion in payment transactions; in other words, up 113%. The external budget grew by approximately 600% over the same period. Meanwhile, the number of employees increased by only 40%— and more importantly, a little changed financial system continued to operate. In a system with these characteristics, the officers responsible for the expenditures do 11 According to Massey, these rules were influenced by the UK’s Committee on Standards in Public

Life. 12 For example, training of Turkish civil servants, as a major challenge which can compromise the EU accession process of the country, is believed to need a European perspective. See Acar and Özgür (2004).

1.2 Common Values and Principles

19

not actually account for it, because their responsibilities are not clearly defined and not attributed to them. The line between political and administrative responsibility is often blurred. The Commission continues to operate a centralized system (ex ante), which is responsible for very few financial transactions and is inherited from a much smaller organization. Whether the need for an urgent change is revealed by the Santer Commission crisis, by defective systems and structures, or by poor performance in some areas, the Commission is, in any case, exposed by time as an organization, but in any case it is in a state of disclosure (Kinnock 2002: 22).13 Kinnock summarizes the steps taken by the Santer Commission to solve the problem of corruption and accountability: “…one of the earliest initiatives of this Commission was to present a proposal for a regulation to implement Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which stipulates that all EU citizens should have the right of access to documents of the European Parliament, Council and Commission. The Council enacted that proposal as Community law in May 2001. Meanwhile, as part of our package of comprehensive personnel policy proposals, we are reinforcing conventions of accountability by giving sustained emphasis to the need to be, and to the means of being, accountable. That is happening through our greatly expanded management training program, through modernizing and improving both disciplinary procedures and arrangements for dealing with professional inadequacy…” (Kinnock 2002: 23).

Kinnock, who took part in the Commission led by Santer and resigned in 1999, was also assigned to the new commission headed by the following President, Romano Prodi, and was asked as an insider to enlarge upon reform efforts, considering that he would know the problems better. Kinnock took an important role in this process as one of the architects of the White Paper and by making studies on the implementation of reforms in the following years. From the above remarks, it has been understood that the European Commission has at least made efforts to increase the level of accountability beginning from the resignation of the Santer Commission in 1999. As a result, the principles of administrative law, such as obligatory results and blank concepts in the European Union, and the principles of good governance such as openness (transparency), participation, accountability and effectiveness contributed to the formation of a common understanding of public administration. The European Court of Justice’s interpretation of the relevant EU law provisions changes the way in which administrative law principles are understood in the member states and provides convergence. In addition, the Council of Europe of Madrid emphasized the need to protect a single institutional framework and not to disrupt the general institutional balance, underlining the requirement of an appropriate administrative structure and contributed to the formation of a common public administration. The problems caused by the lack of an acquis in the public administration at the Union level, low level of participation in EU policies, and the accountability and legitimacy debates 13 Corruption was the reason of the scandal that led to a political crisis within the Union, leading to a

conflict between the legislative and the executive body in the EU. Edith Cresson, the commission’s commissioner for education and research, and the deputy head of the commission, allegations of abuses by Manuel Marin, member responsible for the Mediterranean countries, and irregularities in EU funds, caused the parliament to take action. As a result, the EU Commission, headed by Jacques Santer, resigned in March 1999 from its position.

20

1 Europeanization Processes

of EU authorities are being overcome as a result of processes and developments at the Union level on a common public administration represented by the European Administrative Space. At the point of overcoming these problems, processes, applications, documents and institutions at the European Union level play an important role.

1.3 Common Processes and Practices The European Administrative Space generally refers to the fact that public administrations in European countries operate on the basis of European principles, rules and regulations. However, common or similar arrangements do not always include local principles, organizational forms, rules, standards and practices. Thus, development of the European Administrative Space is often in conflict with national administrative systems, which are the solid ground for nationalism. This means that they represent specific circumstances in which the structure of public administration reflects the identity, history and traditions of a specific country or community (Olsen 2003: 508). The need to develop and implement the acquis within the Union, the necessity of developing and implementing with the equivalent reliability standards, the emergence of a European administrative justice system and the shared basic public administration values and principles have created some degree of similarity between national governments. This affinity is, as mentioned before, defined as the European Administrative Space (OECD 1999: 14). Over time bureaucrats in the member states have copied structures and procedures that have proven successful from their counterparts in other countries which has created a degree of optimization in institutions and services. The institutions that frequently interact with each other have developed similarities in terms of organizational structure, processes, forms of recruitment, principles of resource allocation and forms of reform (Kassim 2003: 89). The principles of public administration shared by EU member states constitute the conditions of the European Administrative Space (EAS). The EAS includes public action standards defined by law and implemented in practice through procedures and accountability mechanisms. Countries applying for EU membership should consider these standards while improving their public administrations. Although the EAS does not constitute an agreed part of the acquis, it still serves as a guide for public administration reforms in the candidate countries. In EU member states, these standards, together with the principles established by the constitution, are usually included in or passed on to a number of administrative laws, such as administrative procedural laws, administrative action laws, right to information laws and civil service laws (OECD 1999: 5). The annual conference, which was organized by the European Public Administration Group in Potsdam, Germany, on September 4–7 2002, was a major influence

1.3 Common Processes and Practices

21

in the recognition and legitimacy of the European Administrative Space concept.14 The theme “European Governance: Governance within Diversity” was discussed at the conference with such sub-themes as “Construction of Government Structures in Central and Eastern European Countries: Towards a Common European Institutional Form?” and “European Regions: Convergence or Divergence?” As stated in the presentations at these conferences, a phenomenon which can be called the European Administrative Space has been gradually shaped. To implement community decisions, public officials of the member states meet frequently; as a result, they know each other and exchange views and experiences. At the same time, forms of communication that may have an impact on decision-making processes can be developed so that common solutions can be found. Authorities and experts from European states are accustomed to addressing problems, including those related to public administration. Thus the European Administrative Space is born as a phenomenon that has its own traditions, but which is built on the unique administrative traditions of the Union. Administrative credibility which is very important for the rule of law, effective implementation of policies and economic development are the main characteristics of this space (OECD 1998: 121). A closer look at the OECD report reveals the conflict between autonomy and convergence in terms of the European Administrative Space concept. The report frequently emphasizes the autonomy of the candidate countries. The SIGMA aims to help build local capacities at the central level (OECD 1999: 2) and it is argued that the harmonization of the potential of public administration standards does not mean that administrative institutions will be homogenous in the member states. The essence of the message here, regardless of institutional arrangements, is that national public administrations adhere to the standards shared by EU member states and accept these principles (OECD 1999: 7). It is clear that there will be less room for differences in administrative arrangements when complying with these standards. While the fundamental idea is that different institutional arrangements can perform similar tasks, the degree of freedom here can be questioned (Rutgers and Schreurs 2000: 628).

1.3.1 Convergence and Divergence of Procedures Diversity and differences between national public administrations in Europe have been reduced and convergence has been realized according to generally accepted perspective. Joint institutions have been formed, national institutions have been adapted to European standards and administrative law has been harmonized. The increasing 14 The European Group of Public Administration (EGPA) was established in 1974 as a Working Group of the International Institute of Management Sciences (IIAS). Every year, it organizes conferences in different cities of Europe within specific themes. For example, in 2008, the theme of the 2008 annual conference in Rotterdam was Innovation in Public Administration. EGPA currently operates as a regional group of IIAS.

22

1 Europeanization Processes

restrictions on acceptable administrative solutions have reduced diversity. All this can reinforce the European Administrative Space in the long term. However, there is no continuity. A uniform model has not emerged, and convergence has often took place in the form of exploration and codification of points common to member state administrations. The impact was greater in the candidate countries than in the member states. The ratio of imposing to attractiveness is also higher in the candidate countries (Olsen 2003: 522). According to a report by the Public Administration Academic Expertise Network, European public administration has a specific nature and the gradual convergence of public administrations within a European Administrative Space is about to take place. Another report prepared by the OECD states that the tendencies toward convergence are gaining speed and strength, although the European Administrative Space has not yet been established (OECD 1999: 15; Olsen 2003: 515–16). Administrative approximation may occur due to, among others, attractiveness: in this model, convergence may take place because a model is usually superior or imposed. Here, the model is the choice of a winning coalition which is successfully dictated to others. Buyers copy an organizational format because this model is perceived as functional, useful and legitimate. Similarly, a common model may arise from a common decision, or any country that faces the same challenges can independently produce similar solutions. Convergence on the basis of attraction is only possible if a single administrative prescription is generally viewed as global or European, superior to other forms of organizing public administration. The European context has many characteristics that are expected to increase administrative convergence and to improve the European Administrative Space, but there are also some features to oppose this tendency. One of these factors is the long, strong and diverse institutional history of the European order. Each of them has undergone different state and nation-building processes. As a result, public administration structures and regulations still vary widely between the existing member states. Although it is often stated that national institutions reveal different behavioral patterns and therefore a common state model has not yet emerged, the EU member states are under pressure of administrative convergence to a certain degree. This convergence means responding and adapting to the EU institutional system (Okçu 2005: 147). In addition, very little work has been done on the European administrative convergence. Therefore, it is not conclusive yet and only experimental results can be reached. In the documents of the Union and in the speeches of the leaders of the Union, little reference is made to the European Administrative Space. This concept is seen in OECD/SIGMA studies with administrative law studies and the expansion of the Union, but there is no consensus on the degree of convergence on a common European model (Olsen 2003: 515).

1.3 Common Processes and Practices

23

1.3.2 Empowerment The European Court of Justice puts forward the principle of the balance of powers in a 1958 case known as the “Meroni case”15 in order to prevent the possibility of transferring authority to institutions establishing the European Union not which are explicitly specified in the agreements. The European Court of Justice has recognized that the transfer of a number of powers within the EU has been necessary in order to ensure the efficiency of the administration (Flinders 2004: 527). At least the court did not impose a restrictive provision on the transfer of authority, and implicitly agreed to the transfer of powers for better governance. In the European Union, the transfer of powers to the constitutional court, central bank and other semi-autonomous authorities coincides with the practices of advanced industrialized democracies in the twentieth century. The role and number of these semi-autonomous institutions has increased considerably in recent years. The reasons for this are complex, but they are basically related to the emphasis of the new public administration on divisions within the public sector, the positioning of certain functions outside the direct control of politicians, and the desire of national governments to create efficient institutional structures (Flinders 2004: 522).

1.3.3 Resolutions of European Court of Justice In fact, the EU has no authority to develop rules of administrative law and make it compulsory for member states to apply; therefore, this area is largely left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the member states (Accetto and Zleptnig 2005: 398). However, the European Court of Justice determines the general administrative principles to be taken into account in the implementation of EU law in all member states, taking advantage of the jurisprudence of the member states’ courts. The Court draws on a common jurisprudence by using the concepts of administrative law in different countries. As member states are aligned with these decisions, some elements of administrative law, such as basic institutional arrangements, procedures, common administrative standards and civil service, become Europeanized. Moreover, the decisions taken by the Court regarding the administrative acts and actions of the EU bodies also contribute to the formation of the European Administrative Space (Akdo˘gan 2008: 39–42). It was mentioned above that the principles of obligatory results and blank concept are two very important concepts on which European administrative law is based. The European Court of Justice is the institution that has the most voice at the Brussels level in the application of administrative law based on these concepts. The decisions of the European Court of Justice can be thought of as the reflections of the theoretical concepts on which it is based and in which the concepts emerge from the abstract 15 Meroni case refers to the Judgment of the Court of June 13, 1958 (Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, SpA v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community).

24

1 Europeanization Processes

area. Therefore, it has an undeniable influence in the formation of the European Administrative Space. The European Court of Justice is seen as one of the dynamics that trigger Europeanization in public administration. According to the classification made by Lodge, the European Court of Justice has an important place among the coercive triggers (Lodge 2003: 48). An examination of the SIGMA reports published by the OECD will reveal that the European Administrative Space represents the process of increasing convergence between national legal regulations and administrative practices. This convergence is influenced by economic pressures from individuals and companies, regular and continuous contact with the public authorities of the member states, and, last but not the least, by the driving forces such as the decisions of the European Court of Justice. EU member states are required to ensure the implementation of the EU treaties and the secondary laws of the Commission from the national courts of justice. As the EU laws need to be interpreted as uniform, the national courts are encouraged to take the matter to the European Court of Justice for interpretation when the wording is not clear. This contributes to the important role played by the European Court of Justice in the development of common principles because it offers a framework of interpretation to be complied with by the national courts. Today, it can be argued that a common acquis of the legal administrative principles is being developed by the European Court of Justice (OECD 1999). Thus, administrative law has an indisputable importance in terms of public administration. Shared administrative law principles constitute the nature of public service. Traditionally, such standards are constantly re-defined within the national borders of sovereign states. In the EU, this process is becoming increasingly transnational, and because of membership, it is possible for European level to require shared, mandatory administrative standards defined by the European Court of Justice (OECD 1999: 7). These principles inspire and influence the individual behaviors of civil servants. It also shapes the collective behavior of civil service as they are not just ideas based on good intentions but are self-contained in the design and administrative procedures of institutions at all levels. Rutgers and Scheurs (2000: 625–628) argue that the European Court of Justice plays a major role in shaping these principles. The OECD report (1999: 5) also states that public administration principles shared by EU member states are defined in time by national courts and then by the decisions of the European Court of Justice. This very clear statement underlines the importance of the ECJ in terms of shared public administration principles. Although constitutions and other legislation define the principles of general law and standards for administrative actions, it is the courts that refine these standards; for example, they define levels for the acceptability of public administration practices based on individual events. Because of membership, it is possible that the European Court of Justice may require shared mandatory administrative standards defined at European level and therefore between member states (OECD 1999: 7). The European Court of Justice has defined a number of administrative law principles, referring to the principles of general administrative law common to the member states. Particularly important principles in the decisions of the European Court of Justice include the following:

1.3 Common Processes and Practices

• • • • • • • • •

25

Management according to the law, Proportionality, Legal certainty, Protection of legal expectations, No discrimination, The right to speak in administrative decision-making; Interim cases, Fair conditions for access to administrative courts by persons, Obligation of public administration not based on a specific contract.

These principles are expected to be applied by all member countries in implementing EU laws (OECD 1999: 8). The case-law practices in the European Court of Justice may establish principles in a more general character that apply to more than one law area. Moreover, in many cases the European Court of Justice’s interpretation of the relevant EU law provisions changes the way in which administrative law principles are understood in the member states. This leads to the argument that administrative law has become Europeanized as a leading element of recent legal developments. Although the EU secondary laws are almost exclusively specific to sectors, the decisions of the European Court of Justice lead to the development of more general administrative principles, even if they are based on events. It can thus be argued that this inevitable result plays a central role in determining the principles of European public administration.

1.3.4 PHARE Program The European Union’s assistance to candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe between 2000 and 2006 was carried out by means of several instruments. The most comprehensive of these instruments was the PHARE program. The main objective of the program was to assist the candidate countries in preparing for accession to the EU by adopting the Copenhagen criteria adopted in 1993 and meeting economic and political conditions. These included institutional stability, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities, a functioning market economy, and the adoption of the acquis. Originally created in 1989 to help Poland and Hungary, the program later became a part of a mechanism to aid the entire Central and Eastern European area. Following the implementation of the enlargement process at the Luxembourg summit in 1997, the primary objective of the program was declared as addressing the priorities set out in the roadmap and accession partnership documents. The national program for the adoption of the acquis is the candidate countries’ timetable for membership which calculates the timing and cost of the steps as well as the human and financial resources necessary for the country’s preparation for membership. PHARE continued to support the efforts of the Central and Eastern European countries to develop

26

1 Europeanization Processes

projects and administrative capacity16 in line with the Agenda 2000 recommendations (Akdo˘gan 2008: 121). The objectives of the PHARE program were declared as follows: 1. To strengthen the public administrations and institutions in an effective manner within the European Union, 2. To increase the level of convergence in the EU acquis and to alleviate the need for transitional periods, 3. To improve economic and social integrity. If the beneficiary countries are to fully adopt, implement and comply with the acquis communautaire, strengthening their institutional and administrative capacities is a fundamental requirement. This implies the modernization of administrative and judicial systems taking into account the principles of professionalism and impartiality. Preparing for EU membership requires extensive changes in several institutions and organizations in a large number of sectors involved in the legislative and enactment process. Support for the establishment of the institution is given to new members, candidate countries, potential candidate countries and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Institution building support is provided in two actions: know-how transfer and institution building investment.

1.3.5 Twinning and EUPAN The Twinning program, launched in May 1998, aims to help the development of modern and effective administrations with structures, human resources and management skills that will enable them to implement the acquis at the same level as the member states in the beneficiary countries. The Twinning program provides a framework for members of public bureaucracies and semi-official institutions in the beneficiary countries to work together with their counterparts in the member states. In this way, public officials can develop and implement projects that aim at the transposition and implementation of a specific part of the acquis. The main feature of a Twinning project is that it aims to produce specific and guaranteed results rather than aiming for a general cooperation. The parties shall, in advance, decide on a detailed work program in order to achieve a purpose related to the priority areas of the acquis stipulated in the Accession Partnerships. Each Twinning project has at least one Resident Twinning Consultant (RTA) and a project leader. The RTA is selected from a Member State Administration or another approved body in the Member State and is assigned to work at least for 12 months on a fulltime basis in the relevant Ministry in the partner country to implement the project. The project leader is responsible for the overall management and coordination of the

16 For

a debate on the concept of administrative capacity and its relevance to public sector reforms, see Nelissen (2002).

1.3 Common Processes and Practices

27

project. Other experts, training activities and information visits are provided to this team in the form of carefully planned and scheduled missions. The Twinning program brings together the official and semi-official organizations in the candidate country and their counterparts in the member states in order to adapt and implement a specific part of the EU acquis. During the Twinning process, experts from the EU and candidate countries come together for a certain period of time to compare the relevant legislation of the two parties and identify areas that need to be harmonized. Experts from the EU during the matching period work for a certain period in the relevant public institution of the candidate country and assist the experts there in legislative alignment. Such pairing mostly aims at meeting the priorities specified in the Accession Partnership. Twinning projects can be supported for up to 12 months. The amount of support is two million Euros. Twinning project can be done in all areas of the acquis. A wide range of projects are being funded from the identification and registration of sheep and goats (Netherlands and Hungary in 2003) to the implementation of the milk quota system and the institutional development programs of national central banks, reformation and modernization of tax administration (Netherlands, Bulgaria, Sweden and Ireland), and the development of an Integrated Administrative Control System (Netherlands, England, Czech Republic). Between 1998 and 2005, a total of 1110 Twinning projects in 13 candidate countries and 73 Twinning projects in the Balkan countries were supported. Among these countries, Romania ranked first with 191 projects whereas Turkey ranked 10th with 56 projects.17 In addition to the Twinning program, a number of common forums were developed within the European Union Public Administration Network (EUPAN), a forum where public administrators of EU member states come together. Under these forums, the ministers, undersecretaries and general managers of public bodies in the member states attend regular meetings. In addition, representatives of national schools of public administration and ministries related to public administration also gather from time to time in informal working groups. These meetings aim to develop good practices in various fields such as innovative public services, benchmarking, better regulation and e-government (Papadimitrou 2002).

1.3.6 Action Plan for Simplifying and Improving Regulatory Environment Another step for the creation of the European Administrative Space in the European Union is represented by the action plan for simplifying and improving the regulatory environment (COM (2002c) 278). As explained in its text (pp. 3–4), the aim of the action plan is to ensure that community law is more oriented toward the problems and challenges of enlargement process and technical and local conditions of the people. 17 Figures

are taken from the Twinning Brochure published in 2005 (https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/ Eslestirme/twinning_brochure_2005_en.pdf).

28

1 Europeanization Processes

The goal here is not to deregulate the community or to restrict its range of motion; the Commission prepared this Action Plan essentially to simplify and improve the quality of the regulatory environment. In order to improve the quality of its work, the Commission recognizes two specific statements describing the two main measures it initiated in addition to this Action Plan: first, the establishment of minimum consultation standards, and second, the definition of a method of consolidated impact assessment for key initiatives related to policy and legislation (p. 5). According to the Commission, the directives should be as broad as possible and should cover the objectives, validity and important aspects of the law. It is the responsibility of the legislator to decide how these important dimensions will take shape and to ensure that the technical aspects and the details are relevant to the enforcement measures. The restriction of the directives to simplify the laws shall be made without compromising the legislative powers of the European Parliament and the Council; thus, it will be ensured that these institutions will focus their discussions on the basic issues of the law. In the Commission’s view, such actions should be considered together with discussions on how to delegate enforcement powers between institutions (p. 12). The Commission, with the support of the Council and the European Parliament, considers that a dual purpose can be determined: simplifying the whole of community law, and reducing its volume. To do this, the following steps should be taken: • Institutions should act together and define a program to simplify the subject of community law. • The Codification program initiated by the Commission in November 2001 should be supported by preparing accelerated adoption procedures for initial reading of codified legislative proposals submitted by the Commission (pp. 14–15). The Action Plan also stresses the Commission’s duty to transfer laws to national systems for the implementation of the acquis. It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the community laws are properly transposed and that, in close cooperation with member states, the law has real impacts and that supportive actions are put in place (p. 16). In line with the strategy described in the Lisbon European Council, member states should work to ensure that the laws of the community are passed in accordance with their respective national laws and the European Council meetings in Stockholm and Barcelona (p. 16). Following the recommendations of the Mandelkern Group, the Commission considers that member states should also make an impact assessment on the national draft law submitted to the Commission (p. 17). In the report on the implementation of the principles of annual decentralization and proportionality, the Commission will consider the implementation of the Action Plan and then assess the implementation of the principles and activities of institutions and member states (p. 19).

1.3 Common Processes and Practices

29

1.3.7 Regulatory Impact Assessment The Action Plan discussed above envisages the definition of a consolidated impact assessment method for key initiatives related to policy and legislation (p. 5). The Commission published a text called the Impact Assessment Notice on the same date as the Action Plan (COM (2002d)). The Declaration under the heading of Political Content states that, with this declaration, the Commission has established a new integrated method for impact assessment, as agreed in the European Council summits of Gothenburg and Laeken. It is also underlined that the impact assessment is an element of the Action Plan being the expression of an action within the Better Regulation Action Plan (COM (2002c)). The introduction of an integrated impact assessment process according to the statement would improve the quality and consistency of policy design. At the same time, transparency in the Commission’s proposals would increase communication and information (p. 5). Impact assessment would be applied to the key undertakings set up by the Commission, whether for proposals, other economic, social and environmental impacts, for regulatory work, for the Commission’s work program or annual policy strategies (p. 6). There are two types of impact assessment, namely preliminary assessment and extended impact assessment. The impact assessment presents the rationale for the chosen policy option after the alternatives are reviewed. The Commission will provide full transparency on the results of impact assessment, for both preliminary and extended versions (p. 10). The report presents a format for impact assessment. In this way, the process is been made more concrete and operation in a standard manner is ensured. The PreEvaluation Statement in Annex-1 contains five headings: the problem diagnosis, the purpose of the proposal, policy options, positive and negative impacts, and monitoring (Annex-1, p. 12). After the preliminary assessment, the Commission will determine which proposals will be submitted to the Annual Policy Strategy or the Work Program of the following year and subject them to the extended impact assessment. These proposals will be determined according to two criteria: • Will the proposal lead to significant economic, environmental and/or social impact in a specific sector or several sectors, and will the proposal have a significant impact on major stakeholders? • Does the proposal represent an important policy reform in one or more sectors? (p. 7). • The extended impact assessment format is given on page 18 of the paper (Annex-3). In this section, 29 questions are asked under seven titles to determine the effect of the action. The titles are as follows: • What subject the policy/proposal is expected to address? • What major goals the policy/proposal are expected to achieve? • What are the main policy options available to achieve this goal? • What are the expected impacts from the different options identified—positive and negative?

30

1 Europeanization Processes

• How will the results and impacts of the proposal be evaluated and monitored after implementation? • Consultation with stakeholders, • Draft proposal and justification of the Commission (pp. 18–19). The extended version of impact assessment consists of the following components: analysis of the subject, determination of the policy objective, determination of policy options and alternative instruments, effectiveness analysis, implementation, monitoring and subsequent evaluation (pp. 13–17). The Council of Europe carried out a comparative analysis in ten European countries in 2004, two years after coming into force of the impact assessment.18 The analysis of the impact assessment for the laws enacted in these countries and the analysis of the benefits of these results in detail through case studies show that the impact assessment has become an integral part of the regulatory activities in less than two years.

1.3.8 Common Assessment Framework In October 2002, a brochure with the title of “Joint Evaluation Framework: SelfEvaluation of Institutions” was published within the scope of a quality conference in public administration in the EU. In order to solve the problems of public administration, the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), which was inspired by European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), was proposed in the brochure. The Common Assessment Framework is the result of cooperation between ministers of EU member states responsible for public administration. A new version of the CAF was prepared by the Innovative Public Service Group (IPS) upon the request of the Commission. CAF has been proposed to assist public sector organizations using quality management techniques to improve performance across Europe. The CAF provides a simple, easy-to-use framework for public sector organizations to conduct self-assessment. CAF has four main purposes: • To capture the original features of public sector organizations, • To serve as a vehicle for public managers who want to improve the performance of their institutions, • To serve as a bridge between various models used in quality management, • To provide a comparison between public sector institutions (DPT 2002: 5). Compared to a fully developed total quality management model, the CAF is a lightweight model to achieve a first impression of how the organization works. It is assumed that all organizations that want to go further in this process will choose more detailed models such as Speyer or EFQM. CAF has the advantage of being compatible with these models, so it can serve as a first step for organizations that 18 See the comparative analysis of the regulatory impact assessment of ten EU countries in 2004 published by the European Union Better Regulation Directors Group.

1.3 Common Processes and Practices

31

Inputs

Outputs

Personnelrelated

Personnel

Leadership

Strategy and planning

Processes

CooperaƟons and resources

CiƟzenscustomers -related

Basic performance results

Societyrelated

InnovaƟon and learning

Fig. 1.1 Common Assessment Framework Model. Source DPT (2002)

want to take further steps in quality management. The CAF is open to public and free of charge (p. 7) (Fig. 1.1). According to the CAF, institutions should perform self-assessment in terms of the following criteria: • • • • • • • • •

Leadership Strategy and planning Human resources management Partnerships and resources Process and change management Customer/citizen focused results Results for employees Community results Basic performance results (p. 9).

It is also possible to integrate the Common Assessment Framework into evaluation systems such as ISO, which aims to determine quality standard norms and working procedures in public institutions. According to Akdo˘gan (2008), civil servants of EU member states using methods such as the Common Assessment Framework create a common working culture, which contributes to the emergence of European Administrative Space.

32

1 Europeanization Processes

1.3.9 Annual Activity Reports According to the Annual Activity Report which was published in 2003, each Directorate General within the European Commission prepares an annual report stating the first objectives of each activity, sets out the results obtained according to these objectives and how the results are obtained, and the methods for employing available human, administrative and financial resources.19 These reports are disclosed to the public and to the European Parliament. In addition, each Directorate General signs an Annual Statement, which gives reasonable management, strong internal control and reasoned assurance of the monitoring of specific objectives, thus undertaking individual responsibility for the internal activities of the relevant department (Kinnock 2002: 25). The annual activity report aims at bringing more flexibility to the management along with the strategic planning process discussed below, and will be delegated to the managers in various departments with respect to a number of control tasks. Each Director General prepares an annual activity report to define the objectives for each activity of the department. This report also discusses the results and is presented as a public document accessible to the European Parliament and the general public. Second, each general manager personally takes responsibility for the internal control and accountability of his department and signs an Annual Statement to the College of the College of Commissioners showing that the department’s activities are properly managed and controlled. As part of this strategy, relevant directors and managers need to use the autonomy and flexibility required to create the most appropriate management system for their activities (Kinnock 2002: 29–30).20

1.3.10 Strategic Planning and Programming (SPP) and Annual Policy Strategy (APS) The application of the annual policy strategy in the EU was launched in 2005. The introduction of the annual policy strategy for 2006 included the following statements: Each year, usually in February or March, the European Commission would prepare its annual policy strategy for the next calendar year. This document was supposed to be the first phase of the European Union’s annual policy cycle and a guide for the Commission’s priorities in that year. It also would accept a budget framework that would enable access to human and financial resources to achieve priorities. In this way, it would determine the framework required for the preliminary budget. It would 19 General Directorates within the European Commission coincide with the ministries in national governments. As of 2019, the Commission has 31 Directorates General, including Agriculture and Rural Development, Budget, Competition, Energy, Environment, Health and Food Security, Commerce etc. 20 For a thorough discussion of the autonomy of European bureaucracies, see Danielsen and Ye¸silka˘gıt (2014).

1.3 Common Processes and Practices

33

also contribute to the preparation of the Commission’s Work Program, which is the next phase of the cycle and which determines the Commission’s activities throughout the year (COM (2004a): 3). For example, the annual policy strategy for 2005 stated the following: Beyond policy priorities, the Commission has a fundamental operational priority, and will be a very critical factor for 2005 actions: the success of enlargement and the shaping of Europe’s future. This means the proper functioning of enlarged Europe and the full implementation of policies and rules in all member countries (COM (2004a): 6).

Thanks to strategic planning and operational management, certain responsibilities are distributed to all Commission employees and the results expected from them are presented in written form. Employees know that their performance will be measured according to these results (Kinnock 2002).

1.4 Common Documents Several documents have been put in place in Europe to promote the emergence of a common public administration. The Treaty of Amsterdam, the frequently referred SIGMA reports prepared by the OECD, the White Papers prepared by the European Commission, the European Code of Good Administrative Behavior and the Constitutional Treaty may be considered among the most important ones of these documents.

1.4.1 Amsterdam Treaty The Intergovernmental Conference held in 1996 discussed measures to be taken to ensure the functioning of a 25-member European Union in the future. As a result of these actions, Treaty of Amsterdam was signed on October 2, 1997. In Article VI, Article K.1 of the Treaty, without prejudice to the powers of the community, it was established that the aim of the Union was to provide a high-level security to its citizens in the field of freedom, security and justice. It was also stated that this would be achieved by developing joint actions among the member countries. These areas include free movement of persons, visa policies, policy on non-EU borders, Schengen area, migration, asylum, civil law and criminal law, cooperation in anti-drug policies, EU citizenship, fundamental rights, racism and xenophobia, police and customs cooperation, crime prevention, fight against organized crime and foreign relations (Be¸se 2003). The mentioned policies were negotiated under independent headings in the 2004 and 2007 enlargement processes; in the subsequent enlargements that also include Turkey continues to be negotiated. When these issues are examined closely, it is seen that the interest of the EU is shifted toward determining the basic principles of public administration (Balcı 2004: 119).

34

1 Europeanization Processes

1.4.2 SIGMA Reports SIGMA—Support for Improvement in Governance and Management—is a joint initiative of EC/PHARE, the Center for Cooperation, and OECD Transition Economies and is largely funded by EC/PHARE. The SIGMA program especially helps reform public administration in Central and Eastern Europe. The objectives of the SIGMA program are: • to assist the beneficiary countries in seeking good governance to increase their administrative efficiency and to encourage the public sector to comply with the principles of democratic values, ethics and the rule of law; • to assist these countries to build domestic capacities at the central government level to address the challenges of internationalization and European Union integration plans; and • to support the initiatives of the European Union and other supporting parties to assist the public administration reforms in the beneficiary countries and to contribute to the coordination of assistance activities. This initiative gives a high priority to cooperation between governments in their work. This includes logistical support for the creation of networks between administrative units in Central and Eastern Europe and their counterparts in other democracies. Preparing reports is one of the most prominent methods used by SIGMA in its quest for ensuring change in public administrations. Preparing Public Administrations for the European Administrative Space (1998): As it is evident from the title of the SIGMA report no.23 published in 1998, it is accepted that a European Administrative Space has been created. In the first part of the report, central decision-making structures of the candidate countries, ministerial committees, committees composed of senior officials and permanent secretariats are discussed. Convergence in the Laws (pp. 24–26) and the Administrative Reform for European Integration (p. 28) are other prominent topics. In particular, under the title of “Administrative Reform for European Integration”, it is underlined that the candidate countries should increase their administrative capacity to the full extent in terms of EU policy process. It is also pointed out that in the candidate countries the units responsible for administrative reform need to be more clearly identified and that significant effort should be paid to ensure that these units have less complicated structures. The report outlines the main challenges facing the public administrations of Central and Eastern European countries and their impact on the European integration process. These were identified as the general weakness of institutional and administrative structures, and the lack of qualified and adequately trained staff (p. 29). Part 3 of the report discusses public administration in the candidate countries, by trying to find out what kind of a public administration model emerges from the Commission’s considerations. It is argued that the Commission based its analysis on Copenhagen (1993) and Madrid (1995) Council of Europe Summits. Regarding public administration, it is stated that the integration of Central and Eastern European countries in compliance with the European Union requires adjustments in

1.4 Common Documents

35

administrative structures according to the decisions of the Madrid Summit. In the relevant chapters, the Commission’s general evaluation of political institutions, justice, local government, administrative reforms, central administration, civil service, anticorruption, sectorial administrations and administrative capacity in the candidate countries are examined under different headings and a number of recommendations are provided. One of the most remarkable statements of the report is given in Article 467, which claims that all matters considered so far require a well-functioning public administration, and that the issue of administrative capacity can be considered as a topic outside the official negotiations for membership (OECD 1998: 121). When the progress reports of the candidate countries is examined closely, it can be seen that “administrative capacity” is a term with high frequency which is, in essence, the capacity of the public administration mechanism to align with the acquis; therefore, it is inevitable that it is related to all negotiation issues. As mentioned earlier, long political evolution has led to a consensus on the creation of shared principles for public administration among EU member states with different legal traditions and different management systems. According to the report no.23, the main principles of the European Administrative Space, which are common in EU member states, are reliability and predictability, openness and transparency, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness (OECD 1998: 8–14). In this way, the foundations on which the European Administrative Space is based are summarized. Principles of European Public Administration (1999): A year after the report titled “Preparing Public Administrations for the European Administrative Space”, the SIGMA report titled “Principles of European Public Administration” was published. The preamble of the report is read as follows: This paper attempts to identify the standards to which EU candidate countries are expected to conform in order to align their public administrations with those of EU Member States. Originating from SIGMA’s work on public administration reform in central and eastern European countries, in particular civil service development and administrative control, the paper describes an important part of the basis of the SIGMA methodology for assessing candidate countries’ public administration capacities (OECD 1999: 3).

The report reiterates the need for Central and Eastern European countries, which apply for EU membership, to reform public administration in order to comply with the Madrid and Copenhagen criteria for accession. According to the report, most areas of government are covered and affected by the acquis communautaire. The objectives and content of reforms in different areas of the acquis are obvious. Candidate countries need to transpose EU legislation into their internal legislation and then implement and validate the laws. Challenges and delays are mainly linked to the speed and process of implementation resulting from a lack of capacity (p. 5). The report states that the European Administrative Space is formed, and the characteristics of the EAS are explained as follows: Shared principles of public administration among EU Member States constitute the conditions of a “European Administrative Space” (EAS). The EAS includes a set of common standards for action within public administration which are defined by law and enforced

36

1 Europeanization Processes in practice through procedures and accountability mechanisms. Countries applying for EU membership should take these standards into account when developing their public administrations. Although the EAS does not constitute an agreed part of the acquis communautaire, it should nevertheless serve to guide public administration reforms in candidate countries. In EU Member States these standards, together with principles established by the constitution, are usually embedded in or transmitted by a set of administrative laws, such as administrative procedures acts, administrative process acts, freedom of information acts and civil service laws (OECD 1999: 5).

The national public administration institutions of the EU member states are expected to implement the acquis. In order to do the same, the public administration of a candidate country must abide by the general rules of good governance and meet the administrative standards defined by the EU. Successful implementation and enforcement is based on horizontal management structures and systems for administrative actions, such as procedures and mechanisms for ensuring that civil servants are acting in line with EU standards. However, the emphasis on the harmonization potential of public administration standards does not mean that administrative institutions should be established homogeneously in all EU member states. What is important is that national public administrations adopt principles that are shared by EU member states regardless of institutional arrangements and comply with relevant standards (OECD 1999: 6–7). The report also reiterates that EU integration is an evolutionary process (the principle of progress in the construction of the EU). This means that a country should reach a level of progress sufficient to compare itself with the average level of EU member states. The level of convergence in 1986 (when Portugal and Spain became members), in 1995 (when Austria, Sweden and Finland became members) and in 2004 (when Central and Eastern European countries and Malta and Cyprus became members) are different from each other, and as new states become members, it will continue to change. This means that candidate countries are not only supposed to reach the average level of public administrations in the EU member states, but they should also reach future levels of the member countries. In other words, a candidate country should be able to close the gap between the quality of public administration and its future quality in the Union; it is not enough for the candidate country to compare itself with the worst-case country. The comparison should be made between the candidate country and the average of all member states (OECD 1999: 15). The formation of a common administrative space is only possible if a set of administrative principles, rules and regulations are applied uniformly in a particular country covered by a national constitution. Traditionally, the country in which administrative law applies is the territory of sovereign states. A common administrative law for all sovereign states integrated into the European Union has been the subject of intense debate since the founding of the European community and no consensus has been reached yet (OECD 1999: 15). The report also states that the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty, which are the basic constitutional texts of the European Union, do not provide a public administration model to be implemented in EU member states. To date, only certain

1.4 Common Documents

37

elements of European administrative law have been laid down in the basic agreements of the European Union and in the secondary legislation issued by the Commission (OECD 1999: 16). According to the report, administrative principles of reliability, predictability, accountability, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness needed to be realized at an acceptable level if public administrations in Central and Eastern Europe were to meet the requirements of EU membership, in particular the requirements for the actual implementation of the acquis. These principles did not function only in good faith; they had to be fully manifested in the daily conduct of public administration through comprehensive laws, appropriate administrative institutions and a range of legal values at the core of the civil service. This requirement is another reason for having a professional and stable public service. The majority of EU member states have specific civil service laws. At the same time, the public services they provide depend on the principles of administrative law to make public administrations reliable (OECD 1999: 19). The modern understanding of public administration includes the concept of delegating hierarchy of state powers to individuals working in the public system. These individuals, that is, public officials, are therefore not only employees of the state, but also, and probably to a greater extent, the power apparatus of state, who must ensure that the principles of constitutional and administrative law are actually applied in the daily functioning of public administration (OECD 1999: 20). Therefore, the provision of a modern, constitutional public service in a democracy is only possible under the following conditions: • Separation of public space and private space, • Distinction between politics and administration, • Increasing the individual accountability of public officials by overcoming oldfashioned decision-making processes. This requires well-trained and skilled public managers, • Adequate job security, stability, and wage level, and clearly defined rights and duties for public officials, • Merit-based recruitment and promotion (OECD 1999: 21). The report also discusses the various meanings that are attached to the definitions of public servants and public service in different European countries. In defining public services, EU member states generally adopt different approaches that vary based on the history of the individual state structures and over time. In some countries, such as France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, there are public services covering every public employee, because each and every of them is considered to be a part of the state’s enforcement mechanism, indicating a broad public service understanding. In contrast, other countries, such as Austria, Germany, England, Denmark and Italy, have limited the scope of the public service concept to the basic public administration, mainly based on a constitutional political understanding, and have merely expressed the functions in which the state has the legitimacy for realization. In this case, only professionals in public administration and professionals in the law enforcement agencies (e.g. police, customs, etc.) are considered as

38

1 Europeanization Processes

civil servants. Among Central and Eastern European countries, Hungary and Poland apply the concept of limited public service, while Lithuania uses a derivative of the broader understanding (OECD 1999: 21–22). According to the report, there are two important factors in increasing quality in public administration: merit and quality management in recruitment procedures. Merit-based recruitment and promotion refers to the selection of the best candidates for public service and preventing nepotism in the public administration. On the other hand, the state is responsible for professional, impartial and efficient public administration that complies with the rule of law. This task is not only about regulation but also about management. The state must guarantee a certain quality among its employees and standards of equal quality in all circles of public administration. In this sense, a legally well-designed and managed public service system ensures that the state achieves adequate expertise, stability, continuity and quality standards in all areas of public administration (OECD 1999: 22). There are many reasons why government employees cannot be regarded as state workers alone. The civil servants of the state have a number of goals different from those found in ordinary business relations. These objectives include: • To establish control and accountability mechanisms to prevent mismanagement of public powers and public resources, • To provide the legitimacy of the public administration in the eyes of citizens and taxpayers in order to ensure the trust of the public in the administration and the state as a whole, • To distinguish the public sphere of politics from the public sphere of government as much as possible as the logic underlying these two fields and, consequently, the sources of legitimacy are different, • To provide continuity in public administration by encouraging a certain form of administration in all areas of management, thus providing predictability, • To attract the best candidates at hand in the country for the public service and encourage them in achieving a reasonable career development through personal satisfaction. In the EU countries such as Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, most employees in the public sector have a civil servant status. This means that they are not subject to general labor laws governing the minimum standards for contractual relations between workers and employers in the private sector; instead, their work is governed by a specific civil service law and its secondary legislations. In the United Kingdom, there is a special legislation that provides civil servants with this status. However, constitutional principles give the decision-making power to the cabinet. This explains the reason for which, among others, there is no public service law in this country. A major reform was made in Italy in 1993, and today only a few thousand senior officials are governed by civil service law, whereas the rest are subject to labor law and collective labor regulations. In other countries, only some of the permanent state workers have a civil servant status. For example, in Germany, there is a distinction between civil servants who hold public authority and state power and other public officials who are subject to labor laws (which constitute some 40%

1.4 Common Documents

39

of all public employees). This is because the German constitution provides such a model. The fact that draws the line between civil servants and other public employees is the fulfillment of the functions which imply the use of public authority. The civil servants are considered to be those who serve each government in accordance with the principle of political neutrality and the executive branches of the state and are held accountable based on their performance. The concept of the use of public authority is closely related to issues such as national interest, law and order, sovereignty of the state and law enforcement. On the other hand, university professors at the top two levels are civil servants with special status (OECD 1999: 23). Today 60–90% of civil service duties in EU member states are open to citizens of all member states, which means that only 10–40% of public service tasks are reserved for their own nationals. In other words, only 10–40% of public duties are related to the use of public law power and the protection of the general interests of the state. Therefore, public service arrangements in the member states are fundamental references to the implementation of these EU law principles (OECD 1999: 23–24). According to the report, civil service reforms in Central and Eastern European countries should aim to create a public administration profession in the public service. This includes actions in various areas including training of administrators, issuing legislation defining the duties, accountability and related rights of employees, for example, publishing specific legislation, regulating public service, improving human resource management standards and, above all, professional and impartial duties of civil servants and public administrators. One of the most important problems inherited from previous administrations in Central and Eastern European countries is the lack of common standards and coordination for human resource management among different public administrations. Therefore, a new concept of public service was needed in these countries. Public service is considered as a common management function in public administration. This common function aims at providing the principles of administrative law, such as those mentioned above, and to homogeneously distribute basic legal conditions such as merit-based recruitment and promotion, fair pay, and equal rights and duties. On the other hand, it requires a certain level of central capacity for the management of public service (OECD 1999: 25–26). The public service is a component of public administration, but it is a so important component that public administration and public service are often considered as synonymous. This leads to three conclusions: First, the rules of public service are legally binding; Second, the arrangements in the civil service are more than just the regulation of the business relationship between the state and its employees—in the broadest sense it relates to the organization of one of the powers of the state. Third, the principles of administrative law inspire public managers’ decision-making processes and the behavior of the public service as a whole. Similarly, these principles establish criteria or reference points where acceptable standards are set for public services and public administrations in EU member states and EU institutions (OECD 1999: 27). The SIGMA 1998 report repeatedly stressed the importance of administrative capacity to align with the acquis in the enlargement in ensuring that the entire administrative context, including the civil service, meets the standards established in connection with the principles of administrative law common to and shared in a given

40

1 Europeanization Processes

country. This phenomenon would have an important place in achieving the goals of the European Administrative Space (1999: 28). Indeed, when the sections from the report taken above are evaluated together, it is seen that the main emphasis is on increasing the administrative capacity of the public administrations in the candidate countries and bringing them to the level in the member countries, as well as the need for a closer approach in the practices. The discussion provided above indicates that a European Administrative Space has emerged, mainly related to institutional arrangements, processes, common administrative standards and public service values. This list is not yet complete, and there are significant differences in quality between member states. In fact, the problems of these differences between the member states are the reason why such a high priority is given to the establishment of institutions in the enlargement process toward Central and Eastern Europe. Candidate countries were required to develop their administration in order to reach an acceptable level of credibility in the European Administrative Space and in terms of shared principles, procedures and administrative structural arrangements. Thus they have to reach the minimum standards of public management quality and reliability.

