Public Policy Making in Turkey: Foundational Concepts, Current Practice, and Impact of the New Presidential System 3030687147, 9783030687144

Citation preview

Fatih Demir

Public Policy Making in Turkey

Foundational Concepts, Current Practice, and Impact of the New Presidential System

Public Policy Making in Turkey

Fatih Demir

Public Policy Making in Turkey Foundational Concepts, Current Practice, and Impact of the New Presidential System

Fatih Demir Manisa, Turkey

ISBN 978-3-030-68714-4    ISBN 978-3-030-68715-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 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

Preface

Turkey is one of the countries that experience political and administrative change constantly and rapidly. In addition to Turkey’s internal dynamics, such as its own political, social and economic changes, there are external dynamics represented by the perspective of membership to the European Union and multi-dimensional relations with countries such as the USA, Russia and China. With the effect of political, administrative, economic and military conditions that can change at any time in its geographical region, the need for political and administrative restructuring of Turkey has become an ongoing necessity. Thus, several researchers have stated that the main task of the public administration discipline in Turkey is administrative reform analysis. The efforts to adapt to political/administrative changes, which gained momentum through the various administrative reform commissions established since the second half of the twentieth century as shown in the reports prepared by these commissions, accelerated in successive waves after 1980 until today. One of the instruments used in the analysis and implementation of these political and administrative reform waves has been “public policy analysis” studies. However, the scarcity of scientific publications related to public policy studies in Turkey has been voiced by several scientists. In contrast, in most western countries, there is a wide range of literature and theoretical knowledge in the field of public policy. Due to the common points of public policy with various fields of science, it has emerged as a popular science, and undergraduate and graduate programmes have been designed recently in this field. But these developments did not show parallels in Turkey, where although “public policy” courses are taught under the departments of political science and public administration in a number of universities, there are very few scientific works in this field. In short, the importance of public policy has not found its deserved place in Turkey. Especially since this area is seriously neglected in the academic environment, Turkish governments have been deprived of the contributions of public policy studies in a practical sense. This is not the case in many western countries. Public policy has been the focus of interest both theoretically and academically, and this accumulation has positively reflected on practical life. For example, policy analysts play a major role in the decision-making mechanism in the US policy system. Studies conducted by policy analysts and v

vi

Preface

results put forward by policy analysis can play a decisive role in decision making. In fact, “policy analysis studies” constitute the scientific infrastructure of the whole decision-making system and provide the opportunity to act not only with subjective judgements but also with objective conclusions reached using systematic methods. The book sets off with the discussion of basic concepts of public policy and underlines the features that distinguish it from traditional political science and public administration studies. In this section, leading definitions of public policy and reasons for studying public policy processes are explained. In this context, the characteristics of public policy analysis such as being a scientific effort, helping to solve problems and providing policy recommendations are discussed. In addition, the issue of public policy analysis is examined with the dimensions of “art” and “craft”. In the sections in which the policy cycle is discussed with the stages approach, the approaches and explanations regarding the formulation, implementation and evaluation of public policy are discussed starting from the agenda-setting stage. The chapter also draws attention to the distinction between “government” and “state” and explains why public policy should be studied across the world and in Turkey. The chapter introduces the “black box model” developed by Easton and examines the role of policy actors in the public policy process. The chapter ends with the definition of policy analysis and delivery of the debate on public policy analysis being craft or art. The reflections of this debate in Turkey are also discussed. Chapter 2 makes a case for agenda-setting as the first stage of public policy-­ making. Leading models of agenda-setting, i.e. punctuated equilibrium model, garbage can model and multiple streams model, are examined. It also discusses policy networks and communities as major actors of public policy agenda-setting stage. One of the main objectives of public policy is the formulation of solutions to social problems and their justification. Chapter 3 takes on the task of explaining the dynamics of policy formulation and programming with reference to basic concepts such as policy instruments, policy design and policy paradigms. It also includes a discussion on evidence-based policy making and provides some examples of this relatively new exercise. Chapter 4 examines the implementation phase of public policies and distinguishes three approaches, namely top-down, bottom-up and hybrid models. With reference to these three models, an assessment of the case in Turkey is provided. Chapter 5 attempts to offer some insight into the evaluation of public policies and weighs different methods of evaluation and policy assessment tools employed by governments every now and then. The chapter ends with an examination of impact assessment and its implementation in Turkey. The method followed in the book is from general to specific: in each chapter, the relevant public policy stage or concept is explained and discussions in international literature are provided first. Then, Turkish cases are presented and attempt is made to clarify the practice in Turkey using the theoretical concepts and debates. In addition, examples from other countries are also given so as to allow the reader to make comparisons and evaluate the Turkish case on a sounder and more objective ground. I would like to extend my thanks to the people who helped bring this book to life. The anonymous reviewers provided valuable insight for the improvement of the first

Preface

vii

draft. Without their guidance, this book could not be finished. Special thanks are reserved for Lorraine Klimowich and Maria David at Springer, whose always timely and rigorous work made the publication of this book possible. My completion of this project could not have been accomplished without the warmth and love of my children, Enes and Eymen, so many thanks to you! And finally, my caring and lovely wife, Figen, deserves my deepest gratitude. I know that without your understanding and encouragement, I could never have finished this book. Manisa, Turkey  Fatih Demir

Contents

1 Basic Concepts of Public Policy��������������������������������������������������������������    1 1 Why Public Policy Should Be Studied?��������������������������������������������    5 1.1 Public Policy Studies in Turkey��������������������������������������������    8 2 The “Black Box” Model ������������������������������������������������������������������   13 3 Policy Actors������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   18 3.1 Policy Actors in Turkey��������������������������������������������������������   21 4 Policy Analysis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   28 4.1 Craft or Art?��������������������������������������������������������������������������   30 4.2 The Debate in Turkey������������������������������������������������������������   38 4.3 Problems of Policy Analysis ������������������������������������������������   42 5 Policy Cycle Model��������������������������������������������������������������������������   43 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   46 2 Agenda Setting ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 1 Agenda-Setting Models��������������������������������������������������������������������   56 1.1 Punctuated Equilibrium Model ��������������������������������������������   56 1.2 Garbage Can Model��������������������������������������������������������������   61 1.3 Multiple Streams Model ������������������������������������������������������   62 1.4 Nondecision Making������������������������������������������������������������   70 2 Policy Networks��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   71 2.1 Policy Network Studies in Turkey����������������������������������������   73 3 Policy Communities��������������������������������������������������������������������������   75 3.1 Advocacy Coalition Framework ������������������������������������������   77 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   80 3 Policy Formulation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   85 1 Policy Instruments����������������������������������������������������������������������������   87 2 Policy Design������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   89 2.1 Policy Designers ������������������������������������������������������������������   95 2.2 The Role of Policy Advisors and Policy Advice Systems ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   96 2.3 The Role of Policy Ideas������������������������������������������������������   98 ix

x

Contents

2.4 Limitations on Policy Design and Expertise������������������������   99 2.5 Policy Design in Turkey: The Case of Innovation Policies����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  101 3 Policy Paradigms������������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 4 Professional Policy-Making��������������������������������������������������������������  109 4.1 Policy-Making Research������������������������������������������������������  109 5 Evidence-Based Policy Making��������������������������������������������������������  113 5.1 Principles of Evidence-Based Policy-Making����������������������  114 5.2 Evidence and Policy Advocacy��������������������������������������������  115 5.3 Interpretation of Evidence����������������������������������������������������  116 5.4 Examples of Evidence-Based Policy-Making����������������������  117 5.5 Evidence-Based Policy-Making in Turkey: Example Cases ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  121 5.6 Problems of Evidence-Based Policy-Making ����������������������  124 6 Governance and Policy-Making��������������������������������������������������������  125 7 Deliberative Policy-Making��������������������������������������������������������������  128 7.1 Forms of Deliberation ����������������������������������������������������������  130 7.2 Deliberative Policy-Making in Turkey����������������������������������  134 8 Democratization of Public Policy Process����������������������������������������  138 8.1 Public Policy–Citizen Relationship��������������������������������������  139 8.2 Democratic Public Policy-Making Models��������������������������  141 9 Obstacles to Participation in Public Policies������������������������������������  147 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  149 4 Policy Implementation����������������������������������������������������������������������������  161 1 Top-Down Approach������������������������������������������������������������������������  162 2 Bottom-up Approach������������������������������������������������������������������������  163 3 Hybrid Approach������������������������������������������������������������������������������  165 4 Policy Implementation in Turkey������������������������������������������������������  166 4.1 Centralized Political Culture������������������������������������������������  167 4.2 Conflict Between Politicians and Bureaucrats����������������������  170 4.3 Conflict Between Center and Periphery��������������������������������  171 4.4 Accountability of Public Administration������������������������������  173 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  174 5 Policy Evaluation��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  177 1 Public Policy Evaluation Methods����������������������������������������������������  179 2 Policy Evaluation Tools of the Government ������������������������������������  181 3 Impact Assessment����������������������������������������������������������������������������  183 4 Policy Evaluation in Turkey��������������������������������������������������������������  187 4.1 Impact Assessment����������������������������������������������������������������  187 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  191

Chapter 1

Basic Concepts of Public Policy

Abstract  Public policy is any issue that the government is interested in. All areas where the government can take action, such as foreign policy, waste management, energy efficiency, or combating child labor, are the subject of public policy. However, public policy is not limited to the foregoing. Intentions of politicians and programs that governments develop and implement to turn the policy intentions into action are also accepted as public policy. All these definitions show public policy from different angles and help us understand the essence of the subject better. In its classic definition, public policy is “everything the government chooses to do or not to do in response to a public problem.” The importance given to the courses specific to public policy and policy analysis at universities in Turkey did not show a noticeable improvement for a long time. Toward the end of the 1990s, only urbanization, environment, housing, fiscal policy, and social policy were included in the course curricula of the public administration departments. The first public policy courses at the undergraduate level were offered in the 1990s. Keywords  Public policy · Turkey · Policy actors · Policy analysis