1.4.3 Rules of Procedure of the Commission The Rules of Procedure of the Commission,21 published in 2000, are particularly useful for the good understanding of what is best expressed with good governance. This document is accompanied by another document entitled, The Good Administrative Code of Conduct for the Public Relations of the European Commission Employees. At the beginning of this document it is stated that the task of the Commission and its employees is to serve in the interests of the community and the public. The code states that the public has the right to quality service and an open, accessible and properly functioning administration. It is stated that the Commission agrees to comply with the standards of good administrative behavior laid down in the rules and to guide them in their daily work in order to fulfill the obligations of good administrative behavior (Fortsakis 2005: 211–12).

1.4.4 White Papers White Papers are documents that provide recommendations for action at community level in a specific area. Sometimes they are published immediately after a Green Paper that requires a European-level consultation process. While the Green Papers introduce a set of ideas for public debate, the White Papers contain a series of formal proposals in a specific policy area and are used as tools for the development of these proposals. 21 See

COM 2000 (3614).

1.4 Common Documents

41

White Paper on Reform in the Commission (March 1, 2000): Kinnock, in his article on accountability and internal control in the Commission, tried to explain the reasons for and purpose of the Commission’s reform efforts. He reported that the financial management obligations of the Commission increased significantly: between 1988 and 1999 the number of financial transactions of the Commission increased from 60,000 to 620,000 per year. The EU general budget increased by 113% in payment transactions (from 44 billion euros to 95 billion euros). The external budget grew by approximately 600% during the same period. Meanwhile, the number of employees increased by only 40%—and more importantly, they continued to operate a slightly altered financial system. In this system, the officers responsible for spending money did not really account because their responsibilities were not clearly stated and attributed to them. The line between political and administrative responsibility was often blurred. The Commission continued to operate a centralized prediction system, which was the legacy of a much smaller organization responsible for very little financial transactions. It appeared that the EU needed to identify activities that might be appropriate for external bodies to conduct. Then the Commission should ask itself whether it was able to do what it needed to do with the resources at hand (Kinnock 2002: 22–24). The White Paper on Reforms required the use of external resources to be employed to implement the strategy of returning the Commission to its core tasks and policy priorities. It therefore emphasizes that resources should be released to support priorities set by the Commission (COM (2004a): 16). The White Paper is the first document to address the functioning of the European Commission in such detail. The reform in the Commission means a reform in the whole of the EU in policy making and execution, as the Commission is the most competent body in these two issues. Therefore, the reform committee was aware of the possible consequences of this reform and the extent to which it would extend. The content of the reform outlined in Annex-2 of the White Paper shows that all the institutional issues related to the EU were addressed by the Commission.22 The paper recommended that some new institutions should be created, some should be changed and other should be removed. For example, a Strategic Planning and Programming unit was established. This unit would assist the Commission in identifying priorities, allocating resources and managing performance. In addition, an Internal Audit Service was established. The Audit Progress Committee within this service was supposed to check the extent to which the recommendations were followed. Most importantly, a Committee of Standards in Public Life was established. This committee would make recommendations on management standards and ethical issues in all European institutions.23 As will be seen below, other additional documents were produced and an effort was paid to make the framework of public administration and public service more prominent.

22 The headings in this chapter include: service culture, prioritization and resource allocation, human

resources, financial management and control, and dissemination and continuation of reform. 23 White Paper Vol. I, p. 28.

42

1 Europeanization Processes

In this context, an important feature of the White Paper is that it links the reforms to a calendar which ends in 2002. In this sense, the White Paper can be considered as a three-year action plan. For example, the publication of the Code of Good Conduct was decided in the White Paper.24 Access to Parliamentary, Council and Commission documents covered by the right to information, e-commission work, delegation of authority, transparency in personnel policy, a better working environment, social policy, education, career guidance, more efficient and performance-oriented work methods are among the sub-titles of the document. The importance of the project and the publication of the annual reports of the Commission are subject to a timetable in the White Paper which has 98 sub-titles in total. In the second volume of the White Paper, the majority of the headings in the aforementioned timeline are further elaborated. This volume, which starts with the standards of behavior in public life, continues by stating that a Good Administrative Code of Conduct document has been created expressing its importance. Access to official documents, development of dialogue with civil society, framework agreement for the European Parliament, e-commission, activity-based management and work schedules were handled separately, and the works to be done as regards each title and thereafter are mentioned. Therefore, the White Paper can, in a way, be seen as an accounting and future planning of the Commission’s own functioning. As more fundamental principles such as independence, accountability, responsiveness, efficiency and transparency become more integrated into working practices, more change will be experienced and employees will show more leadership. In fact, it is clear that if the employees at all levels do not sincerely devote themselves, there will be no progress. The aim of this program is to fully expose more energy and the skills of the high-quality employees of the organization and to provide them with better working environment. The extent and nature of most of the changes will emerge as a challenge for the commissioners in that new support systems and training opportunities as well as their high level of skill and dedication will be tested (White Paper 2000, vol. I, p. 26). White Paper on Governance (July 25, 2001): March 15, 1999, is an important date for the European Union, in particular the European Commission, when the EU Commission, headed by Jacques Santer, resigned one year before its term ended. Edith Cresson, who was in charge of the Commission’s training and research issues, was asked to resign by the European Parliament, in particular because of his involvement in corruption in personnel policies. However, when he refused to give up his duties, the Commission had to resign as a group. In July 2001, following this incident, the Commission published its White Paper on governance. According to Höreth (2002: 6), Commission member Kinnock, who was responsible for the Commission’s institutional reform program focusing on corruption in management, as well as the temporary result of inter-agency reflections on this broader governance, monitored the publication of the White Paper. While explaining the reasons for the reform in European governance, the EU was complaining about the significant developments in the century. The parliament was 24 White

Paper Vol. I, p. 41–47, Timetable of Actions.

1.4 Common Documents

43

representing the peoples and the council was representing the governments of the member states; however, the European peoples were unfamiliar with the actions of the institutions of the Union. While the citizens of EU countries were not aware of the improvements in their lives through the work of the Union, the problems were immediately recognized. Brussels could easily be blamed for some of the difficult decisions that the member states urged. The main reason for this was that the Union was unable to express itself sufficiently. Therefore, more attention should be given to governance. The White Paper outlined the measures to be taken regarding these problems. For example, member states were encouraged to promote discussion on European issues. The Committee of the Regions should increase its effectiveness and play a more pro-active role. It should also perform local and regional impact analysis for some directives. The Commission should issue minimum standards for consultation by the end of 2001 and publicize them in a single document. The Economic and Social Committee should play a more pro-active role. The Council and the European Parliament should review their relations with civil society. The Commission should establish networks and principles to obtain expert opinions. In addition, the establishment of new regulatory bodies should set criteria within the framework of the document’s circumstances and working areas and clarify the audit function of the community on such independent institutions. Twinning agreements should be proposed among national governments, thus encouraging further convergence in management. The White Paper addresses a number of important issues, including improvement of the policy-making process, increasing the EU’s international representation and global visibility, and advancing the implementation of EU policies. It examines several problems of existing administrative processes, such as lack of participation and information, and offers constructive proposals for more transparent consultation, such as the creation of a set of rules for the Commission, the preparation of a list of consultation areas, and the development of an online database of relevant non-governmental organizations at European level (Follesdal 2003: 74). As discussed in the SIGMA reports and several other documents, the White Paper clearly states that good governance and the proposed changes in the paper are based on five principles: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and integrity (White Paper 2001, p. 10). It also makes suggestions for increasing transparency in decision-making processes. According to the paper, if these five principles were applied, proportionality and localization in service would improve. The White Paper was not free from criticism. According to Magnette (2003: 147), the White Paper was surprising in that it contained a number of proposals that were not self-contained under the title of “government”. Although some sections emphasized more decentralization and delegation to sub-national units and agencies, some others focused on joint regulation and open method of cooperation. It also envisaged institutional reforms, although it argued that there was much that could be done to change the way the Union operated in accordance with existing agreements as a fundamental argument. Participation was only one aspect of a project that included other important proposals for reform within the EU. However, it was important

44

1 Europeanization Processes

because it was presented by the Commission and a crowded group of academicians because it was an important aspect of contemporary governance.

1.4.4.1

The Significance of White Books in terms of Governance

As mentioned above, the White Books emphasize that there are five principles underlying good governance: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and integrity. Despite the considerable emphasis it receives, productivity is one of the principles which suffers most from lack of visibility. In addition, participation, accountability and public service are also often overlooked, and the strengthening of these areas needs further consideration by contemporary public organizations. However, one of the most important things to have in this area is the intellectual framework that will make public administration both efficient and responsible for its actions and decisions. The concept of governance provides us with such a framework. According to the White Paper, governance is the structure or order of the results obtained by the joint efforts of all relevant actors in a social political system. The World Bank defines the concept of governance as the application of political authority and the use of institutional resources to manage the problems and affairs of society. The concept of governance has been used for the first time by the World Bank in the form of “good governance”, albeit with a debatable content. In the use of the World Bank, the principles of good governance, such as accountability, transparency, effective participation of civil society in public policies, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary system were referred to for effective use of a country’s resources. Member states have complete freedom to use means to achieve the results set out in agreements and secondary legislation. However, over time, a general consensus has been reached on the key elements of good governance. This consensus has brought about different legal traditions and public administration principles shared by EU member states with different management systems (Rutgers and Schreurs 2000: 623). Thus, the concept of governance put forward by the European Commission has been defined as a set of principles relating to the exercise of the powers of the European Union’s institutions—openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and integrity. These principles (and powers) have at least to some extent a legal convention within the legal system of the Union. This is where Curtin and Dekker ask the following question (2002: 135–146): Are these principles the most relevant ones to the public administration of the European Union? More importantly, are the legal contents of these principles contained in the White Paper? It is observed that the authors draw a pessimistic picture of the steps taken toward governance. In their view, the Commission’s view on how to adopt the principle of participation in EU governance is static, backward, and based on the dogma of justifying a top-down approach to organizing and regulating civil society. In one of its reports, the Commission did not mention the idea of procedures for participation rights for civil society organizations and individuals, whereas in the Aarhus Convention of the United Nations, such an approach to the environment, which is

1.4 Common Documents

45

much more restricted, has been adopted. The Code of Administrative Behavior of the USA (1964) can be another example. This law adopts a system of interpretation that is effectively institutionalized in the provisions of both the Aarhus convention and the American administrative legal system. In addition, it may be appropriate to consider such obligations in all branches and bodies of public administration, including their wide-ranging implementation of independent functional agencies and in particular in the context of the developing institutional structures of the wider European Union.25

1.4.5 Reports of the Committee of Independent Experts In 1999, after the Santer Commission’s resignation, it was discussed that the Commission had been accelerating the work on reform. In this regard, reports of the Committee of Independent Experts represent an important step. These reports also significantly influenced the contents of the White Books published in 2000 and 2001. The first report was published at the time of the Commission’s resignation (March 15, 1999). The Committee was established on January 14, right after the vote of the no-confidence motion based on allegations on fraud, abuse of office and nepotism. The report on the incident was called the First Report on the Accusations of Corruption, Dismissal and Nepotism in the European Commission. This report deals with Tourism, ECHO (European Community Humanitarian Aid Office), Leonardo (Community Vocational Training Program), Security Office, and Nuclear Security, which is the action where the members of the Commission were accused of corruption. The report (pp. 131–134) spared a special place for nepotism, the other important accusation faced by the Commission. The first report, which investigated corruption allegations, was followed by the Commission’s resignation on same day. Later in that year, the second report was issued on September 10, 1999 which discussed the anti-corruption methods and various proposals. The seventh chapter of the first volume of the report bore the title “Integrity, Responsibility and Accountability in European Political and Administrative Life” and set out the principles and rules for public life. The report emphasized the importance of creating a code of conduct, in particular with regard to the duties of the officers in the Commission. It can be understood that corruption in the Commission was mostly attributed to the lack of a written set of rules. The persistent recommendations in the report yielded results, and in 2001, the Ombudsman published the European Code of Good Administrative Behavior which also dealt with

25 The greatest benefit of White Books is the changing of beliefs and expectations through informal joint action mechanisms such as the open cooperation method and the common evaluation framework (Knill and Lehmkuhl 2002). The open cooperation methodology, which was developed during the Lisbon process that started with the Lisbon Council in 2000, has been proposed as a new European model, especially in network governance and has been presented as a part of the important development in the transition from government to governance among states (Olsen 2003: 518).

46

1 Europeanization Processes

the EU citizens’ access to information. According to this, the principles of Ethical Management in Public Administration are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Ethical standards of public service should be clear; Ethical standards should be expressed in a legal framework; Guidance service should be provided to public officials on ethical issues; Public officials should be aware of their rights and obligations when they disclose inaccuracies; 5. Politicians’ commitment to ethics should strengthen the ethical behavior of public officials; 6. The decision-making processes should be transparent and open to investigation; 7. Clear principles should be in place for interaction between the public sector and the private sector; 8. Administrators should demonstrate and promote ethical behavior; 9. Administrative policies, procedures and practices should promote ethical behavior; 10. Conditions and human resource management in the public sector should promote ethical behavior; 11. Adequate accountability mechanisms should be in place in the public sector; 12. Appropriate procedures and sanctions should be in place to address misconduct. Following these reports, on December 8, 2000, the Commission published a document on the rules and procedures of Commission’s functioning. On December 5, 2001 a second report was publicized, which was prepared to amend the former document and regulate the right to information (COM (2001)). In addition, the regulation on the right of citizens to access the Commission, Council and Parliamentary documents was published in the Official Gazette on May 31, 2001 (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001).

1.4.6 European Code of Good Administrative Behavior The European Code Good Administrative Behavior is published by the European Ombudsman in order to explain in more detail the right to good governance provided under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was laid down at the Nice summit in 2000. Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that the right to good governance includes the following: 1. Every human being has the right to be dealt with impartially, fairly and timely by the institutions and bodies of the Union. 2. This right includes: a. the right of everyone to be heard before an individual measure, which may adversely affect him/her; b. the right of everyone to access his or her file by respecting the legal interests of confidentiality and professional and trade secrets; c. the necessity of the decision of the management to declare the rationale.

1.4 Common Documents

47

3. Every person has the right to compensation from the damages that the community institutions or officials may have in performing their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the member states. 4. Every person should be able to write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages specified in the Agreements and obtain the answer in the same language. Code of Good Administrative Behavior consists of 27 articles which deal with no discrimination in the behavior of public administrators and civil servants (Article 5), proportionality (Article 6), misuse (Article 7), impartiality and independence (Article 8), objectivity (Article 9), justice (Article 11), courtesy (Article 12), responding to the letters in the language the citizen wrote (Article 13), receipt of the notification and the identification of the authorized officer (Article 14), transfer of authority (Article 15), to show the ways of appeal (Article 19), the rules to be taken into consideration in the notification of the decision (Article 20), protection of information (Article 21), information requests (Article 22), public access to documents (Article 23) and the right to apply to the European Ombudsman (Article 26). Code of Good Administrative Behavior is complementary to the principles of reliability, predictability, openness and transparency, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, which are seen as the basic principles of public administration in Europe.

1.4.7 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe It was mentioned above that the Commission holds a near monopoly on legislation. This was discussed in terms of the separation of powers, accountability and legitimacy. EU legislators and jurists who share the same concern have long worked to create a new constitution, and in 2004, the constitutional text titled “The Constitution Constituting a Constitution for Europe” came out. The text consisted of 448 items in 228 pages. While the constitutional work was in progress, academicians, jurists and policymakers failed to reach a consensus on whether a constitution was required for the European Union. Those who were against the constitution argued that the EU did not conform to the definition of a nation-state as a supra-national organization and therefore it did not require a constitution, since it could only be the case for sovereign states in the classical sense of the concept. Those who opposed it argued that the USA was born as a federation based on a preliminary agreement and that the concept of constitution did not necessarily have to be valid for the classical nation-states. Consequently, although the aim of the action was to create a constitution, it found an intermediate formula by avoiding the name “Constitution”. Su (2004: 361) questioned the constitution’s potential to promote European integration and provided a comparison of the prevailing constitutional texts in the constitution and the EU (Table 1.1).

48

1 Europeanization Processes

Table 1.1 Treaties and values Treaty

Value

Maastricht

The Union shall respect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights

Amsterdam

The Union is founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe

The principles set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam have been renamed as the values of the EU, and have been added to the concept of a society in which the principles of equality and rule of law as well as pluralism, tolerance, justice, solidarity and lack of discrimination

According to Su (2004: 369), the Constitution sought to maintain a delicate balance between different norms that aimed to develop a more integrated Europe, to ensure citizens’ participation, and to guarantee national identity. Although the Constitutional Treaty could have an important function despite its shortcomings, it would be necessary to facilitate the integration of the 12 new member states, although it had to undergo a rather challenging approval process. However, there was no convincing reason to assume that it could adequately promote the unity of a union of approximately 30 members in the future. This was partly due to the fact that the most important issues in the functioning of the European institutions were not satisfactorily answered by the constitutional treaty. Furthermore, the inclusion of new members in the Union would necessitate an increase in the functioning and decision-making capacities of EU institutions, and would require reform in common policies such as agriculture, regional development and budget. From the point of democratic accountability, it can be seen that developing and formalizing joint decision-making on the legal issues between the Council and the Parliament led to the formation of a bicameral system in the Union. The increase of the authority of the Parliament on the EU budget and the election of the chairman of the Commission was welcomed. In addition, the increasing powers of the Commission on justice and home affairs, and the increase in the number of decisions which required qualified majority, provided a favorable environment in terms of achieving more concrete common decisions, in particular with respect to international terrorism and crime, and the protection of the external borders of the Union (von Kyaw 2004: 457). The number of members of the European Union increased from 15 to 25 in 2004 and 27 in 2007. In this expanded structure, it was necessary to re-organize the system in order to prevent a deadlock of administrative mechanisms due to increased load. The Constitutional Treaty was a substitute for a large number of treaties that shaped the structures of the European Union and were signed for nearly 50 years. With this document, the European Union was gaining a structure that was not more than a free trade zone. However, this structure was not yet to acquire a status that could be

1.4 Common Documents

49

labeled as the “United States of Europe”. The document was intended to reveal the vision of the European Union in a way that would be easily understood by the public. The constitutional agreement is of great importance for the provisions of the European Union on public administration and the formation of a European Administrative Space. The articles in the text that directly concern public bureaucracies point to the problems of public administration in the EU, which were discussed in the previous sections. In the text of the agreement, issues such as participation, social partners and autonomous social dialogue, transparency of transactions in Union institutions, bodies, and offices, right to obtain information and access to documents, ombudsman, the right to good governance, charter of and fundamental rights were discussed. However, when the items are examined carefully, it can be seen that the common point is to determine the general principles rather than formalities. All of the issues discussed are listed in the code of ethics as the elements of good public administration, and set out the basic rules for perfecting the functioning of the institutions of the EU, while facilitating the integration of the ten participating countries in 2004.

1.4.8 Rejection of Constitutional Treaty The EU Constitution, according to Article 447, would enter into force on November 1, 2006 after its approval in all member countries. The constitutional treaty was prepared with great expectations such as providing a framework for the institutional structure of the EU, solving problems such as lack of legitimacy and participation, deficiency of democracy and facilitating the integration of the new member states. However, the constitution was rejected by referendum in France and then in the Netherlands in May and June 2005. After these results, the approval process which was scheduled to be completed by November 1, 2006 was postponed. Mazzucelli (2007: 10) attributes the rejection of the constitution, particularly in the Netherlands, to the perception that the public was not sufficiently informed about the draft. If this was the case, the constitutional text in which the peoples of Europe were expected to have more power in the administration by developing democratic principles such as transparency and participation was rejected by the reasons for the problems that it promised to correct. The ratio of those who voted for the constitution because of this reason was 32% compared to Flash Eurobarometer 2005. The fact that the constitution was voted “no” in the Netherlands and France underlines that distrust is a phenomenon seen in all national systems. This phenomenon cannot be ignored in discussions about future enlargements, as it is necessary to comply with specific criteria for the enlargement of the Union (Mazzucelli 2007: 19). In summary, the Constitutional Treaty presents the principles of good governance within a framework and underlines the characteristics of public service which is expected to be offered with a more output-oriented approach. Essentially, these principles would also concretize the formation called the European Administrative Space and would compile it in at least one single text, which was expected to positively affect the development of the European Administrative Space.

50

1 Europeanization Processes

1.4.9 Lisbon Treaty The Lisbon Treaty, signed in December 2007, was designed to replace the constitutional treaty rejected in the Netherlands and France. Accordingly, the institutional structure of the EU continued to rise on the basis of Parliament, Council and Commission, but innovations were introduced to make it more effective, transparent and consistent. For example, the EU Presidency would be replaced by a six-year term presidency, which would take 2.5 years, as the EU was intended to have a stronger leadership. The Office of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was established. The number of commissioners in the Commission was expected to be reduced after 2014. Article 197 of the Lisbon Treaty states that the effective implementation of Union law by the member states is important for the proper functioning of the Union, and will be treated as a common interest. Although the term “European Administrative Space” is not included in the agreement, there are several provisions that point to the concept, particularly Article 197. In addition, the treaty marks the first time when public administration is defined as a common interest and is not restrained to the exclusive sphere of nation-states. It may be useful to sort out the new regulations offered by the Lisbon Treaty into a few articles.26 1. Parliament is empowered to make legislation, prepare the EU budget and approve international agreements. 2. The Council of Europe will now chair the Union President. The President shall prepare the work of the Council, ensure its continuity and provide consensus among the member states. 3. The most important change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty for the Council of the European Union is in the area of decision-making. Decisions will now be sought by a qualified majority (except where agreements require another majority). Thus, from now on, the qualified majority will be expanded to a number of other policy areas such as migration and culture.27 Thus, the decision-making process is aimed to become more transparent and more effective. Another consequence of this is to force the EU’s members to satisfactory solutions. 4. The number of members of the European Commission was being reduced (only 18 commissioners would remain in 2014). The president becomes stronger and is empowered to dismiss the members of the Commission. 5. The High Representative for European Foreign and Defense Policy is the VicePresident of the Commission. With the establishment of this authority, consistency will be ensured in the relations of the EU with foreign countries and international institutions. 26 The items in this section are summarized from the relevant official website of EU on Lisbon Treaty (http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/institutions/index_en.htm). 27 After 2014, 55% of the EU member states, as well as 65% of the EU population, would be required for a decision to be taken.

1.4 Common Documents

51

6. The national parliaments are empowered to make law at the Brussels level. According to the new draft, eight weeks are allowed to examine EU bills. If the bill is challenged by at least one-third of the member states’ parliament, it will be returned to the European Commission for further consideration. Lisbon Treaty was adopted in the parliaments of 26 EU member states but was rejected in Ireland in June 2008, the only country to hold a referendum. However, in the second referendum held in October 2009, the Agreement was adopted and entered into force in December 2009, after being ratified by all member states.

1.5 Common Institutions As the institutions play an important role in establishing a common public administration in Europe, the Economic and Social Council, the Committee of the Regions, the Ombudsman and the European Administrative School come to the forefront.

1.5.1 European Economic and Social Committee The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) was established in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome. The Council is an advisory body that offers an official platform for European social and professional interest groups and others to express their views on EU issues. The opinions of the EESC are forwarded to the European Council, the Commission and the Parliament. The EESC therefore has a key role in the union’s decision-making process. The Economic and Social Committee has three main tasks (Smismans 2000): • To make recommendations to the Council of the European Union, the Commission and the Parliament (after the Treaty of Amsterdam); • To contribute to the realization of a more participatory and more democratic society within the EU; • To establish a consultation mechanism by founding relations with nongovernmental organizations in non-member countries. Consultation with the EESC by the Commission or the EU Council is mandatory in certain cases, while it is optional in others. However, the EESC may also adopt its views on its own initiative. The Single European Act (1986) and the Maastricht Treaty (1992) increased the scope of issues to be referred to EESC. This is especially true in the case of new policies (regional policy and environmental policy). The Amsterdam Treaty further extended the scope of the issues to be discussed with the committee and allowed the committee to discuss these issues with the European Parliament. EESC publishes an average of 170 recommendations and opinions per year. According to the rates given by Smismans (2000: 3), a significant portion of the opinions come from

52

1 Europeanization Processes

non-mandatory consultations (49%). This is followed by mandatory consultations (36%). Some of the opinions are expressed by the committee on their own initiative (15%). All opinions are forwarded to the decision-making bodies of the community and published in the EU’s official journal. The Economic and Social Committee has critical important roles to play in the European employment policy. The obligation of the Commission to consult with the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions on employment-related issues gives this power to EESC (Mosher and Trubek 2003). Many non-governmental organizations that have ties to EESC also participate in policy-making and decision-making processes indirectly. Thus, the legitimacy of the decisions increases, and the level of good governance improves.

1.5.2 Committee of the Regions The Committee of the Regions (CoR) is a political assembly that gives local and regional authorities the right to speak at the center of the European Union. CoR was created to address two major issues. The first is that local and regional representatives have the right to speak during the preparation stage of new EU laws. Second, there is a popular concern that the public is lagging behind the issues as the EU progresses. The involvement of the closest elected officials to the citizens was seen as an essential and effective way to close this gap (Loughlin 1996). The Treaties require the Commission and the Council to consult with the Committee of the Regions when a new proposal will be submitted in areas where they are reflected at regional or local level. The Maastricht Treaty identified five areas of this nature—economic and social integration, trans-European infrastructure networks, health, education and culture. The Amsterdam Treaty added five more areas to this list—employment policy, social policy, the environment, vocational training and transport. These represent a majority of the EU’s activities. Apart from these areas, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have the option to consult with the CoR on matters which they consider to have significant regional or local implications. CoR can also declare an opinion on its own initiative and see to it that it is included in the EU agenda. The Committee operates on the basis of three principles: • Locality in service: this principle means that decisions in the EU are taken as close as possible to the citizen. • Proximity: all levels of government should aim to be close to the citizen and should perform their work in a transparent manner. • Partnership: Brussels, national, regional and local government levels should work in cooperation—all of which are indispensable in decision-making processes. In November 2003, the Committee of the Regions issued a text entitled “Code of Good Administrative Behavior” (Article 18a of R/CdR 288/2003). In Articles 4–13

1.5 Common Institutions

53

of the document, the characteristics of a civil servant who shows good administrative behavior in the functioning of the Committee of the Regions are listed as follows: • • • • • • • • • •

lawful, non-discriminatory, proportional, not abusing power, impartial and independent, having legitimate expectations, consistency and recommendations, fair, kind, responding to the letters in their own language, claiming receipt of the request and transferring to the authorized officer (Van Der Knaap 1994).

The method of operation of the Committee of the Regions is determined by the Rules of Procedure of CoR 1/2004. Section 1.3 of the document provides access to documents to citizens in Sect. 1.2 which is on public disclosure and transparency.

1.5.3 Ombudsman The Ombudsman’s Office is one of the institutions that the European Union has established to improve governance. The first ombudsman was appointed in 1995. EU citizens can complain to the ombudsman of all community institutions, including the EU Commission, the EU Council, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice. However, the EU ombudsman has no control over national, regional or local bodies. The right to apply to the ombudsman was addressed in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was adopted in Nice in December 2000. According to Article 43 of this Charter, Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the Ombudsman of the Union cases of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role (OJ, 26.10.2012, C 326/404).

In this way, ombudsman is considered as one of the institutions aiming to implement the right to good governance. The ombudsman made a call in 1999 to establish rules of good administrative behavior, which were published in 2001. As mentioned in the relevant section, Code of Good Administrative Behavior is complementary to reliability and predictability, openness and transparency, accountability, efficiency and efficacy which are seen as the basic principles of public administration in Europe (Peters 2005: 699).

54

1 Europeanization Processes

1.5.4 Internal Audit Service An examination of the “Actions” section and the timeline of White Paper (2000) shows that the EU needed a comprehensive reform in the area of public finance. Among the 98 actions, the actions numbered 68–93, which are found under 25th, 26th and 27th sub-titles, are as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Establishment of Internal Audit Service until May 2000, Reporting and planning of Internal Audit Service, Separation of internal audit from financial control, Establishment of an Audit Committee, Establishment of a central financial service, Consultations on contracts, Contract database, Manuals on the operation of financial management, Contracts and grants, User networks, Minimum standards for internal control, Separation of tasks and financial cycles, Change in the role of finance in the Head Office, Strengthening the role of the control function of the General Directorate, The General Manager makes a statement in its Annual Report.

The Council decision dated June 25, 2002 on the financial arrangements for the general budget of the European Communities addressed most of the issues listed above and linked the practices to certain procedures.28 The decision proposed reforms in internal financial organization and control to be implemented in three areas of activity: • Strategic planning and programming: the activity will be conducted for the first time for the activities of the Commission, • Ensuring that managers and employees take responsibility for their work through various specific measures and support systems, • Extensive modernization of financial control and auditing systems (Kinnock 2002: 23–24). In May 2000, a Central Financial Service was established responsible for designing and monitoring internal control standards at the Commission which would be responsible for the budget to the Commission. In addition, a new professionalquality and specialized Internal Audit Service was established to continuously and independently evaluate the functioning of internal controls (Kinnock 2002: 26). Neil Kinnock, the commissioner in charge of the reform, used the following statements regarding financial management reform: “I would like to thank managers and employees, especially those interested in financial management and control. Flexibility and adaptability also showed the willingness to deal with a change that 28 Council

Regulation, 1605/2002.

1.5 Common Institutions

55

is completely opposite to the perception of a strict, remote Brussels bureaucrat. The existence of this positive attitude is one of the reasons I believe that this reform will be successful” (Kinnock 2002: 27). The process described above can be attributed to the Santer Commission crisis. In the Official Journal dated May 31, 1999, two months after the resignation of the Commission, a law on the establishment of an office to conduct internal investigations against corruption (OLAF) was issued by the inter-agency agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the Commission on May 25, 1999 (OLAF 15). However, this document consists of only five pages and is a reflex for the crisis of that day. In July 2001, the Internal Audit Service (IAS) was established as part of the European Commission’s fiscal reform agenda. According to the information on the website, IAS’s mission is: • To publish independent audit opinions on the quality of management and internal control systems, • Provide recommendations for effective and efficient access to the Commission’s objectives. The Internal Audit Service, which uses a risk-based approach, conducts separate audits for the departments of the Commission. The service also conducts horizontal and thematic inspections. According to the results of the audits that the service has discussed with the audited institutions, it publishes the recommendations of the Internal Audit Service.29 According to Article 86.4 of the Council Decision 1605/2002 mentioned above, the institution shall submit to the Parliament a report announcing the number and type of audits it has carried out every year, the recommendations given in these audits, and the measures taken on these recommendations. According to the 2005 report, the recommendations of the Internal Audit Service were widely accepted.30 Only 6 of the 285 recommendations (2.1%) during the year were rejected.

1.5.5 European Administrative School The European Commission argued that the proposal for the creation of the European Administration School would facilitate the integration of new civil servants. According to the annual policy strategy for 2005, resources would be allocated by participating institutions, and the school would be strengthened in proportion to the fulfillment of its duties in unity.31

29 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_audit/index_en.htm. 30 Draft

post RSCC 31 May 2006 titled document at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_audit/docs/ 86_4_en.pdf. 31 COM (2004a): 14.

56

1 Europeanization Processes

The European Administrative School can be considered within the scope of the wider personnel policy reform. In January 2005, the school was established by the law numbered 2005/118/EC and the decision was published in the Official Journal dated 10.2.2005. With the decision 2005/119/EC published in the same issue of the Official Journal, the organization and functioning of the European Administration School was determined. The European Administrative School was established after the redesigning of the relevant institutions in February 2005. These institutions are the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Council, the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman’s Office. When the decision on establishment was made, the first priority of the school was determined as the design, organization and evaluation of educational activities in the following areas: • Administration courses for employees who are supposed to perform or provide administrative functions. • Training courses for new employees: These courses are designed for new entrants to adapt to their new environments and to look at the challenges they may face as well as the ways to deal with them. • Educational cycle for employees identified as having the potential to be promoted from the assistant category to the administrator category.

1.5.6 European Personnel Selection Office Regarding the personnel policies that constitute an important pillar of the reform work in public administration, Kinnock made the following points: One of the first attempts of this commission was to propose an arrangement to implement the Article 255 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which regulates the right of all EU citizens to access the documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Council adopted this proposal in May 2001 as Community law. In the meantime, as part of our comprehensive staff policy offerings, we are strengthening accountability conventions, with a constant emphasis on the need for accountability and the tools for accountability. This is a highly comprehensive management education program, which enables us to modernize and improve both disciplinary procedures and regulations to tackle occupational insufficiency, and to provide opportunities for European public administrators to carry out their duty of reporting all kinds of irregularities (Kinnock 2002: 23).

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) was established in July 2002 for personnel selection. EPSO is an inter-agency bureau established by the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Council, the Committee of the Regions and the

1.5 Common Institutions

57

Ombudsman office.32 It fulfills its duty by organizing open recruitment announcements and ensuring common selection standards and principles in all institutions. The EPSO provides a single point of contact for all EU citizens who apply for a career in any EU institution. One of the aims of this reform was to simplify career structures to facilitate transition from one career group to another. Members of the Commission launched this process by explaining their own financial interests and adopting new standards and codes of conduct for the Commissioners. According to Massey (2004: 29), it is clear that these rules are influenced by the UK Standards Committee on Public Living. Code of Good Administrative Behavior, which sets new standards of behavior for all officers working in the Commission, was prepared in such an environment. Deficiencies in technical and human resources were addressed through new staff policy proposals that reinforced the need for accountability and responsiveness, which were then combined with training programs to fill in missing areas. As a result, from the point of view of public administration, it is seen that member countries adopt different public administration systems according to their political, economic, social and cultural characteristics and state traditions. However, these differences have begun to form a common ground on the basis of the processes, documents, studies and institutions discussed above. In other words, the public administration in the EU is shaped within the framework of common values and principles rather than common structures, and the implementation of the acquis is carried out within the framework of these principles. The most important factor for the implementation of the regulations at the Union level is that the member or candidate country has sufficient administrative capacity (Balcı 2004: 119). As the European Union continues to expand with new members, it conducts rigorous assessments of the administrative capacities of the candidate countries in the negotiation process in order to guarantee the applicability of common policies during the full membership phase.

1.6 European Administrative Space and Turkey Progress reports have been published for Turkey since 1998 (with the exception of 2017). The reports evaluate Turkey’s capacity to implement the membership requirements and to adopt the acquis defined in treaties, other legislations and Union policy documents. Each report examines in depth the reforms referred to in previous report and explores new initiatives. In addition, the reports provide an assessment of the general situation about every examined topic and displays main steps that Turkey has to take in terms of these areas.

32 This list overlaps with the institutions listed above in the section on European Administrative School, which shows that a consistent and planned personnel policy was being followed at the European Union level.

58

1 Europeanization Processes

The following criteria have been accepted as the benchmarks against which progress is measured: • decisions actually taken, • legislation actually adopted, • international conventions actually ratified (with due attention being given to implementation), and • measures actually implemented. While Turkey takes the steps envisaged in progress reports, she puts into implementation the public administration principles of European Administrative Space. Thus, national public institutions and applications are going through comprehensive changes with regard to adaptation to European Union. In each progress report period, action is taken to improve the transparency, effectiveness and accountability level of public administration which are then evaluated by the EU. According to the National Program, which saw its latest update in 2008, efforts are underway to adopt the General Administrative Procedure Law33 within the scope of the functionality and effectiveness of public administration. Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code were envisaged. In addition, the Ombudsman Institution had to be fully functional and effective. The Human Rights Presidency affiliated to the Prime Ministry would be restructured under the Paris Principles.34 Necessary legal arrangements would be made to ensure harmonization with the EU practices in line with the principles of transparency and accountability in matters relating to political parties law and the financing of political parties. In this context, the Law Amending the Law on Basic Provisions of Elections and Voter Registers would be prepared and submitted to the Parliament. In order to determine the ethical principles such as transparency, impartiality, honesty, accountability and public interest in relation to the members of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, the Draft Law on Political Ethics would also be referred to the Assembly. Again, in relation to transparency, the audit of the Turkish Armed Forces’ expenditures and the public property would continue to be carried out by the Court of Accounts and an article will be added to the New Court of Accounts Law in order to eliminate the deficiency in the existing law. As a result of efforts like this, Turkey elevated from 64th to 58th rank in the ranking of Transparency International. The National Program, which stated that a Judicial Reform Strategy was being prepared in the Ministry of Justice in order to strengthen the independence, impartiality and effectiveness of the judiciary, listed the planned steps to be taken regarding the functionality and efficiency of the judiciary. Accordingly, the following issues were targeted: • Improving the impartiality of the judiciary, • Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary, 33 The

Administrative Procedure Law draft will be discussed in the second chapter. relating to the status of national institutions adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (OHCHR) in 1993 are widely known as Paris Principles. See https://nhri.ohchr. org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/ParisPrinciples.aspx. 34 Principles

1.6 European Administrative Space and Turkey

59

• • • • •

Increasing professional competence in the judiciary, Improving judicial organization and administrative system, Increasing confidence in the judiciary, Facilitating access to and participation in the judiciary processes, Introducing effective measures to prevent conflicts and to solve them with alternative solutions; and • Improving the criminal execution system.

1.6.1 Issues of Focus in Progress Reports The Commission, in accordance with the final declaration of the Luxembourg European Council of December 1997, reports regularly to the Council and Parliament on Turkey. The following method is followed in all reports: • Relations between the Union and Turkey are described briefly, • The status in Turkey is examined in terms of political criteria for membership, • Turkey’s capability for adopting the acquis communautaire is reviewed in terms of treaties, secondary legislation and Union policies. To be more specific, the areas which are most emphasized in the progress reports for which reform is demanded can be listed as follows: 1. Cases of corruption, patronage and political undue influence, 2. Problems related to the judiciary, 3. The impact of the National Security Council on politics and civilian control of the army, 4. Torture, ill-treatment, disappearance of the arrested and extrajudicial executions, 5. Restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and association; 6. Difficulties faced by civil society organizations, 7. Status of prisons, 8. Problems in economic, cultural and religious rights, 9. Ill-treatment for minorities and minority rights in general. The European Union gives more importance to these issues than others in Turkey as well as in other candidate countries. The reasons for this may include: (i) the broadening of the acquis that needs to be aligned with the relevant issues; and (ii) the relevant issues affected by other negotiation chapters. These topics are evaluated before negotiation chapters under the title of Strengthened Political Dialogue and Political Criteria. The areas 1–3 are assessed under the title “Democracy and Rule of Law” and areas 4–9 are evaluated under the title “Human Rights and Protection of Minorities”.

60

1 Europeanization Processes

1.6.2 General Evaluation on Turkey Turkey has aimed for EU membership ever since the signature of Ankara Agreement in 1963. In order to reach this objective, successive governments have paid effort to raise the democracy standards and institutional capacity of the country to the level expected by the EU. Especially after 1999 serious steps have been taken in this direction and comprehensive constitutional amendments have been introduced. The EU accession process can be considered as a decisive factor especially on the developments and reforms in public administration in recent years. All member and candidate countries involved in the integration and adaptation process have undergone similar and more or less complex experiences. Founding member states and the countries which became members before 2004 have not undergone the process that Turkey has been experiencing (Nasr 2005). EU integration and alignment with the acquis have been proposed as a pre-condition for membership for Central and Eastern European countries in the 2004 enlargement which led to the need for the comprehensive transformation of internal political structures. As in other candidate countries, the alignment with the acquis should not be limited to enactment of harmonization laws, but that application also had to be observed. In this context, the emphasis on administrative capacity was repeated in both the Accession Partnership documents35 and the Progress Reports. For example, in 2007 progress report the term “administrative capacity” was mentioned for 34 times. The term was used in the 4th section titled “the ability to assume the obligations of the membership” which dealt with the chapters on an individual basis. All chapters with the exception of freedom to provide services (Chap. 3), financial services (Chap. 9), information society and media (Chap. 10), fisheries (Chap. 13), energy (Chap. 15), enterprise and industrial policy (Chap. 20), judiciary and fundamental rights (Chap. 23), science and research (Chap. 25), Customs Union (Chap. 29), and external relations (Chap. 30) emphasized the need for developing administrative capacity. In addition, the Commission working document titled “Issues Arising from Turkey’s Membership Perspective” discussed administrative capacity in all sections.36 In this document, it was emphasized that EU pre-accession assistance should prepare Turkey to implementing the acquis until the time of membership which required the strengthening of administrative capacity, both at national and regional level (COM (2004b): 41).

35 For example, 2007 Accession Partnership document mentioned administrative capacity in the following sections: judicial system (under the title “short-term priorities”), Chap. 10: information society and media, Chap. 15: energy, Chap. 18: statistics, Chap. 22: regional policy and coordination of structural instruments, Chap. 26: education and culture and Chap. 27: environment. 36 See Issues Arising From Turkey’s Membership Perspective, COM 2004b), Brussels, 6.10.2004. In the document, the term “administrative capacity” was mentioned for 19 times. It was stated that administrative capacity had to be developed in several areas such as free movement of capital, competition policy, customs and taxation, social policy and employment, consumer policy, environment, transportation, energy, phytosanitary, fisheries and anti-drug policy.

1.6 European Administrative Space and Turkey

61

To sum up, it was observed that the emphasis made by the European Union on administrative capacity in Turkey maintained its importance in the process of membership negotiations. As understood from the constitutional changes and reform packages, Turkey has been giving importance to this issue and continuing its efforts. If Turkey was to preserve its full membership perspective, she had to be aware that she had to undergo a comprehensive transformation process that included, inter alia, changing the traditional principles which had dominated the operating methods and functioning of institutions in the past (Okçu 2005: 155). In this context, Turkey had to create a public administration in compliance with the principles of European Administrative Space which was able to implement the acquis communautaire. Above all, Turkey had to change the strictly centralized and overly bureaucratic state structure. Civil society organizations had to be strengthened and their participation in government processes should be encouraged. The powers, responsibilities and resources of local governments should also be expanded. In addition, public services should be of high quality, efficient, transparent and accountable. The state should cease its production activities and deal with their coordination, planning, regulation and supervision. In addition, and probably most importantly, there should be a fundamental change in mentality in the public administration system and actors (Balcı 2004: 124). The following chapters deal with these changes which display a hardly stable picture.

References Acar, M., & Özgür, H. (2004). Training of civil servants in Turkey: progress, problems, and prospects. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(3–4), 197–218. Accetto, M., & Zleptnig, S. (2005). The principle of effectiveness: Rethinking its role in community law. European Public Law, 11(3), 375–403. ˙ Akdo˘gan, A. (2008). Türk Kamu Yönetimi ve Avrupa Birli˘gi: Kar¸sıla¸stırmalı Ele¸stirel bir Inceleme. Ankara: TODAIE Publications. Bailey, D. J. (2006). Governance or the crisis of governmentality? Applying critical state theory at the European level. Journal of European public policy, 13(1), 16–33. Balcı, A. (2004). Türk Kamu Yönetimi Sisteminin AB Normlarına Uyumla¸stırılması. In T. Uzun & S. Özen (Eds.), Avrupa Birli˘gi Sürecinde Türkiye: Siyasal, Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Dönü¸süm (pp. 113–127). Ankara: Seçkin Publications. Bauer, M. W., Ege, J., & Schomaker, R. (2019). The challenge of administrative internationalization: taking stock and looking ahead. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(11), 904–917. ˙ sleri Politikası. Avrupa Birli˘gi: Ortak. Be¸se, E. (2003). Avrupa Birli˘gi’nin Adalet ve Içi¸ Borrás, S., & Jacobsson, K. (2004). The open method of co-ordination and new governance patterns in the EU. Journal of European public policy, 11(2), 185–208. Borzel, T. A. (1999). Towards convergence in Europe: Institutional adaptation to europeanization in Germany and Spain. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, 573. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2003). Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe. In K. Featherstone & C. Radaelli (Eds.), Politics of Europeanization (pp. 57–80). New York: Oxford University Press. Bovens, M. A. (2006). Analysing and assessing public accountability. A conceptual framework. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) C-06-01. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2015). Performance and accountability—A theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review, 15(2), 207–225.

62

1 Europeanization Processes

Costa, O., Jabko, N., Lequesne, C., & Magnette, P. (2003). Introduction: Diffuse control mechanisms in the European Union: towards a new democracy? Journal of European public policy, 10(5), 666–676. Curtin, D. M., & Dekker, I. (2002). Governance as a legal concept within the European Union: purpose and principles. International Law Forum, 4(3), 134–149. Curtin, D., & Meijer, A. J. (2006). Does Transparency Stregthen Legitimacy? A Critical Analysis of European Union policy documents. Information Polity, 11, 109–122. Cygan, A. (2003). Democracy and accountability in the European Union-The view from the House of Commons. The Modern Law Review, 66(3), 384–401. Danielsen, O. A., & Yesilkagit, K. (2014). The effects of European regulatory networks on the bureaucratic autonomy of national regulatory authorities. Public Organization Review, 14(3), 353–371. Dimitrova, A., & Dragneva, R. (2009). Constraining external governance: interdependence with Russia and the CIS as limits to the EU’s rule transfer in the Ukraine. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 853–872. DPT (State Planning Organization). (2002). Ortak De˘gerlendirme Çerçevesi (ODÇ): Kurulu¸sun Özde˘gerlendirme Aracılı˘gıyla Geli¸stirilmesi. European Commission. (2000). COM(2000) 3614. Rules of Procedure of the Commission. European Commission. (2001). COM(2001) 428 final. European Governance: a White Paper. European Commission. (2002a). COM(2002)341 final. Communication from the Commission: The European social dialogue, a force for innovation and change. European Commission. (2002b). COM(2002)704 final. Communication from the Commission: Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue—General principles for consultation of interested parties by the Commission. European Commission. (2002c). COM(2002)278 final. Action plan Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment. European Commission. (2002d). COM(2002)276 final. Impact Assessment. European Commission. (2004a). COM(2004) 133. Annual Policy Strategy for 2005, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. European Commission. (2004b). COM(2004) 656. Issues Arising From Turkey’s Membership Perspective. Flinders, M. (2004). Distributed public governance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 520–544. Follesdal, A. (2003). The political theory of the white paper on governance: Hidden and fascinating. European Public Law, 9(1), 73–86. Fortsakis, T. (2005). Principles governing good administration. European Law Review, 2, 207–217. Giorgi, L., & Pohoryles, R. (2005). Challenges to EU political integration and the role of democratization, innovation. The European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 407–418. Grønbech-Jensen, C. (1998). The Scandinavian tradition of open government and the European Union: problems of compatibility? Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 185–199. Hayes-Renshaw, F., & Wallace, H. (1995). Executive power in the European Union: the functions and limits of the Council of Ministers. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(4), 559–582. Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2000). The great globalization debate: an introduction. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), The global transformations reader: an introduction to the globalization debate (pp. 1–45). Cambridge: Polity Press. Héritier, A. (2003). Composite democracy in Europe: the role of transparency and access to information. Journal of European public policy, 10(5), 814–833. Héritier, A., & Knill, C. (2001). Differential responses to European policies: A comparison (pp. 257– 321). Differential Europe: The European Union Impact on National Policymaking. Hix, S. (1999). The political system of the European Union. Macmillan International Higher Education. Höreth, M. (2002). Neither breathtaking nor pathbreaking; the European Commission’s white paper on governance.

References

63

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_audit/docs/86_4_en.pdf. Accessed Aug 21 2019. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_audit/index_en.htm. Accessed Aug 21 2019. http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/institutions/index_en.htm. Accessed April 15 2019. https://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/ParisPrinciples.aspx. Accessed Aug 21 2019. Kassim, H. (2003). Meeting the Demands of EU Membership: The Europeanization of National Administrative Systems. In K. Featherstone & C. Radaelli (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization (pp. 83–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kinnock, N. (2002). Accountability and reform of internal control in the European Commission. The Political Quarterly, 73(1), 21–28. Knill, C., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002). The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: Three Europeanization mechanisms. European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), 255–280. Knill, C., Christoph, K., & Fellésdal, A. (2001). The Europeanisation of national administrations: Patterns of institutional change and persistence. Cambridge University Press. Kohler-Koch, B. (Ed.). (2003). Linking EU and national governance. OUP Oxford. Lawton, T. (1999). Governing the skies: Conditions for the Europeanisation of airline policy. Journal of Public Policy, 19(1), 91–112. Lodge, J. (1994). Transparency and democratic legitimacy. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 32(3), 343–368. Lodge, J. (2003). Transparency and EU Governance: Balancing openness with security. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 11(1), 95–117. Lord, C. (1998). Democracy in the European Union. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Prepp. Loughlin, J. (1996). Representing regions in Europe: The Committee of the Regions. Regional and Federal Studies, 6(2), 147–165. Luijten-Lub, A., Huisman, J., & van der Wende, M. C. (2005). Conclusions, reflections and recommendations. In J. Huisman ve M. C. van der Wende (eds.), On cooperation and competition II. Institutional responses to internationalisation, Europeanisation and globalisation (ACA papers on international cooperation). Bonn, Germany: Lemmens, 235–241. Magnette, P. (2003). European governance and civic participation: beyond elitist citizenship? Political Studies, 51(1), 144–160. Massey, A. (2004). Modernisation As Europeanisation: The impact of the European Union on public administration. Policy Studies, 25(1), 19–33. Mazzucelli, C. (2007). The French Rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty: Implications of a National Debate for Europe’s Union. European Union Miami Analysis (May issue). Michalowitz, I. (2004). Analysing structured paths of lobbying behaviour: Why discussing the involvement of ‘Civil Society’Does not Solve the EU’s democratic deficit. Journal of European Integration, 26(2), 145–173. Mosher, J. S., & Trubek, D. M. (2003). Alternative approaches to governance in the EU: EU social policy and the European employment strategy. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(1), 63–88. Nasr, S. V. R. (2005). The Rise of” Muslim Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 16(2), 13–27. Nelissen, N. (2002). The administrative capacity of new types of governance. Public Organization Review, 2(1), 5–22. Neyer, J. (2004). Explaining the unexpected: Efficiency and effectiveness in European decisionmaking. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), 19–38. OECD. (1997). SIGMA Papers no. 17: Administrative Procedures and the Supervision of Administration in Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia and Albania. OECD. (1998). SIGMA Papers no. 23: Preparing Public Administrations for the European Administrative Space (CCNM/SIGMA/PUMA(98)39). OECD. (1999). SIGMA Papers no. 27: European Principles for Public Administration (CCNM/SIGMA/PUMA(99)44/REV1). Okçu, M. (2005). Kamu Yönetiminin Avrupalıla¸sması. In H. Arıkan & M. Kar (Eds.), Türkiye˙ skileri: Siyasal, Bölgesel ve Ekonomik Boyutlar (pp. 141–159). Ankara: Seçkin Avrupa Birli˘gi Ili¸ Publications.

64

1 Europeanization Processes

Olsen, J. P. (2003). Towards a European administrative space. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(4), 506–531. Paavola, J. (2004). Protected areas governance and justice: Theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Environmental Sciences, 1(1), 59–77. Papadimitriou, D. G. (2002). Exporting Europeanisation: EU enlargement, the twinning exercise and administrative reform in Eastern Europe. ECPR, Joint Sessions, 22–27. Peters, A. (2005). The European Ombudsman and the European constitution. Common Market Law Review, 42(3), 697–743. Peters, B. G. (2001). From change to change: Patterns of continuing administrative reform in Europe. Public Organization Review, 1(1), 41–54. Peterson, J. (1995). Decision-making in the European Union: Towards a framework for analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(1), 69–93. Radaelli, C. M. (2003). The Europeanization of Public Policy. In K. Featherstone & C. Radaelli (Eds.), Politics of Europeanization (pp. 27–56). New York: Oxford University Press. Randma-Liv, T., & Connaughton, B. (2005). Public administration as a field of study: divergence or convergence in the light of Europeanization?, Trames, 9(59/54), 348–36. Risse, T., Cowles, M. G., & Caporaso, J. (2001). Europeanization and domestic change: Introduction. In M. G. Cowles, J. Caporaso, & T. Risse (Eds.), Transforming Europe (pp. 1–20). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Rutgers, M. R., & Schreurs, P. (2000). Briefly noted from Europe: Discovering the European idea of public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 22(3), 621–629. Smismans, S. (2000). The European Economic and Social Committee: towards deliberative democracy via a functional assembly. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 4(12). Su, H. (2004). Can constitution–building advance European integration? A three–pillared institutionalist analysis. Journal of European Integration, 26(4), 353–378. Thym, D. (2002). The Schengen Law: a challenge for legal accountability in the European Union. European law journal, 8(2), 218–245. Van Der Knaap, P. (1994). The committee of the regions: The outset of a ‘Europe of the regions’? Regional and Federal Studies, 4(2), 86–100. Von Kyaw, D. (2004). The EU after the agreement on a constitutional treaty. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9, 455–458. Walters, W., & Haahr, J. H. (2005). Governmentality and political studies. European Political Science, 4(3), 288–300.

Chapter 2

Administrative Procedures

The word “procedure” is defined in the dictionary of the Turkish Language Institution as “the regular way to reach a goal, the way it is pursued, the method, style, and the way to achieve a certain result in science, the way followed by certain principles and rules”.1 As a legal term, it is defined as the provisions and the paths to be followed in the preparation, execution or enforcement of a legislative or administrative act. Administrative procedures, on the other hand, can be defined as mandatory codes and rules of procedure in order to satisfy common needs and to realize public interest (Kanligöz 1996: 177). In addition, the term “administrative procedure” refers to the provision of forms of emergence or enforcement of rights, obligations or legal situations (Akyılmaz 1998: 35). As a matter of fact, being subject to administrative procedure provides assurance to those who are administered (Gözler 2010: 327). From the beginning of an administrative process to its finalization and notification to the concerned, it is of critical importance to determine the procedures to be followed by each party (Hondu 1998: 260). On the other hand, a procedure is considered as the assurance of the content. Without the procedure, it is not possible for the content to be legal and correct (Özay 1998: 276). One of the most important provisions of Mecelle, the Ottoman civil code, is that the procedure is essential (the method comes before the content), which shows how important the form and procedure is for the health of a process. Thus, it can be deduced that every path leading to the purpose is not legitimate; on the contrary, the means are as important as the ends. What is essential here is to ensure that an executive activity is carried out in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. In this context, it is very important for the democratization of the public administration to prevent the administration holding the executive power to avoid responsibility or to use its discretionary power unlawfully. In this chapter, the concept of administrative procedure will be explained and the importance of the bureaucracy in terms of control of administrative processes will be evaluated. Then the relationship between democracy and administrative procedure will be discussed. After mentioning the administrative procedure regimes in the 1 http://sozluk.gov.tr/.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. Demir, Public Management Reform in Turkey, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5_2

65

66

2 Administrative Procedures

world and the tradition of “Adab” in Turkish administrative culture, the Draft Law on General Administrative Procedure will be examined and the importance of this draft in terms of achieving a more democratic public administration will be addressed.2

2.1 The Concept of Administrative Procedures In the previous chapter it was discussed that, despite the attempts to increase public involvement in decision-making processes, public participation in the executive actions remains limited. Actually the government, which essentially represents the executive function of policy production, often (not always—exceptions are examples of technocrat ministers who are not members of the legislature) reflects the preferences of voters. However, executive power is used not only by the government but also by the administration. According to the constitution of the Republic of Turkey (Articles 123 to 137) administration is part of the executive. One of the most important tools used to control the bureaucracy is administrative procedures. Administrative procedures can be defined as “the process in which public administration, public institutions and public organizations, as well as private law persons performing public services on behalf of the public bodies, shall be subject to all kinds of proceedings in order to have legal results in performing administrative activities” (Özcan 2006: 78–79). It is possible to improve the political control of the bureaucracy through administrative procedures that include the principles and procedures to be applied in the conduct of administrative procedures. The most important reasons are listed in the following: • Well-defined procedures direct public officials to implement the policies preferred by the executive. • Administrative procedures ensure that the administration acts in accordance with the law in its activities. • Administrative procedures also allow democratization by granting the people the right to participate in the decision-making process. • They help to resolve administrative procedures between citizens and administration without resorting to the judiciary.3 • Administrative procedures envisage two types of supervision, namely ex-ante and ex-post, which can be defined as follows:

2 “Adab”

is examined by Findley in his detailed studies on the Ottoman bureaucratic culture. See Findley (1980, 2014). 3 This last point is particularly important; this feature of administrative procedural laws is also in line with the pro-active approach of the new public administration: solving the problems of the administration on the spot before it creates negative consequences would result in less waste of time and resources than when the problem was solved by corrective action after the emergence of the problem.

2.1 The Concept of Administrative Procedures

67

• Ex-ante supervision: The legislature takes supervisory decisions and engages in supervisory activities before the relevant administrative action is taken. These measures aimed at increasing the accountability of the bureaucracy can be considered in three groups (Balla 1998: 664): • Certain voters can be given the right to speak. Interest groups active in the process of enactment should also be represented in the structure of the institution providing the relevant public service so as to avoid changes in the policy which can undermine the original purpose. • Administrative procedures increase the likelihood that bureaucrats can integrate voter preferences into institutional policies. • Administrative procedures protect the interests of voter groups that benefit from the service over time. When their preferences change, so do bureaucratic decisions and policy outcomes. • Ex-post supervision: This involves an examination and/or investigation of policies that are currently in force or have been in force for a while. The adoption of new laws includes more punitive practices, such as reducing the institution’s budget. The Council of State Law, Administrative Jurisdiction Procedures Act and the Regional Administrative Courts Act in force in Turkey today provide this kind of supervision (O˘gurlu 2005: 79). The purpose of enacting the rules of administrative procedure is to provide clarity, self-evident quality, impartiality, effectiveness of and participation in the operations and actions of the administration (Gözübüyük and Tan 1998: 337). In this way, it is aimed to ensure that public administration works within the framework of certain rules, that the conduct of public service is regular and that the administration respects human rights (Odyakmaz 1998: 3).

2.1.1 The Relation Between Democracy and Administrative Procedures The democratic system of government is subject to principles such as the government is based on the consent of the ruled, the individual is the basis of all legitimate government activities and the dignity of the individual must be maintained. This system requires the most basic administrative procedure mechanisms to implement these principles. This means that, even if the theoretical foundations are based on democratic principles, a government system without an administrative mechanism for the realization of these principles cannot be regarded as fully democratic (Levitan 1943). Legislative and judicial bodies have legal arrangements that indicate the procedures to be followed in their activities; for example, the actions and procedures of the Parliament are bound to certain procedures in the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. However, a general administrative procedure law according to which the activities of the administration in Turkey would comply with has still not been codified, which is a serious deficiency. This not only prevents the efficient

68

2 Administrative Procedures

and effective production of public service; it also causes the public to remain unprotected in the pre-judicial process before the administration (Odyakmaz 1998: 2).4 However, after the Second World War, democratization currents, which were effective in most parts of the world, showed that not only the assemblies and courts, but also the administration should work according to the principle of openness (Duran 1998: 28). As a matter of fact, the executive and its administrative apparatus use the sovereign power of the state on behalf of the people. On the other hand, while the legislative and the judiciary are carrying out only transactions, the administration acts beyond these transactions (Özay 1998: 276); as a result, the citizen is more involved in his/her daily work with administration than the legislative and the judiciary. As a matter of fact, the most serious threats against human rights and freedoms have always come from executive and administrative authorities (Özkan 1998). Therefore, there is reason to think that the law that regulates the relations between the citizen and the administration should be more important and comprehensive than the law that regulates the relations between the citizen and the other branches of government. The main feature that distinguishes the modern democratic government from governments that were only seemingly based on democratic principles in the past is the administrative mechanism which allows for the realization of basic democratic doctrines. The most important contribution of modern democracy was not the development of material law, but the development of procedural law, which involves the application of broad philosophical principles by concrete administrative mechanisms (Levitan 1943). In addition to being a procedural issue, compliance with administrative law is also closely related to public administration problems such as democracy, openness and participation (O˘gurlu 2005: 73). Another feature that the administrative procedure should have is flexibility. In this context, it is expressed that the limitations of the administrative procedure should be aimed at respecting human rights, ensuring legal security and compliance with law, and preventing arbitrary treatment. Detailed regulations that may go beyond this may damage the functioning of the administration: Since the general administrative procedure is directed towards the realization of the public interest in the best possible way with the personal benefits of the administered, the general procedure norms set out give the administration only the general motives and enlighten the way it will proceed. The rest should be left to creative and free activity, either on the basis of individual management norms or on the basis of knowledge gained from the principles of the general administrative procedure (Azrak 1967: 74).

4 This

Draft.

deficiency is also pointed out in the justification section of the Administrative Procedure

2.1 The Concept of Administrative Procedures

69

2.1.2 Examples of Administrative Procedure In several countries around the world, efforts have been made to link the actions and procedures of the administration to certain rules, as a result of which general administrative procedure laws have been enacted. When the examples in various countries are examined, a general tendency is observed that the regulatory procedures of the administration, administrative contracts and the internal procedures of the administration are excluded from the scope of the administrative procedure. However, it is also understood that administrative procedures include the preparatory actions before the establishment of individual administrative procedures, the authorities and duties of individuals relating to the establishment of administrative procedures, ways of application against administrative procedures and the invalidity, abolition or modification of the administrative procedure. Some of these examples are briefly discussed below.

2.1.2.1

Administrative Procedure Regime in the USA

In the USA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 501 et seq) has been governing the processes followed by federal administrative institutions since 1946. This act applies to all federal institutions except those explicitly excluded (e.g. the military). However, although the law has a broad scope, it is generally recognized that it allows various institutions to take advantage of a certain degree of flexibility in fulfilling their responsibilities (Yackee and Yackee 2009). The American Federal Administrative Procedure Law of 1946, which was enacted after the Second World War, was based on the idea of bringing together the scattered administrative procedure rules and gathering them under a single roof (Akyılmaz 1998: 35). In fact, it is argued in the literature that this law acts as a constitution and includes guiding principles that govern the administration on various issues, especially the discretionary power (Edles 2000: 543). The USA, which has a long-established democratic tradition, has seen that the Administrative Procedure Act, which was issued as a package of measures against arbitrary government, does not ensure democracy in administration alone. As a result, the Freedom of Information Act was passed, which grants a general public right to individuals wishing to obtain information from federal government agencies. Schwartz refers to a 1950 judgment of the American Supreme Court: In the United States v. Morton Salt Co. (338.4.5, 638, 444 (1950)), the Administrative Procedure Act was shaped against the invisible part of the administrative procedure, an obstacle to administrators who probably did not think of the excesses that the Legislature had not considered in establishing administrative units. It established a protective mechanism against arbitrary administrative infringements on special rights (Schwartz 1962: 134).

The purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act is to set the minimum procedural standards that federal institutions have to follow. The law distinguishes between two main administrative functions: the rule-making of institutions and provision by public agencies. Administrative rule-making resembles the activities of the

70

2 Administrative Procedures

legislature, whereas administrative provision is similar to the actions of judicial bodies. This distinction in the law has long been the subject of heated academic debate. Some scholars (e.g. Rubin 2003; Morrison 1986) argue that this duality is unnecessarily rigid and cannot always provide optimal procedures for institutions whereas others (e.g. Balla 1998; Allen 1986) assert that this distinction reflects well the basic functions of administrative institutions.

2.1.2.2

Administrative Procedure Regime in Spain

In 1889, the first law in Spain to bind the actions and procedures of the administration to a procedure was enacted. Then in 1958, another administrative procedure law was passed, which affected most Latin American countries. However, Law No. 30/1992 on the Common Administrative Procedure has a very special place for the administrative system of Spain. The law establishes the elements of a common administrative procedure and standards that apply to all public administrations and sets out the minimum guarantees that citizens must have in the process of administrative actions. However, this regulation does not remove the authority of the state, autonomous communities or local authorities to establish specific procedures. The assurances specified in the Law No. 30/1992 must be taken into consideration when exercising these powers (Akyılmaz 1998).

2.1.2.3

Administrative Procedure Regime in France

“The Law on the Reasons for Administrative Procedures and the Regulation on the Relations between Administration and the Public in France” dated 1979 is known as the first regulation on administrative procedures. However, the regulations regarding administrative procedure in France are usually criticized for being rather scattered and superficial (O˘gurlu 2005: 76). The structuring of public administration in Turkey and the establishment of administrative jurisdiction of the institutions and rules are based on the French example. Starting from the Tanzimat period, the French system has been influential on Turkish public administration. From the perspective of the administrative regime, it is seen that in Turkey the French administrative regime system was adopted where the administration is subject to a separate law from private law and administrative cases are heard in separate courts (Gözler 2010: 26–31). The French influence, especially in administrative law, is manifested in a number of areas such as the provincial system, municipal government and central–local relations, especially in terms of administrative tutelage procedures. In the French administrative regime, the rules of administrative law are not codified in a single text of the law and are scattered in various laws and other legal arrangements; as a result, the administrative procedure is also dispersed. As a result of the French influence in Turkey, there are provisions in various laws relating to administrative procedures, but no general administrative procedure law exists so far.

2.1 The Concept of Administrative Procedures

71

2.1.3 The European Code of Good Administrative Behavior The European Code of Good Administrative Behavior was issued by the European Ombudsman in order to explain in more detail the meaning of the right to good governance in practice as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was declared at the Nice summit of 2000. Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union defines the right to good governance as follows: 1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. 2. This right includes: (a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken; (b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy; (c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. 3. Every person has the right to have the Union make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the member states. 4. Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language. The Code of Good Administrative Behavior consists of 27 items. In these articles, principles related to non-discrimination (Article 5), proportionality (Article 6), abuses (Article 7), impartiality and independence (Article 8), objectivity (Article 9), justice (Article 9, 11), courtesy (Article 12), replying to letters in the language written by the citizen (Article 13), acknowledgment of receipt and identification of the authorized officer (Article 14), obligation to transfer the matter to the competent unit of the institution (Article 15), the right to defense, rest and to make a declaration (Article 17), notification of the reasons for the decisions (Article 18), showing the ways of appeals (Article 19), rules to be followed in the notification of the decision (e.g. by writing to the other parties before the decision is taken; information protection (Article 21), information requests (Article 22), requests for public access to documents (Article 23), adequate records (Article 24), right to apply to the European Ombudsman (Article 26)) are addressed. The Code of Good Administrative Behavior complements the principles of reliability and predictability, openness and transparency, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, which are regarded as the basic tenets of public administration in Europe (Demir 2009: 52–53). It will be much easier to implement the principles enumerated if they are subject to certain legally regulated procedures.

72

2 Administrative Procedures

2.2 Administrative Procedure in Turkey It was argued above that the tradition of “Adab” is important for understanding the administrative procedure that prevailed in the classical period of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the basis of this tradition is founded on Islamic procedures (Heper 2006: 58). In the classical period, Enderun, the Ottoman administrative school founded in the court, was the most basic institution that sustained this tradition; with the modernization, civilian bureaucracy took over this task (Heper 2006: 74). According to Findley, the types of knowledge in the Islamic world are divided into four categories: the rational knowledge of the ulama,5 the Gnosticism of Sufis (lore), the philosophical-scientific culture (philosophy) and the worldly written culture (adab). Findley states that bureaucracy is the most widely practiced field, and that most of the representatives of this culture are clerks. This tradition was based on highly perfect and complicated rules. Due to the vocabulary, numerous calligraphy styles and mixed stereotypes used in the preparation of official documents, the effort to specialize in this artificial literary language of Arabic–Persian–Turkish was certainly much greater than the effort required to raise clerks in other, especially European cultures (Findley 1996: 36–37). However, the method mentioned here is more concerned with the education of state officials and the knowledge of correspondence, and there is no regulatory aspect of citizen relations with the administration in a legal state as understood today. The essence of the procedure was found in Mecelle, which was compiled by a commission under the chairmanship of Ahmet Cevdet Pasha between 1868 and 1876 and used as a legal basis in the last period of the Ottoman Empire: “the method comes before the content”. This provision, which means that the procedure is more important than the essence of any administrative action, implies that the work will not be legitimate unless a certain procedure is observed; thus, the Machiavellian conception that every path leading to purpose is acceptable is rejected. Today, according to the Turkish administrative law, violation of the following principles (primary procedural disabilities) results in the cancellation of the procedure (Gözler 2010: 338–342): (i) failure to consult the relevant authority or change the draft resolution after consultation in cases where compulsory consultation procedure is foreseen; (ii) non-observance in cases where it is necessary to consult for an appropriate opinion; (iii) non-observance of the conflict procedure in cases stipulated by law6 ; and (iv) failure to comply with rules that may change the direction of the transaction. These are the fundamental rules of law established to protect the rights of those who are governed; these rules are handled under the headings such as the right to petition, the right to be heard, the right to participate, the right to benefit from 5 Ulama

is a term used to indicate the people who interpret and transmit Islamic knowledge; they form a distinct and (mostly) respected group in the society. 6 Civil servants (Article 129 of the Constitution and Article 130 of the Law on Civil Servants No. 657) and students (Article 16 of the Student Disciplinary Regulations) must have their defense taken before disciplinary action. In case of an investigation by the Competition Board, the defense of the parties concerned must be taken (Article 43 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054).

2.2 Administrative Procedure in Turkey

73

information sources, the implied rejection and justification, the application of paths and the establishment of an objection.

2.2.1 What Does the General Administrative Law Draft Offer? At present there are a number of regulations relating to administrative procedures in Turkey, but they are individual in nature and dispersed in appearance. In 1984, an authority law was enacted which envisaged that this field be regulated by a decree, and in 1988 another authority law was passed on the same subject, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court. In the same year, the Regulation on the Establishment, Duties and Work of Governor and District Bureaus was issued and subjects such as authority and correspondence rules, places where the petitions would be submitted and the working procedures of the boards were arranged (Azrak 1998: 86–7). In 2009, as an example of the individual and dispersed efforts, the Regulation on Water Pollution Control and a Communication on Administrative Procedures was published by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. In order to implement the principles stated in the above-mentioned Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Resolution of 1977 on the Protection of the Person against Administrative Procedures and in the European Code of Good Administrative Behavior issued by the European Ombudsman in 2001, The Draft Law on Administrative Procedure was updated in 2008 by the Ministry of Justice and sent to the Prime Ministry. The draft consisted of 55 articles. The principles laid down in the draft administrative procedure law are of secondary-complementary nature, meaning that they are to be implemented only in the absence of specific law provisions. These principles can be grouped into four categories: • Principles for the administrative authority (self-sufficient and adequate research by the administration, invariance of the rules of authority, impartiality of the administration, directness); • Principles for the fundamental rights of the individual (the right to be heard, the right to access information sources, the legal assistance and representation, the justification of administrative proceedings and the paths of recourse to the procedure, as expressed in the 1977 decision of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers); • Principles for administrative action (reply to applications, notification of the action, execution of the action, stability in administrative action, withdrawal, modification and abolition of administrative action, irreversibility of administrative action, parallelism in procedures); and • Principles for the implementation of judicial decisions (activating the prosecutor’s office in administrative judiciary, authorizing prosecutors to execute judicial decisions, taking judicial decisions in the civil registry, taking judicial decisions at the establishment of administrative proceedings, responsibility of the public official who refrains from implementing the judicial decision).

74

2 Administrative Procedures

Since the subject of the section is related to democratization of public administration and protection of the fundamental rights of the citizen, the focus will be on the provisions of the draft law examining the relations of citizens with the administration. These are the right to petition, the right to be heard, the right to participate, the right to benefit from information sources, implied rejection and justification, the application of the administrative action and objection.

2.2.1.1

The Right to Petition

The right to petition is stipulated in Article 82 of the 1924 Constitution as the right to be notified and complain. Later, in 1927, a request committee was established within the Turkish Parliament. The right to petition was mentioned in the 1961 Constitution for the first time. The 1961 Constitution regulated the right to petition in the section on political rights and duties. In the 1982 Constitution, the right to petition was regulated in the section on political rights and duties as in the 1961 Constitution. Article 74 of the 1982 Constitution regulated the right to petition and bore the title “Petition, information and the right to apply to the ombudsman”. In addition, Article 40 of the Constitution in 2001 was amended to include the additional phrase that “the State shall specify the authorities to which the persons concerned shall apply and the duration of the proceedings”. This amendment imposes obligations on the authorities exercising powers for any state action that gives rise to judgments and consequences. In addition to the constitutional provisions, the Law No. 3071 on the Exercise of the Right to Petition was enacted in 1984. The objective of this law was declared as “to regulate the usage of written application of Turkish citizens and foreigners residing in Turkey about their wishes and complaints on public authorities directed to the Turkish parliament and other authorities”. Today, one of the most common complaints is that frequent violations occur in the exercise of the right to petition, which is one of the basic human rights provided by the rule of law. The Administrative Procedure Law is expected to correct the deficiencies in the Petition Act No. 3071. For example, the petition law does not specify what actions the administration will take on petitions. In practice, public officials receive the petition and record it later instead of recording it at the time of the receipt. Therefore, it is not possible to provide the citizen with a document indicating the registration number and date, which will prove that the petition has been received and processed. It is also unclear what can be done if the relevant authority does not receive the application. In this case, notarization of public institutions through the notary in the form of withdrawal is a serious deficiency (Yıldırım 1998: 248–9). Article 8 of the bill introduces regulations regarding the petition. Accordingly, the petitions are registered in the applications and the date and number of registration is written on the petitions. It is also foreseen that the contracting authority may issue and issue receipts to the applicants or their representatives, provided that they are present. In the case of applications made by mail, if the applicant applies to that administration personally and requests a receipt, then it is given to him. Thus, it is made impossible for the administration not to process the petition.

2.2 Administrative Procedure in Turkey

2.2.1.2

75

The Right to be Heard

Article 25 of the Draft Law on Administrative Procedure introduces a process through which individuals can participate democratically in making administrative decisions: “The right to be heard requires the concerned parties to make an oral statement at a meeting or to be held by the administration in order to defend their rights, freedoms or legal benefits before an administrative act is made, to make witnesses to the administration, to submit all kinds of information and documents to the administration.” However, in the second paragraph of this article, it is said that the administration has discretion in giving the right to be heard to the persons concerned before the administrative process and that the administration is given a discretionary power to prevent the expected benefit from this article. In order to prevent arbitrary acts of the legislative administration, it was stated that regulations on which administrative procedures shall be granted are to be enacted (paragraph 3). Article 26 of the bill stipulates that the parties concerned may support their claims through witnesses and experts. In this way, the right to defense can also be exercised more effectively: During the exercise of the right to be heard and during the meeting, witnesses can be heard and experts can be consulted. The witnesses and experts may be present during the hearing and ask questions. For this purpose, the administration shall inform the persons concerned in writing at least seven days in advance of the place, date and time of the meetings with the witnesses and experts. Article 27 of the Draft Bill also regulates the effective use of the right to be heard, and a meeting is foreseen by the administrator which will be determined by the administration.

2.2.1.3

The Right to Participate

Article 28 regulates the right to participate. This article stipulates that public information and participation is essential before any regulatory action directly affecting public works, zoning practices, property and environmental rights, and cultural and natural property, provided that they concern the common good of the local people. The article provides that the transactions involving the subjects listed above shall be disclosed to the public within 30 days for the purpose of reviewing and presenting opinions. It is foreseen that participation and democratization will be ensured in this manner. This procedure is reminiscent of public participation meetings introduced in the environmental impact assessment regulation mentioned in the previous chapter; however, it should be noted that the recent amendments to this regulation have narrowed the scope of the areas requiring public consultation, so that subsequent regulations do not produce a similar result for the General Administrative Procedure Act. Another regulation on the right to participate is provided in Article 29 of the bill; accordingly, it is envisaged that relevant members of the public can attend the meetings of the boards of decision-making bodies, with the exception of matters relating to national defense, national security, national economic and foreign trade policies, the conduct of international relations, confidentiality of private life, and unfair competition and gain; however, the Council of Ministers has the authority to

76

2 Administrative Procedures

determine which board meetings will be open for participation in order not to create an excessive workload on the administration and to cause delays in the proceedings.

2.2.1.4

The Right to Benefit from Sources of Information

Law No. 4982 on the right to information was adopted in 2003 to regulate the principles and procedures for the exercise of the right to information by persons. In 2004, the Implementing Regulation of the Right to Information Act was published in the Official Gazette. Article 1 of the Law No. 4982 on the right to information states that the purpose of this law is to regulate the principles and procedures for the exercise of the right to information in accordance with the principles of equality, impartiality and openness as required by democratic and transparent governance. In this sense, the right to information is considered as an essential element of democracy. It is not possible for management systems that do not have the right to information to be transparent or to maintain their transparency for a long time (Eken 2005: 104). In Article 2, where the scope of the Law is explained, public institutions and organizations and professional organizations that qualify as public institutions are included. Private and non-governmental organizations are excluded from the scope of the Law. In addition to the written notification to be made pursuant to Article 125 of the Constitution, the procedures and actions of the administration shall be published in electronic medium in Article 30 of the draft administrative procedure law. In this way, it is aimed to increase the participation, supervision and knowledge of the people regarding the administrative processes. According to the last paragraph of Article 31, the administration shall determine and declare the stages from the beginning to the end of the works within the scope of its duties and the periods foreseen to be completed by the regulation to be issued; thus, it shall determine the stages in which the transactions to be carried out and the maximum periods to be used in each stage and notify the relevant parties. The objective of this procedure is to improve the transparency of the administration. In the 32nd article, the form requirements of the administrative procedure are stated, and thus, an effort is made to ensure that the relevant persons have all kinds of information about the transaction.7

2.2.1.5

Implicit Rejection and Justification

It is widely believed that a 60-day implied rejection period is required in the administrative judiciary. However, this procedure is frequently abused by public institutions and leads to loss of rights; and it also increases the workload of administrative judicial authorities. This practice is in breach of both Article 74 of the Constitution which 7 According

to Dursun, the Law No. 4982 regulates the duty of the administration to provide information, not the right of citizens to obtain information due to the abundance of the exceptions it brings. The right to information needs to be regulated separately in the administrative procedure bill. See Dursun (2007a, b).

2.2 Administrative Procedure in Turkey

77

obliges the relevant authority to notify the petitioner in writing of the result of the relevant applications and Article 7 of the Petition Law which provides for the conclusion of the applications within 30 days at the latest.8 In addition, the law on the right to information, adopted in 2003, stipulates that if the application for information is rejected, the reason for this rejection has to be stated. Consistent with the tendency to extend the requirement to provide justification prevailing in the twenty-first century (Gözler 2010: 331), the implicit rejection is referred to in Article 11 only as an administrative trial procedure; but the administration is obliged to respond to applications in all cases: as regards the deadline referred to in the last paragraph, failure to respond to the application within the specified periods does not relieve the administrative authority of its obligation to respond within 60 days if the procedure requires an investigation, and within 30 days otherwise. It is also stated that in the event of partial or total rejection of the applicant’s request, the reason for rejection will be explained in the established administrative process. Article 33 of the bill bears the title “Justification of administrative procedure”, which stipulates that each administrative procedure must be justified, and that the material and legal reasons must be clearly and comprehensibly written in the transaction text communicated to the concerned parties. Justification, which is a requirement of the conception of the rule of law, is the best way to protect the citizen from arbitrary actions and procedures of the administration. The second paragraph of the article provides for justification of all transactions, except those listed as arbitrary: transactions carried out in accordance with the request of the concerned, transactions that do not affect the rights of those concerned, regulatory transactions, discretionary transactions and urgent actions.

2.2.1.6

Demonstration of Application Paths

Article 11 of the bill imposes an obligation on the administrative authorities, judicial remedies and periods to be applied if the request is rejected (in principle, the amendment made in 2001 also provides for the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Constitution). In addition, Article 34 of the bill states that in the individual transaction text, the administration has to specify which administrative authority, judicial authority or non-judicial dispute resolution procedures can be used as well as their duration. Thus, another important principle of the rule of law is that the administrative authority should determine the process clearly and comprehensively. This provision directly affects the rights of the person concerned in both defense and prosecution. The regulation provided for by this article is also a constitutional right: in its proceedings, the State has to specify which legal remedies and authorities shall apply to the persons concerned as well as their duration (Article 40).

8 Before

the 2003 amendment, this period was 60 days.

78

2.2.1.7

2 Administrative Procedures

Objection Procedures

Article 36 of the Draft regulates the concept of objection. It is clear that one of the most important characteristics of a democratic policy is the ability to appeal against the actions and procedures of the administration. Essentially, Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 introduces provisions for objection and states that the abrogation, withdrawal, alteration or introduction of an administrative proceeding may be requested from the superior authority, or from the authority which has performed the procedure. However, the Draft Law on General Administrative Procedures added that these decisions can be appealed to the board. The time limit for the decision of objections is the 30-day period specified in the Petition Act. It is also concluded that this objection will stop the period of filing a lawsuit in accordance with administrative proceeding procedure law (IYUK). In order to prevent the issue of objection from bringing an additional burden of work and personnel to public institutions, provincial and district administrative boards, which have served as administrative jurisdictions in the past, can be put into operation as appeal boards. In the capital city, appeal boards can be established in which law, personnel and inspection units are brought together. It is possible to apply the same procedures in municipalities as well (Yıldırım 1998: 252).

2.2.2 General Evaluation of the Draft Law The changes brought by the draft law on administrative procedures, such as the right to petition, the right to be heard, the right to participate, the right to benefit from information sources, implicit rejection and justification, the application paths and objections, can be considered as positive steps in terms of democratization of the administration. In addition to these issues, the draft administrative procedure claims to rectify some deficiencies in the Law on Administrative Procedure. However, the draft law itself is not free from shortcomings. These can be listed as follows: • The provisions for the special administrative procedure in the laws are reserved. In this case, tax, expropriation, collection of public receivables, protection of the environment, police duties and powers, which greatly affect the daily life of the citizen, and many such transactions are also outside the scope of this law. In addition, many administrative procedures performed within the Turkish Armed Forces are outside the scope of this law. • It is certain that these administrative procedures will bring a serious workload on public institutions. For example, according to Article 11 of the draft, if the requested action requires an investigation, it must be notified to the applicant within 30 days. It is understood that the administration should write to the applicant twice in cases where the research is required: The first report should be written in the first 30 days, and the second should be written in 60 days.

2.2 Administrative Procedure in Turkey

79

• Article 45 of the bill stipulates that if the subject of the dispute is related to the receipt of money, the record of conciliation will be based on the prosecution; however, it does not seem possible to apply this provision due to the principles of public finance that prevent the prosecution of public institutions. • There are doubts as to the applicability of the provisions of reconciliation (Article 39) and negotiation (Article 40), which are prescribed in Chap. 6, “Procedures for pre-judicial settlement of disputes”, and that these procedures may in fact replace administrative remedies. Administrative procedure is an important instrument for the realization of the rule of law. Expropriation Act in Turkey, Tax Law, Public Procurement Law, Public Procurement Law, Law on the Procedure of Collection of Public Receivables, and Law of Police Duties and Authorities must comply with the administrative procedures, and procedural system which applies to all administrative processes is needed. The issue of administrative procedure was dealt with under general law in countries such as the USA, Spain, Italy, Austria and Germany in the period following Second World War. In Turkey the efforts to create a general administrative procedure law began with the international symposium organized in 1998. When the process is completed, this law is expected to create positive results in terms of adding a more democratic nature to the public administration in Turkey. The absence of an administrative procedure law in Turkey, and the fact that administrative procedural rules and principles in the administration process are based largely on administrative jurisprudence has created a de facto situation. It is a requirement of the principle of the rule of law to consider the procedures to be followed by the administration within the scope of law and to strengthen these obligations through legal sanctions. One of the most important reasons for the current draft administrative procedure law is to ensure clarity and transparency in administrative affairs. Another important objective is the effective, efficient and uninterrupted provision of public services by the pre-determined procedures of the administration and the protection of the citizens against the actions and procedures of the administrative bodies. Thus, it is aimed to fully implement the principle of definite administration and to eliminate one of the obstacles to the realization of the rule of law. However, it is critical to understand the reasons behind the failure to enact the law after 13 years of its drafting. An overview of the last two decades of public administration reform taking place in Turkey suggests some possible reasons. First of all, the fact that the administration is a very large organization makes it very difficult to prepare a general law for all the actions and practices of this apparatus. As stated in the draft, at least the provisions of the special administrative procedure contained in the law are reserved. In this case, transactions envisaged in taxation and expropriation services, collection of public receivables, protection of the environment, and police duties and authorities, all of which affect the daily life of the citizens to a large extent, are excluded from the scope of this law. The second reason is that administrative law has a very comprehensive legislation. Since administrative law is not codified into a single text unlike commercial law or civil law, there is a need to screen numerous laws and regulations one by one, and to remove and correct many provisions that

80

2 Administrative Procedures

are not in line with the general administrative procedure bill. The third reason is that bureaucrats who work on this bill are not supposed to be a fan of a bill that will restrict their authority. As a result, so far the process has been slower than expected.

References Akyılmaz, B. (1998). Yeni Bir ˙Idari Usul Kanunu Örne˘gi: ˙Ispanya Kamu ˙Idarelerinin Hukuki Rejimi ˙ ve Genel ˙Idari Usul Hakkında Kanun. Idari Usul Kanunu Hazırlı˘gı Uluslararası Sempozyumu, 17–18. Allen, W. H. (1986). The Durability of the Administrative Procedure Act. Virginia Law Review Vol. 72, No. 2, The Administrative Procedure Act: A Fortieth Anniversary Symposium (March 1986), 235–252. ˙ Azrak, A. Ü. (1967). Umumi ˙Idari Usul ve Kodifıkasyonu Meselesi. Istanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, C.XXXII/ 1–2, ˙Istanbul. Azrak, A. Ü. (1998). ˙Idari Usulün Kodifikasyonuna ˙Ili¸skin Sorunlar. in G. Banger ve G. Özkan ˙ (eds.) T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Idari Usul Yasası Hazırlı˘gı Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri, T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Basımevi, Ankara, 86–93. Balla, S. J. (1998). Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 663–673. ˙ Demir, F. (2009). Avrupa Idari Alanı’nın Olu¸sumu ve Yansımaları (Orta ve Do˘gu Avrupa Ülkeleri ile Türkiye Örne˘gi), Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Sakarya, Turkey. Duran, L. (1998). ˙Idari Usul ˙Ilkeleri ve Kapsadı˘gı Konular. in G. Banger and G. Özkan (eds.) T.C. ˙ Ba¸sbakanlık Idari Usul Yasası Hazırlı˘gı Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri. T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Basımevi, Ankara, 26–34. ˙Ilkeleri ile Genel ˙Idari Usul Yasası Öntasarısına Ele¸stirisel Dursun, H. (2007a). ˙Idari Usul ve Sekil ¸ ˙ Bir Yakla¸sım. Türk Idare Dergisi, March 2007, No: 454, 99–128. ˙Ilkeleri ile Genel ˙Idari Usul Yasası Öntasarısına Ele¸stirisel Dursun, H. (2007b). ˙Idari Usul ve Sekil ¸ ˙ Bir Yakla¸sım. Türk Idare Dergisi, September 2007, No: 454, 219–244. Edles, G. J. (2000). Developing a European administrative law tradition: The model of the US administrative procedure act. European Public Law, 6(4), 543–572. Eken, M. (2005). Yönetimde S¸ effaflık: Teori—Uygulama. Adapazarı: Sakarya Publications. Findley, C. V. (1980). Bureaucratic reform in the Ottoman Empire: the sublime porte, 1789–1922. Princeton University Prepp. Findley, C. (1996). Kalemiyeden Mülkiyeye: Osmanlı Memurlarının Toplumsal Tarihi (translated by: Gül Ça˘galı Güven). ˙Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Publications. Findley, C. V. (2014). Ottoman civil officialdom: A social history. Princeton University Prepp. ˙ Gözler, K. (2010). Idare Hukuku Dersleri, Updated (10th ed.). Bursa: Ekin Publications. ˙ Gözübüyük, S., ¸ & Tan, T. (1998). Idare Hukuku. Ankara: Turhan Publications. Heper, M. (2006). Türkiye’de devlet gelene˘gi. Do˘gu-Batı Publications. Hondu, S. (1998). ˙Idari Yargılama Usulü Yasasında Yer Alan ˙Idari Usuller ve Uygulaması, in ˙ G. Banger and G. Özkan (eds.) T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Idari Usul Yasası Hazırlı˘gı Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri. T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Basımevi, Ankara, 260–264. http://sozluk.gov.tr. Accessed 21 Aug 2019. Kanlıgöz, C. (1996). Katılımcı Demokrasi ya da ˙Idari Usul Kanunu Hazırlı˘gı Uluslararası Üzerine. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1–4), 167–185. Levitan, D. M. (1943). Political ends and administrative means. Public Administration Review, 3, 353–359. Morrison, A. B. (1986). The Administrative procedure act: A living and responsive law. Virginia Law Review, 72(2), 253–270.