Traditional political science primarily deals with the institutional structure of the government and its justification from a philosophical perspective. Constitutional arrangements address various issues, such as separation of powers, the powers and duties of the parliament, head of state and the courts, intergovernmental relations, and organization and functioning of the legislative, executive, and judicial bodies. From public policy perspective, political science and public administration studies have defined the institutions where public policies are formulated. However, the relationships between important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy have largely gone unnoticed. The “behavioral” aspect of political science has attempted to define the processes used in determining public policies by dealing with the sociological and psychological aspects of individual and group behavior, voter behavior, and other political activities; the functioning of interest groups and political parties; and various processes and behaviors in the legislative, executive, and judicial fields. However, their connection with the content of public policy © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Demir, Public Policy Making in Turkey, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_1

1

2

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

attracted the attention of researchers relatively lately. Today, public policy and policy analysis studies claim to add a new dimension to the field of political science and public administration as they try to identify the causes and consequences of government activity and address the effects social, economic, and political forces have on the content of public policies. It is necessary to draw attention to two important concepts at this point. These are the concepts of “state” and “government” which have an important place in the entire political science and public administration literature. Students of political science are very well aware of the very basic differences between the two concepts. First, the state is a sovereign authority, and the government is the body which is authorized to use the sovereign authority of the state. State gets its authority from itself, but government gets its authority from the state. The state is an institution that includes all individuals and institutions on the territory of the country, whereas the government consists of only a limited number of people operating the state’s legislative, executive, and judicial mechanisms. Finally, while the state is permanent, the government is temporary. In this book, the author would like to emphasize that the concept referred to as an actor using public power, that is, “the authority of the state,” is the “government” in terms of formulation, implementation, analysis, and evaluation of public policies. While public policy is being studied, the concrete aspect of the state, or “state in action” in the words of Jobert and Muller (1987), has to be taken into consideration. The main research topic thus is the activities carried out concretely on a daily basis by the government. Citizens are encountered with these public policies on a daily basis because today the state is interfering with our lives in a wider range of areas that we could have imagined, say, 30 years ago.1 With the spread of ideas about freedom in the late nineteenth century, it was argued that very little public policy was needed because the society had the ability to regulate itself on the basis of the ability of individuals to express their thoughts freely. Some thinkers such as Burke, Hegel, and Marx argued against this idea, suggesting that a new kind of public interventionism would be needed on the basis of the assumption of abstract freedom. As such, the forms of policy intervention began to emerge with the weakening of the liberal understanding of society. With the increasing role of the state in social life, the area of public policies also expanded. The emergence of the social problem as a result of the negative effects of the industrial revolution required the state to intervene in social life in order to alleviate the misery of the peoples and improve their living conditions. The wide-ranging effects of new urban construction and industry-based civilization, as well as the rapidly changing living and working conditions in the nineteenth century for the majority of the population in Europe and America, caused various concerns. Therefore, these changes, known as “social problems” (or “labor problems”), began to be accepted in the agendas of official councils, government committees, and private, reformist, and academic communities. Research efforts for new information have accelerated

1  The author dares to make this comment despite the fundamental promises of new public management paradigm to downsize government and reduce governmental activities.

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

3

with the demands of modernizing political and social groups, which often advocated industrialization, but also favored broader social reforms. These groups gradually acknowledged that the political action to address the “social problem” should be based on a comprehensive, systematic, and empirical analysis of the underlying social problems. The awareness that causes of social problems lied deeper became the fact that shaped social sciences in the industrialization era (Wagner 2007: 31). It should also be emphasized that the Second World War marked a turning point for the development of public policy. Several urgent problems emerged in postwar Europe, many of which required extensive coordination of public bodies.2 Prior to the Second World War, public policy was scattered across several science fields, primarily political science and public administration, but also sociology, finance, business, and economics. After the war, public policy emerged as a separate field of science. In this period, two features of public policy were at the forefront. Firstly, public policy was considered a problem-oriented effort aimed to transform the information theoretically produced by various branches of science into a practical science that would help solve the social problems encountered. Second, public policy was viewed as a multidisciplinary field of study. As a discipline, public policy used information provided by very different areas of research with distinct backgrounds. This was partly due to the complex and multifaceted nature of the problems. Over time, social problems have become more complex. Therefore, the need for public policies has increased and its development as an independent area has been possible. Relationships between politicians, public administrators, and policymakers have become increasingly evident, especially in western countries. To put it simply, politicians express their political opinions in public settings such as during election campaigns. After the elections, they ask policymakers to turn these ideas into programs and policies. Public administrators serve to both produce and implement these policies in the field. When we consider these dimensions, public policy can have many meanings. For example, public policy is any issue that the government is interested in. All areas where the government can take action, such as foreign policy, waste management, energy efficiency, or combating child labor, are the subject of public policy. However, public policy is not limited to the foregoing. Intentions of politicians and programs that governments develop and implement to turn the policy intentions into action are also accepted as public policy. All these definitions show public policy from different angles and help us understand the essence of the subject better. In its classic definition, public policy is “everything the government chooses to do or not to do in response to a public problem” (Dye 2002). Here, the concept of public problem refers to all the problems that the government reacts to. In this case, “not taking action” is also a policy: this policy may mean that the government does not yet have a ready solution for the problem in question, or that it does not think that the problem is serious enough to require a solution, or does not place the problem at the top of its to-do list.

2  A classic example to these coordination efforts is the Marshall Plan which was put into effect by the United States between 1948 and 1951.

4

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

On the contrary, if the government has a problem-oriented response, a “road map” may emerge, which can turn into “policy.” For example, let’s assume that a municipality is addressing the emergency health services of the residents. Elected officials will respond to this public problem and a team of experts from different disciplines such as health, local government, finance, and economics will be assembled. This task force will design a policy and recommend it to decision-makers. The municipality may choose to implement this policy or not. In both cases, it is a “public policy.” If it is decided to implement the policy, the medium- and long-term effects of this policy will be evaluated. If the problem is not fully resolved, the existing policy can be modified or a different policy can be designed. In summary, public policy is systematically concerned with the public problems people face every day. In democratic systems, this process essentially takes place within the government apparatus and is based on the cooperation of different actors from various disciplines. Although the “politics” dimension is not at the center of policy analysis, it is always useful as an explanatory factor. When we deal with public policy, we are concerned with the financial aspect of the state, what it does, what decisions it takes, and changes that citizens make or try to bring. Concepts such as “employment policy,” “environmental policy,” “education policy,” “monetary policy,” “social policy,” and “security policy” are frequently discussed in the public. The use of the concept in this way overlaps with its use for scientific research. When we talk about public policy, what is mostly implied is the final result of the political game. The actions of the state’s executive body targeting citizens are its most concrete appearance. For example, a faculty member and students take part in a policy area known as higher education policy. The relationship between these actors is a public interaction. A social worker trying to decide who will benefit from home care is playing a role in the government’s social policy. At the end of the day, public policies focus on the results of public actions, not on the institutional structure of the political system or on power struggles. However, it is not possible to completely exclude these two dimensions, because public policies are often determined by who is in power and how the rules of the game are determined. According to Dupuy and Thoenig’s classic definition (1985), an action program specific to one or more government authorities is called “public policy.” Therefore, public policies are the tools applied by public authorities to achieve the goals in a certain area of society. Public policies covering a variety of public interventions can be developed in different fields, such as economy, city, youth, education, or security. These public policies have a history of their own: they evolve according to the political considerations of their time. Therefore, it is always possible to experience paradigm changes that explain new concerns or justify the use of different action tools.3 According to another approach, the public policy framework is part of the cognitive analysis of public action. This approach argues that public policies are defined

 Paradigms in public policy will be discussed in Chap. 3.

3

1  Why Public Policy Should Be Studied?

5

on the basis of a particular representation of a problem and its possible consequences. Muller (2000) argues that the development of public policy involves building a representation that is primarily an image of the reality that government intends to intervene. Public policy actors form their perceptions of the problem according to this cognitive image, compare their solution proposals, and define respective public action proposals. Expressing a world view, this vision is the repository of public policy. For example, in order to define health policy, the status of a disease in a modern society and the staff responsible for implementing health systems must be defined precisely. These definitions form a frame of reference and include four major interrelated levels of perception. • Values: these are the most basic representations of what is good or bad, desired or undesirable. They define a global framework for public action. • Standards: these are the phenomena that define the principles of action rather than values (e.g., actions required by the downsizing of bureaucracy in public administration). • Algorithms: they express random relationships that express a theory of action. For example, the expression “if the government reduces customs duties, imports will increase” is a public policy algorithm. • Images: as implicit carriers of algorithms, they consist of values and norms. These are cognitive shortcuts that immediately make sense. For example, the dynamic, modernized foreign trade actor is the carrier of several values, norms, and algorithms. This section is based on two previously published articles and a book chapter. The works titled “Theoretical Framework of Public Policy and Policy Analysis Studies,” “Public Policy Analysis as Art and Craft,” and “The Role of Negotiation in the Process of Public Policy Creation and Democratization of the Public Policy Process” have been used by expanding their content, adding new sections, and simplifying them in some cases.

1  Why Public Policy Should Be Studied? It is important to know why public policy should be studied as an academic field. First of all, the field can be studied with practical considerations, such as contributing to problem-solving processes or developing policy recommendations. It can also be studied to satisfy a theoretical need, such as learning the causes and effects of policy decisions and increasing our knowledge of the society. However, perhaps the most important aspect of public policy analysis is about shedding light on the policy-making processes. In this context, there is a need to develop both theoretical and practical knowledge about stages of public policies, that is, agenda building, policy formulation, policy design, policy implementation, and policy evaluation. In the literature, it is generally accepted that political scientists should place more emphasis on public policy work particularly with the following considerations: (i) to

6

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

develop scientific understanding, (ii) to facilitate problem solving, and (iii) to provide more realistic advice on policies.4 It is possible to learn the causes and effects of policy decisions and increase our knowledge about the society by studying public policy processes. Within such a scientific effort, public policy can be used as both a dependent and an independent variable. When it is considered a dependent variable, the socioeconomic powers and political system features that shape the content of the policies can be questioned. When it is taken as an independent variable, what effects public policies have on society and the political system can be investigated. In both cases, a better understanding of the link between socioeconomic powers, political processes, and public policy will be developed. Public policy can also be studied for professional reasons: understanding the causes and consequences of public policy enables the use of information provided by social sciences to find solutions to problems encountered in practice. It is essential to have information about the facts in order to solve the problems facing the society. In addition, if certain goals are in question, it is useful to know which policies will best serve those goals. If public policy is studied only with scientific and professional concerns, the field of public policy and policy analysis will be hardly distinguishable from other areas of political science and public administration. However, political scientists working on public policy and policy analysis believe that it is the duty of the political scientist to serve the development of specific public policies. This is a moral responsibility; if an analysis has been made on which policies will serve specific purposes, or for what purposes certain policies will be developed, this should be shared with decision-makers and presented to them in the form of advice. Without this aspect, focusing only on institutions, processes, and behavior faces the danger of ending indifferent and amoral. However, policy analysis should offer solutions to the real problems faced by the society, increase the political awareness of the society, and serve to improve the quality of public policies (Dye 2002: 4–5). Hoppe and Jeliazkova (2006: 35–60) examined the issue of how policy workers define their profession in the Netherlands example. The study covered the public officials in the Ministry of Education, Sciences, and Culture in 1996–1997 and focused on policy formulation practices. In the end of the study, valuable findings were obtained about how the politicians perceive themselves professionally (self-­ images) and according to which criteria they evaluate the quality of the policy documents they produce. The findings point to five relatively highly correlated factors5 and five types of policy staff. These types are as follows: policy philosopher, expert advisor, policy attorney, process director, and new-Weberian. All policy staff who participated in the study emphasized that their work is part of the pluralist system. They have an optimistic view of their contribution and the meaning of their work. They think their work is far more comprehensive than just serving the minister. On 4  See Marsh and Furlong (2002), Lindblom and Cohen (1979), Simon et al. (1987), Maasen and Weingart (2006), and Calvert (1985). 5  High correlation indicates that ideas and beliefs are shared to a large extent (Hoppe and Jeliazkova 2006: 37).

1  Why Public Policy Should Be Studied?

7

the other hand, their view of politics is generally positive. They argue that an analyst should give priority to the interests of the minister to whom he serves, not his own. Loyalty is seen as an important quality. However, they are also realistic enough to be skeptical of the concept of political neutrality. Reflections in the Academic World  Today, graduate and doctoral programs are being offered for policy professionals in several universities. To give a few examples, the national Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Japan (GRIPS) runs a 3-year program that offers the opportunity to pursue a PhD degree in two areas: policy studies and the government. Policy professionals wishing to enroll in this program must have at least 10 years of working experience (and, of course, a master’s degree) in public institutions, media, or nongovernmental organizations.6 The Government School of Wellington University in New Zealand offers professional degrees equivalent to a Master in Public Policy, Public Administration, and e-­government.7 The University of Toronto Public Policy and Government School in Canada offers an Executive Education Program for policymakers.8 As such, political and technical considerations and professional advice can be considered as important factors in most administrative decision-making processes. Regardless, all institutions need good- and high-quality information about the technical feasibility of the proposed alternatives. Decisions made without considering technical aspects adequately or contradicting professional advice can lead to erroneous results both technically and politically. However, professional and scientific advice does not always produce the desired results. The common fisheries policy of the European Union is shown as a classic example (Daw and Gray 2005). Another example is the policy of combating mad-cow disease spread in England in 1996 (Frewer and Salter 2002). Anderson (2014: 213) recalls that officials suspect a swine flu case when several flu cases were detected in New Jersey, USA, in 1976.9 The government then decided to launch a very costly vaccine campaign to be implemented nationwide. However, these doubts turned out to be groundless and the vaccination campaign took its place in history as a major political fiasco.10 At the beginning of the twentieth century, the idea that professionals such as doctors, police officers, and teachers were experts who should be trusted in their judgment and their conclusions was very popular. By the end of the century, this public trust environment weakened; now people are more educated, more informed, and questioning, and they are demanding more information and details about “where their taxes are being spent” (Smith et  al. 2000: 1–2). With the rise of skepticism,

 http://www.grips.ac.jp/en/education/phd_programs/professional/  https://www.victoria.ac.nz/sog/study/professional-programmes 8  http://publicpolicy.utoronto.ca/executive-education/ 9  The swine flu outbreak of 1918, which was discussed in detail in Neustadt and Finebert (1978), costs half a million lives mainly because scientific findings were not respected. 10  Many articles published in Journal of Science and Public Policy are filled with examples of failed public policies based on scientific findings. 6 7

8

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

p­ rofessional practices based on reasoning are being replaced by “evidence-based practices.”11 Public policy professionals often have to make their way through a series of conflicting role values. Examples of such role values are pairs of concepts such as the value-free science vs. value-laden advice function, the public interest vs. the interests of the service/institution being served, and professionalism vs. temporary behaviors to progress using personal influence. Developing a professional code to assist the policy professional on his/her venture is a subject of serious interest which is not fully agreed upon.12 As a result, when a policy professional decides, he/she has to find a balance between the requirements of public policy, political environment, personal values, the rules of the profession (if they see their work as an autonomous profession), and many other factors.

1.1  Public Policy Studies in Turkey The importance given to the courses specific to public policy and policy analysis at universities in Turkey did not show a noticeable improvement until the 2000s. According to Çevik (1998), toward the end of the 1990s in Turkey, only urbanization, environment, housing, fiscal policy, and social policy were included in the course curricula of the public administration departments. The first public policy course at the undergraduate level was at in the Middle East Technical University (METU), Department of Political Science and Public Administration in the 1990s. In the same period, a graduate level course was proposed at the Institute of Public Administration of Turkey and the Middle East (TODAIE) (Yıldız et al. 2011: 352). In a content analysis of the public administration departments of universities in Turkey in 2005, it was determined that the courses delivered within the scope of public policy mostly focused on urbanization and housing problems, environmental management and problems, social policy, and fiscal policy. In addition, in the 1990s, while only two courses were carried out in two universities related to public policy, in 2005, 15 courses were given under the names such as public policy analysis, public policy process, and comparative public policy in undergraduate or graduate level in 10 different universities (Orhan 2007: 301–302). Based on the earlier data, it is seen that the main increase in the public administration courses of universities in Turkey, especially in the public administration departments, is witnessed in the 2000s. According to Yıldız et al. (2011: 352), there are several factors behind this development. Firstly, academics who went abroad from Turkey and received their master’s and/or PhD degrees from American and European universities played an important role in the transfer of public policy as an  Evidence-based policy-making will be discussed in Chap. 3.  The most important reason for this dispute is that there are very different views on whether policy professionalism can be defined as a profession. For details of the discussion, see Jenkins-Smith (1982).

11 12

1  Why Public Policy Should Be Studied?

9

academic field. The second factor is that Turkish academicians who spend their sabbatical leave in the United States or European countries mostly choose to add public policy and policy analysis topics to their course syllabuses when they return to Turkey. Third, the view that the public policy perspective is an explanatory tool in the analysis of public administration reforms in Turkey has been popular among academics in recent years. Awareness among students who took such courses at undergraduate and/or postgraduate level in Turkey and in European countries by taking advantage of student exchange programs such as Erasmus and Socrates also contributed to the spread of public policy courses in universities in the 2000s. One of the reasons behind the developments in the field of public policy in recent years in Turkey is the increasing number of research centers established within various universities that carry out studies on public policy and policy problems. These research centers conduct empirical studies on various policy issues, including foreign policy, social policy, urbanization policy, and health policy, and contribute to the field of public policy through activities such as seminars, workshops, and symposiums. Examples of such research centers are the “Istanbul Policy Center” (IPC) established at Sabancı University, the “Public Policy and Urban Research Center” (KAPKA) at METU, and the “Community and Policy Research Center” at Bilkent University. When the public policy literature in Turkey before the 2000s is analyzed, it is seen that there are studies aiming to explain Turkish political and administrative life with various models, approaches, and theories (see Heper 1974; Mardin 1973; Oktay 1997). It can also be noticed that there are compilation studies (Saybaşılı 1999) conducted especially by translating articles in the US literature. Since the 2000s, the recognition of the field of public policy and policy analysis has increased, and there has been an improvement in academic knowledge and academic knowledge in this field in both quantitative and qualitative terms. However, when the public policy literature developing in recent years is analyzed, it can be observed that a significant portion of the studies focused on the introduction and discussion of US-focused public policy models and approaches with a descriptive method.13 Some others, on the other hand, attempted to analyze various public problems in Turkey with policy analysis models originated in the United States such as garbage can model and multiple streams model.14 The production of academic information on public policy in Turkey is not limited to discussions presented in articles and books. The “Public Policy Workshop,” which started to be held in 2009, is an important initiative in terms of bringing together academicians working in this field, sharing the information through the network and website created, and contributing to the developing public policy literature. Also, the selection of “Transformation in Public Policies” as the main theme of the Public Administration Forum held in 2012 and the tenth one should be emphasized especially in terms of showing the increasing interest of the public

13 14

 See Altunok and Metin (2003), Demir (2011), Kaptı (2011), Karkın (2012), and Çelik (2010).  See Semiz (2009), Kayıkçı (2013), Tunç (2008), and Demir and Kurt (2019).