References

81

Odyakmaz, Z. (1998). ˙Idari Usulden Beklediklerimiz. in Gürol Banger ve Gürsel Özkan (eds.) TC ˙ Ba¸sbakanlık Idari Usul Yasası Hazırlı˘gı Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri, TC Ba¸sbakanlık Basımevi, Ankara, 2–5. O˘gurlu, Y. (2005). ˙Idari Usul Yasası Neden Acil ve Zorunludur? Atatürk Üniversitesi Erzincan Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, IX(1–2), 73–88. Özay, ˙I. H. (1998). Demokratik yönetim ve yönetimde demokrasi. In G. Banger & G. Özkan (Eds.), Turkish prime ministry international symposium papers on preparation of administrative procedure law preparations (pp. 275–279). Ankara: Turkish Prime Ministry Publications. ˙ Özcan, Ö. (2006). Kamu Yönetiminde S¸ effafla¸sma ve Bunun Idari Usul Yasa Tasarısı Açısından De˘gerlendirilmesi (Unpublished PhD Thesis), Ankara University, Ankara. Özkan, G. (1998). ˙Idari Rejim Olarak Örnek Aldı˘gımız Fransa’da ˙Idari Usul ve Bilgi Edinme Hakkına ˙Ili¸skin Düzenlemeleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt:2, Sayı: I–II. Rubin, E. (2003). It’s Time to make the administrative procedure act administrative. Cornell Law Review, 2003–2004, 96–131. Schwartz, B. (1962). An introduction to American administrative law. Pitman. Yackee, J. W., & Yackee, S. W. (2009). Administrative procedures and bureaucratic performance: Is federal rule-making ossified? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 261–282. Yıldırım, T. (1998). ˙Idari Usul Yasası Kapsamında ˙Idareye Ba¸svuru. in G. Banger and G. Özkan ˙ (eds.) T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Idari Usul Yasası Hazırlı˘gı Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri, T.C. Ba¸sbakanlık Publications, Ankara, 247–253.

Chapter 3

Participatory Government

The main purpose of policy making is the formulation of a solution to handle social issues. As frequently emphasized, public policy aims to solve a problem; therefore, goals are nothing more than a description of the ideal situation when the problem is solved. After a problem has arisen, the political forces of government, parliament and bureaucracy are responsible for developing different options and solutions to solve the problem addressed by public policy. The formulation and programming phase usually results in the adoption of normative decisions that change national or international law. Such objectives must be operational and capable of guiding different actors involved in the various stages of public policy processes. These should be specific, sustainable, realistic and time-constrained measures. For example, if we take the fight against unemployment, the aim of a convincing public policy to solve this problem may be to reduce the rate of unskilled job seekers registered with National Employment Agency by 20% within three years. In traditional public policy process models, policy formulation is the stage of policy production prior to decision-making. This stage involves the identification and/or creation of a set of policy alternatives to address a problem and reduce the number of possible solutions involved in the preparation of the final policy decision. The most frequently asked questions during the policy formulation might be: What is the plan to address this problem? What are the goals and priorities? What options are available to achieve these goals? What is the benefit and cost of each option? What positive and negative externalities are there for each alternative? (Sidney 2007: 79). This approach assumes that those involved in the policy process have previously identified a problem and then proceeded to the policy agenda stage. Thus, formulating a number of alternatives involves the identification of various approaches to the problem in question and then designing specific policy instruments that make up each approach. Designing legislative and regulatory work for each alternative, calculating who and how each will affect and predicting when to show their effects are important elements of this process. Thus, policy formulation examines how actors prepare alternatives, expose a number of tools for use in this process and try to explain why some policy alternatives come up or fall off the agenda. In this context, the © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. Demir, Public Management Reform in Turkey, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5_3

83

84

3 Participatory Government

specific side of policy formulation, which is associated with other activities such as agenda-setting, definition of problems, implementation and establishment of policy coalitions, is the focus of the public policy at micro-level. The use of certain policy instruments and trends, the use of these tools, as well as the assumptions and their sources are considered. Policy formulation brings together empirical and normative: on the one hand, it proposes normative criteria for regulating trends and explaining relationships; on the other hand, it performs an evaluation of processes and materials, and takes into account their impact on a democratic society (Sidney 2007: 80). Another characteristic of the policy formulation process is that, unlike agendasetting, it does not take place in front of the public. Policy formulation takes place in government bureaucracies, in the offices of interest groups, in the chambers of parliamentary committees, in the meetings of special commissions and in the facilities of think-tank establishments, and the details are usually created by the people of the relevant institutions (Dye 2002: 40–41). In other words, it can be said that policy formulation is the work of experts; these are Kingdon’s “secret participants” or Fischer’s technocrats and “knowledge elites” (Sidney 2007: 79).

3.1 Deliberative Policy Making The policy analysis studies that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s were largely technocratic. These were tools designed especially for the management of public institutions and implemented in a narrower area. For this purpose, the field of policy analysis was shaped by a methodological framework derived from the neo-positivist/empiricist methods in the social sciences. As a result, (i) quantitative analyses are performed very carefully, (ii) the facts and values are separated from each other objectively, and (iii) the findings that can be generalized are independent of the social context in which they are valid. It has been suggested that such an approach could develop generalized information and tested solutions that could be applied to a variety of policy problems in different political contexts (Fischer 2007: 223). However, these tools have also been widely used for manipulation purposes. Both politicians and planning bureaucrats have manipulated the public to be involved in processes as a means to expand their values and powers and citizens have realized that the actors, who are the agenda of public policies, do not grant citizens a real say in order to achieve their own goals by controlling information. This disillusionment of participatory processes in the 1960s and 1970s led to other ways of thinking about theorists involved in engagement. In the late 1970s, it was observed that the theories of deliberation began to be applied to local and regional planning issues; this emerged as a process related to the acceptance of pluralism (Shmueli and Plaut 2004: 398). It is clear that deliberation and discussion are at the core of political science. It can be argued that this process starts with the recognition that there may be more than one perspective in the interpretation and understanding of social and political reality and that the policy problems caused by this may have different or even competing definitions (Fischer 2007: 224). In a similar vein, Hawkesworth (1988: 191) argued that

3.1 Deliberative Policy Making

85

due to the theoretically and essentially controversial character of empirical claims, policy analysis should aim to identify the various dimensions of the debate on specific policy issues. In addition, from the point of view of the debate and discussion, the discovery and clarification of controversial issues related to theoretical assumptions and the empirical findings of policy research have a facilitating role in political choices and democratic decision-making. Reference can also be made to Habermas who argued that collaborative and negotiative planning had a transformative effect and developed theories based on this idea. This view was originally introduced in the 1980s, but began to be widely accepted in the 1990s. These theories were the basis for the development of interactive and collaborative participation strategies. Such theories that set forth the concept of communicative rationality revealed that structured deliberations between all stakeholders would result in the production of a positive public policy (Throgmorton 1996; cited in: Shmueli and Plaut 2004: 398). Beginning in the 1990s, the term “deliberation” has gained popularity among political philosophers, public opinion researchers, public policy analysts and communication academics (Gastil 2000). Although the benefits of including the elements of deliberation in the policy-making process have been accepted by a large number of people, a theoretical argument has been developed about whether the deliberation should be conducted within or outside the government. A more traditional and conservative view argues that the deliberation should be within the government as a characteristic of representative democracy. However, there are also those who argue that deliberations can be conducted outside the government as long as they are realized in a process through mass communication. Alternatively, non-governmental deliberations may also be manifest in the form of direct citizen participation through face-to-face meetings or frequent referenda. This latter represents a transition from representative or elite-driven politics to directly citizen-led politics and is crucial for approaching the democratic ideal (Abelson et al. 2003: 241). The discussion and debate-based approaches that emerged with the strengthening of post-positivism argue that the role of political science in public matters is not in itself the answer or solution to the public problems faced by contemporary societies. Accordingly, the main task of policy sciences is to encourage political deliberation processes. Although there is a general acceptance that deliberation is important for the development of effective policies, the dominance of neo-positivist and empirical approaches in this area has made the deliberation process difficult for many years (Fischer 2007: 224). Neo-positivist and empirical opinion prevented policy analysis from increasing the quality of policy discussions in public deliberations. The strengthening of the arguments and advocacy in this way is the result of an effort to revive and reinforce the function of policy analysis. Thus, it was possible to understand both the nature of the problem and new and more effective methods for policy analysis and advice (which are important dimensions of public policy). Based on an alternative epistemological approach which believes that knowledge has emerged as a result of interaction or even conflict, these views bring together empirical and normative research in a negotiating framework. These opinions also provide a better description of what the policy-makers in the real world are doing when examining a particular problem.

86

3 Participatory Government

Deliberation is a concept that refers to a particular type of discussion which involves careful and serious weighing of the reasons that support or object to some policy recommendations. The concept of deliberation also refers to an internal process in which an individual compares reasons for or against certain actions (Fearon 1998: 63). As emphasized by this definition, in theory, deliberation can occur as a social or individual process; it involves the action of considering different perspectives and making a decision based on reasons. According to some theorists and practitioners (Monnoyer-Smith and Wojcik 2011; Boyer 2008; Saurugger and Eberwein 2009) working on the concept of deliberation, (social) deliberation has become a defining feature of the approach to participation. Collective problemsolving debates are seen as a vital element of deliberation because in this way, individuals with different backgrounds, interests and values have the opportunity of listening, understanding, convincing, and finally reaching more reasonable, knowledge-based and public-minded decisions (Abelson et al. 2003: 241).

3.1.1 Democratization of Public Policy Process As one of the first examples of citizen participation in public policy, participatory planning was carried out until the 1960s and 1970s. In these years, citizen participation processes started to develop in the USA and Western Europe. A majority of studies has focused on the development of formal participation mechanisms in the planning of public policies. These processes were carried out by a variety of tools such as rule-based and open hearings, citizen commissions, blue ribbon committees, opinion surveys and focus groups. During this period, laws were introduced in the USA on both federal and state levels of participation, as well as various city and country acts in England as a similar process at the local level (Shmueli and Plaut 2004: 397). The phenomenon of deliberation has the potential to function as an essential element of democratization. One of the most important of these is the representation of a wide range of interests, arguments and discourses in the analysis process. This is partly realized by emphasizing citizen participation which includes examining the discursive forms of the interests of citizens (Fischer 2007: 225). It is clear that the best way to know what people want and what they value is to ask them. In terms of the deliberation-oriented approach, this means that more political contribution can be made to the process of policy definition and formation. Theorists claim that policy analysts, who are more involved in the discursive and symbolic aspect of politics, help decision makers and citizens develop alternatives that represent their own needs and interests (Fischer 2007: 225). To this end, theorists and practitioners stress the importance of developing participatory democracy and participatory policy analysis techniques; in this context, it is argued that the deliberative interaction between citizens, analysts and decision makers has a vital role (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003).

3.1 Deliberative Policy Making

87

Theories of participatory and discursive democracy suggest that citizens can determine which public policies will best benefit society through discourse and communication and will be willing to follow the policies they have identified (Barber 1984). According to advocates of participatory democracy, liberalism narrowed the scope of the concept of citizenship to the extent possible and deprived it of its original democratic qualities. For a genuine democracy, the concept of citizenship must refer to an active, engaged people and a community spirit that brings meaning and democratic action to people’s lives. Communitarians such as Etzioni (2004) and Putnam (2000) take citizenship as a concept that includes voluntary activities for the community: these activities should produce most of the services that the least advantageous members of the community need from local governments. According to them, citizens are not only required to obey the law, be loyal to the state and support the leaders; citizens must also be active, competent, oppositional, leader and willing to criticize policies (Schneider and Ingram 2007: 331). In this context, it is clear that the idea of creating public policies in a participatory manner is not considered independent of the criticism of democracy. Critical approaches to liberal/classical democracy, also known as modern democracy theories, include social democracy, radical democracy, participatory democracy, critical democracy and deliberative democracy. These approaches, especially in the context of rising democratic demands, attempt to bring new explanations to state-citizen and state-civil society relations. One of the most relevant approaches, deliberative democracy, will be briefly discussed below. However, it should be noted that these approaches are fundamentally theoretical; it is imperative to examine the processes of establishing public policies in order to understand whether democracy is more responsive to rising demands for more participatory democratization.

3.1.2 The Relation Between Public Policies and Citizens It follows that citizen participation is one of the cornerstones of the democratic political process. The basic normative justification of the cause of democracy is based on the principle that management-related decisions must reflect the consent of the governed (Fischer 2003: 205). It is both the right and the obligation of the citizens to participate in public decision-making processes and to be informed about the public policies that the government intends to produce. Schneider and Ingram (2006) describe the relationship between citizenship and democracy as follows: Citizenship is about the quality of life that a society is expected to offer to its people, and there are many examples of how public policies are related to the quality of life. The concept of citizenship is also related to the quality of engagement and participation areas available to the public; public policy opens these areas to citizens and tries to control and facilitate access to them. Citizenship is a concept about the rights and privileges of people; public policies also try to identify and secure these rights and privileges. On the other hand, the concept of citizenship is related to identity and how the identity of the person is embraced by society and nation. Public policies also help to shape identity, and have an impact on

88

3 Participatory Government people’s belonging to society and on whether they are real members of society through both instrumental and symbolic methods (Schneider and Ingram 2006: 342).

The segments of society most affected by government policies are generally those with low income, less education and those belonging to the working class. These groups pay a larger portion of their income as taxes, constitute the majority of those who receive social assistance or those who are in correctional facilities and spend more of their income on their children’s education. At the same time, these groups are the most dependent on the state because they are those that have demands such as unemployment insurance, health insurance, public transport and home loans. This means that the most active ones to influence the structure of government are those who belong to these groups whereas in reality they are the least active ones (Alford and Friedland 1975: 439). Public participation has a number of potential tasks in the policy-making process, and there are several reasons to encourage participation: – Participation can be viewed as a policy. Susskind and Elliott (1983) state that participation is a desirable normative understanding because it democratizes public policies, decentralizes them, and monopolizes and cleanses mysteries. – Schneider and Ingram (2006) state that participation can be considered as an instrumental strategy for achieving other objectives. – It can also act as a communication method that leads to better information flow and, hence, better decision-making. – Participation can act as a therapy; in this sense, alienated groups may be included in the system. – Finally, participation can be used to resolve conflicts. It can help to reduce tension and produce stable outcomes in controversial decisions (Andrews 2007: 167).

3.1.3 Forms of Democratic Public Policy Participation cannot be considered independent of the concept of governance brought about by the new public administration approach. Governance, which refers to a form of horizontal management that is less hierarchical, is based on networks of selforganizing actors rather than governmental and institutionalized practices. In such a structure, openness and transparency, as well as participation in decision-making processes, also find its place (Giorgi and Pohoryles 2005: 409). The deliberative approach draws attention to the democratic potential of policy analysis. It is not easy for policy arguments to be regarded as arguments that are transparent, convincing, real and far from political and institutional prejudices. Democratic deliberation is always unstable and fragile. Yet, deeply thought-out and knowledge-based deliberation processes can help citizens to become more informed about public policies. In this sense, policy analysis has facilitated this process by promoting communication-based competences and social learning. For this to happen, it is necessary to take into account how the policy arguments are distorted by

3.1 Deliberative Policy Making

89

the inequalities between resources and by the entrenched power relations (Fischer 2007: 227). There is an important literature on the theory of deliberative democracy.1 According to Cohen and Sabel (1997), a society is democratic to the extent that it is governed by public deliberations between its members. According to this conception of democratic legitimacy, the main political decisions, whether in the form of bargaining or simply voting, should be taken as a result of discussions where not only the elected officials, but all citizens should have the opportunity to participate equally. This perspective, in any case, was inspired by Habermas’ (1997) idea of communicative logic. The exchange of arguments is perceived as a collaborative practice: in this cooperation, the partners accept themselves as equal and free and try to compromise themselves by forcing them to produce public reasons instead of specific motives and to respond to the objections of other members of the society. The negotiating procedures for public decision-making are therefore different from bargaining. According to Elster (1998), bargaining refers to a practice in which each chief player in the decision-making process tries to put pressure on others by putting forward threats and promises and thus maximizes their respective interests. In this case, if there is an agreement, this is only among the special interests based on the balance of powers. On the contrary, the purpose of the deliberation is to reach a logic-based agreement on what the public interest requires. Generally, such decisions are taken by the majority; but before the majority decision, there is always a deliberation process (Manin 2005). But the basic idea of deliberative democracy is not just that public debates are more valuable than bargaining. The deliberative democracy involves bringing the deliberation process together with the concept of political participation. The principle that the disputes over political decisions should be solved by the public exchange of reasoning between the parties already existed in the classical conception of parliamentarism in the nineteenth century.2 However, these classical thinkers limited the use of the negotiating method to discussions in parliament; according to them, the masses of the people were not suitable for producing ideas. Therefore, it was important that the monopoly of the legislative work remained in the hands of the representatives of the enlightened elite. The contemporary deliberation theory defends the opposite of this view, and emphasizes the importance of involving members of the community in the deliberation processes and argues that the public opinion in this way determines the public decision. According to this theory, the concept of radical democracy in the 1970s was based on the view that the participant is connected to the ideal understanding.3 However, it changes the meaning of the concept by placing the concept of deliberation in the context of the exchange of reasoning for the formation of ideas instead of being actively and directly involved in decision-making 1 For

example, see Chambers (2003, 2009), Rosenberg (2007), Dryzek (2000, 2001), Bohman (1998), Fishkin (2011), Gimmler (2001), Gutmann and Thompson (2009), Bächtiger et al. (2010), Miller (1992). 2 See Sieyés and Sonenscher (2003), Mill (2015). 3 See Pateman (1970), MacPherson and MacPherson (1977).

90

3 Participatory Government

processes. In this context, one of the most important facts in terms of the deliberative theory is the active engagement of citizens in public debates providing information to decisions. Among the arguments that put forward the negotiating content of democratic legitimacy, the idea of “publicly justifiable” (Lafont 2006: 5) is widely accepted. Accordingly, democratic processes require everyone to participate in the deliberation because it aims to seek a common search for a justified decision, and to recognize this justification mutually by those who will be affected by public action. Institutions can only impose restrictions on justified individuals. When these individuals choose a political option, they must persuade those who do not share the same view and consider their arguments and objections. The processes involving all members of society in public deliberations should include this concept of legitimacy. Various methods of deliberation are discussed in the literature. These include citizen juries, deliberative surveys, planning cells, consensus conferences, citizen panels, information sessions, public hearings, stakeholder meetings, opinion surveys and focus groups, to name a few. For example, the defining characteristic of the citizen juries (or planning cells which is their equivalent in Germany) is the discussion. Methods such as citizen panels and deliberative surveys are more similar to traditional methods such as questionnaires and opinion surveys. In citizen juries, panels and consensus conferences, technical information and values are routinely integrated into planning and resource allocation decisions in the areas of environment, education, energy and local government. The main purpose in this application is to create a forum for non-expert citizens, to bring together the technical facts and values of the public, and to reach conclusions and recommendations (Beierle 1999). Pratchett (1999), Leroux et al. (1998), O’Hara (1998) and Beierle (1998) have conducted detailed studies on these methods.4 These methods may differ from each other on aspects such as selection and number of participants, types of inputs obtained and the number of meetings held. What is common among them is the deliberation before the final decision, which is a process where participants are informed about the subject, encouraged to discuss the issue and consider each other’s opinions. However, deliberation is more than the mere discussion of issues. The emphasis is placed on the output that can take different forms, such as a decision or a series of recommendations, which should appear at the end of the discussion, as well as the process that enables the emergence of this output. Fearon (1998) states that the value of the discussion of the subject matters before the decision on the creation of a public policy stems from the following: (i) sharing of opinions on some issues that the voting behavior does not permit (such as the intensity of preferences and communicating on issues like relative weights of preferences), (ii) production and consideration of wider options and new alternatives; (iii) promoting and encouraging proposals for public benefit, rather than motivated by personal interest; (iv) increasing the legitimacy of the final decision by giving everyone the right to speak; and (v) increasing the morale and intellectual qualities of the participants.

4 For

a more detailed assessment of the aforementioned studies, see Abelson et al. (2003).

3.2 Local Level and Public Policy

91

3.2 Local Level and Public Policy Now, from the heart of the research we ask ourselves, can the design of a public policy in the local context represent strategic advances in terms of governance and citizen participation? It is a strategic advance given that designing a local public policy implies taking citizens into account, not only in the local sphere, which is the closest forum to citizenship, but also because they are the natural spaces for citizen participation, and even more so in times of governance, where a new way of governing is combined and reflected where the state, the private sector and citizens participate, where everyone from their perspective makes their action. The most remarkable thing is that the local government is an actor that facilitates and stimulates citizen participation and does not act as an intervener. This position reflects the need to open spaces of governance for the design of local public policies, where the decisionmaker or factors can propose, within the scope of their competence, responses to particular situations in favor of a collective body of citizens. The design of a public policy from the local context represents not only progress for the state and the citizens, but it also allows to identify the most felt problems of the locality, and to promote a set of alternatives for solution and decision-making from the experience of citizens immersed in the subject matter of the policy design without neglecting other dependencies linked to the theme (Fullan et al. 2015: 52). Fullan et al. (2015) for his part assumes that it is essential to identify problems from within society, where the incorporation of the community as the origins of the problem can point toward the systemic solution of the same, generating space for discussion of public policy. This means breaking with a vertical scheme of state– society relationship to replace it with a horizontal relationship. If this happens, citizen participation is encouraged, which will affect the greater effectiveness of the public policy developed, which would be complying with the principles of good governance (Graham et al. 2003). Good governance starts as an icon of the exercise of governance and participation, in which decisions on public policies must be shared, which would seal the foundations of transparent and visible government management adjusted to the requirements of society. If we consider public policy as courses of action and information flows related to the achievement of a public objective, and if we understand the scope of the public as the interest of a diversity of political actors, including the state, the private sector and the community itself, then we emphasize that participation refers to the influence that people, citizens, organized groups and community in general have to be present in the determination of the public agenda through the exposition of legitimate demands (Woodward et al. 1996: 330). This view reflects on the visibility of citizens and all those actors that represent a point of value in decisions, where inclusion is not a topic of discussion, but the need for understanding among the influential is what should be started to value, recognizing their diversity and ability to contribute. For its part, public management is a procedural structure of government action that carries out tasks of service to society through legal and political execution mechanisms often referred to as public policies, whose final orientation is to serve the public

92

3 Participatory Government

by guaranteeing it quality of life. To this end, through various stages of review and restructuring, public management has focused its actions on the search for spaces of accompaniment by the citizen in the construction of a public agenda that allows knowing their needs and the root of the problems. In this sense, it is constantly sought to strengthen the localities in order to reach more accurately the knowledge of social problems from a community perspective. The local space is the closest place of the citizen to constituted power, and part of its importance lies in the direct contribution of people to the solution of their problems by virtue of their knowledge and with the probability of knowing potentially which the best solution to be executed is.

3.2.1 Governance and Participation The theme of governance has been very varied since the term appeared, with multiple definitions, varied positions and different contexts. In this paper, we approach the concept from the point of view of the alliance between vital sectors of society, specifically from the local level. It can be understood that governance is an approach that allows incorporating various social actors and governmental institutions in the construction of indigenous models that allow visualizing the local from the social base, based on consensus/agreement (Shieh and Friedmann 2008: 190), which entails, in strategic terms, the preparation of an agenda validated by those involved in terms of management linked to sustainable public policies and public services designed for citizenship, as well as promoting care or rescue of the sense of identity of a locality with competitive advantages. Therefore, it can be deduced that governance is a process of validation of public policies through the direct participation of ordinary citizens and influential actors within a common local social context. But, is participation the ideal vehicle for the construction of a governance focused on local public policies? At the local level, it is very important to take citizen participation into account, since the municipality is the state organization that is closest to the citizen, which allows a better knowledge of local problems. Therefore it is necessary to add to the principles of management, the principle of subsidiarity, understood both in the relationship of the municipality with other instances of the state, in the sense of the vertical distribution of power, and in the state–society relationship. It is up to the local entity to assess the means, instruments, formulas for citizen participation, considering the role of the family and society in the solution of problems. It is not the citizenship that has to commit to the local, but rather the local authorities must have a solid commitment to the locality (Valler 1996). In summary, it can be said that governance is like “looking through a glass like a mirror”, meaning the need to show transparency in each and every one of the actions undertaken, where trust is so fragile and very easy to break if public resources are not well managed, and even more so if there are “hidden” spaces for deliberation on the future of the locality in which all the actors must be committed (Bloomfield et al. 2001). There are coincidences in which it is essential to have the capacity to view the locality, as well as to establish strategies for development linked to their comparative

3.2 Local Level and Public Policy

93

and competitive advantages, but for this they need the impulse of a local public management committed to establishing alliances that make viable a better quality of life for citizens.

3.2.2 Local Public Management and Public Policies Local public management represents an instrument of government that allows reducing spaces between the citizen and the governmental authority, being the bridge, in both directions, of social demands and offers of public policies in which the strategies used to addressing and responding to requests play an important role. Public management for social actors is a structure designed to solve complex situations that affect citizens, and that it cannot be done by their own means. Its conduct is based on two aspects: the political and the managerial; in the first case, by assuming positions of social leadership, and in the second, in the form of an instrument of good governance as a projection of the locality (Purdue 2001: 2215). In this sense, local public management is the political and managerial action of the municipal government, supported by modern administrative techniques, whose objective is to provide spaces of social awareness between the citizens and the government for the joint design of the locality, as well as to guide their capacities and strategies for a quality of life in harmony with the local ecosystem (Rhodes 1997). Local governments represent a great variety in terms of geographical, demographic, territorial, cultural, economic and very unique customs depending on the region in which they are located. These characteristics allow us to assume that diversity is not only remarkable in its social and citizen behavior, but also from the results of local public management. The successful results of a local public administration compared to another—whose budgetary and financial structures are identical, and organizational structure are uniformly imposed by legal norms—are not very comprehensible. In each case it is important to note the presence of the academic level and managerial training in the organizational structure of the local government (Begossi 2008). The local public management has a high commitment that covers various aspects, including the availability of information and data that allows it to anticipate management problems, and even more so when these problems seem predictable given the behavior of citizens and their satisfaction from public services. Therefore, the strategy of public management should be based on seeking the design of public policies that arise from the feeling of society, the “dirty shoe” of the official who travels the paths of the community that seeks to achieve problems, and not wait for them to reach him.

94

3 Participatory Government

3.2.3 The Democratization of the Relationship Between the State and Society: The Re-definition of Citizenship Democratization can be evaluated as part of the process of re-defining the state– society relationship, where the strengthening of civil society is a fundamental link for the construction of democracy and citizenship, resulting in the democratization of the state itself. Citizen participation, in its lax sense of expression of collective and diffuse interests in the public spheres of the state, inserted in a strategy of democratization of the state, appears as an emerging and relevant issue as a public interphase or intermediation entity between the state, the society and the economy, capable of mobilizing spaces of representation, deliberation or dialogue around them. Thus, it becomes clear that representative liberal democracy would not guarantee in itself the real exercise of citizenship, which would be explained by the deficits of politics as well as by the evolution of citizen rights. For Borja (1996), the episodes of citizenship development are conflictive and confrontational social dialogue processes that ideally lead to a new political and legal formalization in the end. These processes can be expressed in different dimensions: a. Between social movements and institutions, or with other social actors, such as the struggle for universal suffrage without limitations, the right to strike, etc. b. Between institutions or sectors of the state apparatus, such as between parliament and government, or of these with the judicial system. c. Between institutions or sectors of the state and social or cultural groups linked to specific territories. In this sense, citizenship or rather the exercise of it has become coherent to the structural transformations of our society. The changes that have taken place in the state apparatus and the political regime have had an enormous impact on the ideological conceptions and demands of the various collective actors and social subjects, configuring a new scenario of participation totally different from that of two decades ago. This exercise of citizenship has involved changes in the exercise of duties and rights, which do not necessarily imply a substitution of new ones for old ones, but rather a complement or improvement, which makes the exercise of citizenship much more complex and irreducible to the mere exercise of election by means of suffrage. In this line, Borja (1996) raises 10 fields of transformation or evolution of rights that could be illustrative of these changes to which we refer, namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

From the right to housing to the right to the city, From the right to education to continuing education, From the right to health care to health and safety, From the right to work to the right to a citizen’s salary, From the right to the environment to the right to quality of life, From the right to an equal legal status to that of social, cultural and political insertion,

3.2 Local Level and Public Policy

95

7.

From electoral rights to the right to a multiplicity political participation, deliberation and territorial differentiation with a diversity of procedures and through different actors and instruments, 8. From the right to political information to the right to communication and access to information and communication technologies with access to global social and economic information, allowing for deliberations at supranational scales, 9. From the right to freedom of expression and association to the right to establish transnational networks, 10. From the right to the language and culture property to the right to collective identity and self-determination in new complex political frameworks. While there is a worldwide tendency to move toward this new conception of rights, the differentiated processes of globalization and above all of capitalist modernization have different repercussions in developing countries, where dominant modernization processes are concentrated in certain niches or poles of development (Scott and Sorper 2003). This reality determines to a large extent the possibilities and conditions of exercising citizenship, especially in regimes of restricted or indirect democracy where the participation mechanisms have been framed within a number of rules that prevent the direct participation of vast sectors of the population (Schmitter and Karl 1991: 82). At the same time, the processes of democratization of the state are trying to bring these excluded sectors closer to the exercise of citizenship, developing various strategies of participation in relation to the public services of the state in social and economic matters, as a complementary and at the same time palliative way to the deficits of political participation.

3.2.4 Citizen Participation in the Formulation and Management of Public Policies The processes of democratization of the state have not only involved a process of reforms to the institutions associated with the political regime, but also to the instances of the state apparatus itself and in particular to the government management. These transformations that have taken place in government management are related to the creation of mechanisms for the participation of civil society, both in the formulation of public policies and decisions and in the management of public services or programs. In this context we will understand citizen participation as the involvement and incidence of citizenship (and population in general) in decisionmaking processes, in topics and activities related to economic, social and political development, as well as involvement in the execution of said decisions, to promote, together with social and institutional actors, actions, plans and decisions toward the state (Gertler and Wolfe 2004). This process—fundamentally linked to decentralization processes—reveals the great formalization of the process of citizen participation that took place in a global scale in the last decade.

96

3 Participatory Government

However, recent evidence shows that there has been no progress in favor of greater participation of civil society, particularly non-traditional actors in the formulation of public policies and decisions (Bräutigam 2004; Chatterton and Goodard 2000; Warner and Sullivan 2017; Clark 2018; Rau et al. 2016). In this regard, Cunill et al. (2018) point out that “despite the widely favorable discourse of citizen participation, it has not found favorable conditions for its exercise in government spaces, when it has been linked to the possibility of contributing to its own democratization. To sustain itself rather than the forms that tend to be adopted for the institutionalization of the participation of civil society in the state political sphere can be explanatory of its limits, given that instead of facilitating the increase of social representation, they can legitimize the corporatization of the state apparatus, further limiting its publication”. This argument would be based on the assumption that public participation is a democratizing phenomenon capable of producing changes in the asymmetries of political and social representation potentiality. However, it can also be admitted that participation mechanisms can settle or alleviate inequalities, generating conditions to legitimize or problematize, respectively, the development model that implies them. Hence, in order to address the issues of the institutionalization of the relationship of the state with civil society through participation in public policies and management, it is necessary to consider the subjects of social participation and the modalities of participation, as well as the areas in which it is exercised. In general, the subjects of participation with which the state is related have a differentiated access according to the social interests associated with the instances of government decisions; therefore they are based on particular interests and the state supply. The most favored modalities of participation in this context in the majority of developing countries are expressed through the conception of the subjects as clients or consumers (rather than as political subjects, affecting their capacity for criticism and control that transcends their particular interests) operating in favor of a more mercantile than political relationship with public-state institutions (Pennington 2018). Regarding the areas of social participation, there is a clear tendency in the region to favor citizen participation in the framework of decentralization, relieving the local sphere as a privileged place for it (despite the structural limitations of change in this area). The foregoing would lead us to think therefore that the development of citizen participation mechanisms from the state does not necessarily stimulate social organization, but can become a disarticulation of the social fabric and/or strengthening of asymmetries in social representation, resulting in the weakening of civil society. Notwithstanding this, the state has not only contributed to the constraint of society, but has also fostered differential access to its decision-making bodies, for which reason it is responsible for the establishment of conditions that increase the representation capacity and influence, particularly of traditionally excluded actors, so that they can access and express themselves autonomously in front of state apparatuses (Swyngedouw 2005: 1999). At stake is therefore the creation of opportunities aimed at such actors, which involve not only their specific recognition as political subjects, but respect for the pre-established social organization as well. What it would be therefore is the need for the politicization of relations between the state and civil society, against the processes

3.2 Local Level and Public Policy

97

of fragmentation and social, political and economic exclusion that characterizes most countries. Participatory democracy refers to the active involvement of citizens in political and administrative decisions concerning their lives. Democracy is not a static concept. Ever since its implementation in Athens 2500 years ago, it has been continuously improved, expanded and re-manufactured. Today, participatory democracy arises from the critique of representative democracy (Pearce 2016). More or less paradoxically, it is globalization which has eroded the foundations of representative democracy. In the process of globalization, the opportunities of nation-states to direct their economies are increasingly limited and the fate of the people is determined by decisions taken outside the national borders. Therefore, the principle that representative democracy was governed by the people’s elected representatives of the country has been considerably undermined. Besides, it is seen that representative democracy leads to the establishment of a domination of hegemony over the minority by the majority power in the countries where the democracy culture is weak and democracy is far from being institutionalized. This might allow the establishment of an electoral authority or dictatorship instead of democracy. Today, participation and pluralism are seen as indispensable conditions of democracy. Participation is not only a requirement of democracy, but also a right of the people. Article 10 of the EU Treaty of Lisbon mentions “the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union”. The same article states that decisions will be made in a transparent manner and in the closest manner to citizens. In the preamble of the European Charter of Local Governments and in its Additional Protocol, of which Turkey is a signatory state, it is stated that citizens have the right to participate in the management of matters of public interest and of local governments and that states are obliged to provide this right to everyone. The field of application for participatory democracy is local governments. This is why participation must go hand in hand with decentralization. Participatory democracy requires, above all, the re-definition of the center–local relationship and the maximum transfer of the center’s powers to local units. The principle of participation in administration in the public sphere has three basic functions: • To ensure the effectiveness of policies and practices, • To maximize the legitimacy of decisions, • To defend active citizens and strong democracy. Participation also allows for more information and data collection opportunities on public matters. As participation rate increases, diversity will be achieved in policymaking and decision-making processes, and the possibility to reach the best option will increase. Participatory democracy is an effort to express the demand for direct democracy at the highest level possible and to bring the existing democratic structures as close as possible to a more deliberative system. This is based on an understanding that accepts all the conditions that necessitate the representative democratic system and adopts the mechanisms that help to operate the representation system. Such a definition

98

3 Participatory Government

describes a sketchy view of participatory democracy in the context of models of democracy (Fung and Wright 2001). A more concrete explanation requires detailing the basic elements of participatory democracy. The idea of participatory democracy is naturally based on classical democracy and tries to re-introduce a number of values such as popular sovereignty, participatory citizenship, common benefit and reconciliation based on present conditions (Baiocchi 2003). In this sense, participatory democracy envisages a political structure that desires ideal democracy. Accordingly, it should be ensured that the public has a voice in the policies that concern them continuously and that they can get involved in the broadest way in politics in various ways. For example, non-governmental organizations try to influence power in the policy process in order to achieve their goals. These organizations have such functions as mediating changes in public policies and acting as a bridge between the state and the society (Ate¸s and Nohutçu 2006: 249–250). Non-governmental organizations are important tools for participation in government. Especially through coalitions established in local governments, such non-governmental organizations can provide important policy changes (Tekeli 2003: 13). Emini stated that in the Law No. 5393 on municipalities dated 2005, which will be discussed below, the principle of territoriality was adopted, the areas of duty of the municipalities were generalized and enlarged, and the municipalities were granted administrative and financial autonomy by limiting tutelage of the center (Emini 2009). As a rule, there is no administrative tutelage over the decisions of the municipal council. The Law no. 5393 continued the method of endorsing the approval system which was given to the local governors authorities in the previous law for the decisions of the municipal councils; after the reform, local governors became the authorities who were supposed to officially declare the finalized decisions (Odyakmaz et al. 2006: 628; Tortop et al. 2006: 161). It is clear that these practices added effectiveness and played an essential role in the process of harmonization with the European Union. Several tools have been developed to improve participation in public administration. These can be illustrated as corporate websites for providing information and collecting requests, communication lines, brochures, surveys, commissions, councils and public meetings. In this regard, the establishment of city councils is very important in terms of the expansion of participatory democracy (Urhan 2008: 92). Active participation in government through civil society has been significantly improved, especially in western societies where the rate of voting is gradually decreasing, so that legitimacy of public activities could be ensured and citizen–state relations could be strengthened. Today, localization is important not only for the provision of local democracy, but also for the limitation of the power of central government. In a system dominated only by central government, the participation of the public in the administration becomes more difficult and democracy can be interrupted. At this point, local governments can be considered as a bridge between the center and the local people.

3.3 Participatory Democracy in Turkey

99

3.3 Participatory Democracy in Turkey Although the instruments of participation in government are limited in Turkey compared to European countries, significant improvements have been achieved in the level of participation with the reforms of the early 2000s. In this regard, as an innovation introduced by the Municipal Law No. 5393, city councils are a good example of active participation at the local level. Again, with the Law No. 4982 on right to information, which was enacted in 2004, making access to information became a rule and limitation became an exception, which provided a legal basis for transparency and accountability in government by encouraging participation. The Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 dated 2004 and the Municipalities Law No. 5393 dated 2005 provided a number of mechanisms for increasing participation such as conceptualization of citizenry, city councils and surveys. In addition to this, with the Public Financial Management and Control Law No. 5018 dated 2005, strategic planning has become compulsory in public institutions. It is stated that institutions will prepare their strategic plans with participatory methods in line with their goals and objectives. They will also publicize their mission and vision within the framework of development plans, programs, relevant legislation and the basic principles adopted. To this end, the Ministry of Development published a guide titled “Principles of Participation: A Good Practice Guide for Designing, Implementing and Managing Participatory Studies”5 to guide public institutions in using participatory methods. Law No. 4982 on the right to information dated 2003 states that everyone has the right to information, and that the right to access all kinds of information and documents of public institutions/organizations is guaranteed by law. The CIMER (Presidential Communication Center) web service, which was established under the Prime Ministry in 2006 and was adapted to the Presidential Government System in 2018, endeavors to provide direct solutions to the requests, notices and complaints of the citizens. Finally, in order to establish an independent and effective grievance mechanism in the functioning of public services, the Ombudsman Institution, which was established in 2012 and secured by the constitution, established an effective mechanism for the supervision and improvement of public services. The laws and practices that can be examined in terms of participation in public administration in Turkey are listed below: • • • • •

Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information (2003) Law No. 5018 on Public Financial Management and Control (2005) Law No. 5216 on Metropolitan Municipalities (2004) Law No. 5393 on Municipalities (2005) Law No. 6328 on Ombudsman’s Office (2012)

5 The

guide was prepared by the Office for Public Management (OPM) as part of the Participation in Strategic Planning and Policy Development Project. The project was supported by the Strategic Program Fund of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth of Nations (FCO)—European Unification Program, conducted by the British Embassy in Ankara. The main beneficiary of the project was Ministry of Development and the implementer was Turkish Foundation of Economic Policies (TEPAV).

100

3 Participatory Government

• Presidential Communication Center (C˙IMER) (2006; revised in 2018) • E-Government practices.

3.3.1 Legal Foundations Decentralization laws were enacted in Turkey in parallel with the developments in the world which included changes in the political system to encourage collective decision-making. According to the Article 13 of the Municipal Law No. 5393, which entered into force in 2005, everyone is a citizen of the town where they live. Citizens have the right to participate in municipal decisions and services, be informed of municipal activities, and benefit from the assistance of the municipal government. The municipality shall carry out the necessary works for the development of social and cultural relations among the citizens and protection of cultural values. In these studies, measures are taken to ensure the participation of universities, public institutions, professional organizations, trade unions, non-governmental organizations and individual experts. Every citizen of the municipality is obliged to comply with the laws, decisions and announcements of the municipality, and to pay taxes, duties, fees and other contributions. According to such regulations, the people who fulfill their financial obligations in return for municipal services are allowed and urged to play an effective role in the decision-making processes of the city or town where they live. In this regard, Article 9 of the Law No. 5393 emphasizes neighborhood management as the smallest administrative unit. Accordingly, the municipality is supposed to provide the necessary in-kind assistance to meet the needs of the neighborhood and to solve the problems within its budget. The municipality is also expected to consider the common desires of the neighborhood in its decisions and pay effort to ensure that the services are carried out in accordance with the needs of the local people. According to the Article 24 of the Law with the title “Specialized Commissions”, the Municipal Council is allowed to establish specialized commissions of at least three to five persons among its members. The headmen (mukhtar) of the neighborhood and the managers of the public institutions within the province, as well as the representatives of the professional organizations, universities, trade unions and other non-governmental organizations related to the issues on the agenda can participate in the meetings of the specialization commission where the issues falling within their field of activity are discussed. With this article, the duty of representation of neighborhood mukhtars, which is the smallest unit in terms of citizen representation, has been emphasized and importance has been given to civil society organizations in terms of reflecting citizen views. Article 41 of the Law bears the title “Strategic Plan and Performance Program”. According to this article, the strategic plan is to be prepared after consulting the universities, professional chambers and non-governmental organizations on the subject, and shall enter into force after being adopted by the municipal council. In this article, it is emphasized that the plans related to the city should be made by bringing together

3.3 Participatory Democracy in Turkey

101

the civic elements of the city. In addition, the strategic plan and performance program constitute the basis for the preparation of the budget and are discussed and adopted before the budget is put to the vote in the municipal council. This provision reveals the link between the municipal budget and decision-making process. In the article, it is also emphasized that the local people have the right to determine the local budget by participating as a stakeholder in the strategic plan. Article 77 of the same law is given the heading “Voluntary participation in municipal services”. According to this article, the Municipality can implement programs for the participation of volunteers in such areas as health, education, sports, environment, social services and assistance, library, park, traffic and cultural services, and services for the elderly, women, children, the disabled, the poor and the needy. The main objective of this article is to reinforce solidarity and participation in the town and to increase efficiency and effectiveness in public services. In this context, with the guidance of the municipality, citizens can work voluntarily on social, environmental and financial issues, provide voluntary trainings in areas where the city needs them, and try to create economy and efficiency in using resources.