10

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

administration academic community in the field of public policy. Despite all these developments in the academy, there are very few textbooks that can be considered specific to public policy (Çevik and Demirci 2008; Şengül 2018; Demir 2018), there is no academic journal specific to the field, and the studies are not mostly adapted to the Turkey context. In addition, the fact that an independent undergraduate or graduate program on public policy has not yet been opened in universities proves the development of the academy pillar of the discipline inadequate. Despite the increasing interest in public policy in the academy, the limited use of scientific knowledge in the policy-making process in Turkey is one of the obstacles to the development of the public policy area. Today, compared to before 2000s, one of the most important obstacles to the development of public policy as a separate discipline in Turkey is the insufficient academic interest in this field. The academy’s indifference led to limited knowledge of the expertise produced in this field. However, in recent years, this trend has been reversed despite the shortcomings mentioned earlier. Although the gap between academics and official policymakers (especially bureaucrats and politicians) has decreased relatively compared to 2000s, it remains important. The findings of a survey conducted in 2005 give some clues about the causes of disconnection between academics and policymakers. According to the findings of the study, circles other than academics think that the disconnection is caused by the descriptive rather than analytical and instructive nature of scientific studies, the difficulties in reaching the research findings, the rarity of databases where the research findings are stored, inadequacy of common grounds where academics can come together, and the problems in being able to comprehend the language of science. According to the academicians, the reason why policymakers do not sufficiently benefit from scientific studies is that there is no continuity of policies in state institutions, that policies tend to change with every new administration, that institutions do not have a culture of conducting research or supporting research activities, and that studies produced are not adequate in quantitative and qualitative terms (TÜBA 2005: 31–34). Despite the criticism stated in terms of the academy, it can be said that the information produced in this field is increasing in quantity and quality with the increase in the support given by the Turkish Board of Scientific and Technological Research (TÜBİTAK), Higher Education Board (YÖK), and universities to social sciences. As a matter of fact, TUBITAK did not provide funding support to social science and humanities before 1997. With the establishment of the “Social and Humanities Research Support Board” in 1997, projects related to social sciences and humanities began to receive funding in 1999. However, due to the very low number of approved projects over time, the “Social and Humanities Research Group” (SOBAG) was established in 2005, and the main areas of social sciences were included in the basic sciences and it was possible to provide scholarships and supports in other branches of social and humanities. The number of proposed and accepted social science projects has increased steadily since then. It is observed that the projects completed within this scope are mainly in the fields of sociology, economics, psychology, education, business, city and regional planning, and political science and public administration (Tonta 2006).

1  Why Public Policy Should Be Studied?

11

One of the developments that increased the interest of universities in general and public administration departments in particular, not to mention students in this field, in public policy in Turkey is the addition of public policy topics for the first time in the field of “Public Administration” in the Public Personnel Selection Examination (KPSS). As a matter of fact, this development is effective in adding public policy and policy analysis courses as compulsory or elective courses in undergraduate programs of public administration departments of universities. When studies on public administration literature in Turkey are examined, it is possible to make general inferences about the method and subject of public administration. When approached in terms of method, it is understood that the studies are mainly descriptive and are largely based on secondary sources, and the rate of quantitative research remains quite low (Şahin and Kara 2016; Berkman 1995). When we look at the literature in terms of topic, studies examining the legal-structural aspects of management and studies on management and organization including organizational behavior and personnel management come to the fore (Özen 1996). According to Berkman (1995: 54), the reason behind this is that social sciences in Turkey focus on what should be, not what is, and this strengthens the tradition of normative approach in universities and among academics instead of empirical research tradition. In addition, as a result of taking the French management model as an example, public administration discipline has developed legally and structurally and has been identified with administrative law. Research-Planning-Coordination (shortly APK) units established with a regulation that came into force in 1978 is an important step in the process of professionalization of public policy analysis. APKs created in public administrations have been given the functions of supporting social science research, developing policy suggestions, and providing consultancy services to administrators. However, since their establishment, these units have served as a kind of “shelving positions,” where unwanted personnel in the bureaucracy are assigned so that they are out of sight. Thus, these units are filled by personnel whose services are not needed in other units rather than researchers and planners who are trained in this field (Gökçe and Gökçe 2015: 26). Therefore, these units, which are expected to contribute to the institutionalization of the policy analysis profession, could not work effectively. With the Public Financial Management and Control Law No. 5018 adopted in 2003, APKs were replaced by financial services units. Following the amendment made in Law No. 5018 in 2010, the duties of financial services units were transferred to “Strategy Development Units.” When their legal duties are examined, the strategy development units established in public administrations are given the functions of policy consultancy, policy development, and policy analysis tasks, as well as administrative and financial duties. Thus, it is understood that strategy development units have active roles in almost all stages of policy-making in public administrations. These units perform the policy consultancy function by providing necessary information and advising the top administrators on the implementation of the legislation on financial issues. Within the scope of policy analysis, they undertake functions such as the use of quantitative and qualitative analysis methods including risk analysis, performance measurement, SWOT analysis, capacity measurement, service

12

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

e­ fficiency and satisfaction measurement, data collection and analysis of the administration’s performance, budgeting and final accounting, and preparation of financial statistics. They implement the policy development function in the form of developing medium- and long-term policies and strategies of public administrations. Within the scope of the reform carried out in the central government in 2011, units that are expected to fulfill the policy analysis, policy development, and policy consultancy functions have been created in newly established ministries. For example, the General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies established by the Decree Law No. 639 (Article 12) on the Organization and Duties of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock has been assigned tasks such as determining agricultural research and development strategies and priorities, developing projects, and conducting research on matters within the Ministry’s mandate. It is observed that the need for specialists who can work in this context in ministries and other public institutions and organizations has been increasing in recent years. Again, in this context, it can be said that EU experts employed in units created to closely monitor the European Union process by official actors of policy-making also perform a kind of policy analysis function. Therefore, the EU candidacy process in general increases the need for public policy expertise knowledge, as well as policy analysis and consultancy in Turkish public administration. In the ninth Development Plan (2006–2013), as a reflection of such a trend, “increasing policy-making and implementation capacity” has been determined as a target within the scope of the strategy of “increasing quality and efficiency in public services.” The following were declared as official goals: (i) Execution of public policies based on strategic management, performance-based budgeting, participation, and accountability; (ii) developing qualitative and quantitative data management to ensure that the policy-making process is rationalized and policies based on data and information; (iii) policy-making and costing using numerical, fictional, and analytical methods in these processes; and (iv) developing the processes of measuring, monitoring, and evaluating the policies to be implemented by public administrations within the framework of performance culture. As can be understood from the objectives stated earlier, a strategy has been determined which is focused on improving the policy-making capacities of public institutions and organizations, especially in line with the strategic management approach, and using more numerical and analytical methods in policy-making and analysis. As a result, the interest in public policy has grown in parallel with the following developments in academia and among official policymakers: • Establishing research centers in public universities in 2000s working in the field of public policy • Teaching public policy and policy analysis topics in courses • Strengthening of think tanks and other informal actors of policy-making and their role in the policy process • Policy-making and analysis methods such as performance-based budgeting, strategic planning, performance management, and regulatory impact analysis

2  The “Black Box” Model

13

becoming routine administrative activities in the public sector with the effect of new public management-based administrative reforms launched especially since early 2000s • Increased expertise knowledge required in areas such as policy analysis, policy information production, policy advice, and policy proposals brought about by the EU candidacy process Another conclusion reached in the study is that despite the increasing interest among decision-makers and academics for public policy in Turkey, there are some limitations in the development of this field. These limitations are also the same reasons behind the late development of the public policy area in Turkey. The first is that policy analysis and policy consultancy have not become a professional vocation despite the recent developments. Although public policy in Turkey has started to be taught as a separate course in public administration departments, which is important for the development of the discipline, comprehensive textbooks, undergraduate and graduate programs, academic and professional journals have not yet introduced. In short, the question of whether public policy will become a separate discipline or whether it will merely serve as a new initiative in resolving the identity crisis of the field of public administration remains unclear. The second limitation we face in the academic context is the weak tendency to conduct interdisciplinary work in Turkey. However, the field of public policy itself requires interdisciplinary research. In order to strengthen this area in Turkey, it is important to expand the opportunities of working together among academicians and experts studying with different policy subjects such as environment, health, education, social policy, and security, as well as common research projects between public administration and political science students and academicians. A third limitation is the disconnection between policymakers and the academic world. One of the main pursuits of the political sciences developing in the United States is to ensure that the data and information required for the rational decision-­ making activities of the public authorities, that is, political and administrative decision-­makers, are obtained by using empirical research methods. Thus, it is aimed to overcome the gap between the theoretical knowledge produced in the academic world and the problem-solving methods needed in practice. The development of public policy studies should help increase the interaction between policymakers and academics in Turkey and ensure that scientific knowledge is better used in public policy-making.

2  The “Black Box” Model Public policy studies have been influenced by Easton’s Black Box Model for several years. According to this model, the political-administrative system acts as a black box between political inputs, such as citizen demands and support, and political

14

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

Demands

Political System

Decisions and Actions

Supports Fig. 1.1  “Black box” model of public policies. (Source: Easton 1967: 112)

outputs, such as laws and programs. Understanding what’s going on in the called the political system, called black box, is vital (Heinelt 2007: 109). In order to u­ nderstand the policy-making process, it is necessary to learn what is going on in political systems. It is useful to know how public policy is produced in the political system, how institutions and processes handle the demands produced in the environment, and how parties, interest groups, voters, managers, deputies, and other political actors behave in the policy-making process (Dye 2002: 328) (Fig. 1.1). Easton represents public policy in his “political system” model. This political system model includes mainly the government, parliament, judiciary, and bureaucracy. These powers form the “state” according to the classical “separation of powers” model; from public policy perspective, they are the actors who take and implement decisions. Thus, the state is the system that produces public policies. So why does the public policy system suddenly decide to intervene and invest in some areas? The most important reason for this is meeting the requests transmitted by social segments. Some actors always demand that the government operates in a particular area. It is not easy for the demandants to make their voices heard as governments face a large number of requests that require government action. Also, strong support of some groups is always needed. For example, let’s take the hazelnut producers’ associations in Turkey that always demand an increase in the purchase price of hazelnuts. These associations negotiate with the government through the ministry of agriculture and promise to give their support to the ruling party in exchange for higher hazelnut prices (and threaten to withdraw their support otherwise). The political system will make a decision in the personality of the government that in the face of these demands and the support (or threat) attached to it. Public policies satisfy social demands and in turn provide support for the government; public policy thus ensures that the entire public system remains in balance. This approach puts a significant emphasis on public policies because it is the “quality of public policy” that will ensure that citizens who put claims on and support their government are satisfied. Citizens whose demands are satisfied are unlikely to question the system, and the system will remain stable. This model is essentially associated with the theory of democracy. Considering its connection with public policies, democracy is a competitive political system in which leaders and organizations compete for alternative public policies, allowing the public to participate in the decision-making process (Schattschneider 1960). A more common and famous description of democracy is “the rule of the people, for

2  The “Black Box” Model

15

the people, by the people.”15 The democratic government of the state offers a variety of actors the freedom to express their demands; it also allows them to show their support to the government or other political parties through the electoral system. This is democracy in the sense of government by the public, and in such systems, demands are more likely to be expressed through participatory methods. If we think of democracy in terms of government for the public, it should be considered who the public policies are prepared and implemented for. Public policies exist to serve citizens and solve problems that they encounter. According to this model, every state needs a dual legitimacy system that operates both from above and below. Public administration corresponds to one of these sources of legitimacy. The quality of public policies and the outputs they produce are central to ensuring that a political system is in balance by providing legitimacy. If we study political science and are concerned with the level of democracy of a political regime, we are inevitably concerned with what is going on in the state and how public policies are implemented. Public policies began to be analyzed in the United States in the 1950s. In 1951, Kluckhohn, Lerner, and Lasswell published their famous book which marked the beginning of the “policy sciences.”16,17 The purpose of this new discipline was to produce information that could be applied to the solution of problems for public actions and to improve the effectiveness of public policies by rationalizing state action, thereby helping decision-making processes. The development of the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) at the federal level in the 1960s was an important step in this direction.18 PPBS was a political and scientific project developed within the state mechanism and aimed at rationalizing public

 This definition of democracy (government of the people, by the people, for the people) is usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln (Gettysburg Speech, 1863). However, according to the Columbia Dictionary of Quotations published by Robert Andrews in 1993, the same expression is stated in the Bible translation of John Wycliffe dated 1384. In addition, Robert Vincent Remini (1997) wrote in his book “Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time” that American statesman Webster used this expression in 1830. In the minutes of parliamentary election speeches published in England in 1819, John Hobhouse used a similar expression (I am a man chosen for the people, by the people; and, if elected, I will do no other business than that of the people). 16  The book was titled “Policy Sciences.” Only Lerner and Lasswell appear as co-authors in their later editions. 17  Laswell worked with many of his colleagues, primarily McDougal, to develop an integrated approach for solving public problems and making policy decisions. Laswell and McDougal founded the Center for Policy Sciences in 1948. In 1970, Policy Sciences Journal started to be published. The Political Sciences Community was established in 1995. Each of these developments is important as they represent the institutional expression of the policy sciences movement. 18  PPBS is an integrated management system that started to be used in the US Department of Defense in 1961 and was soon adopted by all ministries and most non-governmental organizations. PPBS was developed to better analyze decision-making processes on public policy programs. Five stages are envisaged for public policies, namely planning, programming, budgeting, operation, and evaluation. It is noteworthy that these are similar to the phases of the public policy cycle model, which we will consider in the following, and the administrative processes approach of Fayol. 15

16

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

action. In France, the Office of the General Plan Commissioner19 was established and started to develop procedures for modernizing budget preferences. In this early period, public decisions were primarily focused and analyzes were built on two assumptions: the rationality of the decisions and their smooth implementation. By the 1970s, the emphasis of the political sciences shifted to other issues. Among the reasons for this, the two are particularly important. One of them is practical reasons. The tools developed in the first period of the discipline between the early 1950s and the mid-1970s were expensive and experiences have often failed. Usually, the Vietnam War fiasco and the planning crises in France are given as examples in the literature. The economic crisis triggered by oil prices in 1973 revealed that most governments were not capable of responding to stagflation, meaning concurrent increase in both unemployment and inflation. In this period, a less ambitious understanding of public policy began to emerge. The second reason is more ideological. Along with the economic crisis in the 1970s, the Keynesian economic model was abandoned, which argues for comprehensive government intervention in economy and advocates the pursuit of policies that create financial stimulus by playing with demand. A new paradigm was prevailing, which included policies such as deregulation, privatization, and fragmentation of state monopolies. This paradigm refers to a state whose legitimacy has diminished and has withdrawn from the positions it had occupied since the early 1930s.20 Public policy discipline has undergone three major transformations in the last period, beginning in the early 1990s: • First, it has institutionalized and strengthened its position as an autonomous subdiscipline of political science. Academic communities and associations dealing with policies were established, specialized journals, dictionaries, and books were published, and units specialized in political science-related formations were created. • Second, discipline has gained a sociological content. Today, increasing attention is paid to public policy actors and their forms of interaction and intervention. The state is no longer in the center of public policy analysis in democratic systems; rather, a perspective to understand the interactions of public and private actors is dominant. Concepts such as public policy networks or advocacy coalitions have gained popularity. • Third, understanding of public policy has gone beyond national frameworks. The limits of public action in the “globalizing world” have changed, and it has become commonplace for public policy development outside the borders of the state. Actors outside the nation-state play important roles in developing national  The Office of the General Plan Commissioner operated between 1946 and 2006. Its main task was to prepare the country’s economic plans, including five-year plans. In 2006, it was replaced by the Strategic Analysis Center (see http://www.gaullisme.fr/2011/08/02/commissariat-general-duplan/). 20  When Reagan became president of the United States in 1981, he said: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Similarly, Turgut Özal, the eighth president of Turkey declared in 1984, “Turkey’s leading problem is bureaucracy.” 19

2  The “Black Box” Model

17

and subnational policies. The years that the state had a monopoly on the production of public policies are now gone; public actions are collectively produced by an abundancy of actors. Almost everyone has an opinion about public policy, even without describing it as public policy, as everyday life develops under the influence of these policies. For example, if we define the urban policy, we can start by listing all the legislative texts related to this field. But defining policy is not just about legislation. The actions of the ministry related to urban policies are not limited to the production of texts. Even a brief statement by the Ministry on urban transformation is a strong action that can have significant social and political implications. In some cases, policies can be produced on issues where there is no ministry. For example, in Turkey, the European Union Ministries was founded in 2011, but relations between Turkey and the EU’s predecessor, European Economic Community, began in 1959 with partnership agreement. Another example is public administration reforms. Although there is no private ministry in this regard, public administration reforms always find their place on policy agenda. Therefore, it is not easy to draw lines for public policy. Public policy is an “analytical category:” it is mainly built by researchers interested in public policy and political actors who implement it. In a sense, it is a social construct because it is essentially a product of social actors and their interactions. It is also a category applied by these actors. In this regard, public policies are not “given,” they are “built,” and they can be of political significance to the extent that they are handled, expressed, and positioned by policy actors. The construction of problems is a complex issue because it has to go through different stages in order to find a place in the policy agenda and lead to the initiation of a public policy cycle. In each of these stages, there is a possibility that the problem loses its qualification as a “problem,” which would result in being excluded from the policy cycle. On the other hand, public policy is a “research fiction.” From this point of view, the importance of the concept of policy analysis becomes apparent. Policy analysis is carried out to understand how public policy has become a social fiction, so that public policy becomes a research object. On some issues, the policies cannot be determined in certain legal texts since they are located at the intersection points of multiple policy areas. In this case, the researcher must first build it as a specific object in order to study the policy in question. It is necessary to analyze public policy by combining the mechanisms and measures taken on such a subject.21 The most important step in building public policy as a research object is to address the constituent components of that policy. Mény (1989) examines the components of public policy under five headings: actions, symbols, program, normative  An example of this is the phenomenon of immigration to Turkey. Before the General Directorate of Migration Management was established within the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 2013, there was no public institution dealing primarily with this issue. Today, in order to analyze migration policies, it is necessary to examine the legislation and practices of several different institutions such as the Ministry of National Education, the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Services, the Ministry of Health, and the Turkish Statistical Institute.

21

18

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

orientation, coercion, and social responsibility. Concrete actions, the material elements of a public policy, form the content of that policy. Actions such as passing of a law, allocating budget, and establishment of an institution can be given as examples. In addition, symbolic elements such as speeches and information campaigns should be taken into consideration. A program provides a general analysis framework and includes more or less objective limits. For example, the implementation of different policies by different ministries may offer objective limits in this context. The Turkish government’s home care policy or policy toward Syrian immigrants is a program and is run by different ministries. The goals underlying public policies give us the normative orientation. They are easy to analyze when targets are clear; unfortunately, this is rarely the case.22 Here, the values and ideological preferences of the actors can provide some clues. The fourth component, the coercive factor, points to the sanctions envisaged to be applied in case of violation of public policies. In particular, the legislative dimension of public policy imposes rules and standards and includes a number of penalties if they are not followed. Finally, all public and private actors who contribute to the production and implementation of public policies are the social components of the policy. Politicians, government, associations, individuals, experts, and others are stakeholders involved in interactions that lead to the emergence of public policy; in other words, they are “policy actors.”