3.3.1.1

City Councils

The Municipality Law, which emphasizes participation in the city administration, also offers the mechanism that should be established in order to increase the participation. This mechanism called city councils was first established in 1996 in the cities of Bursa, Izmir, Adapazari, Adana, Trabzon, Kars, Tekirdag, Van, Eskisehir, Edirne, Afyonkarahisar, Antalya, Diyarbakir and Manisa under the name “Local Agenda 21” as a platform that brings together the citizens of the city (Özdemir 2011: 38). Later, the concept of “Local Agenda 21” was replaced by the concept of “City Council”. The city councils, whose legal foundations lay in the Article 76 of the Municipal Law No. 5393, aim to realize the principles of city vision and citizenship awareness, protection of the rights and law of the city, and rendering sustainable development, environmental sensitivity, social assistance and solidarity, transparency, responsiveness and accountability, participation and decentralization. Municipalities provide assistance and support for the efficient and effective execution of the activities of the city council which consists of representatives of professional organizations, trade unions, notaries, universities, relevant non-governmental organizations, political parties, public institutions and organizations, neighborhood mukhtars and other related actors. The article aims to protect the city’s residents, increase their participation in the city administration and improve the accountability of city managers with the support of the city council. The city council, founded in accordance with the Law on Municipalities, is an organ established to improve participation in local governance and to realize communication and interaction among local actors (Çetinkaya and Korlu 2012). Based on the 76th article of Municipal Law which stated that the working methods and procedures of city councils would be determined by a regulation to be issued by the Ministry of the Interior, city councils regulation was issued in October 2006.

102

3 Participatory Government

According to this Regulation, the main duties of the city councils are contributing to the effective, efficient and fair use of urban resources and facilitating the implementation of the principles of transparency, participation, accountability and predictability in municipal governance. It is important to establish participatory budget mechanisms by the involvement of citizens within the city council in the preparation of the municipal budget. The main objective here is to oversee that expenditures are effective and efficient. For example, according to Kütahya municipal councilors, the main problem of the Kütahya City Council is lack of communication. They emphasized that there is no unity between Kütahya, city council administration, municipal administration, governor, his/her deputies and non-governmental organizations. In particular, some members of the ruling party hold city council administration accountable, as it conveys the problems of the people directly to the municipal council, that the city council is an unnecessary body. According to the members of the opposition in the municipal council, the city council had a direct relationship with the municipal administration which was the main cause of the problems. In other words, criticisms were made in terms of legislation and it was emphasized that the city council could not become active as it was financially dependent on the municipality. An opposition councilor saw the fundamental problem as a social issue. The Counselor stated that public and non-governmental organizations did not show the necessary interest. The city council had no public relations and the members of the council did not even read the agenda items before attending a meeting (Önder and Güler 2016). There are also examples of successful and participatory democracy in Turkey in terms of city councils. One of them is Bursa Nilüfer Municipality. Neighborhood committees in Nilüfer Municipality aim to involve the public in the decision-making processes. The decisions taken by the neighborhood committees and the needs identified are discussed at the city council. Representatives of the neighborhoods also participate in the city council meetings. The council is an effective mechanism which conveys the needs of the neighborhoods to the municipal council. Participation in neighborhood committees in Nilüfer Municipality is at a desired level which shows that active citizenship awareness develops within the process (Bozkurt 2014). City councils are subject to various debates in terms of local democracy, local governance and national democracy practices. The main reason for the discussion of these problems is the question of the contribution of city councils in making city administration more participatory. Particularly in practice, there are examples where some city councils form serious public engagement experiences. However, it is a reality that the majority of city councils have been transformed into structures reinforcing the existing local power relations (Deniz 2013).

3.3.1.2

Civil Society Organizations

Hundreds of publications and discussions on civil society have been held, and a plethora of scientific conferences, meetings, seminars and workshops devoted solely to this topic have been organized in Turkey. However, the concept of “civil society”

3.3 Participatory Democracy in Turkey

103

has not yet been fully agreed upon. Although they differ in details, the authors who drafted and drew on this subject describe and define civil society as an entity which organizes social life and relations between citizens and the state by means of such institutions as clubs, congregations, trade associations, trade unions and several other volunteer organizations that operate in the arena between the home and the state. In this buffer zone, citizens learn how to come together, how to initiate a dialogue and, more importantly, how to take social initiatives. When it is successful, it is expected that the sensitive balance between personal interests and public interests, which are vital for democracy, will be established through civil society (Yel 2008: 143–144). Considering that civil society also exists at the level of social movements that are not under the umbrella of any organization, it is seen that the definition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Turkey is far from being adequate. In the Turkish context, the term NGO refers to authorized and formalized institutions that can be controlled by law enforcement units. In this regard, NGOs are limited to official institutions such as associations, foundations, trade unions and cooperatives. However, civil society expresses a kind of social dynamism that does not fit under the umbrella of any institution and includes informal and social formations within this framework. In this sense, friendship groups, social movements not included in any association, protest groups, religious communities and sects can also be considered among civil society groups. In this regard, it is necessary to state that the concept of NGO is not able to fully explain the concept of civil society (Çaha 2004: 181–182). Since the 1980s, in parallel with the development of civil society in the world, Turkey witnessed an increase in the number of NGOs and other, less formal civil society organizations. As a result, the importance of civil society increased and political parties saw an opportunity in recognizing its power in their quest for political power. Today it is estimated that there are around 150,000 NGOs in Turkey (Zariç 2018). However, also in parallel to the global tendencies, there are serious problems of the civil society in general and NGOs in particular in Turkey. The increasing number of civil society organizations and the discursive significance attributed to it show that participation has become a matter of controversial political debate. In Turkey, civil society organizations, in terms of organization and structure, do not follow the examples in democratic countries. For example, leader hegemony in political parties, which is an indispensable element of democracy, and the absence of intra-party democracy are contrary to the universal notions of civil society and democracy. One of the most prominent paradoxes of Turkish democracy is that party members appointed by the party chairman himself elect the party chairman at the party congress (Bayhan 2002: 12). In Turkey, patronage relations can be found not only in political parties but also in civil society organizations. For instance, the “Union warlords”, which is a frequently encountered concept used to explain the hegemony of certain leaders and groups in the administration of unions, serve as concrete examples of patronage and nepotism. Therefore, the effects of these institutions, which have not fully achieved internal democracy, are far from being at ideal level in democratic life. If these organizations can solve the problems arising from their internal organization styles and functioning,

104

3 Participatory Government

they can contribute to the democratization process of the country in the future (Bedük et al. 2006: 62). Today in Turkey, NGOs lack the organizational and financial capacity to solve problems, and they suffer from limited capabilities to contribute to the democratization process and public debates. Paradoxically, as the weight given to organizational life increases, the relations among the NGOs deteriorate, the relationship between the NGOs and the state becomes problematic, and the NGOs’ understanding of mobilizing the society for the solution of social problems and thus active and responsible citizenship within the society is weakening. For the solution to this problem, it is a precondition that the civil society organizations must be open to debate and democratic competition (Keyman 2006). There is no doubt about the importance of civil society in the development of democracy. However in Turkey, civil society is partially being shaped by the government, which is highly controversial. In addition, some organizations that present themselves as NGOs need to fulfill the essential functions that are expected of them rather than trying to seize the state apparatus and lay claim to its financial resources. Therefore, there is always the risk of adopting a statist structure over time, losing the original spirit and idealism, and becoming completely involved and lost in the struggle for power and politics. If these problems cannot be overcome, the attempts will only remain on paper and the targeted results will not be achieved. This will naturally cause the existing problems to become more chronic in terms of democratization and participation. In this respect, Turkey has actually quite a distance yet to go. Therefore, there are several obstacles in front of the democratic development of civil society in Turkey. What needs to be done is to increase the share of the private sector in the economy; in other words, to shrink the area of the state apparatus against civil society (Yılmaz 2018; von Mises 2007). The fact that the state defends an official ideology also hinders the development of civil society as it leads to some kind of protectionist reflex against more dissenter segments of society. As a natural extension of such a reflex, the neutral position of the state is compromised. To the extent that it loses its neutral position, it becomes politicized and tends to intervene in civil society (Hira and San ¸ 2009). The state has an official ideology and imposes it on the social segments, which serves as a factor preventing the development of democratic civil society. In addition, the convergence of civil society with the state and government politics weakens its contributions to democracy (Bayraktar 2005: 22). Another obstacle to the autonomy and democratization of civil society is the mechanism of rent-distributing, which is used as a tool to make the society dependent on the state and operates for political or individual interests (Tosun 2005: 136; Ak¸sit et al. 2005: 232).

3.3.1.3

Environmental Impact Assessment

Another area where participation is important is environmental management. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a mechanism which involves beforehand assessment of environmental impacts of investment projects with a pro-active

3.3 Participatory Democracy in Turkey

105

approach and envisages civic participation at every stage of the process. In this regard, participation, which is one of the basic principles that serves as a pillar for public administration within EU, is being put into practice. Environmental impact assessment was first introduced in the USA in the 1970s, and was later incorporated into the European Union acquis in 1985 by the EU Environmental Directive (85/337), thus making it an area for candidate countries to align with. Before the EIA was introduced, participatory practices were put in effect in Turkey through the amendment of Law on Environment dated 1983. The 10th article of the law requires that institutions, organizations and enterprises that may cause environmental problems as a result of the activities they plan to carry out are supposed to prepare an environmental impact assessment report. In this report, taking into consideration all the possible effects on the environment, the wastes that may cause environmental pollution are regulated and the precautions to be taken in this regard are stated. The by-law on this topic was enacted in 1993, which were further amended in 1997, 2002 and 2003 (Ataklı 2003: 515). The last amendment to the EIA regulation is dated 2007. EIA is a comprehensive process consisting of several stages. It is based on multiple methods. The EIA process, which starts with the study of options related to the investment plan, involves identifying the possible impacts of the investments. In the first stage, it is decided whether EIA is necessary. If it is deemed necessary, the scope of the EIA report is determined, followed by the preparation and examination of the report. However, the process is not completed here: once the decision is made, the environmental impact of the investment activity is continuously monitored and supervised (Wood 1997). Free Access to Information on Environmental Pollution, Eco-Label for Eco-Friendly Products, the LIFE Program and the Eco-Audit, together with the environmental impact assessment (EIA), constitute a procedure that takes into account the environmental impact of investment decisions in advance. This process includes the analysis of possible impacts on the environment, their identification in the report, the public consultation on the report, the comments and consideration of the report in the final decision, and the public’s information of the decision. When the studies related to EIA in Turkey are examined, Kele¸s and Harmancı’s study (2002) stand out as it provides the conceptual details of the EIA. According to the authors, it is an instrument for the objective assessment of all effects, directly or indirectly, long or short term, tangible or non-tangible, non-measurable or measurable, of any investment on the environment. Ataklı (2003) discussed the EIA process in historical perspective and evaluated it within the framework of EU harmonization. In the conclusion of his study, it was determined that the evaluation of the applications became compulsory because of the prioritization and shortening of the process for informing the public participation. Marin (2004) argued that the EIA should be a process that starts at the design stage and is based on the systems approach. Bozkurt (2010) emphasized the function of the EIA to adapt to EU environmental policies. An examination of the 2007 and subsequent progress reports of the recent amendments to the environmental impact assessment regulation reveals that environmental impact assessment directive has been transposed to a large extent in Turkey, but public consultations and trans-boundary consultations about compliance are not

106

3 Participatory Government

provided. In addition, Turkey refrained from being a party to the Kyoto Protocol, Espoo and the Aarhus Convention. The transposition of the strategic environmental impact assessment directive was at an early stage. There was also no progress in the improvement of mechanisms for environmental responsibility, public participation and public access to environmental information. Regarding the administrative capacity related to the environment, the amendments made in the Environmental Law and the increase in the number of employees of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry were welcomed and the studies on the implementation of environmental programs were praised. However, no progress was made toward the establishment of the National Environment Agency. According to the 2009 progress report, Turkey ratified the Kyoto Protocol; however, Turkey was still not a signatory party of Espoo and Aarhus Conventions.6 Although the transposition of the EIA Directive was largely achieved, alignment with the acquis on public participation was still incomplete. The report argued that good progress was seen in horizontal legislation.7 However, the procedures for public consultation and cross-border consultations were not fully aligned. In the Environmental Law, some articles regarding the exclusion of petroleum, geothermal resources and mineral exploration from environmental impact assessment have been cancelled by the Constitutional Court for the purpose of improving environmental protection. Turkey was not a party to the Espoo and Aarhus Convention and the Emissions Trading Directive was not transposed. The greenhouse gas emission trading system was not established yet. The transposition of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive into national legislation was at an early stage. The report also stated that no progress was made on transposition of the acquis on environmental responsibility, public participation and public access to environmental information. Public participation in governance is of great importance for the healthy formation of public policies. In this context, participation in the environmental impact assessment process is aimed at achieving such goals as increasing transparency by presenting information in decision-making, obtaining information on possible impacts on the environment and their correction methods, increasing the support for the latest proposal by including third groups in the planning process and eliminating contradictions resulting from public objections in the later stages of the decisionmaking process. Preventing delays in advance and avoiding the implementation of projects that may have a very negative impact on the environment can be considered as additional goals of the process (Bezirci 2005: 92). With the amendments made in 6 The

Espoo Convention on cross-border environmental impacts and proposals to expand the European Union’s EIA directive into plans and programs was signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1997. The Aarhus Convention, the full name of which is “UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters”, was opened for signature by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in 1998 and entered into force in October 2001. The Convention ensures that everyone has the right to access environmental information, to participate in decision-making on environmental matters and to take legal action. 7 The horizontal legislation consists of laws and by-laws on environmental information, the European Environment Agency, Environmental Impact Assessment, LIFE program, and reporting procedures.

3.3 Participatory Democracy in Turkey

107

the environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulation in 2008, the administrative and technical procedures and principles to be followed during the EIA process were reformed. During the reporting period, an amendment was made in the legislation covering issues such as monitoring and auditing. This amendment put more emphasis on the concept of the people. In this context, such definitions as “people”, “public participation meeting” and “relevant people” were added to the fourth article titled “Definitions and Abbreviations”. In addition, Article 8 of the by-law introduces some amendments that will enable the public to access and participate in the EIA information more easily. In this context, governor’s offices are required to use announcing instruments such as internet, and the importance of public feedback is emphasized. This is stated in Article 4, paragraph 4, as follows: A copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment application file indicating that the application has been made in relation to the project is sent by the Ministry to the relevant Governorship. The Governor’s Office announces to the public that the application has been made in relation to the project in the region, that the Environmental Impact Assessment process has started and that the opinions, questions and suggestions related to the project can be submitted to the Governor’s Office or the Ministry until the Environmental Impact Assessment process is completed, by any means such as announcement, pending announcement and internet. In addition, the Ministry is supposed to announce to the public via the Internet that the Environmental Impact Assessment process for the project has started and information on the Environmental Impact Assessment process can be obtained. The public can submit their opinions, questions and suggestions about the project to the authorities mentioned above.8

In the seventh paragraph of the same article, representatives of universities, institutes, research and expert organizations, professional chambers, trade and other unions, non-governmental organizations and member thereof can be invited. Thus, the objective here is clearly to involve the relevant stakeholders at the maximum level. In addition, the ninth article of the regulation requires the governors to take measures to facilitate the participation of the public. In the same text, the importance of creating a calendar is also underlined. The third paragraph of the relevant article contains the following statement: The Governor’s Office announces the time schedule and contact information for the public participation meeting and the process by which the public can submit their opinions and suggestions. The opinions and suggestions of the public are submitted to the commission within the time schedule (EIA Regulation 2008).

The provisions of the EIA regulation that involve public participation are not limited to the foregoing. Article 14 of the Regulation stipulates that the EIA report, finalized by the Scoping, Examining and Evaluation Commission,9 will be publicized 8 See

https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/07/20080717-3.htm.

9 Article 4 of the EIA Regulation defines the Scoping and Review Evaluation Commission as follows:

“Commission: Scoping, Examining and Evaluation Commission established by the Ministry to determine the scope and criteria of the special format to be submitted for the project and to examine and evaluate the Environmental Impact Assessment Report prepared in accordance with these principles”.

108

3 Participatory Government

for 10 working days in the Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry and the Ministry to receive opinions and suggestions of the public. The Ministry is supposed to take these views into account. In addition, the governorships are required to inform the public that their views and suggestions are reflected in the final EIA report. In addition, with the amendment made in the Environmental Law in 2006, the environmental impact assessment is included in the “definitions” section of Article 2 in the same way as in the EIA Regulation and is addressed under a separate article (Article 10). With the amendment made in the same law in 2006, it was decided that the activities started without an environmental impact assessment review would be stopped by the Ministry and the activities started without preparing a project introduction file would be ceased by the highest property supervisor without delay (Article 15). The above-mentioned regulations aiming at ensuring the participation of the public in almost every stage of the environmental impact assessment process are partially aligned with the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC. However, the 2003 regulation restricts public participation to a single information meeting, making public participation difficult.

3.4 Conclusion The principle of subsidiarity is included in the texts of 5216 Metropolitan Municipality Law (2004), 5393 Municipal Act (2005), 5302 Special Provincial Administration Law (2005) and Urban Council Ordinance (2006) legislation in the 2000s in Turkey, all of which mark essential steps in the reformation of local governance. In addition, practices which aim at enhancing participation such as establishment of city councils and Local Agenda 21 activities can be mentioned. However, there are serious problems in practice. For example, there is no clarity in the civil society organizations which should be invited to the city councils and the relevant criteria. The citizens of the city do not have a clear idea of who is represented in the city council. For example, it is not possible for all representatives to express their opinions in the Istanbul City Council, which has more than 1100 members. On the other hand, most city councils cannot convene because they cannot reach the meeting quorum. In addition, the city council meets only twice a year. Political parties, which are essential means of participatory democracy and pluralism, are far from providing ideal representation and participation. It is a well-known fact that in Turkey the level of intra-party democracy is low; this means that the governing bodies of political parties, members of councils and mayor candidates are not chosen in a participatory process. The fact that this is known to all voters may be serving as a factor in reducing participation. One of the most important problems of the participation culture in Turkey is that people could not become active citizens in the historical process. Tosun (2005: 152) states that the active citizen has direct activities in a series of areas from the democratization of political parties to the transparency of the administration, the pursuit of human rights and legal reforms. In Turkey, participatory governance came to the agenda during the reforms undertaken in the 2000s. In this sense, the Law No. 4982

3.4 Conclusion

109

on the right to information, which establishes the citizens’ access to all kinds of public information, the Law No. 6328 on the Ombudsman Institution, which forms an effective grievance mechanism through the citizen, the Public Financial Management and Control Law No. 5018 which includes provisions stipulating participation in strategic management, The Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 and the Municipal Law No. 5393 which aim to provide services to the society in the most effective way, have made significant progress in participatory governance. In particular, as an innovation introduced by the Law on Municipalities, city councils were established aiming at local participation. In addition, Presidential Communication Center, which performs its functions through C˙IMER web-based program, and the egovernment gate which operates at turkiye.gov.tr address are successful applications of participatory governance, but it is evident that they need more improvement. The excerpt taken from the “The Civil Society Environment in Turkey 2017 Report” prepared by Third Sector Foundation of Turkey, a reputable civil society organization which undertakes monitoring studies on the state of civil society in Turkey, summarizes the current situation: On the other hand, even before the coup attempt and the later consequences of state of emergency, shrinking civic space has been a concern since 2013. Despite improved legislation concerning associations and foundations in 2004 and 2008 which took place during the accession process to the EU, challenges and constraints continue, especially regarding secondary legislation and its implementation. In fact, no extensive reforms have been made since the major reform packages accepted in 2004 and 2008 that (in those years) improved the enabling environment of civil society. Turkey’s National Action Plan for the EU Accession (Phase-I November 2014–June 2015) which addressed the government’s undertakings to reform Law on Associations (No: 5253), Law on Collection of Aid (No: 2860), Civil Code (No: 4721), and Law on Foundations (No: 5737) did not come into force. Turkey’s reform process is observed to have slowed down. Besides, the changes made in the relevant legislation since 2015 curtailed basic freedoms. A controversial security bill, “The Law Amending the Law on Powers and Duties of the Police, Other Laws and Decrees” that is widely referred as the “Internal Security Reform Package” and fiercely opposed by opposition parties, was passed in Parliament on 27 March 2015 and widened power of police powers to conduct searches, use weapons, wiretap, detain individuals without a warrant, and remove demonstrators from scenes of protest. (Third Sector Foundation of Turkey 2017: 7–8)10

The processes of democratization of political regimes show that there are some opportunities for the exercise and constitution of citizenship, which are beginning to deepen in a significant number of countries in the world. There is also more room for autonomous decentralization processes and the emergence of new social and political movements that are beginning to re-define the relationship with the state and the political system configuring new scenarios and challenges for the deepening of the citizen’s exercise from a democratic and participative perspective. The deliberative democracy thesis described above contains normative elements; therefore it has been the subject of extensive debates. For example, Bohman (1998) and Chambers (2003) stated that the practical implications of political systems should be taken into consideration. Such authors as Pettit (2006) and Warren and Pearse 10 https://www.tusev.org.tr/usrfiles/images/Monitoring_Matrix_The_Civil_Society_Environment_ in_Turkey_2017_Report.pdf.

110

3 Participatory Government

(2008) have argued that the institutional forms of representative democracy do not allow for deliberative practices: they are highly focused on discourse and individual interest and do not include dynamic deliberations on policy decisions in terms of the structure of electoral democracy.11 For this reason, it has become a popular opinion that deliberation practices which everyone will participate in are not applicable. The locality offers opportunities for growth and development to the extent that the three dimensions examined in this paper—local public management, governance and participation—act in a coordinated manner and with sufficient autonomy. Benefits such as increasing the quality of life would privilege the citizen within the social context to which (s)he belongs by virtue of being more careful of the spaces and heritage of the locality. Thus, the citizen would be entrusted with direct responsibility in making decisions that may well change the direction of government management in terms of local policies if they affect their community and social interests; be part of sustainability and profitability of the locality, expressed as the opportunity to live in a space that provides health, safety, education and employment in favorable conditions for the family and the environment. For this reason, it is necessary to include governance strategies that allow for closer consultation and validation of the local public agenda fed by fairly sought and evaluated citizen input. However, it is clear that many social problems have a complex structure. The reasons for this could be the expertise of the state administration which is different from each other, the ability to lose the popularity of these specialties and skills over time, and the varying expertise and skills needed in different regions. Cohen and Sabel (1997) argue that for these reasons, traditional state bureaucracies are organized in separate public policy disciplines, thus assuming that there is a certain degree of stability within the circles they address. Considering today’s globalization, postmodernism and new public administration as a result of them, it is possible to see that this assumption is not totally true: the knowledge, skills and qualifications required by the new era appear to be an important limitation on traditional public policy-making capacity. In this context, direct participation and deliberation can be considered as a tool to help overcome these limitations on state capacity. Opening channels of participation in public decision-making processes can ensure that energies, resources and thoughts of citizens and stakeholders are applied to complex social problems. Appropriate types of deliberation can encourage search for innovative strategies and solutions (Booher and Innes 1999) and may create normative pressure to make fair and reasonable collective decisions (Fung 2006: 681–682). This complexity and conditions, in turn, would largely determine the possibilities for the development of citizen participation in public policies, which, far from constituting a propagandistic slogan, should be a necessity for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the intervention through public policies as for the exercise of a direct democracy.

11 See

Lindquist (2006) and King (1996) for Balkanization of decision-making processes which might be of relevance.

References

111

References Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 239–251. Ak¸sit, B., U˘gra¸s, U. T., Kurtulu¸s, K., & Cengiz, K. (2005). Türkiye ve Orta Do˘gu’da Sivil Toplum ˙ Tartı¸smaları. Sivil Toplum ve Demokrasi, Istanbul, Kaknüs Publications. Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1975). Public participation and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 429–479. Andrews, C. J. (2007). Rationality in policy decision making. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 161–171). Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press. Ataklı, S. ¸ (2003). Türkiye Uygulamasında Çevresel Etki De˘gerlendirmesi (ÇED), in M. Marın and U. Yıldırım (eds.), Çevre Sorunlarına Ça˘gda¸s Yakla¸sımlar, Meta Press. Ate¸s, H., & Nohutçu, A. (2006). Kamu hizmeti sunumunda gönüllü kurulu¸slar ve devlet (http:// acikerisimarsiv.selcuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/14588. Accessed 28 Dec 2019. Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. (2010). Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63. Baiocchi, G. (2003). Emergent public spheres: Talking politics in participatory governance. American Sociological Review, 52–74. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bayhan, V. (2002). Demokrasi ve sivil toplum örgütlerinin engelleri: patronaj ve nepotizm. Cumhuriyet University Journal of Social Sciences, 26(1), 1–13. Bayraktar, S. U. (2005). Hangi Sivil Toplum, Nasıl Bir Demokrasi? 1990’ların Türkiye’sinde Sivil Toplum(lar). Sivil Toplum: Dusunce and Arastirma Dergisi, 3(9). Bedük, A., Usta, S., & Kocao˘glu, M. (2006). Avrupa Birli˘gi’ne Giri¸s Sürecinde Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum Kurulu¸sları ve Demokratikle¸sme Sürecindeki Misyonları, Selçuk University Karaman F.E.A.S. Journal, no: 10, year: 9. Begossi, A. (2008). Local knowledge and training towards management. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(5), 591. Beierle, T. C. (1998). Public participation in environmental decisions: An evaluation framework using social goals (No. 1318-2016-103451). Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Review of Policy Research, 16(3–4), 75–103. Bezirci, P. D. (2005). AB sürecinde çevre. Tasam. Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C., & Munton, R. (2001). Deliberation and inclusion: Vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 501–513. Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400–425. Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 9–26. Borja, J. (1996). The city, democracy and governability: The case of Barcelona. International Social Science Journal, 48(147), 85–93. Boyer, R. (2008). Democracy and social democracy facing contemporary capitalisms: A” régulationist” approach. Bozkurt, Y. (2010). Avrupa Birli˘gi’ne uyum sürecinde Türkiye’de çevre politikalarının dönü¸sümü. Ekin Basım Yayım. Bozkurt, Y. (2014). Yerel Demokrasi AracI Olarak Türkiye’de Kent Konseyleri: Yapı, ˙I¸sleyi¸s ve Sorunlar. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (40).

112

3 Participatory Government

Bräutigam, D. (2004). The people’s budget? Politics, participation and pro-poor policy. Development Policy Review, 22(6), 653–668. Çaha, Ö. (2004). Açık Toplum Yazıları. Liberte: Ankara. Çetinkaya, Ö., & Korlu, R. K. (2012). Yerel demokrasinin sa˘glanmasında katılımcılık süreci ve kent konseylerinin rolü. Maliye Dergisi, 163, 95–117. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326. Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. Chatterton, P., & Goddard, J. (2000). The response of higher education institutions to regional needs. European Journal of Education, 35(4), 475–496. Clark, T. N. (2018). The new political culture. Routledge. Cohen, J., & Sabel, C. (1997). Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal, 3, 313–342. Cunill, M. C., Cutts, D., & Gibson, R. (2018). Does mode matter? Measuring the effects of different types of online political engagement on offline participation/O modo importa? Medindo os efeitos de diferentes tipos de envolvimento politico on-line na participacao off-line. Comunicacao, Midia E Consumo, 15(43), 10–41. Den˙iz, T. (2013). Kentle¸sme, Yerel Gündem 21 ve Kent Konseyleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(12). Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political theory, 29(5), 651–669. Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. Emini, F. T. (2009). Türkiye’de yerel yönetimler reformunun iç ve dı¸s dinamikleri. Yönetim Ve ˙ ˙ Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 31–48. Etzioni, A. (2004). The common good. Cambridge: Malden Press. Fearon, J. D. (1998). Deliberation as discussion. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 44– 68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). London, New York: CRC Press. Fishkin, J. S. (2011). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press. Fullan, M., Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 15. Fung, A. (2006). Democratizing the policy process. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 669–685). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29(1), 5–41. Gastil, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity? Political Communication, 17, 357–361. Gertler, M. S., & Wolfe, D. A. (2004). Local social knowledge management: Community actors, institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercises. Futures, 36(1), 45–65. Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39. Giorgi, L., & Pohoryles, R. (2005). Challenges to EU Political integration and the role of democratization, innovation. The European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 407–418. Graham, J., Plumptre, T. W., & Amos, B. (2003). Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Ottawa: Institute on governance. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2009). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton University Press. Habermas, J. (1997). Popular sovereignty as procedure. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambrigde, MA and London, MIT Press, s. 35–65.

References

113

Hajer, M. A., &d Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press. Hawkesworth, M. E. (1988). Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany: SUNY Press. Hira, ˙I., & San, ¸ M. K. (2009). Türkiye’de Sosyo-Politik Sistem ve Sivil Toplum Arayı¸sları. http:// www.sosyoloji.sakarya.edu.tr/turkiyede_sosyopolitik_sistemve_sivil_toplum.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2009. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/07/20080717-3.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2019. https://www.tusev.org.tr/usrfiles/images/Monitoring_Matrix_The_Civil_Society_Environment_ in_Turkey_2017_Report.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2019. Kele¸s, R., & Hamamcı, C. (2002). Çevrebilim. Ankara: ˙Imge Kitabevi. Keyman, E. F. (2006). Türkiye’de Sivil Toplumun Serüveni: ˙Imkânsızlıklar ˙Içinde Bir Vaha, Ankara: Civil Society Development Center, http://www.stgm.org.tr/tr/icerik/detay/turkiye-desivil-toplumun-seruveniimkansizliklar-icinde-bir-vaha. Accessed 11 Oct 2018. King, M. B. (1996). Participatory decision making. In F. M. Newmann, & Associates. (Ed.). Restructuring for authentic student achievement: The impact of culture and structure in 24 schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lafont, C. (2006). Is the ideal of a deliberative democracy coherent? In J. L. Marti, & S. Besson (Eds.). Deliberative democracy and its discontents. Routledge, s. 1–25. Leroux, T., Hirtle, M., & Fortin, L.-N. (1998). An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21(4), 445–481. Lindquist, S. A. (2006). Bureaucratization and Balkanization: The origins and the effects of decisionmaking norms in the federal appellate courts. U. Rich. L. Rev., 41, 659. Macpherson, C. B., & MacPherson, C. B. (1977). The life and times of liberal democracy (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Manin, B. (2005). Democratic deliberation: Why we should promote debate rather than discussion. In Paper delivered at the program in ethics and public affairs seminar, Princeton University (Vol. 13). Marın, M. (2004). Uyarlamalı Çevre ˙Irdeleme ve Yönetimi. In M. Marın & U. Yıldırım (Eds.), Çevre Sorunlarına Ça˘gda¸s Yakla¸sımlar: Ekolojik (pp. 533–560). ˙Istanbul: Ekonomik, Politik ve Yönetsel Perspektifler, Beta Publications. Mill, J. S. (2015). On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and other essays. USA: Oxford University Press. Miller, D. (1992). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies, 40(1_suppl), 54–67. Mises, L. (2007). The historical setting of the Austrian school of economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Monnoyer-Smith, L., & Wojcik, S. (2011). Technology and the quality of public deliberation. In 61st Conference of the International Communication Association. ˙ Odyakmaz, Z., Kaymak, Ü., & Ercan, I. (2006). Anayasa Hukuku ve ˙Idare Hukuku. Ikinci Sayfa ˙ Dizisi-8, Arıkan Publications, Istanbul. O’Hara, K. (1998). Comparative family policy: Eight countries’ stories. Canadian Policy Research Networks. Önder, Ö., & Güler, E. (2016). Türkiye’de yerel demokrasi açısından kent konseyleri üzerine bir ara¸stırma: Kütahya kent konseyi örne˘gi. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of Social Sciences Graduate School, 7(1), 881–902. Özdemir, A. T. (2011), Mahalli ˙Idarelerde Halk Katılımı Ba˘glamında Kent Konseyleri, Sayı¸stay Journal No: 83. http://dergi.sayistay.gov.tr/icerik/der83m2.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2018. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press. Pearce, J. (Ed.). (2016). Participation and democracy in the twenty-first century city. Springer. Pennington, M. (2018). Freedom, regulation, and public policy. The Oxford Handbook of Freedom, 300. Pettit, P. (2006). Democracy, national and international. The Monist, 89(2), 301–324. Pratchett, L. (1999). New fashions in public participation: towards greater democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4), 616–633.

114

3 Participatory Government

Purdue, D. (2001). Neighborhood governance: Leadership, trust and social capital. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2211–2224. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rau, H., Hynes, M., & Heisserer, B. (2016). Transport policy and governance in turbulent times: Evidence from Ireland. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(2), 45–56. Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press. Rosenberg, S. W. (Ed.). (2007). Deliberation, participation and democracy. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan. Saurugger, S., & Eberwein, W. D. (2009). Professionalization and Participation. NGOs and global participatory democracy? A Research Agenda. In International Political Science Convention, July 2009, Santiago di Chile. Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is… and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75–88. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (2006). Public policy and democratic citizenship: What kinds of citizenship does policy promote? In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 329–347). Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press. Scott, A., & Storper, M. (2003). Regions, globalization, development. Regional Studies, 37(6–7), 579–593. Shieh, L., & Friedmann, J. (2008). Restructuring urban governance: Community construction in contemporary China. City, 12(2), 183–195. Shmueli, D. F., & Plaut, P. O. (2004). Translating public participation into planning policy—the Israeli experience. In D. L. Faur & E. V. Gadot (Eds.), International public policy and management: Policy learning beyond regional, cultural and political boundaries (pp. 395–422). New York: MarcelDekker. Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy formulation: Design and tools. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 79–87). Boca Raton, London and New York: CRC Press. Sieyès, E. J., & Sonenscher, M. (2003). Political writings. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett. Susskind, L., & Elliott, M. (1983). Paternalism, conflict, and coproduction. New York: Plenum Press. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governancebeyond-the-state. Urban studies, 42(11), 1991–2006. Tekeli, I. (2003). Kentleri dönü¸süm mekanı olarak dü¸sünmek. Kentsel Dönü¸süm Sempozyumu, 11–13. Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ˙ Tortop, N., Aykaç, B., Yayman, H., & Özer, A. (2006). Mahalli Idareler. Ankara: Nobel Press. ˙ skisinin Yeniden Yapılandırılması Tosun, G. E. (2005). Birle¸stirici Demokrasi Devlet Sivil Toplum Ili¸ ˙ Bir Analiz Aracı Olabilir mi?. Sivil Toplum ve Demokrasi, ˙Istanbul: Kaknüs Publications. Için Urhan, V. F. (2008). Türkiye’de yerel yönetimlerin yeniden yapılandırılması. Sayı¸stay Journal, 70, 85–102. Valler, D. (1996). Locality, local economic strategy and private sector involvement: Case studies in Norwich and Cardiff. Political Geography, 15(5), 383–403. Warner, M., & Sullivan, R. (Eds.). (2017). Putting partnerships to work: Strategic alliances for development between government, the private sector and civil society. Routledge. Warren, M. E., & Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge University Press. Wood, C. (1997). Environmental impact asssesment: A comparative review. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

References

115

Woodward, D. G., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (1996). Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision 1. British Journal of Management, 7(4), 329–347. Yel, A. M. (2008). Sivil Toplum ve Demokrasi. In M. Gençtürk & A. Erdo˘gan (Eds.), Sivil Toplum Kavramı Tartı¸smaları (pp. 141–158). ˙Istanbul: Kaknüs Publications. Yılmaz, M. (2018). Sivil Toplum ve Sivil Toplum Kurulu¸sları: Türkiye’de Bilgi Hizmetlerine Yönelik Olu¸sturulmu¸s STK’lar ve Bu Kurulu¸slara Yönelik Bir Ara¸stırma. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 10(1), 249–272. Zariç, S. (2018). Demokratikle¸sme Açisindan Sivil Toplum ve Osmanli’dan Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne Konumu. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Graduate School, 31, 303–314.

Chapter 4

Local Governance Reforms

Centralization has been an essential element of Turkish political and administrative system since the Ottoman era. There is a vast literature showing that not much has changed after the proclamation of the republic, as local governments have most of the time perceived only as administrative extensions of central government (Mardin 1973; Heper 1974; Sayarı 1978; Ertürk 1980; Öni¸s 1997; Özbudun 2006; Röth et al. 2016). Local governance and decentralization had not been an explicit feature of policy agenda until 1999 when Helsinki summit paved the way for Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU) when Turkey was declared as a candidate country. Having adopted this perspective, the government undertook an ambitious public and political reform program as regards implementation of European governance principles, including transparency, accountability and responsiveness, participatory government and effectiveness. The reform program included, among others, the reinforcement of local governance and the imposition of subsidiarity principle in the center–periphery relations. Literature implies that the Europeanization of the relations between political center and the periphery in terms of local and regional governance, which were unfamiliar terms to Turkish political scene before EU process, was imposed by EU bodies (Sözen and Shaw 2002, 2003; Cizre 2004; Heper 2005; Çayhan 2008; Türkmen 2008). However, this process was to show its impact only to the extent that the windows of political opportunity, as defined by Kingdon (1984), motivated the reformers to do so. Therefore, the coming to power of a conservative party (AKP) with a dominating majority in the Parliament1 marked a historic moment and cleared the way for putting into effect the recommendations of the European Commission and argued for in its regular progress reports and other documents. On the other hand, the process was

1 On

November 3, 2002, the AKP won 34.22% of the votes and 363 of the 550 seats of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, which provided it with the means needed to initiate radical reform programs.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. Demir, Public Management Reform in Turkey, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5_4

117

118

4 Local Governance Reforms

evaluated as an opportunity by the AKP to gain a strong hand in the domestic political struggles and reinforce its position vis-à-vis its competitors that were essentially Euro-skeptical.2 In this context, Europeanization of public administration in Turkey can be interpreted as a process during which the Turkish governments capitalized on the requirements of EU accession talks (Woll and Jacquot 2004). Nevertheless, the turning point came when the European Council decided in 2006 to suspend negotiation talks in eight chapters. After that decision the AKP government adopted less decentralized policies and reclaimed the positions that the center “lost” to local governments in the preceding years. The 2008 and 2012 legislations represent this gradual turn in local governance policies. Thus, the chapter begins with an evaluation of the effects of Europeanization from the perspective of policy windows and gives a brief description of the concept. Assessing the turning points in accession negotiations as policy windows, the argument goes on to discuss the opportunities exploited by the Turkish governments in terms of decentralization and even (re)centralization in order to leverage its power. This chapter seeks to examine the changes in local governance policies in Turkey with reference to Europeanization processes and policy windows approach developed by Kingdon. The declaration of the candidacy status of Turkey in 1999, the starting of accession negotiations in 2005 and European Union’s decision to suspend negotiations in certain chapters in 2006 due to the failure of Turkey to implement additional protocol to Cyprus mark turning points in the local governance reform processes of the candidate country. From a public policy perspective, the article argues that these events were evaluated as policy windows by Turkish governments mainly due to their usefulness for domestic politics.

4.1 The Concept of “Policy Windows” Multiple streams model was developed by Kingdon (1984) in his famous analysis of agendas, alternatives and public policies in an attempt to explain shifts in policies. Kingdon claimed that his approach was indispensable in terms of understanding the agenda-setting phase of public policies. The intuitive value of his model and related concepts are used in agenda-setting studies in a number of policy areas. Kingdon suggested answers to two questions frequently asked by scholars who studied agendasetting processes: (i) How it is known that some ideas are more urgent than others? (ii) Why are some ideas used by the government to formulate public policies whereas others are not? In order to answer these questions, Kingdon used the multiple streams model which was inspired by the garbage can theory of organizational choice that attempted 2 The most important of these competitors were the main opposition party (CHP), the president and

the military.

4.1 The Concept of “Policy Windows”

119

to describe the decision-making processes using the metaphor of a garbage can “into which various kinds of problems and solutions are dumped by participants as they are generated” (Cohen et al. 1972: 2). The model is based on the metaphoric usage of three streams which together constitute policy-related decision-making processes which can develop and act independently in the first place. However, at critical turning points which significantly increase the likelihood of the realization of an item on government agenda, these streams can converge. The problems flow represents social issues which attract the attention and constitute the agenda of government. The policies (or solutions) flow refers to the suggestions developed and/or adopted by the government in order to solve these problems. Although these solutions can emerge independently from problems, it is more likely that they are deliberately generated to address certain issues that catch the attention of the government. The third flow, politics, represents the changes in the sphere of national and international politics such as change of government, change in relations with supranational bodies or a shift in alliances that alter the balance of power between different actors. Despite being relatively independent from each other, problems, policies and politics flows converge under certain circumstances; at these moments, a policy window which allows for a change of policy is opened. This is when policy entrepreneurs3 benefit from the sensitiveness of elected politicians toward the preferences of the voters and propose the solutions they developed concerning certain problems. In a nutshell, multiple streams model is a popular approach which attempts to explain why an issue is turned into a policy topic and brought to the agenda of policy-makers. The model represents a turning point for public policy theories due to its emphasis on the reasons of stepping forward of some agenda items and fading out of some others (Sabatier 1999). Each flow in the policy system is conceptualized separately from the other flows and has its unique dynamics and rules. However, at critical times they are brought together by policy entrepreneurs. The combination of the flows at a critical point will enjoy higher possibility of attracting the attention of policy-makers. Several studies in the literature attempt to explain policy changes with reference to policy windows. In one of the earliest papers, Solecki and Michael (1994) used policy windows approach to explain the measures developed against disasters after Loma Prieta earthquake (October 1989) and Hurricane Hugo (September 1989). Lieberman (2002) discussed Chicago School Reform Act of 1988 within the concept of policy streams and policy entrepreneurs. Mannheimer et al. (2007) evaluated the health impact assessment policy in Sweden from policy windows perspective. Farley et al. (2007) observed a window of opportunity in Katrina hurricane for the public acceptance of policy goals developed by ecological economists. Hermansen (2015) argues that policy windows approach provides the backstage of the world’s

3 The term “policy entrepreneur” is used by Kingdon to describe actors who use their knowledge of

policy processes to reach their individual policy goals.

120

4 Local Governance Reforms

largest REDD+ (reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) initiative, Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative. Smith (2017) sees a window of opportunity in reproductive justice for social work advocacy. The EU impact has been particularly clear in Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) during their accession negotiations. In order to undertake the obligations imposed by accession to the Union, the CEEC put into effect various structures, procedures and processes. The increase in the interaction with the EU at every administrative level, combined with the importance of the receipt and utilization of EU preaccession funds, exerted serious influence on the CEEC government which resulted in institutional restructuring and more comprehensive cooperation between institutions (Papadimitriou and Phinnemore 2003: 5–6). Despite similarities in pre-accession processes, the case of Turkey experiences serious backsliding from decentralization policies. This chapter follows suit of the studies mentioned above and argues that such fluctuations can be explained by policy windows approach.