3  Policy Actors In order to understand why a topic is on public policy agenda, it is necessary to understand how it is built by different actors and which problem-building strategies are used. In the early years when public policy analysis emerged as a separate discipline, the number of actors thought to play a role in public policy was relatively small. From the statist point of view of the public action that prevailed in the 1950s, the process of establishing a policy was the task of elected officials and the administration, as they were considered to act exclusively in the public interest. This hierarchical and state-centered approach was the only source of reference used to explain public policy for a long time. For example, when describing this structure for France, Muller (2000) talks about four concentric rings, whose influence and importance have diminished from inside to outside. The innermost ring includes the president, his close advisers, prime minister, and finance minister, who are central decision-making actors. It is these people who make the main policy decisions and determine the priority order among public actions. Sectoral bureaucracies are found in the second ring. These are populated by public officials in individual ministries and play an important role in aligning sectoral interests with general policy requirements. The third ring includes nonstate actors such as professional organizations,

 The controversy in some countries that the government has a “hidden agenda” implies that the government has some implicit goals beyond the clear goals of public policy.

22

3  Policy Actors

19

companies, and experts. The outermost ring includes the least effective secondary political organizations such as the parliament and the judiciary. Bureaucracy is essentially the administrative apparatus of the state. It is responsible for the daily affairs of government, whether social, economic, or political. Therefore, government bureaucracy is also called public administration, public service, or civil service. The main function of state bureaucracies is to enforce laws and regulations issued by legislators. However, in reality, bureaucracy is not limited to the implementation of the policy followed by the legislator. It also participates in the agenda setting and formulation of public policies. There is currently no clear distinction between policy-making, the political role of elected political leaders, and the apolitical public administration of bureaucrats. For this reason, the traditional representation of bureaucracy as a politically neutral and purely technical institution is increasingly questioned. Bureaucracy also plays an essential role in policy-making processes due to its discretionary power. Discretion is the “freedom to act and judge for oneself.” There is the possibility when applying a rule to interpret that rule in a certain sense. Bureaucracy, especially the street-level bureaucrats,23 always has a discretionary power which sometimes can be clearly recognized, sometimes noninformal. The interpretive capacity of a rule is “the flexibility to decide something within a more general framework of rules.” There is discretion in the application of public policy. Decisions can deeply affect the lives of citizens. For Adler and Asquith (1981), the discretionary power applied to civil servants means that “a public official has discretion whenever the effective limits of his power leave him free to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction.” The street-level bureaucrats have discretionary power in determining the nature, volume, and quality of the services to be provided and the penalties to be imposed. However, such discretionary power is not at all total freedom. It is a power that is part of a context where many standards and rules exist that constrain and frame the discretionary power of bureaucracy such as a legislative framework, a regulatory framework, organizational rules, directives from the hierarchy, procedures, but also standards and values at the organizational group and professional group level. This does not mean that there are no personal preferences, but that they can occur in a context. It is in the midst of these elements that the bureaucracy is called upon to exercise its activity in the sense of policy-making. The above perspective is open to debate today for offering a relatively outdated perspective for actors involved in public action. The idea that prevailed in public action since the late 1970s is that the number of actors involved in decision-making has increased significantly. Today, the concept of “governance” is frequently referred to in the literature of public administration and political science. Governance, in terms of its public policy aspect, refers to the addition of new rings to the ones described by Muller, the disruption of hierarchies that are assumed to be among the actors, and evolution of their modes of interaction. Today, the state pays effort to

23

 The term is introduced by Lipsky (1980).

20

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

benefit from the expertise of private actors, and in most democratic countries, it delegates a considerable portion of its decision-making powers. This transformation in the number of actors involved in public action, both analytically and theoretically, occurred simultaneously with the development of new concepts and approaches. In the same period, decentralization in the state started to take an important place in the agenda and manifested itself as a policy choice, and interactive formations that challenged classical hierarchies such as public policy networks gained popularity. Nowadays, it is more difficult to identify the actors that affect the agenda setting, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policies. There are various actors who will benefit or suffer from a specific policy and its implementation. We can try to identify these actors, starting with agenda-­ setting stage, which is the first stage in the policy cycle. Finding the answer to the question “who builds a public problem on the agenda?” is at the core of the policy studies. There is extensive literature on this subject, and the studies put forward several hypotheses. Some hypotheses reject the claim that nonstate actors play a decisive role in the construction of general public problems. Instead, it is argued that these actors act as interest groups and lobbies only to attract the attention of decision-makers to the sectoral problems that concern them. This is called the silent corporatist action model.24 For example, actors, such as farmers, exporters, and bankers, often use such agenda-setting methods through professional organizations. When they identify a problem, they petition that the government intervene and find a solution. The main informal actors involved in the public policy process are political parties, individuals (citizens), pressure groups, and the media. Apart from these, unorganized new social movements are also considered among public policy actors today. Such movements try to mobilize large masses of people around certain problems to ensure that these problems come to the agenda of decision-­makers. Especially in environmental issues, such temporary formations appear to occur. In some cases, these can become permanent organizations over time; in others, they disappear when the problem is solved. The impact of nongovernmental organizations on public policies may vary according to time, place, and policy type. Especially with the implementation of the new public administration approach, it can be said that nongovernmental organizations as well as governments have begun to be effective in policies to be produced in several areas such as human rights, urban rights, environmental issues, and cultural rights. The involvement of civil society in the public policy process cannot be considered independent from the debates on governance (Arts 2003). While this concept reorganized the relationship between the state and the society, it heralded the expansion of the field of NGOs in policy-making process that was previously monopolized by governments (Ateş and Nohutçu 2006: 255). This expansion has been the harbinger of a multiactor system in policy-making. In this context, it can be said that policy-making is no longer a top-down process of the state mechanism.

 This model claims that some organizations have a quiet but strong influence on the state authorities.

24

3  Policy Actors

21

In this new paradigm, it can be claimed that a process involving actors such as nongovernmental, international, and supranational organizations has emerged (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999). It is possible to claim that a number of dynamics trigger the influence of these organizations on policy determination: (i) the effect of neoliberal ideas, (ii) the contribution of the governance paradigm, and (iii) the influence of international actors. In particular, political and economic liberalization, technological transformation, and globalization since the 1990s have triggered governance, which paved the way for the strengthening of nongovernmental actors as well as governments and international organizations (Babaoğlu 2013: 168). While this development ensures the participation of NGOs in decision-making processes, it has also given them the task of taking part in and supervising the public policies produced by the political-­ administrative system (Beeson 2001: 487). Thus, a necessity has emerged for political structures to deal with multiple actors such as private sector, civil society, and bureaucratic mechanisms in the implementation of a public policy. As a result, these actors can influence the policy process with their views (Ateş and Nohutçu 2006: 256). From another perspective, the private sector, NGOs, and international organizations and the nation state, which constitute the pillars of this multiactivism, act in a system with their own strengths and weaknesses and affect each other’s activities. Among nonstate actors, the media play an increasingly important role. Media attention is important because political power tends to keep the issues on the agenda of the media. On the other hand, the media often talks about issues that political officials are interested in. This bidirectional mechanism indicates that the media is effective in the construction of public problems. In particular, issues raised by political or other scandals or investigative journalists can be raised and kept on the agenda by the media. In this sense, media can attract the attention of policy actors. Apart from these, other actors such as international organizations can be effective in bringing to the agenda and formulation of public policies. The European Union, IMF, World Bank, and OECD are classic examples of this. Depending on their impact on political actors, they sometimes have the potential to raise issues that local actors would otherwise reject out of hand and to see them become public policy.25

3.1  Policy Actors in Turkey As in other countries, the two major actors in policy-making processes in Turkey are civil society and bureaucracy. These actors are examined in some detail in the following.

 The disqualification of adultery as crime in 1998 and the abolition of the death penalty in 2002 can be given as examples from Turkey.

25

22

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

3.1.1  Bureaucracy The central bureaucratic policy-making roles in the presidential government system are distributed among bodies such as policy boards, offices, ministries, and others affiliated with the President. In the following, these bodies are examined in terms of their roles as regards policy-making processes. Policy Boards With the transition to the Presidential Government System, policy boards were established. Thus, it was aimed to increase the effectiveness in deciding, implementing, and evaluating public policies by putting the presidency at the center of policy-making (Örselli et  al. 2018: 316). Policy boards are an important actor emerging with the new system in the process of public policy-making. Policy boards benefit from such advantages such as working directly with the president, by-­ passing bureaucracy, working with ministries, and engaging stakeholders in the policy-making processes (Akman 2019). Policy boards are an important tool that the President will use to ensure effective public policy-making. Presidential Decree No. 1 determined the area of policy boards, their duties, and powers. With this decree, Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Board, Economic Policy Board, Education and Training Policy Board, Legal Policy Board, Security and Foreign Policy Board, Culture and Art Policy Board, Health and Food Policy Board, Social Policy Board, and Local Government Policy Board were established with Presidential Decree No. 1, and their mandate is stated as follows: • To develop suggestions regarding the decisions to be taken by the President and the policies to be established • To carry out the necessary studies on the policy and strategy proposals developed by the President • To develop strategy and policy recommendations against sudden changes brought about by global competition • To provide opinions to public institutions and organizations on the subjects falling within their duties • To monitor the policies and developments implemented by obtaining the opinions of Ministries, public institutions and organizations, civil society and sector representatives, experts in the field, and other relevant parties, and to report to the President on the activities carried out • To monitor the practices of ministries and institutions and organizations in terms of compliance with the Presidential program and to report such to the President • To hold extended committee meetings by inviting representatives of ministries, public institutions and organizations, civil society and sector representatives, experts in the field, and other interested parties • To conduct analyzes of demand, needs, and impact on matters falling within its areas of duty • To perform other duties assigned by the President

3  Policy Actors

23

The duties and powers of the boards are included in the second part of presidential decree no 1. When the duties and powers of the Presidential Policy Boards are examined, it is seen that an important role is given in the formulation, development, and proposal of public policies depending on their respective policy areas. Policy boards consist of at least three members. One of the members of the board may be appointed as the deputy chairman by the President. Five to ten members are appointed to each policy board. It has been regulated that the budget and personnel needs of the policy boards will be met by the Directorate of Administrative Affairs of the President’s Office. When we look at the implementation in Turkey, it is seen that policy boards are mostly designed as consultative and advisory bodies. The policy boards are expected to develop recommendations on issues on the agenda of the President and to implement the suggestions deemed appropriate by the President. They will also monitor the work of ministries in terms of policy implementation and provide feedback to the president. This indicates that policy boards are designed as effective actors in the process of public policy-making. Boards are supposed to have the capacity to analyze policy-making process and ensure that they operate run seamlessly. In addition, policy boards can hold meetings with formal and informal policy actors on issues related to their fields of work (Akıncı 2018: 2139–2140). The execution of public policies is left to the Presidency, on one hand, and the ministries and their affiliated, relevant, and related institutions on the other. Thus, the institutional structure is divided into two in terms of policy-making and implementation. Although it is unrealistic to expect that in the current situation the ministries and other related institutions will transfer their policy-making powers directly to the policy boards in the near future, this dual model is the one desired under the Presidential Government System in the long term. According to the presidential decree no. 1, it is envisaged to organize meetings aimed at ensuring communication and coordination among public institutions. The article puts special emphasis on the relationship between ministries and policy boards. The coordination meetings are chaired by the President or the deputy chairman of the policy committee or the relevant minister. In the Presidential Government System, in the midst of this dual distinction, policy boards are seen at least on an equal footing with ministries. Presidential Offices and Policy Boards Offices are also new public policy actors that have emerged with the introduction of the Presidential Government System. In the countries where the Presidential System is implemented, they are the structures directly linked to the President, obtaining the data and information needed for the formulation of public policies related to their field, producing field information, and devising various policy suggestions accordingly. In some countries, they perform such functions as co-ordination and evaluation of the implementation. For this reason, offices are one of the important actors in the formulation and implementation of public policy (Sobacı et al. 2018: 2–3). In Turkey, Digital Transformation Office, Finance Office, Human Resources Office, and Investment Office have been established under the Presidency in 2018. They have a special budget, a public legal personality, and administrative and

24

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

Table 1.1  Presidential offices and their duties Duties of the digital transformation office  Coordinating the digital transformation of the public sector  Developing projects that are necessary for improving national technology and creating awareness in this context  Conducting big data analysis and leading artificial intelligence applications in priority project areas  Developing projects to improve the level of cyber and information security Duties of the human resources office  Preparing the inventory of Turkey’s human resources and their ability to carry out development activities needed in the field  Developing projects to ensure the improvement of Turkey’s human resources in line with the vision, goals, and priorities of the government

Duties of the finance office  Monitoring the national and international banking and finance sector and reporting based on detailed analyzes  Reporting the situation of Turkey’s financial markets  Conducting research on the diversification of financial resources and the arrival of international funders to Turkey  Executing the Istanbul Finance Center project and following the developments Duties of investment office  Conducting work toward encouraging investment in Turkey to ensure the country’s economic development

 Providing coordination between institutions and organizations within the scope of the promotion activities for international investment environment carried out by public institutions and private sector organizations  Determining the obstacles and problems that  Providing discovery of special talents investors may encounter and paying relevant and carrying out talent management efforts before the relevant authorities regarding projects the solution of the problems  Determination of human resources at the  Contributing to the reform process for the improvement of the investment environment, and global level in areas that are prioritized providing recommendations in this context by the policy boards and ensuring that they are integrated into national projects  Developing projects for the implementation of career management, performance management, and other modern human resource management models in the public sector  Producing projects and paying effort to increase merit and competence in public employment  Working on human resources planning to increase efficiency

­ nancial autonomy in order to fulfill the duties assigned in accordance with Article fi 525 of Presidential Decree No. 1. The article states that offices will play a role in public policy design in these four key areas. The duties of the offices are detailed in Article 527 of the same decree, which are listed in Table 1.1. When the duties of the offices are taken into consideration, they can be classified as analysis, reporting, project production, project development, coordination, collaboration, monitoring, leading, and developing suggestions. They are also

3  Policy Actors

25

r­esponsible for cooperation between policy boards and offices. Offices can hold meetings or other organizations that are deemed essential to coordinate and collaborate between all institutions and organizations in matters related to their mandate. In addition, Presidential Offices have the authority to conduct international bilateral and multilateral contacts and meetings with regard to the issues within their responsibility, especially research and project (P.D. No 1, Article 528). The offices are intended to manage projects and carry out works in line with the priorities of the president by minimizing bureaucracy. In addition, the follow-up of the actions of ministries are carried out through offices. All kinds of information, analysis, and reports requested by the President are be prepared by these offices. Most importantly, decisions and approaches of the offices play a decisive role in the government’s policies. Offices may request information and documents they need from public institutions and organizations, including policy boards, in order to carry out research and examination and other works related to their fields. Policy boards and offices are the state-of-the-art public policy actors in the Turkish public administration mechanism which were introduced with the transition to the Presidential Government System. The relationship between these new actors and existing ones can be defined as follows: offices will play a role in policy preparation, policy boards will develop or formulate policy, and conventional ministries will be responsible for the implementation of these policies (Akman 2019: 39). In addition to the presidential offices, nine policy boards have been established with the transition to the Presidential Government System. The main task of these boards is to develop policy suggestions, to conduct studies on policies that are deemed appropriate, to monitor the implementation of these policies, and to conduct an impact analysis. With the Presidential Government System, important duties such as producing projects, conducting various researches, performing policy analyzes, preparing reports, and monitoring the activities of the ministries have been trusted to the policy boards taking into account the policy priorities of the President. When the actors mentioned earlier are considered, it can be seen that they are all interacting with each other. The relationship between them is like gears of a wheel. While the main gear is the President, the TGNA, ministries, policy boards, and policy offices can be seen among other gears that make up this wheel. The role and influence of the president in this system is the main source of thrust for other gears. The role and functioning of each component in the system differs, but they are supposed to operate in an integrated manner. The President, who can be likened to the main gear in the Presidential Government System, has the most important role in determining and implementing public policies (Aytaç et al. 2017; Yılmaz 2018; Güvenç 2019). Presidential policy boards, offices, ministries, and the TGNA have different roles in policy-making as gears of the wheel. Some stand out in the making of the policy and some in the implementation of the policy. With the new system, some have been given more roles, while others have been downplayed (Kazem and Ahmed 2019). The construction and implementation of sound public policies is related to several parameters, such as the correct movement of the main gear in the system, the correct selection of the gears placed for other tasks, keeping their ­movement in harmony with the main gear, and maintaining the orchestration of the main gear correctly.

26

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

3.1.2  Civil Society Religious and traditional institutions such as guilds, foundations, and dervish lodges in the Ottoman period can be evaluated in the context of NGOs. It is claimed that these actors served as mediators between the state and society (Özbey 2019). In the Republican period, it cannot be said that NGOs existed until the 1980s. It is also argued that some barriers have played a preventing role on the inability of NGOs to establish relations with the state and each other and to form networks (Akçadağ 2011; 13). However, the post-1980 period can be considered as a time when NGOs began to have an impact on government policies. It is clear that NGOs, which are important indicators of social change today, take part in current political processes in one way or the other. NGOs, which play an important role in the development of an effective type of citizenry, especially in terms of participatory democracy (Keyman 2007: 221), can influence public policies by transferring various and sometimes conflicting opinions, ideas, and activities to the political arena, albeit for different purposes (Kapani 2001: 193). It is seen that NGOs, which have seen a high increase in their qualifications and effects in recent years, assume the role of intermediary between the state and society on the one hand and mediate changes in public policies and society on the other hand. Especially in the local policy arena, NGOs that develop professional advocacy approaches and coalitions have a very important influence in determining public policies (Ateş and Nohutçu 2006: 249–250). However, there are some doubts about who represent some of the developed NGOs, which have gained an international dimension, for what purposes they act, and by whom they are to be monitored. In this respect, there is an important benefit in the supervision and accountability of NGOs (Reinicke et al. 2001: 21). For example, in this regard, the evaluations of the associations such as TÜSİAD26 regarding the potentials at national, regional, and local levels can in a way direct the public policies established in this field. As a matter of fact, when the activity reports of the association are examined, it can be seen that it plays a role in the policy-­ making process by preparing comprehensive reports and conducting field studies (Emini 2013: 47–50). TÜSİAD and other nongovernmental organizations provide a forum for governance by taking roles such as informing policymakers and decision-­ makers, giving them ideas, and shaping decisions (Sobacı 2011: 206). However, attention is drawn to some problems that limit the influence of NGOs in this area. As a matter of fact, when the TÜSEV (Turkish Third Sector Foundation) study titled “Strengthening Civil Society Public Cooperation Projects” is examined, it is seen that the participation of nongovernmental organizations in the formation and decision-­making processes of public policies in Turkey has limitations primarily in terms of legislations (Ayata and Karan 2015: 106). However, in accordance with the decision adopted by the Council of Europe in 2009, it was emphasized that in order

 Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association is a voluntary business organization formed by the leading entrepreneurs and businesspeople of Turkey.