4.2 Legal Aspects of Decentralization: 2004–2005 Legislations The creation of European regional policy in 1988 which was followed by the European regulations in 1993 and 1999 to encourage decentralized policy making in all member and candidate states marked the beginning of a wave of decentralization reforms across some countries such as Turkey. With this leverage, the EU sought to intensify decentralization, equality between stakeholders and public policy network formation especially at local level for problem-solving (Bourne 2004). The Turkish political and administrative system responded to this discourse positively when Turkey chose to implement comprehensive regulatory reforms after the coming to power of AKP in 2002 in order to abide by Copenhagen political criteria and, thus, to obtain candidacy status for EU membership, which was one of the major promises of AKP during election campaign. It was through this discourse that the party won the support of an influential liberal and pro-western segment of the society (Özbudun 2006; Casanova 2006; Hale and Özbudun 2009; Abramowitz and Barkey 2009).4 One of the most important discussion topics in this process was reforming of the relationship between the center and the periphery. The discussion had its repercussions in the parliament where a series of local government laws were passed after heated debates.5 The laws also became the subject of political, legal and media struggles. For example, the president repeatedly rejected reform bills and returned them

4 Vardar

(2005) claimed that the elections of 2002 opened leeway to those who, in the Turkish political field, found an advantage to use the European challenge to stand out in the political game. 5 Among these laws, Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216, Municipality Law No. 5393 and Provincial Governance Law No. 5302 were the most important legislations, which will be mentioned below.

4.2 Legal Aspects of Decentralization: 2004–2005 Legislations

121

to the parliament for further discussion. In some cases, he even referred to the constitutional court for rescinding of some bills such as municipality law and provincial governance law. As a result, the implementation of reform laws was delayed, if not aborted. These reforms would serve to reconstruct the relationship between the center and the periphery. The decentralization program declared by AKP after its election victory in 2002 emphasized two major changes in the course of center–periphery relations: (i) transfer of authorities to local units at the level of necessity, which was a requirement of the subsidiarity principle of Council of Europe, and (ii) civic participation in decision-making processes at local level. The projects on the municipalities promised to loosen the grip of the center, and another project on Development Agencies allowed to give, on paper at least, pledges to Europe in the run-up to the pre-accession negotiations by responding to the severe criticism of the European Commission’s report on “Turkey’s progress towards accession” (COM 2004). In other words, these reforms were, among other things, a response to the constant pressure from the EU for decentralization. Decentralization reforms in 2004 and 2005 included the amendment of existing laws on metropolitan, municipal and provincial governance. The metropolitan governance law of 2004 declared its purpose as ensuring that metropolitan governance was performed in a “planned, effective and efficient manner” and the services were provided in a concerted manner. The law expanded the roles and responsibilities of the metropolitan municipality at an unprecedented level. It also introduced expertise commissions which could be attended by a variety of local political actors from official agencies, professional bodies, universities, trade unions and specialized non-governmental organizations. These experts could declare their opinions at commission meetings. In that manner, the government aimed to secure wider participation at local governance. Another provision of the law authorized the municipal governments to use performance indicators to make bonus payments to their personnel. These indicators are supposed to be developed based on contextual and design factors which can have an impact on the performance of local governments (Eliuz et al. 2017: 329). It was expected that these steps would increase decentralization of policy-making processes at local level. The municipal governance law which was put into effect in 2005 marked the second step in decentralization. The law had similar provisions to those provided by the metropolitan governance regulation in the previous year; it especially underlined such principles as participation, effectiveness and accountability and equipped municipalities with numerous roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis central government. For example, municipalities would prepare strategic plans and performance programs which would form the basis of the budget (Article 41); personnel policies were decentralized (Article 49), the council meetings would be held more frequently (every month compared to quarterly in previous law), and, in a similar fashion to the practice in metropolitan municipalities, expertise commissions were introduced in order to encourage participation. In addition, “city councils” were introduced with the aim of realizing such principles as development of fellow citizen awareness,

122

4 Local Governance Reforms

protection of the rights of the city, sustainable development, environmental sensitiveness, social solidarity, transparency, accountability, participation and subsidiarity (Article 24). These councils were to act as non-official bodies where the problems of the city would be discussed by a variety of local actors and recommendations would be made for consideration by the municipal council. Decentralization reforms in Turkey also included the law on provincial local governments which was passed in 2005. The reform was evaluated by the European Commission in its 2005 progress report as an important step in coping with the problems caused by internal migration and increasing the effectiveness of provincial government. The law was also welcomed as an opportunity to improve local democracy. The reform was aligned with the previous legislations on metropolitan and municipal governance in ensuring participation, decentralized employment schemes, better accountability and increased roles and responsibilities for the provincial council. A general evaluation of the decentralization reforms in 2004 and 2005 could indicate that the metropolitan governance law, municipality law and provincial local governments law played their essential role in the discussion of the situation and the deep-rooted problems of public governance in the country. The reform package which was put into effect in 2004 included steps aimed at upgrading the traditional “secondary” position of local governments vis-à-vis the center in administrative, political and financial terms and furnished them with a more European format. These steps could mark the beginning of local governments stronger in terms of authorities, roles and resources and more participatory and democratic in terms of functioning and decision-making processes. They underlined the understanding that center and periphery were not alternatives to each other and promoted the distribution of roles and responsibilities between them. These are also steps taken toward the “general power of competence” principle which is applied in many European countries where local governments are natural extensions of cooperation model. According to this principle, local governments are authorized to perform any local service and task that laws do not particularly define for other levels of governments (Stoker 1991; Vetter 2002; Heinelt and Hlepas 2006; Naschold 2017). It can be claimed regulations which observe this principle are convenient to the subsidiarity doctrine introduced by European Charter of Local Self-Government and Maastricht Treaty. An important aspect of legislation amendments in this process of reformation was that they introduced regulations parallel to the new public management and public governance dynamics which came to the global agenda in 1980s. Despite its deficiencies, it can be claimed that a transition was experienced from an understanding which saw local governments as a structured which produced only limited services and an extension of the central government to a new philosophy which qualified local governments as autonomous, democratic, participatory and transparent actors of local democracy. In particular, the drawing of professional bodies, unions and related civil society organizations in governing processes and ensuring participation through city councils and Local Agenda 21 efforts can be evaluated as positive developments. However, two elements deserve evaluation in this perspective. First, the political situation gave AKP the opportunity to use European Union membership bid as a resource in its struggle with entrenched political figures such as the military, main

4.2 Legal Aspects of Decentralization: 2004–2005 Legislations

123

opposition party (CHP), the military, the president and bureaucracy. Second, only modest reforms could be put into implementation due to the concerns for such balance of power and the skepticism within the governing party concerning the potential “separatist” consequences that these reforms could produce.6

4.3 Political Aspects of Decentralization The venture of decentralization and following re-centralization in Turkey in the twenty-first century cannot be treated fairly without looking into the political aspects of both processes. These two consecutive but contradictory political streams are affected by three main phenomena: (i) the shift in civil-military relations, (ii) the fluctuations in the reaction toward Kurdish problem, and (iii) AKP’s efforts to change domestic balance of power by eliminating power elites that it sees as rivals. These essentially political factors served as policy windows which led to the failure of decentralization and re-institution of centralization in Turkey.

4.3.1 Civil–Military Relations In addition to global and local developments of 2000s, EU accession talks continued to shape internal politics and improve freedoms. Especially after 2002, the government took critical steps to expand the area of politics which resulted in the deprivation of the military of its traditional privileges. Democratic reforms required the military to confine itself to a status which is equal to other public actors. The EU has put special emphasis on civil–military relations in all of its evaluations on Turkey. For example, the progress reports between 1999 and 2001 criticized that civilian control over the military was not effective enough and indicated the impact of National Security Council (NSC).7 The constitutional and following legal amendments after 2001 shifted the majority of membership to civilians, and the legal force of the council decisions was downgraded to “the degree of recommendation”. As a result, the Council turned into an advisory body. In addition, the seventh harmonization package which was adopted in 2003 introduced some reforms which further reduced the impact of the military and the NSC. Within this framework, (i) the secretary general of the NSC could now be chosen among civilians, (ii) the secretary general was to be appointed by the prime minister instead of the Chief of General Staff, (iii) the frequency of council meetings was reduced from monthly to 6 The separatist PKK terrorist organization has been an essential issue in Turkish polity since 1970s.

Some of the characteristics of decentralization encouraged by European Union, especially in terms of regionalization, are rejected due to their “separatist” tone. 7 The National Security Council is a constitutional body consisting of military and civilian leaders. Before its makeup was reformed in 2001, military members were in majority and the decisions of the council were to be considered by the government “primarily”.

124

4 Local Governance Reforms

bi-monthly, (iv) the military budget could be controlled by the Supreme Court of Accounts, and (v) the scope of authority of military courts was narrowed. As a result, the constitutional and legal amendments which were put into effect between 2001 and 2004 in the EU accession process weakened the influence of the military in national politics (Heper 2011; Jenkins 2007; Cizre 2004). Although the prosecution of military leadership based on coup attempt allegations added to the decline of the military as a determinant policy-making actor in the country, the process was initiated by the Helsinki European Council decision in 1999 to grant the candidacy status to Turkey. This marked a turning point after when Turkish governments took bold steps to ensure conformity to establish civilian control on the military which was one of the key elements of Copenhagen political criteria.

4.3.2 Kurdish Problem Another central issue which served to increase the stronghold of the government in domestic politics was the Kurdish problem. One of the most important pre-conditions of ensuring conformity to the Copenhagen criteria was solution of the Kurdish problem on the basis of democracy, rule of law and equality of rights. In the course of the EU negotiation process, “identity politics” serves as a critical aspect as the Kurds in Turkey are recognized as a minority by the EU. In this respect, European Union and Turkey Civic Commission (EUTCC), among other advisory bodies, hosted a number of Kurdish problem conferences under the auspices of the European Parliament. A conference titled “European Union, Turkey and Kurds” was convened in November 2004 and declared the objective of EUTCC as ensuring that Turkey attains a democracy in the line of Copenhagen political criteria based on a proper interest in Kurdish problem.8 As the AKP took important steps in civilian control over the military, the perception as regards the solution to Kurdish problem began to change radically. Now it was possible to implement a new, basically political, strategy. In 2012 the government announced the “Solution Process”. However, the process was far from being participatory9 and was mostly based on the return from mountains of some PKK militants, who had not took part in armed conflicts. These former militants would later be pardoned. At this point two seemingly conflicting but strategically and politically beneficial developments played an essential role in strengthening the position of AKP government. First, the National Intelligence Organization officials and PKK authorities held a series of discussions in Oslo to bring a political solution to the Kurdish issue. Second, AKP rejected to recognize BDP, the political party which mainly represented Kurdish interests, as a legitimate speaker of the Kurdish people. 8 http://www.khrp.org/khrp-news/human-rights-documents/doc_download/87-turkeys-accession-

to-the-eu-democracy-human-rights-and-the-kurds.html. did not resort to the opinions of Kurdish political leaders, nor did it open the basic elements of the reform program to public discussion. See (Gunter 2014; Ye˘gen 2015; Keyman 2016).

9 AKP

4.3 Political Aspects of Decentralization

125

The basic approach of the government was that only AKP was able and authorized to solve the Kurdish problem. This strategy aimed at increasing AKP’s votes in eastern and southeast Anatolia which was mainly populated by Kurds. In the meantime, the manifesto presented to the European Parliament by European Commission in October 2013 officially declared the EU’s support for Solution Process and new constitution efforts. However, November 2015 elections marked a sharp bend in Kurdish problem which eliminated the optimistic atmosphere of the first decade of twenty-first century. During the election campaign, the emphasis shifted from rights and freedoms to antiterror operations. The “hawkish” election campaign helped AKP votes increase to 49.5 from 41% compared to previous general elections and 43.4% compared to 2014 local elections. It can be concluded that the EU membership process which provided the fuel for hopes for solution of Kurdish problem in the first decade of twentyfirst century failed to develop a viable solution perspective and fell victim to the increasingly centralized policy-making style of the governing AKP.

4.3.3 AKP’s Attempts to Change the Domestic Balance of Power In the first years of AKP governments, the party was mostly in serious conflicts with the military authority. Shortly these conflicts turned into a life-or-death struggle for the AKP which preferred to use democratic institutions and processes as a trump card. AKP saw a window of opportunity in the European Union process which offered a convenient setting for pushing for democratic reforms and claiming the positions traditionally retained by the military elites. Such international support helped the AKP to triumph in the struggle against military elites. The consequences were not limited to the shift of power from military bureaucracy to the governing party: the Kurdish problem was to be addressed from the perspective of the AKP which was now immune from the interference of the military. As the EU influence weakened, the government eliminated other actors in national policy making and moved to impose its solutions one-sidedly (Keyman 2016). The 2010 referendum increased the quota of the party assignments in constitutional court, Supreme board of judges and prosecutors, and Supreme Military Council. Such steps are good examples of the growing centralization of the AKP in policy-making processes which is essential in understanding the shift in decentralization policies in Turkey.

4.4 The Turn of the Tide: 2008 and 2012 Legislations The decision of European Council in December 2006 to discontinue with accession talks in certain chapters and not to close any chapters until the additional protocol is implemented by Turkey without discriminating between EU member states and

126

4 Local Governance Reforms

provided another window of opportunity for AKP government. By that time, the party had reinforced its stronghold in the political sphere and virtually eliminated the opposition which could challenge its power position. As a result, European Union accession became less and less important in gaining allies in the internal political sphere. This time, the lack of enthusiasm for EU membership proved to be a window of opportunity for the AKP government to reverse the decentralization process of 2004/2005. Between June 2010 and September 2013, not a single chapter was opened for negotiations. Until then, Turkey had begun accession talks in only 13 of the 35 chapters. A majority of the remaining chapters were blocked by Cyprus, France or Council of the European Union. In addition, the economic crisis which emerged in 2010 in the Euro zone deepened the alienation between Turkey and the European Union. In the process of ontological crisis that the Union faced, EU enlargement and Turkey’s bid for accession went deeper down in the list of priorities. In this troubled period, although the Turkish government under the rule of AKP seemed committed to the accession process in principle, it gave less importance to the process after 2007. For example, the 2023 vision address given by the then prime minister Erdo˘gan in 2012 did not make a single reference to the EU, but repeatedly underlined the prospect of Turkey for joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.10 In order to obtain a more complete picture, the 2008/2012 legislations will be examined with reference to the concept of “economies of scale” below.

4.4.1 Economies of Scale and Local Governments Debates on the size of municipalities in the literature date back to 1960s. Olson (1969) analyzed the principle of “financial balance” between decision-makers, beneficiaries and taxpayers and claimed that the balance could be established through sharing of responsibilities at different levels of local governance. Oates (1972) and King and Plosser (1984) added new dimensions to the discussion on the most ideal size for local government in terms of financial effectiveness and efficiency. Byrnes and Dollery (2002), Dollery and Crase (2004), and Drew et al. (2014) reported that the municipal amalgamations in Australia were based on economic reasons of which validity was questioned. In his study on the municipal amalgamations in urban Toronto, Slack (2000) indicated that the unification of the suburban areas of the city with the downtown areas was based on political calculations: the conservative government of the province of Ontario aimed at making the conservative tendencies of suburbs more determinant in urban politics; for this purpose, small municipalities were united with

10 Shanghai

Cooperation Organization (SCO), established in 2001, is an inter-governmental international organization. Its members are Russian Federation, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and India. In Turkey, SCO is usually seen as an alternative to European Union and the USA in times of crisis in relations.

4.4 The Turn of the Tide: 2008 and 2012 Legislations

127

the downtown which resulted in an increase in conservative votes in municipal elections. In this process, the liberal population in the downtown and suburbs formed a civil society organization named Citizens for Local Democracy (C4LD) and rejected the proposal but could not manage to alter the decision of the provincial government. Toronto provides a classical example of altering the municipal size with political motives. Consolidation reforms in local governments in European countries are mostly based on such concepts as economy and efficiency. This phenomenon is more common in countries which provide local governments functional roles beyond mere representation. It is also argued that in some European countries European integration processes require the consolidation of local governments.11 According to Swianiewicz (2010: 191) this process works twofold. First, reformists claim that European Union requires some sort of sub-national institution. Second, they argue that a unified Europe is in need of stronger local government institutions in order to be able to compete with the regions and cities of other countries. Dafflon (2013: 189–190) evaluated the amalgamation of municipalities in Switzerland. Today, the political borders of the country do not coincide with the economic borders required for more effective and efficient provision of most local services. As people gained more mobility, the distances covered every day by the people who reside within municipal borders for shopping or leisure activities tend to cross multiple municipalities. The expansion of industrial and economic activity areas of cities rendered meaningless the former municipal borders.12 He developed an approach to offer solution to these problems and made the following suggestions: (i) those who reside in a certain area and vote in the election of relevant local government, (ii) those who benefit from the services offered by a local government, and (iii) those who pay the taxes collected by a local government (or taxes that are transferred to the local government by the central authority) should overlap. The 2009 report of Council of European Municipalities and Regions titled “Balancing Democracy, Identity and Efficiency”13 provides examples of local governance reforms. It gives information on the amalgamation tendencies of local governments in several European countries and underlines that there are more than 91,000 municipalities in European Union countries. According to the report, the first examples of amalgamation of municipalities were seen in Austria and Sweden in 1950s where the number of municipalities was reduced to half and one-eighth, respectively. In the following years, compulsory and voluntary municipal amalgamation movements reduced the number of municipalities in such countries as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands at ratios varying from one-fifth to one-half. In 1990s, Finland and Lithuania underwent a similar process. In 1997, the Capodistrias reform significantly reduced the number of municipalities in Greece. The process in the 11 See,

for example, Norton (1991), Vetter and Kersting (2003), Swianiewicz (2002, 2010), and Wollman (2004) for comparative perspectives. 12 Dafflon (2013) introduced the term “relational territory”. For a more detailed discussion of the concept, see dell’Agnese (2013). 13 https://www.ccre.org/docs/changes_in_local_and_regional_structures_web_EN.pdf.

128

4 Local Governance Reforms

United Kingdom can be examined in two periods (pp. 4–5). In 1990s, the tendency was founding of small municipalities which would be closer to the public. However, in recent years such concepts as economies of scale and effectiveness gained popularity as a result of which small municipalities are being merged or incorporated to larger municipalities (p. 5). Territorial organization in France is basically different from other EU countries in its fragmented structure. Communes are seen as essential elements of local democracy and identity and are preserved with a strong sense of history. Inter-municipal cooperation modes have been developed since 1890s in order to overcome the financial problems imposed by such fragmentation and save money. There were mainly two inter-municipal cooperation schemes: (i) the soft scheme, which lacked a financial dimension and concentrated on the provision of common services; and (ii) the scheme which included more in-depth cooperation and required the compulsory transfer of some services from municipalities to inter-municipal bodies. As of 2008, more than 33,600 of the 36,000 municipalities in mainland France were brought together under 2584 inter-municipal bodies. Yet, less than 2000 people live in 32,000 municipalities in France today. Only 103 municipalities have more than 50,000 residents. The central government uses various incentives to encourage amalgamation; however, the final decision authority rests with the municipal council. To sum up, due to the French viewpoint that municipalities are indispensable elements of local identity and democracy, the level of municipal amalgamation has not come up to expectations. From this perspective, France presents an exceptional case among European Union countries.

4.4.2 The Metropolitan Municipality Law of 2008 The Law No. 5747 which went into force in March 2008 abolished the municipalities which were defined as sub-layer or first-tier municipalities in metropolitan areas. Some of these municipalities were transformed into district municipalities whereas some were taken out of the metropolitan area and turned into town municipalities or neighborhoods and even villages. The law transformed 1 of the 100 district municipalities into neighborhood, 35 of the first-tier municipalities into district municipalities, 8 of them into town municipalities and 1 of them into village. In addition, 25 town municipalities were downgraded to neighborhoods of metropolitan area. The law was part of a pilot project and its application was limited to the provinces of Istanbul and Kocaeli.

4.4.3 The Law of 2012: The Search for “Optimal Scale” The debates on optimal scale which are mostly based on population variable have multiple dimensions. First of all, it is claimed that small local government units are

4.4 The Turn of the Tide: 2008 and 2012 Legislations

129

unable to manage the financial, technical and human resources required for providing local public services on their own. On the other hand, oversized local government units suffer from additional costs caused by an overcrowded population (traffic jams, environmental pollution, poor infrastructure etc.). Third, optimal scale represents the threshold that local governments reach in terms of economic acceptability from the perspective of service provision. In general, optimal scale indicates the local government size with the population and area which will make sure that public services can be provided in the most effective manner. In several public services, unit cost decreases as the population grows. Depending on the marginal cost, increasing the population in the area where service is produced decreases the average cost. The metropolitan law of 2012 clarified the topic of municipal borders in metropolitan areas. The border of a metropolitan municipality was extended to the borders of the provincial area of the same metropolitan unit, and the borders of metropolitan district municipalities (MDM) were equated to the border of the district as a territorial unit administered by the sub-governor, who is appointed by the government. The MDM would provide services to every square meter of the district and the metropolitan municipality would provide services to every square meter of the province. This meant that every square meter of the province would be under the coverage of both the MDM and the metropolitan municipality. Metropolitan municipalities and MDMs which enjoy well-defined distribution of tasks and improved coordination are the cornerstones of the new metropolitan structure. This system introduced a construct where local services are classified as smallscale and large-scale (7th article of the Law No. 5216) in a province and thus efficient and effective service can be provided in the case that MDMs and metropolitan municipality operate in harmony and coordination. On one hand, the bottlenecks in public finance and the resulting necessity of using resources wisely and on the other hand, the decrease in service and living quality due to population increase, as well as squatting and environmental pollution, marked the starting point of the debates on optimal scale in local government units. In terms of population, optimal municipal scale is equal to the size of the population which minimizes average cost. The smaller the scale, the less potential a local government unit can employ in terms of benefiting from the economies of scale. The metropolitan municipal Law No. 6360 which was put into force in 2012 nearly doubled the number of metropolitan municipalities from 16 to 30. The new model defined that the borders of the metropolitan municipality would be equal to the borders of the territorial provincial unit; hence, the nickname “Metropolitan Model at Provincial Borders”. According to the bill, the provincial special administrations in the provinces of metropolitan municipalities were abolished. The villages and town municipalities in the metropolitan areas were already abolished by the law of 2008; thus, the only local government units remaining in metropolitan areas are metropolitan municipality and MDMs. Despite it sounds paradoxical, this means that public services at local level can be managed from a single center in the periphery. In this model, routine, small-scale public services which address daily needs are provided by MDMs whereas services at a larger scale which require province-wide planning and coordination are offered by metropolitan municipalities.

130

4 Local Governance Reforms

4.4.4 Structural Changes Introduced by the New Model The leading structural changes posed by the new legislation can be listed as follows: (i) Abolishment of PSAs, (ii) Closure and turning into neighborhood of town municipalities, (iii) Re-organization of distribution of roles and responsibilities, and (iv) Re-organization of funding schemes.

4.4.4.1

Abolishment of Provincial Special Administrations

The legal personality of PSAs in the metropolitan municipality provinces was abolished by the Law No. 6360. With this legislation villages and PSAs ceased to exist in metropolitan areas and municipality became the only type of local government. The roles, responsibilities and assets (and, of course, debts) of PSAs and villages were taken over by other levels of government. In the case of PSAs, authorities were shared by ministries, other public bodies, provincial organizations, the treasury and, especially the metropolitan and district municipalities. The bill also introduced another element of centralization by making the budgetary authorities of the PSA councils subject to tutelage: if the council cannot reach a final decision on the budget draft, the governor (who is a public servant appointed by the government) refers the situation to the Ministry of the Interior, whose decision will be final. When this practice is evaluated along with the abolishment of legal personality of villages, it is safe to say that local government is centralized at metropolitan level (Gözler 2013; Adıgüzel 2014; Dik 2014; Günal et al. 2014).

4.4.4.2

Closure of Town Municipalities and Villages

The Law No. 6360 adopted two different methods concerning town municipalities. On one hand, the town municipalities in metropolitan areas were abolished and transformed into neighborhoods, which meant the loss of legal personality. On the other hand, town municipalities in non-metropolitan areas with a population under 2000 were turned into village. As a result, 1156 town municipalities were transformed into neighborhoods. In addition, 552 town municipalities in non-metropolitan areas were turned into villages as their population was under 2000. Together this meant 81% reduction as the previous number of town municipalities was 2104. The reform also abolished 16,657 villages in metropolitan areas and turned them into neighborhoods, which represented 54% reduction. The change in the number of local government units before and after the Law No. 6360 is given in Table 4.1. The table makes clear that the Law No. 6360 abolished 47% of the local governments in Turkey which enjoyed legal personality. By nearly doubling the number of neighborhoods, the law transformed these local governments into units which are dependent on the municipality in terms of funding and personnel.

4.4 The Turn of the Tide: 2008 and 2012 Legislations

131

Table 4.1 The change in the number of local government units before and after Law No. 6360 Type of local government Metropolitan municipality District municipality

Before Law No. 6360

After Law No. 6360

16

30

Change in % 88

921

921

0

2104

396

−81

Village

34441

18336

−47

Neighborhood

15379

32036

108

81

51

−37

37563

19734

−47

Town municipality

Provincial special administration Total (neighborhoods excluded)a

a Neighborhoods are not granted legal personality; therefore, the Turkish constitution excludes them

from the list of local government units. In fact, neighborhoods are de facto sub-units of municipalities as their expenses are reimbursed from the municipal budget

4.4.4.3

Reorganization of the Division of Roles and Authorities

The new metropolitan governance model granted metropolitan municipalities with authorities and responsibilities at provincial scale. The abolishment of PSAs and villages within metropolitan provinces meant that their authorities would be shared by metropolitan municipality and MDMs, with the lion share being given to the former. The new model assumed metropolitan municipality as an “umbrella” organization which was responsible for coordinating the works of MDMs. The metropolitan council was given the authority of ensuring the harmony and coordination between MDMs in terms of provision of services. In the case of any conflict between metropolitan municipality and MDMs or among MDMs over service provision issues, the metropolitan municipality council has the authority to determine the guidelines and make the final decision.

4.4.4.4

Reorganization of Funding Schemes

The reform of 2012 introduced some critical changes in the funding schemes of local government units. To begin with, the financial means of metropolitan municipalities and MDMs were improved. For example, the share of metropolitan municipalities and MDMs rose from 5 to 6% and from 2.5 to 4.5%, representing 20 and 80% increase, respectively. In a converse fashion, the share allocated to non-metropolitan municipalities was decreased from 2.85 to 1.50% which means 47% reduction in the main financial resources of these local government units. The tax revenues transferred to PSAs suffered the most serious blow as they were reduced from 1.15 to 0.50% indicating 56% reduction. The interpretation of these changes can be twofold: First, the government has a clear preference upon metropolitan local government vis-àvis non-metropolitan local government. Second, the reform provided metropolitan

132

4 Local Governance Reforms

municipalities and MDMs with more generous financial means so that they could cope with their expanded roles, but refrained from equipping them with the means to create their own resources. On the contrary, by increasing the shares transferred from the general budget tax revenues which are collected by the central government and redistributed to local government units, the reform increased the dependency of local authorities on the central government. To sum up, the post-2012 local governance model in Turkey seems to suffer from a number of disadvantages: • Macro-scale planning of metropolitan municipalities and macro-scale investments can cause centralization when it is not used appropriately for its purpose. • The narrowing of authorities and responsibilities of district municipalities appears to be in contradiction with “subsidiarity” principle. • The abolishment of most municipalities within the borders of province and equipment of the metropolitan municipality with disproportionate authorities is a serious threat to local democracy in Turkey.

4.5 Conclusion Turkish political and administrative realm was dominated by decentralization discourses after Helsinki summit in 1999. The Europeanization incentive was effective in the reforms of 2004 and 2005 when the government saw a window of opportunity in decentralizing the political sphere. On the contrary, the decision to freeze negotiation talks in 2006 proved to be another window of opportunity for the government to decry decentralization reforms. As a result, both of these discourses were used pragmatically by the AKP governments by exploiting the policy windows opened in EU accession process. In the course of such policy changes, the local governance reforms equipped metropolitan municipalities with extensive authorities and virtually turned them into the single power centers within provincial borders. For example, metropolitan municipality has been given the authority of preparing master development plans between the scales of 1:5,000 and 1:25,000. Its licensing and monitoring authorities are now valid in the entire province. Planning and coordination of transportation services are directed from a single center. The basic incentive in the endowment of metropolitan municipality with such comprehensive authorities was to benefit from economies of scale. However, the abolishment of almost half of the local government units overnight may not be explained by mere economic concerns. In addition, according to the Law No. 6360, all villages within the borders of the province, including forest villages, were turned into neighborhoods and annexed to the relevant district municipality. In addition, the borders of the district municipality were overlapped with the administrative borders of the district. More importantly, the Provincial Special Administrations (PSAs), which dated back to the 1864 legislation, were abolished in the metropolitan provinces. This radical decision

4.5 Conclusion

133

introduced the distribution of powers between the metropolitan municipality and MDMs so that public services could be provided in a better fashion as a result of a clearer distribution of tasks. The district municipality would provide routine, smallscale and daily services, whereas metropolitan municipality was given the task of offering planning and investment services which required coordination at provincial scale. In essence, “the extension of the service areas of metropolises means the top-down municipalization of most of the country” (Çiner 2014: 454). As a result, Turkish local governance reforms suffer from the tension between two sets of principles: democratization and subsidiarity on one hand, and efficiency, optimal scale and amalgamation (consolidation) on the other. These sets of principles correspond to the policy windows opened at Helsinki summit in 1999 which represents the granting of candidacy status to Turkey, Luxembourg summit in 2005 which marks the initiation of accession talks between Turkey and the European Union, and Brussels summit in December 2006 when the EU decided to virtually “freeze” accession negotiations due to the problems related to the Cyprus issue. Therefore, in conjunction with other findings of centralization tendencies in Turkey,14 the decentralization and recentralization policies in the last two decades can be seen as windows of opportunity which helped AKP government subjugate its competitors and reinforce its stronghold in domestic politics.

References Abramowitz, M., & Barkey, H. F. (2009). Turkey’s transformers-the AKP sees big. Foreign Affairs, 88, 118. Adıgüzel, S. ¸ (2014). 6360 Sayılı Yasa’nın Türkiye’nin Yerel Yönetim Dizgesi Üzerine Etkileri: Ele¸stirel Bir De˘gerlendirme. Toplum ve Demokrasi Dergisi, 6 (13–14). Ahmadov, R. (2008). Counter transformations in the center and Periphery of Turkish society and the rise of the justice and development party. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 7 (2 and 3). Bourne, A. K. (Ed.). (2004). The EU and territorial politics within member states: Conflict or co-operation?. London: Brill. Byrnes, J., & Dollery, B. (2002). Do economies of scale exist in Australian local government? A review of the research evidence1. Urban Policy and Research, 20(4), 391–414. Casanova, J. (2006). The long, difficult, and tortuous journey of Turkey into Europe and the dilemmas of European civilization. Constellations, 13(2), 234–247. Çayhan, B. E. (2008). Implementing E-government in Turkey: A comparison of online public service delivery in Turkey and the European Union. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 35(1), 1–11. Çiner, C. U. (2014). Reconsidering the role of the prefects in Turkey: Public policies and metropolization. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(8), 445–455. Cizre, Ü. (2004). Problems of democratic governance of civil-military relations in Turkey and the European Union enlargement zone. European Journal of Political Research, 43(1), 107–125. 14 For

accounts of re-centralization in Turkey, see Öni¸s and Yılmaz (2005), Ahmadov (2008), Keyman (2010), Özel (2012), Keyman et al. (2014) and Demir (2016, 2018).

134

4 Local Governance Reforms

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Dafflon, B. (2013). Voluntary amalgamation of local governments: The Swiss debate in the European context. Lago-Penas, Santiago and Martinez-Vasquez, Jose, the challenge of local government size: Theoretical perspectives, international experience and policy reform (pp. 189–220). UK and USA: Edward Elgar. Dell’Agnese, E. (2013). The political challenge of relational territory. In D. Featherstone & J. Painter, (a cura di), Spatial Politics: Essays for Doreen Massey (pp. 115–124). Oxford: Wiley. Demir, F. (2016). Transformation of core executive in Turkey: Theory and current debates. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 7, 4. Demir, F. (2018). Post-NPM and re-centralisation: Current themes in Europe and Turkey. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 26(2), 149–164. Dik, E. (2014). 6360 Sayılı Kanun ba˘glamında köylerin mahalleye çevrilmesi sorunu. Mülkiye Dergisi, 38(1), 75–102. Dollery, B., & Crase, L. (2004). Is bigger local government better? An evaluation of the case for Australian municipal amalgamation programs. Urban Policy and Research, 22(3), 265–275. Drew, J., Kortt, M. A., & Dollery, B. (2014). Economies of scale and local government expenditure: Evidence from Australia. Administration and Society, 46(6), 632–653. Eliuz, S., Kapucu, N., Ustun, Y., & Demirhan, C. (2017). Predictors of an effective performance measurement system: Evidence from municipal governments in Turkey. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(4), 329–341. Ertürk, Y. (1980). Rural change in southeastern Anatolia: An analysis of rural poverty and power structure as a reflection of center-periphery relations in Turkey. Dissertation Abstracts International, A, 41(1). European Commission. (2004). COM(2004) 656. Issues Arising From Turkey’s Membership Perspective. Farley, J., Baker, D., Batker, D., Koliba, C., Matteson, R., Mills, R., et al. (2007). Opening the policy window for ecological economics: Katrina as a focusing event. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 344–354. Gözler, K. (2013). 6360 Sayılı Kanun Hakkında Ele¸stiriler: Yirmi Dokuz ˙Ilde ˙Il Özel ˙Idareleri ve Köylerin Kaldırılması ve ˙Ilçe Belediyelerinin Büyük¸sehir ˙Ilçe Belediyesi Hâline Dönü¸stürülmesi Anayasamıza Uygun mudur? Legal Hukuk Dergisi, 11(122), 37–82. Günal, A., Avtur, S., & Dernek, K. O. (2014). 6360 Sayılı Yasanın Yerelle¸sme Ba˘glamında ˙ ˙ De˘gerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3). Gunter, M. M. (2014). Out of nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in peace and war. Oxford University Press. Hale, W., & Özbudun, E. (2009). Islamism, democracy and liberalism in Turkey: The case of the AKP. Routledge. Heinelt, H., & Hlepas, N. K. (2006). Typologies of local government systems. In The European Mayor, 21–42 (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften). Heper, M. (1974). Bürokratik Yönetim Gelene˘gi. Ankara. Heper, M. (2005). The European Union, the Turkish military and democracy. South European society and politics, 10(1), 33–44. Heper, M. (2011). Civil-Military relations in Turkey: Toward a liberal model? Turkish Studies, 12(2), 241–252. Hermansen, E. A. (2015). Policy window entrepreneurship: The backstage of the world’s largest REDD + initiative. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 932–950. http://www.khrp.org/khrp-news/human-rights-documents/doc_download/87-turkeys-accessionto-the-eu-democracy-human-rights-and-the-kurds.html. Accessed 15 June 2018. https://www.ccre.org/docs/changes_in_local_and_regional_structures_web_EN.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2019.

References

135

Jenkins, G. (2007). Continuity and change: Prospects for civil—military relations in Turkey. International Affairs, 83(2), 339–355. Keyman, E. F. (2010). Modernization, globalization and democratization in Turkey: The AKP experience and its limits. Constellations, 17(2), 312–327. Keyman, E. F. (2016). Rethinking the ‘Kurdish question’in Turkey: Modernity, citizenship and ˙ democracy. Toward new democratic Imaginaries-Istanbul seminars on Islam, culture and politics (pp. 75–85). Cham: Springer. Keyman, F., Gumüsçu, S., & Gumuscu, S. (2014). Democracy, identity and foreign policy in Turkey: Hegemony through transformation. Springer. King, R. G., & Plosser, C. I. (1984). Money, credit, and prices in a real business cycle. The American Economic Review, 74(3), 363–380. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas. Little Brown, Boston: Alternatives and Public Policies. Lieberman, J. M. (2002). Three streams and four policy entrepreneurs converge: A policy window opens. Education and Urban Society, 34(4), 438–450. Mannheimer, L. N., Lehto, J., & Östlin, P. (2007). Window of opportunity for intersectoral health policy in Sweden—open, half-open or half-shut? Health promotion international, 22(4), 307–315. Mardin, S. ¸ (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?. Daedalus, 169–190. Naschold, F. (2017). New frontiers in the public sector management: Trends and issues in state and local government in Europe (Vol. 69). Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co KG. Norton, A. (1991). Western European local government in comparative perspective. Local government in Europe (pp. 21–40). London: Palgrave. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Olson, M. (1969). Toward a social report. 2. Plan and purpose of a social report. Public Interest, 15, 85–97. Öni¸s, Z. (1997). The political economy of Islamic resurgence in Turkey: The rise of the Welfare Party in perspective. Third World Quarterly, 18(4), 743–766. Öni¸s, Z., & Yilmaz, S. (2005). The Turkey-EU-US triangle in perspective: Transformation or continuity? The Middle East Journal, 59(2), 265–284. Özbudun, E. (2006). Changes and continuities in the Turkish party system. Representation, 42(2), 129–137. Özel, I. (2012). The politics of de-delegation: Regulatory (in)dependence in Turkey. Regulation and Governance, 6(1), 119–129. Papadimitriou, D., & Phinnemore, D. (2003). Exporting Europeanization to the Wider Europe: The twinning exercise and administrative reform in the candidate countries and beyond. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 3(2), 1–22. Röth, L., Kaiser, A., Varol, Ç., & Sadio˘glu, U. (2016). Center-periphery conflict and ideological distance in Turkey. Swiss Political Science Review, 22(4), 585–607. Sabatier, Paul A. (1999). The need for better theories. In Paul A. Sabatier & Weible M. Christopher (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3–17). Westview: Boulder. Sayarı, S. (1978). The Turkish party system in transition. Government and Opposition, 13(1), 39–57. Slack, E. (2000). A preliminary assessment of the new city of Toronto. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 23(1), 13–30. Smith, B. D. (2017). Reproductive Justice: A policy window for social work advocacy. Social Work, 62(3), 221–226. Solecki, W. D., & Michaels, S. (1994). Looking through the postdisaster policy window. Environmental Management, 18(4), 587–595. Sözen, S., & Shaw, I. (2002). The international applicability of new public management: Lessons from Turkey. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(6), 475–486. Sözen, S., & Shaw, I. (2003). Turkey and the European Union: Modernizing a traditional state? Social Policy and Administration, 37(2), 108–120. Stoker, G. (1991). Introduction: Trends in European local government. Local government in Europe (pp. 1–20). London: Palgrave.

136

4 Local Governance Reforms

Swianiewicz, P. (2002). Consolidation or fragmentation?-The size of local governments in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: LGI—Open Society Institute. Swianiewicz, P. (2010). If territorial fragmentation is a problem, is amalgamation a solution? An East European perspective. Local Government Studies, 36(2), 183–203. Türkmen, F. (2008). The European Union and democratization in Turkey: The role of the elites. Human Rights Quarterly, 146–163. Vardar, D. (2005). European Union-Turkish relations and the question of citizenship. In F. Keyman & A. Içduygu (Eds.), Citizenship in a global world: European questions and Turkish experiences (pp. 87–101). London and New York: Routledge. Vetter, A. (2002). Local political competence in Europe: A resource of legitimacy for higher levels of government? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(1), 3–18. Vetter, A., & Kersting, N. (2003). Democracy versus efficiency? Comparing local government reforms across Europe. In Reforming local government in Europe, 11–28 (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden). Woll, C., & Jacquot, S. (2004). Les usages de l’Europe: Acteurs et transformations européennes. Wollmann, H. (2004). Local government reforms in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany and France: Between multi-function and single-purpose organizations. Local Government Studies, 30(4), 639–665. Ye˘gen, M. (2015). The Kurdish peace process in Turkey: Genesis, evolution and prospects. Global Turkey in Europe III, 157.

Chapter 5

Regionalization Reforms

Regionalization is one of the phenomena which occurred as a result of globalization. Regionalization does not mean that a super-state is to be founded and its government will replace the national government. Rather, side by side with the national government, some regional government agencies are created which would handle important issues and national government becomes less important in time (Ökmen and Canan 2009). On one hand, trade borders are abolished with globalization; on the other hand, there is polarization in global geography with regionalization. In order to minimize the troubles of this process, it is necessary to encourage concurrency of globalization, localization and regionalization, and make a synthesis of the positive sides of these three developments, which is the case in European Union. The issue of regionalization has entered European recently. This issue was intensely at the 1999 General Board meeting of European Congress of Local and Regional Governments where important projections were made as regards the future of the process (Özer 2006). A region refers to a sub-section or entity of a country formed by more than one province or local governments that come together. Regions are spatial areas where geographical, political, cultural and economic factors are in close contact. In general, a region can also be defined as a homogeneous place in terms of certain criteria. Regions can be described as government areas that occur based on a combination of a number of features. In this paper, regionalization process and tendencies of European Union will be handled first. It is known that representatives of cities and regions bear great importance in ensuring full integration within EU. In this context, attempt will be made to define the key role of regionalization process in closing the socio-economic development gap between regions within EU, which would ensure better integration. Then Committee of Regions, which is charged with making recommendations to EU on affairs related to regional policy, will be detailed. The committee is essential in terms of giving a response to the criticisms directed toward the Union on “centralization”. The following section of the paper will deal with Turkey’s efforts for harmonizing © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. Demir, Public Management Reform in Turkey, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5_5

137

138

5 Regionalization Reforms

its regional policies with EU. Pilot applications for Regional Development Agencies (BKAs), adoption of NUTS1 and utilization of structural funds, and foundation and roles of BKAs will be explained. In the meantime, reference will be made to some Progress Reports and criticisms made toward BKAs will be mentioned. The objectives of BKAs will be analyzed by means of especially comparing the official preamble of the act founding BKAs with the expressions used in progress reports. In conclusion, an attempt will be made to evaluate the compliance of Turkish BKA experience with EU regional policy and to respond to skeptical criticisms in Turkish public and academia.

5.1 Regionalization Processes in the EU Integration process, which is both the motivation at the beginning of the organization of EU and its final goal, has promoted a visible transformation process in the government structures and understandings of EU member states. Within this process, it can be seen that not only the political and administrative systems, but also the local and regional governments of member states have undergone evident transformation. One of the dynamics of this change is regulations of the Union, and in particular those related to structural funds, which have a direct impact on public administration and local government (Kerman 2009). Integration and regionalization process includes dissemination of authorities and powers from the level of nation-state to lower and upper levels (Hooghe 1996). As a matter of fact, regional and local governments bear considerable significance in EU policy making. In the absence of these governments implementation of EU policies and feedback from public cannot be possible. The principle of closeness to people provides the backbone of EU treaties (Mazı 2009: 229). In the preamble of Treaty of Rome (1957), which established European Economic Community (EEC), it reads “…anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favored regions…”, which can be regarded as the foundation of Europe-wide regional policy. As a requirement of this objective, European Social Fund (1958) and European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (FEOGA for Fonds Europeen d’Orientation et de Garantie Agricole) were established. In 1973, an Ireland with lower per capita income than other member states joined EEC, for which reason the imbalance among member states began to be more striking; the result was the introduction of European Regional Development Fund in 1975. After Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal became member states which made the differences in terms of regional development and income within the community even more eye-catching. EU is, inter alia, an economic union, but the EU is aware that without social cohesion, this economic unity cannot last long. Decentralization 1 NUTS

is the acronym for Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistique—Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics.

5.1 Regionalization Processes in the EU

139

and regionalization in EU became one of the most important elements of structural policies since mid-1980s. The Union wants that development differences between members are eliminated and integration is ensured so that Union policies could be fully applied. As a result, the region has become a fundamental unit for EU; demands for recognition and improvement of cultural, ethnical and linguistic diversity played an important role in the prominence of regions (Özer 2006: 257). Single European Act (SEA), which came into force on July 1, 1987, amended the Treaty of Rome and added the concept of “social cohesion” under the title “Economic and Social Cohesion”. Single European Act2 can be accepted as a turning point in EU’s regional policy process, as EU, which was previously considered as an “economic union” redirected itself toward “economic and social cohesion” objective. Parallel to the acceleration of common market policies after Single European Act, European Commission aimed to (i) increase the participation of local and regional governments of member states to the process of determination and execution of regional policies, and (ii) improve effectiveness of these units (Kösecik 2002: 3). Another aspect of SEA is that it mentioned the principle of localness, which was included in the 130th article of the Act within the subject of “environment”. SEA bears special importance in that it is an agreement where the existence of sub-national institutions is officially recognized (Ökmen and Canan 2009: 153). Title XIV of Maastricht Treaty, which came into force on November 1, 1993, is named “economic and social cohesion”; Article 130a provides that “the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favored regions, including rural areas”. So, economic and social cohesion, which was first mentioned in SEA, became one of the cornerstones of EU integration (Sa˘gba¸s 2003: 266–7). One of the most important programs of EU in terms of regional policy is Agenda 2000. At Berlin summit in 1999, important decisions were taken related to regional policies, including application of a 213 billion Euro package for aiding low-income regions and helping increase the level of employment so that regional income differences could be eliminated or lessened. Agenda 2000 re-defined the application methods of economic and social policy of Europe, accordingly: • • • •

Better concentration on disadvantaged regions, Simplification of procedures applied for programming funds and obtaining grants, Clarification of responsibilities, Improving cooperation with institutions at national, regional or local level.

At the beginning of twenty-first century, regionalization was one of the most promising mottos in general along with “Europeanization” and “modernization”. However, it is possible to see several intentions, values and even geographical structuring approaches behind the principle of regionalization. As for EU, regional policy which dates back to the Single European Act in 1987, is the second most comprehensive policy of EU after common agricultural policy (Özer 2006: 253). 2 With

Single European Act, Structural Funds were established, which is a fundamental instrument of EU’s regional policy.

140

5 Regionalization Reforms

Careful examination of the legal statuses and functions of regional middle levels in EU member states can reveal that a transfer of authority in favor of the middle level was the case in 1980s in both centralized and decentralized members. However, strengthening of the middle level does not necessarily imply decentralization in political terms. The central state often prefers regionalization of the services provided by government and public administration and to distribute the authority to local governments in regions (this is the case in United Kingdom, Greece and Portugal). In Finland some reforms have been made but no directly elected middle level has been instituted so far. Swedish states are also central, and the only result of pilot programs is to continue with them (Kovacs 2001: 94). European integration process can be evaluated as a development which increases the importance as well as responsibilities of local-regional governments for all EU members. It is beyond doubt that efforts of both member states and candidate states for improving their local and regional governments have a financial dimension. Europe is in the process of decentralization and regionalization while it is also being integrated through structural and other funds (Ökmen 2006: 43–106). During the post-cold war period, regional tendencies have gained considerable importance in foreign policies of countries. Unlike the cold war period, new regional tendencies have to take global dynamics into account and concert their actions with these dynamics. Second, there is vast movement range in their areas for regional actors. After east–west axis lost its importance in international system, more flexibility emerged for countries to develop their relations with neighbors. Today regional governments are among the zealots of stronger integration in several fields within the Union. Most European policies are put into practice by regions; therefore, they have important impact on European decision-making mechanisms. However, there are two different approaches over the status of regions. The first approach claims that, if national governments have control over these processes, they can make sure that community institutions maintain their inter-governmental character, and strengthen their position; the second approach envisages a new political structure in which nation-states would disappear in favor of “Europe of Regions” (Kerman 2009: 276–277). Today more than one-third of EU’s budget expenses are reserved for projects aiming at ensuring regional development (Sa˘gba¸s 2003: 261).3 The objective of this financial support is decreasing the development differences between member and candidate states. As a matter of fact, the expansion of the EU from 6 to 12 increased the ratio of gross regional product per caput between its richest and poorest regions from 6:1 to 12:1 (Hudson and Lewis 1985). Decreasing regional differences is among the most important advantages that candidate countries are expecting from EU accession. The reasons of giving weight to regionalization in EU can be grouped in three categories, namely political, cultural and socio-economic:

3 Sa˘ gba¸s

htm.

gathered these data from http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/intro/regions2_en.

5.1 Regionalization Processes in the EU

141

1. Decentralization is a principle which is strongly emphasized across all EU member states with a view to ensure harmonization between economic, political, cultural and administrative regulations. Almost 70% of all legislative action of the EU is related to the roles of local governments. Rules enacted by the Union on such areas as building control, environmental protection, control of food, mutual recognition of professional diplomas, value added tax and consumption tax, and urban renewal are directly related to local units. For this reason, local and regional units demand that they are not seen as only political units regulated by the Union, but also have a say in the issues that are relevant to them. 2. One of the most important problems of EU as a supra-national body is the distance from citizens and centralist tendencies caused by decision-making in Brussels. For this reason, the way to ensure closeness to and integration with citizens is seen as the participation of local and regional units, which are the closest to the citizens, in decision-making processes in the Union. 3. The member states of the EU have clearly become de facto multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies. As a result, there are serious unanswered questions as to how cultural and ethnic variation and issues of (multiple) identities at national, regional and local scales are to be treated within the homogenized politicaleconomic space of the EU beyond the fairly empty rhetoric of phrases such as a “Europe of the Regions” (Hudson 2000: 419). 4. The EU is accepted as one of the richest regions of the world, but it is clear that there are differences among the regions of the union in economic and socialdevelopment terms. This difference mostly stems from the underdeveloped status of some regions within the country; and sometimes these regions can be regarded as underdeveloped according to Union standards as well (Mengi and Algan 2003: 171–3). Despite assertions that deepening economic integration would reduce sociospatial inequalities and lead to generalized increases in economic welfare as a result of trickle down effects, in fact there is considerable evidence of widening inequalities within the EU (Glyn and Miliband 1994). The inequalities of incomes and wealth between rich and poor people grew (Hudson and Williams 1999). Deepening integration has also exacerbated existing sub-national territorial inequalities and helped create new ones. While regional inequalities (e.g. in GRP per caput or unemployment rates) narrowed somewhat from 1960 to the mid-1970s, they have subsequently widened again (Dunford 1994). Although in the Sixth Periodic Report on the Regions4 dated 1999, the EU Commission asserts that regional inequalities are again narrowing, and the evidence does not support such a strong claim. For example, unemployment rates in East Germany grew in 1999 while those over much of southern Italy and Spain remained in the range 25–30%. Elsewhere, the persistence of regional inequalities within the Euro-zone as well as more generally within the EU is acknowledged (Hudson 2000: 415). 4 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e8e995de-ea8f-4f09-bc32-

bbb96117ce54.

142

5 Regionalization Reforms

The difference in development levels of new member states and existing members in enlargement process has been an important factor in development of policy tools. Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal are the countries which effectively made use of regional policy funds during their accession process. Socio-economic objectives of EU’s regional policy can be categorized into three groups: • Decreasing income differences between member states and contributing to convergence. It is a reality that there are income differences between EU member states. Although EU is one of the richest regions in the world, there are income differences between members. In addition, member states are not homogeneous in terms of per capita income, either. The 250 regions in the Union are dissimilar in terms of income. • Decreasing the impact of factors which cause income differences so that further opening of income gap between member states can be prevented. Elements of this objective can be listed as (i) decreasing income differences caused by structural and institutional factors, and (ii) decreasing the negative impact of globalization on increase of income differences. • Supporting the projects that member states cannot achieve on their own and coordinating EU-level regional policy. As a result, it can be stated that the core of EU’s regional policy lies in completing the policies of member states and positioning them in a European context. In addition, EU’s regional policy has clear connections with other policies of the Union which contribute to economic and social cohesion. Regionalization has a more administrative meaning and implies the strengthening of regional units against central administration. For this reason, regionalization is not to be understood as “regionalism”. The need for economic, social and political integration, which is an outcome of globalization process, intensifies cooperation not only between nation-states but also between local and regional units (Mengi and Algan 2003: 83–84). Committee of the Regions (1994): In the 158th article of Amsterdam Treaty, it is stated that the goal of EU is to decrease the development differences between developed and underdeveloped regions of the Union. An important concept which lies in the foundations of EU’s regional development policy is “harmonization”, which is based on (i) the assumption that everyone would benefit from improvement of distribution of wealth and income between richer and poorer countries and regions, (ii) the understanding that cohesion of less developed regions and countries to the Union must be ensured (Özer 2006: 260). Committee of the Regions (CoR) was founded in 1994 which was designed so as to make sure that direct information can be gathered on how decisions taken and policies applied at EU level affect the lives of people living in the member states or regions (Christiansen 1996). CoR is a political assembly which gives right to word to local or regional governments in the center of the Union. The second objective in founding the Committee was to provide a means to close the gap between citizens and the Union by engaging the closest elected authorities in decision-making processes,

5.1 Regionalization Processes in the EU

143

as there are concerns that as the EU becomes more complicated and enlarged, citizens lag further behind. Treaties impose the obligation on the Commission and the Council to consult with the CoR whenever they are to propose a policy which has reflections at regional or local level. Five such areas were detected in Maastricht Treaty—economic and social cohesion, trans-European infrastructure networks, health, education and culture. Amsterdam Treaty added five other areas to these—employment policy, social policy, environment, vocational education and transportation. These areas include most of the EU’s activities. In addition to these areas, Commission, Council and European Parliament can consult with CoR in any policy proposal that they believe to have important reflections at local and/or regional level. Finally, CoR can declare its opinion on any policy issue and make sure that it is on the EU’s agenda. The committee operates on the following principles: • Subsidiarity: This principle means that decisions within EU have to be taken at the closest practicable level to the citizen. • Closeness: All levels of government must aim to be “close to the citizen” and especially perform their activities in a transparent manner. • Partnership: Brussels, national, regional and local government levels must act in cooperation as all of them are indispensable elements in decision-making processes.

5.2 Turkey’s Harmonization with European Regional Policy When the progress reports of candidate countries are examined, it can be seen that one of the most frequently used terms is “administrative capacity”, which is in essence the capability of public administration of compliance with the acquis, for which reason it inevitably consists of all negotiation areas. As the European Union continues to enlarge by incorporating new members, administrative capacities of candidate countries are subjected to close scrutiny with the purpose of guaranteeing applicability of common policies. In this context, capacitors of local governments are also being evaluated. Progress reports prepared for Turkey by European Commission since 1998 have repeatedly emphasized the difference in development levels of Turkey’s regions and recommended corrective actions. Turkey, on her part, gave a number of promises in the national program, preliminary national development plan and Program for Harmonization with EU Acquis for a solution to this problem. One of the most important promises in this context was that key agencies for regional development would be established. At this point, institution of Regional Development Agencies with the purpose of (i) ensuring local participation at development planning activities, and (ii) executing development plans at regional level became an important item on the agenda.

144

5 Regionalization Reforms

In the document titled “Accession Partnership for Turkey 2000”, Turkey was asked to take following steps on “regional policy” in short term: • Further improvement of statistics, in particular social and demographic, regional, labor, foreign trade and agricultural statistics, • Preparation of a NUTS classification which is in compliance with Union’s practices, • Devising a strategy for the development of an effective regional policy, • Employment of regional policy measures for selection of projects in Turkey’s planning process. In medium term, it was required that a national policy should be developed which would be devoted to decrease nationwide differences, which would include the establishment of institutions that perform monitoring and evaluation of multi-year budget preparation procedures (DPT 2009: 54–55). In the 2008 version of the above document, it is pointed out that NUTS was initiated, a draft law was prepared for the establishment of Development Agencies, Preliminary National Development Plan was prepared, approved and submitted to the Commission which reflected partnership principles, an agency was founded with the responsibility of monitoring and evaluating State Planning Organization (SPA) regional development programs, progress was made in the field of regional statistics and activities were launched for setting up a regional database; but there were also such complaints that not enough improvement was recorded in regional organization and foundation process of regional statistic offices and Development Agencies was not completed yet (DPT 2008: 55–6). The following comments are taken from the 2009 progress report for Turkey: Development agencies (DA) are now established in all provisional NUTS II-type regions. A total budget of nearly e125 million has been earmarked for the development agencies in the 2009 national budget. Relevant local and regional stakeholders are involved in establishing the budgets of individual DAs, but not in selecting the provinces to host the DAs. The selection criteria are unclear and the process is not sufficiently transparent (COM 2009: 68).

Act no. 5449 on the Foundation, Coordination and Roles of Development Agencies, which came into force on January 25, 2005, envisaged the foundation of development agencies in NUTS II regions. In the 5th article, the roles and authorities of Regional Development Agencies are listed as follows: • Providing technical support to the planning activities of local governments, • Supporting activities and projects to ensure the application of regional plans and programs, • In accordance with regional plans and programs, making contribution to the development of regional capacity as regards rural and local development and supporting projects developed with this view, • Monitoring other projects executed by public sector, private sector and nongovernment organizations in the region and other projects which are seen as important for regional planning and programming,

5.2 Turkey’s Harmonization with European Regional Policy

145

• With a view to realize regional development objectives, developing the cooperation between public sector, private sector and the civil society, • Employing or allocating resources of the agency in accordance with regional plans and programs, • In coordination with relevant entities, promoting the business and investment opportunities in the region at national and international level, • Supporting small and medium size industries and new entrepreneurs by ensuring coordination with relevant entities in such issues as management, production, promotion, marketing, technology, funding, organization and labor force training, • Promoting the region at bilateral or multi-lateral international programs to which Turkey participates and contributing to project development within the scope of these programs (Act no. 5449, Article 5). In this context, in December 2008 Izmir Development Agency launched SME and Social Development Financial Support program with the aim of distributing 30 million TLs (14.5 million Euros). In addition, efforts were initiated to create the framework for financial support programs which would be applied in such sectors as tourism, environment, agriculture and rural development and preparations for Izmir 2009–2013 Regional Development Plan were completed. On the other hand, a number of information and coordination works are still in progress (izka.org.tr). Çukurova Development Agency, which includes Adana and ˙Içel provinces, allocated 19 million TLs (9.2 million Euros) in total for economic development, social development, small-sized infrastructure projects and rural development financial support programs. The agency also acts as an intermediary and coordinator for allocating EU and other international funds; in addition, its functions include such areas as research, database formation, monitoring and data evaluation (cka.org.tr). Regional development agencies were included in the Ninth Development Plan of State Planning Organization which covers years 2007–2013. In this plan, it was mentioned that NUTS classification was completed and the act on regional development agencies was enacted, so that “the infrastructure required for structural funds which can be used after accession would be established at central and local level, and environment necessary for the application of down-top regional development policy supported by sufficient funding and institutional structure, which is also more active and participatory, would be created” (DPT 2007: 46). One of the five development centerlines defined in Ninth Development Plan was “ensuring regional development”. As defined in this document, based on local dynamics and domestic potential, basic objectives in regional development policies are: • • • • • •

Making central policies more coherent and effective, Improving institutional capacity at local level, Distributing evenly economic development and social welfare within the country, Confining migration tendencies within the region, Ensuring evenly distribution of population in space, Providing a healthy structure for urbanization,

146

5 Regionalization Reforms

• Improving welfare in rural areas and decreasing socio-economic development difference between rural and urban areas (DPT 2009: 78–9). Concentration of industry and services in some regions and imbalance between the revenues earned by regions is a situation which is seen in almost all countries. However, some actions must be taken to prevent occurrence of imbalances huge enough to disturb the feeling of social justice and societal integration. Regional development agencies appear as one of the outcomes of convergence of underdeveloped regions to developed ones in terms of social welfare, which results in the elimination of differences. Paris and its surrounding reached a development level which is higher than the sum of all other regions; in Scotland and Wales, the collapse of traditional industries caused the emergence of restructuring problems in these areas; the result was introduction of policies and mechanisms for regional development in European countries (Arslan 2005: 276–279). Similar problems were experienced in Turkey, too. Especially rural parts of central, eastern and south-eastern Anatolia are more backward compared to other regions in terms of development. In order to ensure national integrity, these regions must also be provided with a living standard which is up-to-date. Migration from especially eastern and south-eastern regions due to terror and backwardness has negative impacts on the economic structure of other regions. Regional development agencies are also important from this point of view. To sum up, functions of regional development agencies can be listed as building strategies for regional development, abolishing development differences between regions, vitalizing economy in its area of activity, increasing regional investments and ensuring participation of the public in decision-making processes.

5.2.1 “NUTS” and Structural Funds The basic purpose of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), which were introduced in mid-1970s by Eurostat in order to provide detailed information to European Union, is to gather regional-based statistics, conducting socio-economic analysis and creating the frame for socially oriented regional policies. In Turkey, a regional classification which is in compliance with NUTS has been adopted and calculations are being remade. In this context, Turkey has been divided into 12 first-level, 26 second-level and 81 third-level regions with the act adopted in 2002. NUTS is the infrastructure which is needed so that the regions can be chosen to which structural funds used in the application of EU’s regional policies will be transferred. Target regions to which support is to be granted within structural funds (especially ISPA5 and SAPARD6 ) are determined based on NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 levels. Economic and social cohesion reports of the regions are prepared based 5 ISPA

(Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession) supports transportation and environment protection infrastructures in particular. 6 SAPARD (Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development) involves long-term organization of the agricultural and rural regions of candidate countries.

5.2 Turkey’s Harmonization with European Regional Policy

147

on NUTS 2 level. Preliminary national development plan adopted in 2003 determined four development pillars, one of whom aims to “increase the economic power of regions, decrease development differences between regions and accelerate rural development”. In this context, the priorities of the 4th axis were identified as follows: • • • •

Supporting and strengthening SMEs, Supporting small-scale infrastructure constructions, Supporting local initiatives, Creation and strengthening of institutional capacity.

As a matter of fact, per capita GDP in Turkey is much lower than the average figures of 10 countries which became EU members in 2004 according to purchasing power standards. With the current system and eligibility criteria, all regions in Turkey can benefit from Structural Funds and Objective I aids of Cohesion Fund (DPT 2008: 58). In order to implement the priorities given above, 12 of the 26 NUTS II regions were determined according to development ranking, which consists of 42 of the 81 provinces of Turkey (Akkahve 2006: 163–164).

5.2.2 Regional Development Agencies Regional development agencies (BKAs) were founded with the Act no. 5549 on Foundation, Coordination and Functions of Development Agencies in 2006. They are more of a technical nature which will focus on development issues. Regional development concept is not totally unfamiliar to Turkey. Government programs focusing on regional development date back to 1960s. Development plans prepared since 1960s emphasized regional development. Zonguldak-Bartın-Karabük (ZBK) Plan, Eastern Anatolia Plan (DAP), Eastern Black Sea Development Plan (DOKAP) and finally the mega-project South-eastern Anatolia Plan (GAP) can be given as products of these efforts. After Turkey was announced as an EU member state in 1999, EU practices were taken as example in this area and decision was taken to establish BKAs based on NUTS. One of the objectives of EU membership process is to reinforce the economic development and participation in decision-making of rural people through BKAs and in cooperation with pre-accession assistance instruments and EU structural funds. Before BKAs were founded, there was a chaos in terms of agencies with roles and responsibilities related to development. The most important reason for such chaos was central planning understanding, the prominent position of which caused the institution of an understanding of expecting everything from the center. As a result, although they had better information about needs, local and regional actors had to play minor roles compared to central institutions. In time the roles of such non-governmental organizations as chambers of industry and trade and stock markets became more important, the result was a problem of coordination. On the contrary, administrative structure of BKAs was designed in such a manner that would promote co-decision making by central administration, local governments and private sector (Akın 2006: 299). Today development agencies have been established in all NUTS

148

5 Regionalization Reforms

II level regions, and e125 million has been allocated for them from 2009 national budget. As new public management philosophy gained ground, the understanding which dominates the methods for ensuring development is changing. Now development is no more regarded as a centrally-determined, top-down process; instead, it is perceived as a down-to-top, more participatory phenomenon which aims to explore the potential of local and regional development and promote a parallel regional development strategy. One of the most supported aspects of BKAs is their mobilization of a participatory development model which is guided by local communities. BKAs will perform their regional development works on the basis of participation and strengthen the contribution of stakeholders to development and the sense of mission in regional development. Some politicians raise objection to BKAs on the ground that they are a transition to a federal structure and that they will disturb the unitary structure of the state. In addition, some authors comment that regional development agencies are examples of obligated policy transfer (Sobaci 2009). However, apart from the political aspects, BKAs can be seen as technical establishments which are focused on development issues; when they are perceived as a step to introduce a new level to political and administrative system, regional development and local democracy suffers. On the grounds of such concerns, cases were filed to the Council of State and Constitutional Court, and the ruling of the latter adopted some minor changes about personnel regime and tax exemption; this ruling was followed by the decision of Council of State to lift the “detain on enforcement”, which eventually eliminated all obstacles before the operation of BKAs.

5.2.2.1

Objections to Regional Development Agencies

Unitary structure evokes a structure where different legislations, governments or judiciary mechanisms do not exist in different regions. In Turkey, the most important obstacle for localization efforts is the concern that national integrity will be damaged. The main ground of these concerns that unitary structure of the country would be deformed is the sensitivities based on internal security concerns and fear of partition. In particular, every step taken for localization causes multiplication of these sensitivities, and it is claimed that every initiative transferred to local governments will pose a threat to the unitary state.7 7 From this respect Turkey is mostly similar to Hungary, where there is a very strong central admin-

istration background. Provincial administration (counties) has been the traditional administrative unit in Hungary since their establishment in eleventh century. The outcomes of public administration reform turned out to be contrary to the intentions: middle-level governments elected with popular vote weakened and the effect of central government increased. New institutional system of regional development was established on three levels, whereas most decision making authorities and development resources remained in the hands of central government and ministries. It is a well-known fact that regions in Hungary are artificial formations. Regional identity of Hungarian society is clearly negligible. Civil society and political institutional system has not been established

5.2 Turkey’s Harmonization with European Regional Policy

149

Moving from these concerns, the most important aspect on which the criticisms of the idea of development agencies are based on is that they are to be established on Level II regions created according to NUTS. It is claimed that provinces which are not related in socio-economic terms were grouped together when Level II regions were formed; another criticism is that such a classification cannot provide any basis for organization of public agencies. Provinces are the only administrative units defined in the constitution; therefore, organizations based on other levels of classification are allegedly violating the constitution. There is also the concern that Turkey is being prepared for a federal structure at the end of this process. In light of the foregoing, there is an urgent need in Turkey for a better understanding of the concept of “regional policy”. According to Brache, Regional policy is never a political concept…With regional policy, a state structure in which power is diffused from central authority to the regional units is not suggested…twelve of the 15 EU member states have unitary structures. These countries would not possibly accept a policy which can damage their unitary structure. Regional policy is an economic and administrative concept…Regional policy is focused on eliminating the differences and living standard gaps between regions. For this reason, it has to be comprehended that a different policy can be required for every region and mental preparations should be done to enable such a perception (Brache 2001).

After Izmir and Çukurova (in Adana and ˙Içel provinces) development agencies were established as part of the pilot phase, Turkish Union of Chambers of Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) filed an application to the Council of State demanding that an application should be filed to the constitutional court for (i) detaining the enforcement of Cabinet of Ministers decision for establishment of the BKAs, (ii) nullification of some articles of the by-law. The Council of State agreed with the application and ruled that enforcement should be detained until Constitutional Court gave its final decision. In addition, MPs of opposition parties in the parliament filed a case at constitutional court for detaining the enforcement of several provisions of the act. The juridical process thus interrupted the activities of BKAs for a certain period. Constitutional Court ruled on November 30, 2007, that most of the provisions, of which nullification was demanded by Council of State, would remain in force. Based on this ruling, Council of State ruled in 2009 that only soma provisions of the by-law on the Working Principles and Basics of Development Agencies would be nullified. As a result of this juridical struggle, today there is no stumbling block before the institutional operation of regional development agencies in Turkey. If there is a political move for it, every part of a centralist state could be regionalized (even if it was never before considered to be a ‘region’), but feelings of a regional identity and cohesion, and regionalist movements will only be generated if there is a longer regional tradition, a common history and experience, and a distinct language (Puhle 2000). at regional level. Thus, democratic control over regional bodies and their relations with voters and social or political institutions were supposed to be weak. The question of whether a top-down regionalization experience can ensure real decentralization in a country with weak and fragmented local communities remains to be answered. See Kovacs (2001) for more detailed information.

150

5 Regionalization Reforms

5.3 Conclusion Regionalization in Europe implies a process through which coherent development and integration of the Union in economic and social areas is ensured, and employment and development problems caused by income distribution differences between regions are overcome. Inter-regional socio-economic differences in Turkey are more noticeable in Turkey compared to EU member states; for this reason, greater importance has to be attached to regional policy in Turkey. Regional Development Agencies (BKAs) were introduced in 2005, and since then there has been intensive debate on their functions and the goals they serve. Having won a two-year-long juridical struggle, which involved Council of State and Constitutional Court, BKAs provide an opportunity for better integration and elimination of regional development differences, which is an important element of regionalization policies of the Union. The concepts of “region” and “regional government” are not totally clarified in Turkish literature. In addition, it can be seen that neither in the literature nor in practice and Turkish administrative system have regional governments been accepted as the principle element. For this reason, definitions and measures of region are used which serve different purposes in geographical, socio-economic, administrative, industrial terms. If the problem is approached from the view of scale, a region can be described as the sub-system defined using economic, political, administrative, geographical, urban, cultural and ethnic measures at state level; at international level, it can be defined as the communities formed by stats with common economic, political, military interests (Özer 2006: 254). BKAs in Turkey are in compliance with EU experience; the reasons put forward in the legal grounds of RSA Act8 match with the reasons for which EU concentrated on regionalization since 1980s. As a type of local government, BKAs will make sure that service quality and participation in decision-making at local government level will improve rapidly. In a country where local development is neglected, no one can expect successful national development. Supporting local entrepreneurship, improving the infrastructure of the region, attracting national and international capital, promoting the region, ensuring cooperation and coordination between central and local institutions as well as public and private sectors, protecting the environment and environmental quality, conducting local analysis, endorsing the development of competitive business environments, evaluating the investment opportunities and potentials of the region, providing technical and financial support and service to entrepreneurs and public agencies in the region, offering training services and so on are only some of the functions of regional 8 In

the “legal grounds” document of the Act, it is stated that BKAs will improve planning, programming, project production and application capacity at local level (Article 2), help in effective utilization of resources in regions and sub-regional units (Article 3), mobilize entrepreneurship spirit in most of the regions and sub-regional units having difficulty in developing (Article 8), transfer critical local information to the center and ensure its sustainability (Article 11), regional development strategies and plans prepared in cooperation with BKAs will create a strategic framework for physical planning activities conducted at provincial level (Article 14); it can be seen that these objectives are mere development-oriented.

5.3 Conclusion

151

development agencies; if they are operated properly, and prejudices toward them are overcome, BKAs will definitely play a key role in national development. Some anti-BKA spheres claim that BKAs will damage the unitary structure of Turkey. They assert that provinces are the only administrative units defined in the constitution; therefore, organizations based on other levels of classification are violating the constitution. There are also concerns that Turkey is being prepared for a federal structure at the end of this process. But it should be remembered that federalism, unitary state, confederalism or any other political organization are not supposed to be ends; they are just the means to provide citizens with happiness and welfare. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, USA, and many other developed countries have regions or states with local autonomy. Some of these countries (i.e. United Kingdom and Spain) struggled with separatist terror acts comparable to Turkish experience; these countries solved their problems without compromising their national integrity. The mentality that French administrative segmentation, which inspired Turkey during modernization period, is the only correct system, and that Turkey has extremely unique features which cannot be compared to any other country in the world makes comparative studies totally futile and policy transfers next to impossible. Even if BKAs are an introductory phase for a transition to a federal system, which is rather unlikely, this is only an alternative political organization that should be discussed. This process of regionalization has implications for participation, local democracy, elimination of development differences between regions, mobilization of local actors and stakeholders, and prevention of internal migration; its political implications are far down the list. The opportunity to take advantage of a mechanism which can have very positive contributions in terms of national integration and development can be missed if BKAs are approached with such prejudices before any implementation outcome has become observable.

References Akın, N. (2006). Bölgesel Kalkınma Araçları ile Kalkınma Ajanslarının Uyum, ˙I¸sbirli˘gi ve Koordinasyonu. In ODTÜ Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yöneti¸sim Sempozyum Kitabı, Ankara (pp. 295–304). Akkahve, D. (2006). AB Destekli Bölgesel Kalkınma Programlarının Yönetimi ve Yapısal Fonlara Hazırlık. In ODTÜ Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yöneti¸sim Sempozyum Kitabı, Ankara (pp. 161–196). Arslan, K. (2005). Bölgesel Kalkınma Farklılıklarının Giderilmesinde Etkin Bir Araç: Bölgesel ˙ Planlama ve Bölgesel Kalkınma Ajansları. Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(7), 275–294. Brache, U. (2001). Avrupa Birli˘gi’nin Bölgesel Politikası ve Türkiye’nin Uyumu, ˙Iktisadi Kalkınma Vakfı’nın Türkiye’nin AB mevzuatına uyumu serisi, no. 7. http://www.ikv.org.tr/arastirmalar/ kitap7.htm. Accessed 12 Feb 2019. Christiansen, T. (1996). Second thoughts on Europe’s third level: The European Union’s Committee of the Regions. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 26(1), 93–116. cka.org.tr. Accessed 12 Dec 2019. DPT (State Planning Organization). (2007). Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı 2007–2013, Ankara.

152

5 Regionalization Reforms

˙ DPT (State Planning Organization). (2008). Bölgesel Geli¸sme, Özel Ihtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Ankara. DPT (State Planning Organization). (2009). 2008 Yılı Katılım Öncesi Ekonomik Programı, Ankara. Dunford, M. (1994). Winners and losers: The new map of economic inequality in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1(2), 95–114. European Commission (2009). COM(2009) 533. Turkey 2009 Progress Report. Glyn, A., & Miliband, D. (Eds.). (1994). Paying for inequality: The economic cost of social injustice. Institute for Public Policy Research. Hooghe, L. (1996). Cohesion policy and european integration: Building multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/intro/regions2_en.htm. Accessed 22 Nov 2018. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e8e995de-ea8f-4f09-bc32-bbb96117ce54. Accessed 28 Dec 2019. Hudson, R. (2000). One Europe or many? Reflections on becoming European. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(4), 409–426. Hudson, R., & Lewis, J. (1985). Uneven development in Southern Europe. Londra: Methuen. Hudson, R., & Williams, A. M. (1999). Divided Europe: Society and territory. Sage Publications Ltd. izka.org.tr. Accessed 28 Dec 2019. Kerman, U. (2009). Avrupa Birli˘gi: Yerel ve Bölgesel Yönetimler. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi ˙ Dergisi, 14(1), 273–286. I˙IBF Kösecik, M. (2002). Avrupa Birligi’nin Bütünle¸smesi Sürecinde Yerel Yönetimler: AB Bütünlesme Sürecinde Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimler. In B. Parlak & H. Özgür (Eds.), Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimler (pp. 1–38). ˙Istanbul: Alfa Publications. Kovacs, P. (2001). Regional development ve governance in Hungary. In TEPAV regional development and governance symposium papers, Ankara. Mazı, F. (2009). Çok Düzlemli Avrupa Birli˘ginde Çevre Politikası Entegrasyonu Üzerine Bir De˘gerlendirme: Sektörel Koordinasyon ve Bölgesellik. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 221–237. Mengi, A., & Algan, N. (2003). Küreselle¸sme ve Yerelle¸sme Çapında Bölgesel Sürdürülebilir Geli¸sme, AB ve Türkiye Örne˘gi. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. Ökmen, M. (2006). Uyum Sürecinin ˙Idari-Politi˘gi: Avrupa Birli˘gi ve Türkiye Perspektifinde Küreselle¸sme- Yerelle¸sme Dinamikleri. In H. Özgür & B. Parlak (Eds.), Avrupa Perspektifinde Yerel Yönetimler, Alfa Aktüel Publications, ˙Istanbul (pp. 43–106). Ökmen, M., & Canan, K. (2009). Avrupa Birligi’ne Üyelik Sürecinde Türk Kamu Yönetimi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 16(1), 139–171. Özer, M. A. (2006). Avrupa Birli˘gi Yolunda Türk Kamu Yönetimi. Ankara: Platin Publications. Puhle, H. J. (2000). Working Paper at www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s9/s9-puhle.pdf. Sa˘gba¸s, ˙I. (2003). Avrupa Birli˘gi Bölgesel Politikaları. In M. Kar & H. Arıkan (Eds.), Avrupa Birli˘gi Ortak Politikalar ve Türkiye (pp. 261–276). ˙Istanbul: Beta Publications. Sobaci, Z. (2009). Regional development agencies in Turkey: Are they examples of obligated policy transfer? Public Organization Review, 9(1), 51.

Chapter 6

Re-centralization in Government

Since 1980s, European Union countries have witnessed significant transformations as regards public management reforms. This era can be examined in two periods. Until mid-1990s the reforms were heavily influenced by the principles of new public management (NPM) paradigm whereas the second period of reforms was handled in the midst of intense criticism toward NPM. Today debate on public management reforms is omnipresent in the entire European Union. On the other hand, the EU requests candidate countries to put into practice public management reforms. The potential effectiveness of such demands is far from being clear in an environment where intense debates are on-going over the path that public management reforms should take. Some studies show that there is increasing confusion on the direction of public management reforms especially after the 2008 economic crisis. In Turkey reactionary measures were taken against NPM regulations which led to the fragmentation of central authority: independent regulatory agencies were put under tighter control of the government, and prime minister’s office and president’s office were expanded and reinforced. A closer look at these practices implicates that these steps are beyond fashioning an integrated administration as a response to the fragmentation in the central government. As early as 2004, Pollitt and Bouckaert evaluated public administration reforms in selected countries1 and suggested the term new-Weberian state for the first time. Six of the nine countries studied by the authors had become EU members not later than 1995. However, the authors were not clear about whether this was a new paradigm or an element of the new public management reforms that dominated the past two decades. On this matter, De Vries (2010) suggested that digital governance applications, which are among the most important public administration reforms, represent the expansion and evolution of NPM paradigm. He also claims that paying attention to non-economic, societal values, network governance, so-called globalization processes and new cooperation patterns between the government, civil society and 1 Australia,

Canada, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, UK and

USA. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. Demir, Public Management Reform in Turkey, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5_6

153

154

6 Re-centralization in Government

private sector should be viewed as a part of NPM paradigm (De Vries 2010: 3). However, including non-economic, society-based reform opinions and applications into NPM bears the risk of expanding the concept to a level that it is no longer referable.2 Beginning in late 1970s, full-scale administrative reforms had been put into practice in Europe just like in other parts of the world. These reforms were shaped within the New Public Management (NPM) paradigm which soon turned into a global tendency. In addition to the reforms undertaken in EU member states, candidate and potential candidate states were also encouraged to perform reforms through a number of mechanisms. The efforts for extending public administration reforms in EU non-member states were mostly based on softer instruments such as technical and financial supports. The transformation of national structures in Eastern European and Western Balkan countries was in the best interests of the EU as it was believed that this would promote peace, stability and wealth in the region (Börzel and Risse 2003; Papadimitriou et al. 2015). Public sector reforms in both EU and its neighboring countries have always been a central issue for the political interests of the Union. However, application of these reforms is far from being uniform, both inside EU and its near abroad (Falkner et al. 2008).3 According to Katzenstein and Byrnes (2006), who claim that integration based on legal regulations in most fields is the hallmark of EU, the Union resorts to a series of softer mechanisms which are not based on hierarchy so as to promote change in national structures. Especially after the expansion of enlargement framework to Western Balkans in early 2000s, EU became the main driving force of public administration reforms which included institution and capacity building through a variety of mechanisms. SIGMA4 program acted as the unofficial leader of public administration reforms, but a number of other leading actors such as World Bank, UNDP, European Bank of Reconstruction and Development and USAID played essential role in the process as well. This chapter seeks an answer to the following question: is the Turkish experience with more centralization in line with the global tendency of post-NPM re-centralization? Or is it the result of the traditional Turkish preference for more centralized and far-flung government? In order to provide the answer, the chapter attempts to compare the processes in selected European countries and Turkey.

2 For example, in their much-cited work, Denhardt and Denhardt claim that non-economic, society-

based public administration reforms should be examined as New Public Service. 3 The near abroad of EU comprises the candidate and potential candidate countries. As of writing of

this book (December 2019), these countries are Albania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. 4 Support for Improvement in Governance and Management is a joint initiative of European Union and OECD, largely financed by EC/PHARE framework, and plays an important role in the public administration reforms in Central and Eastern European countries (Demir 2009: 38).

6.1 NPM Reforms in European Countries

155

6.1 NPM Reforms in European Countries NPM reforms in Europe took place in different countries in different times at different paces and with different coverage. For example, while the UK is a frontrunner of reforms, countries in continental Europe, especially southern countries and Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) followed the lead a little bit slowly. The change in all countries emerged as a combination of such factors as necessity, capability (administrative capacity) and willingness. In the foundations of reforms in Europe lays different and usually competing public administration traditions. In most southern states, Napoleonic traditions as to what public sector should do and how it should do it has different features than Eastern European countries. AngloSaxon and Scandinavian models complicate the picture even further. In the midst of such diversity, the European Union tries to apply some accession criteria to the candidate countries and determine the structure of reforms. These reforms are shaped depending on the existence of a political will behind them; in some countries a clear and definite program is developed for public sector reforms whereas in some other the reform appears with a more fragmented and less ideological outlook (Curry et al. 2014). In 1990s, CEECs replaced command economies with market economy and singleparty regimes with multi-party democracies; simultaneously, they experienced EU membership process. This also goes for southeast European countries. Increase in administrative capacity has been one of the leading issues in the new and potential member states. The administrative capacity continued to be below EU requirements until the accession dates, and the EU was far from consistency in its messages conveyed to these countries (Verheijen 2002: 41). Nevertheless, public administrations in Slovenia, Hungary and Estonia displayed a more comparatively successful outlook, which is largely associated with the success of EU accession processes (Drechsler 2009: 18). As regards development of public services, considerable effort has been paid to promote public administration reforms in post-communist countries. In this context, principles for improving public administration were formulized by OECD-SIGMA especially for the EU countries. These principles strongly supported the formation of career public services based on Weberian, depoliticized bureaucratic principles. The purpose of this choice was to ensure the stability of the region and consolidation of emerging democratic regimes in CEEC area. The main domestic obstacle in the search for democratic rules, institutions and procedures was relatively late development of a democratic political culture. As regards external factors, throughout 1990s the fundamental problem was whether the Western European countries were truly willing to support these countries in an environment which showed signs of the risk of returning to the totalitarian and populist administrations (Kaldor and Vejvoda 1997: 60). Nevertheless, candidate CEECs were given technical and financial support via SIGMA program and PHARE5 projects so that they could improve their public 5 Launched

in 1997, PHARE (Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies) program is the framework through which EU candidate countries receive general pre-accession

156

6 Re-centralization in Government

administrations. In addition, acceptance of a series of comprehensive public service laws, and the need for effectively implementing them, was regularly emphasized in annual progress reports (Goetz 2005). Grabbe (2004) voiced a widespread consensus by stating that while EU drew the frame of its eastern expansion, it displayed the most comprehensive and detailed accession conditions created so far. These conditions were partly directed at alleviating the problems that candidate countries suffered during transition (Dimitrova 2002: 175). In addition, EU membership conditions were built on an effective strategy known as reinforcement by reward6 in psychology. Considerably favorable rewards were promised for CEECs in return for the requests of EU as regards public administration reforms, which included technical and monetary support, expansion of the scope of contract relations and final membership. EU made quite clear that it would release these supports in case of conformity, and withhold them otherwise (Elbasani 2009: 7). However, this process suffered from its own limitations. First, administrative criteria displayed by the EU are more ambiguous compared to the criteria established for other areas such as economy or environment. This is especially true for the relation between progress in reforms and institutional construction; for example, while national political and administrative actors are expressing their commitment to the legislation, they continue to refrain from transferring the control of basic elements of state government and resources. Governing elites who resist to waiving the state control preferred partial conformity: being committed to the general principles of a modern administration but interfering in the writing stage of laws or manipulating them in practice, which allows them to maintain their de facto control on the state. The co-existence of a comprehensive legislation aimed at protecting public administration and an extremely politicized bureaucracy indicates that EU conditionality is rather limited in cases when there is no institutional capacity to guide the actions of reform-committed actions and elites in favor of positive change.

6.2 Post-NPM Tendencies It is clear that the most important reform movement since 1980s in the field of public administration is New Public Management (NPM) paradigm. Among other elements, NPM consists of the transfer of principles and management techniques of business and market from private sector to the public sector. This process has been witnessed simultaneously with the dominance of a neo-liberal understanding of government and economy which aimed at a minimized government with less public activity performed in accordance with the efficiency principles of free market. Project management, horizontal hierarchies, customer orientation, abolishment of career assistance. The basic purpose of the program is to help candidate countries adopt Copenhagen Criteria and prepare them for EU membership. 6 Reinforcement by reward is examined within European Union context by Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier (2004), Schimmelfennig and Scholtz (2008).

6.2 Post-NPM Tendencies

157

system, depoliticization, total quality management and outsourcing are among the most popular terms of this era. A general look at the theoretical debates and empirical findings shows that transparency, citizen engagement and decentralization are not as stressed by NPM either theoretically or empirically, as NPM puts emphasis on the performance of management functions by specialists in a non-political fashion (Drechsler 2009: 14). NPM is both seen as one of the most useful perspectives of public administration reforms and as a worldview in ideological sense. As regards both of these aspects, the literature shows that the advocates of NPM are mostly defensive nowadays. Many elements which are deemed almost compulsory in 1980s are not even seen as an option today. A short review of the latest developments of public administration reform streams can clarify this point: • As early as 1995, the first strong and comprehensive criticisms were witnessed7 ; however, it was still possible to have a firm belief in NPM. • As of 2000, NPM was mostly defensive as empirical findings revealed negative results (i.e. Hood and Peters 2004; Denhardt and Denhardt 2000). • In 2005, NPM was not seen as a sustainable concept any more (Drechsler 2005; Kelman 2005; Drechsler 2009: 15; Dunleavy et al. 2006; O’Flynn 2007; Diefenbach 2009). In other words, several articles which appeared in distinguished journals in the recent years and writings and speeches of top-level public administrators have been claiming that NPM is becoming less evident. This is more the case in USA but a similar tendency is also observable in European countries. Emphasizing the common and different aspects of public sector reforms can display interesting results. One of the basic premises of new public management thought is that it requires co-existence of several factors such as performance management and outcome-orientedness. Recently transparency, e-government and cooperation, which are referred to in postNPM literature, have emerged in a variety of national settings. The effectiveness of these different faces of NPM and post-NPM reforms were assessed in several studies (i.e. Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011; Lorenz 2012; Christensen et al. 2013; Hughes and Smart 2012; Klinger and Svenson 2015). These assessments mostly refer to the opinions of public administrators. Some of these studies are conducted in individual European countries8 whereas some others comprise multiple countries in a comparative fashion9 and provide critical and in-depth information on the operation of NPM. Denhardt and Denhardt give a detailed account of the perceptions about these reforms in different European countries. In most countries other than Norway, these reforms were seen as imposed in a top-down fashion, and as cost-reduction rather 7 For

criticism, see Wilkinson (1995), Gregory (1995), Boyle (1995). Deem et al. (2007); for France, see Ongaro and Rouban (2008); for Germany, see Schimank and Lange (2009), Theobald (2012). 9 Politt (1995) and Ferlie (1996) can be listed among the first comprehensive and empirical evaluations on the effectiveness of NPM reforms. Also see Dunleavy et al. (2006), Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011), Laegreid and Christensen (2013). 8 For Great Britain, see Thomas and Davies (2005),

158

6 Re-centralization in Government

than service-improving oriented. Likewise, with the exceptions of Norway and Hungary, it is generally agreed that the opinions of the people were not taken and public participation was not sought during reformation processes. There is little, if any, consensus on the driving force of these reforms (whether politicians or top-level bureaucrats, or whether trade unions are against these reforms). Equally diverse are the ideas about the extent to which reforms became a success in European countries and no clear pattern emerged as to whether the situation of public administration after NPM reforms is better or worse. On the other hand, some top-level bureaucrats see public administration reforms neither as a success nor as a failure, which indicates a neutral approach. A positive perception is more apparent in terms of such concepts as cost effectiveness, efficiency, service quality, transparency-openness, innovation and fair treatment of citizens; however, it is clear that citizen trust for government is declining in recent years (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000: 553). An example from Switzerland is worth mentioning here due to its relevance to the topic. In 2004 a district of Zurich, Dübendorf, declared that it put an end to NPM reforms. The official reason for this decision was the failure to determine a correlation between the improvements in effectiveness, efficiency or quality and NPM reforms (Noordhoek and Saner 2005: 38). In New Zealand, which is one of the first and pioneering advocates of New Public Management, railroad system was nationalized again as its privatization led to catastrophic outcomes in terms of economic development, investments and innovation (which were standard preambles for privatization).10 One of the most widely referred-to concepts while discussing the tendencies in public administration is neo-Weberian state. The discussions in the literature show that the basic features of this phenomenon are as follows: (i) neo-Weberian state is about focusing on the needs of the citizens instead of bureaucratic rules, and although market mechanisms are useful occasionally, the best way to achieve this is creating a professional quality and service culture, (ii) it consists of the completion of the role of representative democracy by consulting the opinions of the citizens and direct representation thereof, (iii) in terms of resource management, neo-Weberian state requires modernization of relevant laws so that the focus will be not only on accurate application of procedures but also on outcomes, and finally (iv) it calls for the professionalization of public service and turning bureaucrats into professional managers who are focused on meeting the needs of citizens and users in addition to their classical specialization in their area of activity (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004: 99–100). On the other hand, some scholars tried to reconcile NPM with neo-Weberian state. Dunn and Miller (2007) claim that the discrepancies between NPM and European public administration are frequently emphasized and try to balance Anglo-American perspective and the new NPM criticism called neo-Weberian state.11

10 For official government communication, see http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/rail+buy+back+

marks + new + sustainable + era + transport. 11 For discussions on new Weberian state, see Drechsler (2005), Drechsler and Kattel (2009), Pollitt

and Bouckaert (2011), Dunn and Miller (2007), Lynn (2008), Randma-Liiv (2008).

6.2 Post-NPM Tendencies

159

As a result, it can be claimed that New Public Management is a contradictive concept in terms of tendencies as regards public administration. Drechsler (2005) asserted that NPM is declining as a philosophy; Moynihan added that NPM is in eclipse in public administration literature, too (2008: 485). Dunleavy et al. (2006) went as far as to announce the death of NPM, and showed that it has been replaced by digital governance, whole of government,12 need-based integrity and digitalization (de Vries 2010; Dunleavy et al. 2006). Lapsley stated that NPM has been a cruel disappointment for implementing states and unwanted and negative consequences of NPM-style reforms were pandemic (2008, 2009).

6.3 NPM, Post-NPM and Reforms The discussion above on NPM reforms and post-NPM tendencies leave one critical question unanswered: are these reforms closely connected to the more general reform waves? There are several studies in the literature seeking an answer to this question. Xu et al. (2015) argue that after New Public Management, which was mostly British in its origins, New Public Service dominated the field to cure the maladies of NPM and bring back the citizen and public service to the picture. However, it lacked originality and sound theoretical grounds. In the third wave of reforms, New Public Governance, mostly based on network theory, replaced its predecessor to ensure citizen independence, public deliberation and polycentric governance and to merge democracy with efficiency. They conclude that it is a mode of reference for all countries. Atreya and Armstrong (2002) commented that public administration reforms were not only a part of a global watershed of reforms but they were also encouraged and partly imposed by international organizations such as World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Although they were challenged as early as 2000, they still represented the future of reform philosophy and practice in the field of public administration as the reform waves continued. Liegl (1999) thinks that despite national differences between British/New Zealand school and Sweden/the Netherlands school, reforms are part of a global fashion but she also suggests that they should take contextual factors such as the level of implementation, that is federal, state or municipal, into consideration. Examining the origins and reception of reforms, Brunsson and SahlinAndersson (2000) concluded that public service reforms which came to the agenda in 1980s had similar starting points and results on a global scale. However, there are authors who question the link between public administration reforms and reform waves. Ongaro (2009) examined public administration reform trajectories in four Napoleonic countries, namely France, Greece, Portugal and Spain and concluded that the reforms were mostly motivated by the unique characteristics of national systems and a quest to find cure to their inherent problems such as clientelism and politicization of bureaucracy rather than being a response to the global 12 Whole

of government is essentially discussed in Christensen and Lægreid (2007), Patrick and Brown (2007), Christensen and Lægreid (2006), Hunt (2005), among others.

160

6 Re-centralization in Government

NPM fashion. Ongaro and Valotti (2008) commented that national and even local (the differences between south and north) colors were dominant in Italy where NPM reforms resulted in an implementation gap. Panozzo (2000) analyzed that despite the global drive behind public sector reforms, which is mostly led by English-speaking countries, the rationale and outcome of reforms are dissimilar and Italy is a good example of that fact. In another study, Ongaro and Rouban (2008) asserted that public management in France lacked a doctrine meaning that it was not part of the global NPM movement but a local response to the problems of French public administration system. Comparing NPM with Neo-Weberian State in Central and Eastern European (CEE) context, Randma-Liiv (2008) found that reform policies were the result of the drive of EU membership rather than being an answer to national and local needs which explains their unfitting nature13 and claims that Weberian public administration system should be established before NPM reforms were imposed in CEE countries. Pollitt and Summa (1999) found that the reforms in Finland, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK are all but similar, and there is no tide of basically similar public management changes sweeping through. As such, the meaning attached by a given country to public sector reforms might be different from another country. The discussion summarized above indicates that there are as many scholarly works which see in the reform movement a global fashion as those which point to national and local needs. One interesting finding that can be inferred is that even those scholars who claim that the reforms were closely related to global reform waves suggest that reformers should take national and local contexts into account. The conclusion of the discussion in this section is that public sector reforms are inevitably influenced by the global reform waves initiated by English-speaking countries, but they gain their unique features on their way and become partly localized. Especially in the CEE context reforms do not seem to be part of a reform wave; instead, they represent a deviation from the globally accepted reform movements.

6.4 Post-NPM and Re-centralization in Turkey Since the AK Party came to power in 2003, several steps have been taken to reform the state apparatus. The influence of NPM led to the creation of a whole array of public agencies both within and outside ministerial hierarchy. European Union membership perspective also had critical impact on the reform process. However, in the same period, some centralization tendencies were also evident, as identified in the regular Progress Reports published by the European Commission. The study will examine these tendencies by looking at the following examples: (1) expansion of the office of the prime minister, (2) re-definition of the links between regulatory agencies and the government, (3) re-organization of the cabinet, (4) strengthening of presidential office.

13 NPM

provides a wrong medicine for the CEE problems (Randma-Liiv 2008: 12).

6.4 Post-NPM and Re-centralization in Turkey

161

6.4.1 General Institutional Review of the Government General Institutional Review of the Government (GIRG) was one of the most important promises of Public Administration Reform Program which was launched in 2003. The program was prepared in order to display the general framework of the need for restructuring, including its mentality, strategic design and organization perspectives, which is obligatory to meet in the public administration of Turkey based on the management philosophy of and basic management vision of the twenty-first century, an era of rapid changes, globalization and increased competition. With the GIRG initiative, all public agencies other than state-owned enterprises were reviewed. Later in 2003, a draft Public Management Reform Law was passed (which was vetoed by the president), which mentioned that regulatory agencies were established but the previous pubic bodies which performed similar functions also continued to operate, which caused an overlapping of functions. Thus it was recommended that these institutions should be closed or united with regulatory bodies. For example, Board for Regulating Energy Markets was founded, but Directorate General of Energy Affairs continued to exist; or Directorate General of Communication performed some functions which overlapped with those of the recently established Telecom Supreme Board. The primary aim of GIRG was reportedly to deprive the government of its direct intervention and production abilities and assign it new roles such as formulating policies, building infrastructure, creating resources, setting standards and auditing. The duty of the government was defined as securing justice, ensuring internal and external security, developing macro-level, flexible and participatory strategies, and overseeing macro-economic balance and stability. Eliminating the bulky and excessively centralized structure of public administration, adopting citizen-oriented approaches in delivering public services, as well as efficiency and effectiveness, are among the central aims of this paradigm. According to the GIRG program, ministries would be restructured and the Cabinet of Ministers would be rationalized. The number and nature of ministerial bodies would be reviewed by ministerial restructuring teams which would cooperate with their equivalents in other ministries under the light of the principles laid down by Public Administration Reform Program.

6.4.2 Expansion of the Prime Minister’s Office After 2003 Referring to the position of prime minister in the cabinet, it was Sartori who offered to change the phrase “first among equals” to “first above unequals” (1997: 139). In Turkey, remarkable expansion was witnessed in the structure of Prime Ministry after 2003, when AK Party came to power. It is true that the charisma of the leader of the party, the then Prime Minister Erdo˘gan, is one of the reasons for such expansion. But this topic is beyond the scope of this chapter, which focuses on institutional

162

6 Re-centralization in Government

aspects. In this context, one factor which reinforced the position of the prime minister was the proliferation of public bodies which operated under Prime Ministry only to turn into a gigantic line ministry. In 2014, the structure of Prime Ministry is more comprehensive than ever: there were 27 head offices, 12 directorates general and undersecretariats, including Directorate of Disaster and Emergency Management, Directorate of Religious Affairs, Undersecretariat of the Treasury, Secretariat General of National Security Council, Undersecretariat of Public Order and Safety, Directorate of Collective Housing and Directorate General of Foundations, among others; in addition, there were nine related public bodies among which Central Bank, all three public banks, Directorate General of Turkish Radio and Television Agency, and government news agency can be listed. The number of employees rose from some 1170 to 2850 between 2003 and 2014. In 2014 the Prime Ministry had 27 chief consultants, 3 consultancy offices, private secretariat, housing directorate, press consultancy, inspection board directorate, undersecretariat, public diplomacy coordination office, information acquisition and assessment board, public employees ethical board, state of emergency coordination board, and other directorates and offices, one revolving fund, four boards, and six associated public bodies, such as Joint Chiefs of Staff and four regulatory agencies. The Prime Ministry was responsible for some 40 public bodies at varying autonomy, which was more than any line ministry. All these developments meant that, with the vast institutional apparatus that he could mobilize, Prime Minister could interfere in the policies and activities of line ministries. In the end of the decade, the PM’s Office had emerged as a super service ministry instead of a coordinator ministry, which, in turn, resulted in more centralization of power in the core executive represented by the PM’s Office.

6.4.3 Transformation of Independent Regulatory Agencies Having emerged first in the USA in 1920s, independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) spread to other countries after 1980s. The functions and structures of these agencies vary due to different administrative and political cultures, economic systems and structural features of administrations.14 With their institutional autonomy and independence of decision-making bodies, and policing functions as regards economic policies, IRAs have a critical role to play in the application of neo-liberal policies. IRAs serve to decrease political influence in decision-making in economic affairs, and help government avoid political responsibility in the application of economic policies. From this perspective, IRAs provide a new model in the organization of government and its (weakened) role in the regulation of markets; thus, they have been introduced as an essential part of decentralization of government. In Turkey, IRAs display differences from their counterparts in the West, which can be attributed to centralist tendencies. IRAs in the Western democracies enjoy 14 There is a vast literature on independent regulatory agencies. See, for example, Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002), Majone (1997), Gilardi (2005, 2009), Cary (1967), Thatcher (2002).

6.4 Post-NPM and Re-centralization in Turkey

163

considerable insulation from elected politicians in terms of party politicization and tenure (Thatcher 2002); but in Turkey, governments were quick to understand that they were far too important to be left truly independent. Too many amendments were made in the legislation on IRAs as a result of which they lost much of their independence to centralization (Sever 2015), examples of which are provided below: • Staff of some IRAs were assigned by Cabinet of Ministers while the dismissal authorities were given to the approval of the Prime Ministry, • The limitation of one-term service on the boards of IRAs, which was imposed in order to ensure higher independency by eliminating the potential favorable actions to increase the possibility of a reassignment, was gradually removed in 2011 and 2012; today only 4 of the 11 IRAs preserve the one-term rule. • The independence of the boards of IRAs made executive organ uncomfortable (Karaka¸s 2008; Sezen 2007; Sosay 2009) so that a law was passed which terminated the service periods of Banking Regulation and Supervision Board (BDDK). • Although by law the decisions of the boards of IRAs are subject to neither hierarchical nor tutelary supervision, it can be seen that relations between IRAs and the central executive resemble that of tutelage. Since 2008, all IRAs other than Capital Markets Agency and Bio-Security Board have been associated with one ministry or the other by legal amendments or Cabinet of Ministers decisions. As a result of the foregoing changes in legislation and practice, the autonomy of IRAs has been eroded and central executive organs gained more control on their functioning.

6.4.4 Reform in the Cabinet In 2011, as envisaged by the Ninth Development Plan (2007–2013), the executive order no. 643 was passed which led to radical changes in the structure of the Cabinet of Ministers. The executive order re-defined the distribution of public services among ministries by amending the basic Law No. 3046 which regulated the structuring and functioning of ministries. For one thing, the number of public agencies related or associated to the Prime Ministry was decreased. This looks like a deviation from the previous developments which enlarged the Prime Ministry organization, but a closer look shows that it is indeed in coincidence with the overall philosophy of strengthening the core executive by imposing deputy prime ministers. Other fundamental changes were the elimination of ministries without portfolio, and introduction of new line ministries and deputy ministers. The Executive Order no. 643 created new line ministries and renamed some existing ones. Ministry for EU Affairs, Ministry of Development and Ministry of Economy were introduced by re-organizing some public bodies which were previously under the control of the PM or other ministries. The Undersecretariat of EU Affairs under the PM was re-organized as Ministry for EU Affairs; State Planning Organization, which was another undersecretariat of the PM, became Ministry of Development,

164

6 Re-centralization in Government

and Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade of the PM was turned into Ministry of Economy. Ministry of Family and Social Affairs was created by combining a number of public bodies which were previously controlled by different ministries. Ministry of Industry and Trade was divided into two ministries: Ministry of Customs and Trade and Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. Likewise, Ministry of Environment and Forestry was divided into Ministry of Environment and Urbanization and Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs. Ministers without portfolio had been members of the Cabinet of Ministers since 1946. The executive order no. 643 replaced them with deputy prime ministers. Several of the public bodies or agencies related or associated with the Prime Minister were transferred to the authority of deputy prime ministers, which partly explains the simplification of the Prime Minister’s organization. The Executive Order defined two types of deputy PMs. The number of the first type of deputy PMs who can be assigned in order to assist the PM in his duties, especially in coordinating the cabinet, was not defined. The number of the second type of deputy PMs was limited with five, and these deputies could be assigned based on the reasons given for ministers without portfolio in a previous Executive Order dated 1983. This meant that an unlimited number of deputy PMs could be assigned by the PM, which would give more power to the Prime Minister inside the cabinet. When it was abolished in 2018, there were fove deputy PMs who were responsible for a total of 22 related and associated public bodies and boards, including all public banks, public broadcasting agency, Central Bank, Directorate of Religious Affairs and four IRAs. Through the deputy PMs, these public bodies were also more or less under direct control of the Prime Minister.15

6.4.5 Expansion of the President’s Office After 2014, when Erdo˘gan was elected as president, some steps were taken to expand the President’s Office. The first step was to increase the number of directorates from 4 to 13 with a confidential decree which was not published in the Official Gazette. However, the change in organization can be traced from the website of the state at www.kaysis.gov.tr, which is given in Table 6.1. The directorates listed above were distributed to the three deputy secretaries general, four to each. There are 36 offices under these directorates and a State Information Coordination Center. With private secretariats of both the Secretary General and the President himself, Safeguarding Directorate which operates directly under the Secretary General, three chief-counselors and numerous counselors, the President’s Office has turned into a vast machinery of policy making and coordination since 2014. With

15 After this reorganization, the then Prime Minister still complained about the number of ministries and said: “if you need a minister, this brother of yours is enough for you”. See odatv.com in the references.

6.4 Post-NPM and Re-centralization in Turkey

165

Table 6.1 The offices, boards and directorates directly reporting to the President

a prime minister totally under the president’s control, the Turkish public administration is witnessing a whole-of-government process at the top of the executive, which is very similar to the case in Russia.

6.4.6 Adoption of the Presidential Government System One of the issues on the agenda in Turkey in recent years has been the presidential system debate. The political debate on whether or not to switch to the presidential system was conducted without considering the consequences of such a change in the government system and the advantages and disadvantages. As a result, at the point reached in late 2016, it was decided to adopt the “Turkish Type Presidential System” as part of the partisan presidential system. The constitutional amendments were adopted in this direction in the parliament and a new referendum was held on April 16, 2017. As a result of a referendum, a radical change in the government system of Turkey was realized with 52% of the votes. In the new government model called the “presidential government” system, executive authority is gathered at the Presidency. In the new system, the Presidency consists of several executive units performing various political and administrative functions. This organization is supposed to perform

166

6 Re-centralization in Government

a wide range of tasks, from assisting the president in the formulation and implementation of public policies, to the organization of the president’s daily program and the execution of press and public relations. In other words, there will be “staff units” and “auxiliary units” that carry out institutional and administrative affairs within the Presidency. Staff units are especially important in terms of developing the capacity of the President to form and implement public policy. In the new management model, it is seen that presidential offices and boards come to the fore as staff units whereas presidential directorates are expected to serve as auxiliary units. Therefore, it is useful to take a closer look at these structures.

6.4.6.1

Presidential Offices

Offices are one of the most important structures within the presidential organization in countries governed by the presidential system. When the country practices are examined, it is seen that these offices collect the necessary data and information for the formation of public policies under their own policy expertise, produce field information, develop policy and decision drafts by developing appropriate policy alternatives and report to the president. In country implementations, offices can sometimes be assigned to coordinate and evaluate the implementation. Therefore, offices are among the most important structures that play a role in developing the president’s capacity to form and implement public policy. These offices are “Finance Office”, “Human Resources Office”, “Digital Transformation Office” and “Investment Office”.

6.4.6.2

Presidential Boards

In the countries governed by the presidential system, one of the instruments used to improve the capacity of the president to use the executive power to form public policy is the advisory bodies. Advisory boards serve to provide independent information and advice to the president on the policy area in which they are concerned. Such boards, which are established in different sectors or policy issues, ensure the participation of relevant stakeholders in the development of public policies. These boards and their committees enable cooperation and coordination between institutions and sectors in solving multi-dimensional problems. In the presidential governance model, similar to the other practices of the countries governed by the presidential system, boards were included within the Presidential organization. These boards are “Local Government Policy Board”, “Social Policy Board”, “Health and Food Policy Board”, “Culture and Art Policy Board”, “Legal Policy Board”, “Security and Foreign Policy Board”, “Economic Policy Board”, “Education and Training Policy Board” and “Science, Technology and Innovation Policies Board”. The new government model is expected to offer policy proposals that are generated in these boards, provide feedback to ministries, follow-up on executive activities in the field of interest, prepare progress reports and increase

6.4 Post-NPM and Re-centralization in Turkey

167

the participation of stakeholders (NGOs, sector representatives, academics, etc.) in decision-making processes.

6.4.6.3

Presidential Directorates

In the presidential government model, some units created in the form of directorates are designed to operate under the presidency. These are “General Staff Directorate”, “National Intelligence Directorate”, “Defense Industry Directorate”, “National Security Council”, “Directorate of Religious Affairs”, “State Supervisory Board”, “Directorate of Communication” and “Strategy and Budget Directorate. Some of these institutions (the Undersecretariat for Defense Industries and the State Supervisory Board) were already affiliated with the Presidency. The General Staff Directorate, the National Intelligence Organization and the Directorate of Religious Affairs were affiliated or responsible to Prime Ministry in the previous parliamentary system. These institutions are now connected to the president who will use executive power in the new government system due to the abolition of the Prime Ministry.

6.4.6.4

Ministries

The new government model, which went into force after June 24 elections, envisions the merging of ministries to reduce their number, increasing their functionality and improving their efficiency. Thus, the number of ministries in the new government system has been reduced to 16. The ministries in the new government model are listed below. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Interior Ministry of National Defense Ministry of National Education Ministry of Health Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources Ministry of Environment and Urbanization Ministry of Culture and Tourism Ministry of Youth and Sports Ministry of Treasury and Finance Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Family, Labor, and Social Services Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Ministry of Industry and Technology Ministry of Commerce

168

6 Re-centralization in Government

6.5 Conclusion Explaining the Turkish experience merely with re-centralization and post-NPM tendencies would be misleading. There are several studies in the literature indicating that in Turkey there is a strong state tradition which at times can be translated into one-man tradition. Heper (1992) argues that strong state tradition in Turkey creates strong leaders, which serves as a hindrance for the consolidation of democracy. In a similar vein, Sezen (2011) claims that although reform movements are mostly in the form of policy transfer, this is more appropriate for NPM reforms than post-NPM reforms which can be better explained using strong-state tradition. Bilgin (2007) links the necessity for a strong state in Turkey due to its geopolitical situation and concludes that the need for a strong, unitary nation-state justifies the emergence as well as desirability of strong leaders. Sözen and Shaw (2003: 113) suggest that democratic norms and institutions cannot take root in a culture where leaders become more important than rules or institutions, which lead them to the conclusion that personal rule has emerged as a natural characteristic of the Turkish polity. These remarks reflect a common viewpoint among scholars who study Turkey: strong-man, as the agent of a strong-state, is a reality of the Turkish society and politics. This line of thought, together with the fact that post-NPM debates are virtually non-existent in Turkish politics and academia, leads to the conclusion that the recent re-organization of the executive is not inspired by post-NPM tendencies; rather, it is a result of the traditional approach to government style in Turkey. Public administration reforms in Europe followed different processes in old and new member states. The motivations of these two groups of countries and the mechanisms used in order to implement the reforms imposed by EU institutions were also divergent. However, it is possible to identify some common tendencies behind these differences. First, the impact of EU on reforms is limited by applying assistance-based conditionality tools when exerting pressure is needed on national authorities. The updating of EU’s enlargement framework so as to cover all Balkan states increased the number of conditions that the countries had to adopt and expanded the scope in an unprecedented scale; accordingly, the role of the Union increased inevitably (Pippan 2004; Elbasani 2008). Rewards such as progress in membership process and financial aids act as additional incentives for ensuring compliance to EU conditions. In addition, various tools are being used by the EU in order to monitor the status of reforms in each country. EU enlargement process increased hopes for change and provided the environment necessary for easier implementation of public administration reforms as well as the support of elites and the public (Elbasani 2009: 14). Financial crisis which broke out in 2008 in Europe had essential impact on New Public Management paradigm. Haynes et al. (2011) claimed that, as a reaction toward NPM-style reforms, the crisis reversed the opinions about shareholder participation in Europe. They also asserted that despite the popularity of comprehensive management discourse, a reversal occurred in NPM tendencies. Third-way (Giddens 1998), digitalage governance (Dunleavy et al. 2006) and other reactions offered alternatives to New Public Management.

6.5 Conclusion

169

In Turkey, expansion of the organization of the Prime Ministry, increase of executive control on Independent Regulatory Agencies, re-organization of the cabinet which also served to increase the power of the Prime Minister, and the concentration of several functions at the President’s Office as reflected by the enlargement of its bureaucracy are indicators that the Turkish public administration is moving from a delegated, fragmented and decentralized pattern, which was the result of new public management reforms in the early 2000s, to a more centralized structure concentrated at the top executive represented by the Prime Minister’s and then the President’s Office. The extent to which this succession of top executive bodies is affected by the personality of the top political figure, Erdo˘gan, who was prime minister until 2014 and is the president since then, has not been discussed here. Independent from that factor, the institutional analysis shows that the arguments of whole-of-government approach do not explain the recent restructuring of the Turkish core executive. The tendency in the Turkish polity represents a shift toward a unified executive system. It is a twisting of the concept of transcending organizational boundaries which was referred to previously: it looks more like elimination of organizational boundaries and blending under the roof of a top executive. What it means in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of public services is yet to be seen. Whether it is the cure for the maladies of new public management in Turkey is not clear, either. What is more apparent is that such an approach can bring about centralization of power in the hands of a handful of top executives, and this is hardly the purpose of whole-of-government approach.

References Atreya, B., and Armstrong, A. (2002). A review of the criticisms and the future of new public management. Bilgin, P. (2007). Only strong states can survive in Turkey’s geography: The uses of geopolitical truths in Turkey. Political Geography, 26(7), 740–756. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2003). Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe. In K. Featherstone & C. Radaelli (Eds.), Politics of europeanization (pp. 57–80). New York: Oxford University Press. Boyle, R. (1995). Towards a new public service. Institute of Public Administration. Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746. Cary, W. L. (1967). Politics and the regulatory agencies. McGraw-Hill. Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2006). The whole-of-government approach–regulation, performance, and public-sector reform. Working Paper at http://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/1893. Accessed 21 Aug 2019. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2013). After a terrorist attack: Challenges for political and administrative leadership in Norway. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(3), 167–177.

170

6 Re-centralization in Government

Curry, D., Blijleven, W. & Van de Walle, S. (2014). Current and future trends in public sector reform: The views of trade unions and consultants in ten European countries. COCOPS Work Package 8 (http://www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/COCOPS-REPORT-8-4-goedeversie.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2019). De Vries, J. (2010). Is new public management really dead? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 10(1), 1–5. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., Reed, M., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford University Press. ˙ Demir, F. (2009). Avrupa Idari Alanı’nın Olu¸sumu ve Yansımaları (Orta ve Do˘gu Avrupa Ülkeleri ile Türkiye Örne˘gi), Unpublished PhD Thesis, Sakarya, Turkey. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559. Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909. Dimitrova, A. (2002). Enlargement, institution-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement. West European Politics, 25(4), 171–190. Drechsler, W. (2005). The re-emergence of Weberian public administration after the fall of new public management: The central and eastern European perspective. Halduskultuur, 6, 94–108. Drechsler, W. (2009). Towards a neo-Weberian European Union? Lisbon agenda and public administration. Administrative Culture, 10, 6–21. Drechsler, W., & Kattel, R. (2009). Conclusion: Towards the neo-Weberian state? Perhaps, but certainly adieu, NPM. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 1(2), 95–99. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead— long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. Dunn, W. N., & Miller, D. Y. (2007). A critique of the new public management and the neoWeberian state: Advancing a critical theory of administrative reform. Public organization review, 7(4), 345–358. Elbasani, A. (2008). EU enlargement in the Western Balkans: Strategies of borrowing and inventing. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 10(3), 293–307. Elbasani, A. (2009). EU administrative conditionality and domestic downloading: The limits of europeanization in challenging contexts. KFG Working Paper, Nr. 2. Falkner, G., Treib, O., & Holzleithner, E. (2008). Compliance in the enlarged European Union: Living rights or dead letters? Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Ferlie, E. (1996). The new public management in action. USA: Oxford University Prepp. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way. Cambridge: Polity. Gilardi, F. (2005). The institutional foundations of regulatory capitalism: The diffusion of independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 84–101. Gilardi, F. (2009). Delegation in the regulatory state: Independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing. Goetz, K. H. (2005). The New Member States and the EU. In S. Bulmer & C. Lequesne (Eds.), Member states and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Prepp. Grabbe, H. (2004). What the new member states bring into the EU. In N. Nugent (Ed.), European union enlargement (pp. 70–83). UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Gregory, R. (1995). The peculiar tasks of public management: Toward conceptual discrimination. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 54(2), 171–183. Haynes, A. S., Derrick, G. E., Chapman, S., Redman, S., Hall, W. D., Gillespie, J., et al. (2011). From our world to the real world: Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. Social Science and Medicine, 72(7), 1047–1055. Heper, M. (1992). The strong state as a problem for the consolidation of democracy: Turkey and Germany compared. Comparative Political Studies, 25(2), 169–194.

References

171

Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282. https://odatv.com/iste-12-hazirandan-sonraki-bakanliklar–0806111200.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2019. Hughes, P., & Smart, J. (2012). You say you want a revolution: The next stage of public sector reform in New Zealand. Policy Quarterly, 8(1). Hunt, S. (2005). Whole-of-government: Does working together work? (https://digitalcollections. anu.edu.au/handle/1885/43012). Kaldor, M., & Vejvoda, I. (1997). Democratization in central and east European countries. International Affairs, 73(1), 59–82. Karaka¸s, M. (2008). Devletin Düzenleyici Rolü ve Türkiye’de Ba˘gımsız ˙Idari Otoriteler. Maliye Dergisi, 154, 99–120. Katzenstein, P. J., & Byrnes, T. A. (2006). Transnational religion in an expanding Europe. Perspectives on Politics, 4(4), 679–694. Kelman, S. (2005). Public management needs help! Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 967– 969. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). Network media logic: Some conceptual considerations. In The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 23–38). Routledge. Knill, C., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002). The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: Three Europeanization mechanisms. European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), 255–280. Laegreid, P., & Christensen, T. (eds.). (2013). Transcending new public management: The transformation of public sector reforms. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Lapsley, I. (2008). The NPM agenda: Back to the future. Financial Accountability and Management, 24(1), 77–96. Lapsley, I. (2009). New public management: The cruellest invention of the human spirit? 1. Abacus, 45(1), 1–21. Liegl, B. (1999). The fallacies of new public management–can they still be prevented in Austrian context. Citizens and the New Governance, 175–186. Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 599–629. Lynn, L. (2008). What is a Neo-Weberian state? Reflections on a concept and its implications. NISP Acee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, I(2). Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of public policy, 17(02), 139–167. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press. Noordhoek, P., & Saner, R. (2005). Beyond new public management. Answering the claims of both politics and society. Public Organization Review, 5(1), 35–53. O’Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353–366. Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece. Portugal and Spain: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ongaro, E., & Rouban, L. (2008). Reform without doctrine: Public management in France. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Ongaro, E., & Valotti, G. (2008). Public management reform in Italy: Explaining the implementation gap. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 174–204. Panozzo, F. (2000). Management by decree. Paradoxes in the reform of the Italian public sector. Scandinavian journal of management, 16(4), 357–373. Papadimitriou, A., Gornitzka, Å., & Stensaker, B. (2015). Designed diffusion? The impact of an EU instrument for public management reform in the Western Balkans. Journal of European Integration, 37(6), 629–647. Patrick, S., & Brown, K. (2007). Greater than the sum of its parts?: Assessing “whole of government” approaches to fragile states. New York: International Peace Academy.

172

6 Re-centralization in Government

Pippan, C. (2004). The rocky road to Europe: The EU’s stabilisation and association process for the Western Balkans and the principle of conditionality. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(2), 219–245. Pollitt, C. (1995). Justification by works or by faith? Evaluating the new public management. Evaluation, 1(2), 133–154. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. USA: Oxford University Prepp. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Prepp. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Continuity and change in public policy and management. Edward Elgar Publishing. Pollitt, C., & Summa, H. (1999). Performance audit and public management reform. Performance or compliance, 1–10. Randma-Liiv, T. (2008). New public management versus neo-Weberian state in Central and Eastern Europe. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 1(2), 69–81. Sartori, G. (1997). Comparative constitutional engineering: An inquiry into structures, incentives, and outcomes. NYU Prepp. Schimank, U., & Lange, S. (2009). Germany: A latecomer to new public management. In University governance (pp. 51–75). Dordrecht: Springer. Schimmelfennig, F., & Scholtz, H. (2008). EU democracy promotion in the European neighborhood: Political conditionality, economic development and transnational exchange. European Union Politics, 9(2), 187–215. Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 661–679. Sever, Ç. (2015). Türkiye’de Düzenleyici Kurumlarin Yapisi, ˙I¸slevi ve Dönü¸sümü. Ankara University Journal of Law Faculty (AÜHFD), 64(1), 195–236. Sezen, S. (2007). Independent regulatory agencies in Turkey: Are they really autonomous? Public Administration and Development, 27(4), 319–332. Sezen, S. (2011). International versus domestic explanations of administrative reforms: The case of Turkey. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 322–346. Sosay, G. (2009). Delegation and accountability: Independent regulatory agencies in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 10(3), 341–363. Sözen, S., & Shaw, I. (2003). Turkey and the European Union: Modernizing a traditional state? Social Policy and Administration, 37(2), 108–120. Thatcher, M. (2002). Regulation after delegation: Independent regulatory agencies in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6), 954–972. Theobald, H. (2012). Combining welfare mix and new public management: The case of long-term care insurance in Germany. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21, S61–S74. Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005). Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, 26(5), 683–706. Verheijen, T. (2002). The European Union and public administration development in Central and Eastern Europe. In R. Baker (Ed.), Transitions from authoritarianism: The role of the bureaucracy. Westport, CT: Praeger. Wilkinson, M. J. (1995). Love is not a marketable commodity: New public management in the British National Health Service. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(5), 980–987. www.kaysis.gov.tr. Accessed 28 Dec 2019. Xu, R., Sun, Q., & Si, W. (2015). The third wave of public administration: The new public governance. Canadian Social Science, 11(7), 11–21.

Conclusion

At the beginning of the book, the hypothesis was proposed that there is a common public administration philosophy and series of practices in the member states of the European Union, and that they transform the public administrations of the member states to form the structure known as the European Administrative Space (EAS). As can be seen from the arguments put forward in the study, the term European Administrative Space is not used in the official and legal documents of the EU. Moreover, it is also pointed out that there is no acquis on public administration in the EU. Member states are not expected to follow a single public administration template; for example, no comment is made on matters such as whether the personnel office should be at the level of the undersecretariat or at the level of a general directorate, which units it will consist of, the number of the chairman and employees, and what their salaries should be. However, regardless of the foregoing, public administration in the EU has been undergoing a significant change in recent years. Within the scope of this transformation, the principles to be followed in terms of how public institutions should operate, how they should provide public services, the quality of their relationship with the central government, and the wage and performance policies are set forth in order to achieve optimum effectiveness, economy and efficiency level. In the process of change in the EU public administration, four principles affecting public administration in the EU—clarity and transparency, participation, accountability and effectiveness—played a decisive role. Among other documents and studies, the White Papers are of great importance in terms of both defining the elements of this change and undertaking the task of drawing a road map. The first reflection of the requirement for harmonization was seen through the internal market-oriented regulatory compliance programs such as the 1995 White Paper when the emerging European Administrative Space became relatively concrete. In the on-going process, public administration reform in the European Union took place in three stages: First, there were some processes and developments through which intellectual and theoretical basis of a common public administration was formed. Second, documents were published and studies were conducted in order

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 F. Demir, Public Management Reform in Turkey, Public Administration, Governance and Globalization 20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41648-5

173

174

Conclusion

to adopt a common public administration approach. These include SIGMA reports, White Papers, the European Code of Good Administrative Behavior and the EU Constitutional Treaty. Third, institutions and practices aimed at establishing a common public administration were created. This process coincides with the steps the European Union wants to see followed by candidate countries. Accordingly, in the case of accession negotiations with candidate countries, it is first assessed whether the law on reform has been drafted, or has been submitted to parliament (or whether the establishment of the institution has been proposed, the strategy has been drafted); in the second stage, whether the law has been passed (or whether the institution has been established) is addressed; in the third stage after the passing of the law, the implementation of the law (or the functioning of the institution) is evaluated. With the application of the principles of the European Administrative Space, the shared basic public administration values and principles, which were created by a European administrative judicial system, brought about some degree of convergence between national governments. In order to continue this convergence, it has become a necessity for the new member countries to adopt the same principles. This convergence has been put forward as a prerequisite in all areas of state administration. The relevant set of conditions is expressed in the Copenhagen Criteria, Accession Partnerships, National Programs for the Adoption of the Acquis, and Regular Progress Reports. The reforms in the government structure of the countries undertaken with the aim of harmonization with the EU have been evaluated in detail in the accession negotiation documents. Central and Eastern European countries which applied for EU membership needed to reform public administration in order to meet the Copenhagen and Madrid criteria for accession. Almost all areas of government are either covered or affected by the acquis communautaire. In several segments of the acquis communautaire, the content of objectives and reforms is clearly defined. Candidate countries are required to transpose and implement EU legislation in their national laws. Difficulties and delays in the implementation process are thought to be caused by insufficient capacity. However, standards on horizontal governance or the national public administration system are not implied in the acquis communautaire. In the reports published within the framework of the SIGMA program implemented in cooperation with the OECD and the EU, the European Administrative Space is defined as a process of increasing convergence between the national administrative legal orders and administrative practices of the member states (Kuzey 2004: 62). The principles that both EU member states and EU candidate countries should adopt and comply with in the process of harmonization of national public administrations with the EU are as follows: (i) reliability and legal security (legal certainty), (ii) openness and transparency, (iii) accountability, and (iv) effectiveness and efficiency. This consensus reached within the framework of the SIGMA Program led to the establishment of principles of public administration that were accepted by EU member states with different legal traditions and different governance systems. Over time, these principles have been defined and refined through the judicial case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities as well as the national courts. The principles of public

Conclusion

175

administration generally accepted by the EU member states have laid down the conditions that make up the European Administrative Space. The negotiations for possible enlargements of the EU in 2004, 2007 and thereafter were based on the principles of the European Administrative Space (EAS) for administrative restructuring. Turkey is one of the countries which formed structures and policies in accordance with these principles in the negotiation stage. Therefore, it was considered beneficial to evaluate the change in Turkish public administration in terms of the reflection of these principles (Demir 2009: 80). Since 1998, the year when the first progress report was published, constitutional amendments and reform packages dominated the political realm in Turkey. When the enlargement strategy documents of the EU between 2000 and 2007 are examined, it can be argued that there are similar statements and demands regarding all candidate countries. Enacting the civil service law, reforming public administration, strengthening the judiciary, protecting minority rights, strengthening the fight against corruption, establishing a functioning market economy, ensuring macroeconomic stability, accelerating privatizations, enacting the law of corporations, removing barriers to foreign and local undertakings (especially bureaucratic), adopting the New and Global Approach1 regarding the free movement of capital, services and capital, ensuring legal harmonization in agriculture, re-defining planning regions and statistical units, transposing the environmental acquis and implementation of environmental directives, restructuring of the energy sector, ensuring nuclear security, and building administrative capacity of the judicial system are among the issues raised by the EU in the accession negotiations which later followed the level of progress and harmonization. The analyses in the various parts and chapters of the book are based largely on the Commission’s Regular Progress Reports for candidate countries published annually. Progress reports follow the same method every year and for each country, and evaluate the progress made by the candidate countries in a universal outline. These assessments are based on the same objective accession criteria in all progress reports following the Commission’s Opinion for Enlargement in 1997, which were based on the EU Council meetings in Copenhagen and Madrid. In assessing progress, information provided by candidate countries during negotiations, in particular the Negotiation Positions2 and National Programs, is taken into account. It is examined whether the reforms undertaken by countries in their national programs are actually implemented. Each candidate’s ability to implement the acquis, that is, its administrative capacity, is assessed. Adoption of the acquis consists of transposition, implementation and enforcement processes. The process, starting with the transposition of EU legislation into national legislation, should be continued through the creation of appropriate administrative and judicial structures, which was underlined in the Council of Europe of 1 The New and Global Approach relates to the harmonization of the basic requirements for potentially

dangerous goods with the regulations in the Member States and the harmonization of conformity assessment with the basic requirements set out in the New and Global Approach Directives. 2 The negotiation positions explain how the candidate country will align and implement its national legislation with the acquis, as well as how to establish an institutional structure for implementation.

176

Conclusion

Madrid and re-emphasized in almost all official documents of the EU. This process is in line with the stages of establishing a common public administration in the EU, which was examined in the first part of the study. The EU’s requests from candidate countries in the enlargements of 2004 and 2007 also follow this pattern.3 The Enlargement Strategy Document for 2007–2008 considers the adoption, implementation and enforcement of the laws separately; this means that the same method will be followed in future expansions. This method is founded on the principles of the European Administrative Space which continue to be repeated in EU summits and documents. A number of issues can be raised about Turkey’s path to follow at this point. In the accession negotiations as well as in the 2018 Turkey progress report and the document titled “2018 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy”,4 the points that are most emphasized about public administration and which should be dealt with primarily can be listed as follows: • Establishing a general strategy and developing an action plan and coordination mechanism in the context of the fight against corruption and bribery, • Ensuring transparency in the use of EU funds, • Recruitment of well-trained and knowledgeable EU staff, • Continuity of political will on EU membership, • Improving the internal audit of public institutions and increasing the level of accountability, • Amendment of the law on political parties, especially with a view to ensuring transparency in the control of election expenditures, • Effective implementation of impact assessment, • Reforming the public personnel regime, • Increasing the resources of local governments, • Establishing full civilian control over the military, • Revising the Court of Accounts law to cover all public bodies, and • Improving the freedom of assembly, speech and association. Turkey, with its highly centralized, hierarchical and bureaucratic management structure, has been suffering from unsuccessful, unfinished and sometimes reversed reform efforts (Üstüner and Yavuz 2018). The public administration reforms in Turkey tend to repeat each other and the same solutions are offered over and over again. The administrative problems faced by the Turkish public administration cause and/or exacerbate political, social and economic issues; but they are also worsened by these problems, which tend to become a vicious cycle. Therefore, it will be a proper approach to address the issue of administrative restructuring from a holistic perspective and to consider the interaction of the government system with other social systems. It should not be forgotten that, as Turkey became a candidate for 3 For

further information, please refer to COM (2007) 663 European Commission Communication “2007–2008 Enlargement Strategy and its Main Challenges”. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/20180417_strategy_paper_en. pdf.

Conclusion

177

European Union membership in December 1999, it has become important to realize the reforms that would pave the way for integration to the European Union. An important part of these reforms relates to public economy and public administration. In this regard, the solution to the problems of public administration will be realized through a comprehensive re-organization that was discussed within the context of the harmonization process with the EU. Today, it is not easy to say that the climate of reform continues in Turkey where different political and social changes are taking place, and public reforms are no longer the priority agenda item. Considering an analogy of the processes experienced by the country to a pendulum which swings “back and forth with Europeanization”, one can say that Turkey is experiencing the former part of the phrase. There are hardly any signs showing that the enthusiasm for the EU continues in central institutions and decentralized governments. It is also difficult to see that the reforms are fully implemented. Reform is a dynamic process and society has a responsibility for its realization. Changes in legislation are normally not expected to radically alter the functioning of public administration overnight. Traditions and corporate culture that have emerged over the years may give public officials the means to maintain their old habits in the new legislation period. But the requirements of the era and related concepts and processes will undoubtedly play a decisive role in the continuation of the reform process in the public sector. It can be argued that the reforms and regulations made by the Turkish governments in the post-2005 period were largely realized with the objectives of domestic policy, far from the EU perspective. In this period, EU norms were used as a leverage in Turkish domestic politics. In this period, the governing party continued to refer to such concepts as EU conditions and norms in order to provide public support for the reforms and increase its legitimacy. However, the transformative power of the EU lost its influence in the post-2005 period due to a number of internal and external factors. At this point, the EU conditionality needed carrots and stick more than ever, but factors such as reliability and uncertainty of criteria coupled with a sense of unfair treatment by the EU toward Turkey compared to the Central and Eastern European countries undermined the transformative power of the EU and caused both the Union and Turkey to move away from the perspective of full membership.

References ˙ Demir, F. (2009). Avrupa Idari Alanı’nın Olu¸sumu ve Yansımaları (Orta ve Do˘gu Avrupa Ülkeleri ile Türkiye Örne˘gi), Unpublished PhD Thesis, Sakarya, Turkey. European Commission. (2007). COM(2007) 663. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2007– 2008. https://ec.europa.eu/neighborhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/20180417_strategy_paper_en.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2019. Üstüner, Y., & Yavuz, N. (2018). Turkey’s public administration today: An overview and appraisal. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(10), 820–831.