26

3  Policy Actors

27

to ensure the participation of civil society in the policy process, both NGOs and public officials must comply with the following principles to a minimum: Open and Accessible Participation Channels, Trust, Accountability and Transparency, and Independence.27 When the practices in Turkey are evaluated, it is concluded that NGOs are only at the stage of consultation among the steps of participation (Ayata and Karan 2015: 107). In this context, it is seen that the decision-making public mechanisms only request their opinions and experiences from NGOs. In addition, examples of lower levels (e.g., dialogue step) can be encountered, such as evaluating NGOs only as consultants and referring to their opinions. From the legal aspect, as stated in the Regulation on Legislation Preparation Procedures and Principles adopted in 2005, there is no obligation for decision-making mechanisms to consult NGOs at the decision-­making stages. Instead, the decision is left to the decision-maker within wide discretionary powers. Therefore, the leading problems faced in this area can be listed as follows: (i) inadequacy of legal regulations, (ii) the absence of any regulation that will constitute a basis for public-NGO cooperation, (iii) the imprecision of reference to NGOs in the legal framework, and (iv) the statements in the law having a general nature and lacking precise provisions regarding the form and content of cooperation (Ayata and Karan 2015: 118). Although the practice of NGOs and the governments to co-produce public policies has shown a significant development in recent years, a binding document with national and specific strategic value that establishes mechanisms for NGO-Government cooperation has not been prepared yet. On December 10, 2015, the 64th government’s program included a strategic contemplation as to what can be done in this field. In the last few years since 2015, the possibility of finding answers to these strategic moves has faced with some misfortunes. Especially the coup attempt on democracy, terrorist attacks and tensions aimed at increasing ethnic conflicts, uncertainties created by immigrants from Syria, resulting in a flow of refugees, political deadlocks, economic deterioration, and several other political developments significantly limited the positive atmosphere needed by civil society organizations to play an active role in the policy-making processes.28 In Turkey today, NGOs are on the way to both compile the needs of the society and convey them to the system in an organized manner, and to have a voice by undertaking the representation of these demands in the political field and thus to become an active political actor. In this context, NGOs are committed to determining the needs of the society in the areas abandoned or neglected by the state and to conveying the needs of the society to the political system, taking part in the assisting role in the areas where the administration will develop policies, guiding and directing these policies, and defending public interest in the development and production of policies. However, from the Turkish perspective, ideal cooperation cannot be  See “Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decision-Making Process” at https:// www.coe.int/en/web/ingo/civil-participation 28  See Keyman and İçduygu (2003), Diez et  al. (2005), Kadıoğlu (2005), Heper and Yıldırım (2011), Walton (2017), Doyle (2017), and Mackreath and Sağnıç (2017). 27

28

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

achieved since there is no legislation regulating NGO-Public Cooperation. This is the reason why NGOs in Turkey are usually not seen by stakeholders as a public institution or excluded from the policy-making processes.29 In order to overcome this disadvantage, legal assurance should be provided to allow NGOs to be seen as the primary actor. Apart from social policies, obstacles to NGOs’ participation in the decision-making process should be removed. On the other hand, it is an increasingly debated issue in the public opinion that NGOs express their opinions about different policies in Turkey and even affect political processes to a certain extent. The most important role of public administrations is to facilitate the implementation of such a governance approach. It is an essential task of think-tanks and other civil society organizations to take steps to produce and disseminate evidence-based policies that are shared with the public and included in political processes.

4  Policy Analysis Policy analysis is an analytical and empirical approach that aims to accurately describe, understand, interpret, and explain how public policies work, and to determine certain patterns in the functioning models of the state based on theoretical and practical premises. In the first place, public policy analysis has a normative aspect that it should improve the content of public policies; hence, public policy analysis is expected to develop recommendations for policies to be more effective, useful, and with higher quality. If the content of the term “policy analysis” in the literature is examined, it can be seen that policy analysis is concerned with the development and implementation of social and scientific insight to help resolve policy-related problems through concrete “political interventions” (Hajer 2003: 181). The study of public policy analysis has been one of the most rapidly developing fields of social science in recent years. Policy analysis has emerged with a view to better understand policy-making processes and to support political decision-makers with reliable policy-related information on political and social issues. DeLeon (1988: 9) argues that “policy analysis is the most important derivative of the political science approach and is related to the application of its methodologies and tools… [Therefore] policy analysis is generally considered a more discrete species under the broad umbrella of the field of political science.” Wagner (2007: 29) takes the history of policy analysis in the modern sense back to the Age of Enlightenment, but states that American and French revolutions are very important milestones. In this context, policy analysis can be considered a method developed to understand the dynamics underlying large-scale social transformations. Although the concept of making policy recommendations is as old as the government itself, the need for “knowledge” in policy recommendation is increasing as  For detailed accounts and theoretical explanations for the traditional weakness of civil society in Turkey, see Yıldırım (2018), Berber (2017), Sarıca (2019), Şahin and Akboğa (2019), Zariç (2019), and Çabuk (2017).

29

4  Policy Analysis

29

modern society is becoming more and more complex. Policy decisions aim to explain, predict, and plan complex social and political reality with less complex technical knowledge. However, problems are encountered even in defining public policy in the beginning. While some authors define public policy as “everything the government chooses to do or not to do” (Dye 2002: 1), some have offered definitions that focus on specific features of public policy. For example, Lowi and Ginsburg (1996: 607) define public policy as “an officially declared intent supported by a sanction that could be an award or punishment.” Public policy, as action or inaction, can emerge in the form of a law, rule, regulation, notification, regulation, agency building, or instruction. Empirical studies of decision-making and planning in organizations reveal that real-world decision-making behavior does not consist of intermittent stages that are usually separated by strict lines. Policy analysis and recommendation are considered to be ideally followed by smooth processes, such as research, analysis, revealing options, consultation, proposals, and decision-making; however, in reality, it operates in a different manner. In many cases, the sequence of these steps can be mixed, some can even be skipped, and exogenous factors can produce unpredictable consequences. Policy analysis produced in a regular order is often an important part of policy formulation, but it is not the whole story (Wilson 2006: 152). However, these steps can be useful as an abstraction to understand rational planning and decision-making behavior. According to such a rational model, decision-­ making behavior should be based on a comprehensive analysis of problems and goals, followed by the stages of collecting and analyzing information and seeking for the best alternatives to achieve these goals. This phase should include the cost– benefit analysis of the different options and the final choice of which action style to adopt. Measures should be implemented according to the objectives, and the results should be evaluated and changed if necessary. The main reason for the popular acceptance of this stage-based typology is that it is a normative model for ideal-­ type, rational, and evidence-based policy production. In addition, the stages approach is compatible with the basic democratic understanding that elected politicians should take decisions and neutral, objective, nonpartisan public officials should implement them (Jann and Wegrich 2007: 44). Policy analysis is carried out in order to better understand the policy-making process and to provide reliable and policy-related information on the economic and social problems affecting policymakers. Policy analysis deals with who gets what in politics. More importantly, it is concerned with why they get, what they get, and what difference it makes. It is a study not only about which policies governments follow, but why they follow these policies and what are the results of these policies (Dye 2002: xiii). Dunn defines policy analysis as an applied social science discipline that uses various query methods and arguments to produce and transform policy-related information that can be used in political settings to solve policy problems (Dunn 1981: 35). Political philosophers have been concerned with the policies pursued by governments, the forces that shape these policies, and their impact on society. The main focus of political science has always been political behavior and processes

30

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

associated with government institutions and structures and policy-making, but the policies themselves have largely remained untouched. Public policy studies, on the other hand, deal with a wide range of fields and do it constantly. Among these fields, defense, energy, environment, foreign affairs, education, welfare, safety, highways, taxes, housing, social security, health, economic opportunities, urban development, inflation, and recession can be listed, and this list is far from being exclusive. There are countless examples of policies, from the allocation of tens of millions of dollars to a mobile missile system to finding habitat for a bird species under protection. These areas are not independent of what is considered a public service in a country. Policy analysis is not merely advocating certain policies. Disclosing the causes and consequences of certain policies is not the same as presenting a prescription to the government by telling it what policies to follow. Learning what governments do and why do it, and what consequences its actions may have, is different from telling what governments should do or making changes in their activities. Policy advocacy requires skills such as discourse, persuasion, organization, and political activism (Dye 2002: 8), whereas policy analysis encourages academics and students to approach critical policy issues through systematic inquiry. However, it is also true that conducting policy analysis is a prerequisite to advocate a particular policy; thus, it should be admitted that there is a link between policy analysis and policy advocacy. However, the discipline could not be further from being trouble-free. Policy analysis has often been criticized for not being able to provide problem-oriented, “usable information” that has a direct impact on the policy process. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, empirical policy research was used much less than expected. Research on the use of policy findings has revealed that only a third of administrators with such information can demonstrate concrete events using such stock of knowledge (Shulock 1999). Policy analysts have always been under pressure to explain why so much effort has been made to exercise with so little return. We will turn to this issue in the following.

4.1  Craft or Art?30 Public policy literature is filled with discussions about whether policy analysis is art or craft. There are arguments in favor of both: it can be considered art because it requires introspection, creativity, and imagination to identify and detect social problems, to prepare public policies to alleviate these problems, and to reveal whether things will be better or worse when this or that policy is implemented. Policy analysis also includes artistic elements as it requires creation, understanding, and interpretation of human relations and informal structures, the design of decision-making processes, and the management of the uncertainties that often arise in political life

 The main works that deal with the subject with the concept of “art” and “craft” are Wildavsky, (1980), Weinter (1992), and Sapru (2011).

30

4  Policy Analysis

31

(Weinter 1992; Basu 1997; Adelle and Weiland 2012). On the other hand, policy analysis can be considered craft in that it requires knowledge of economics, political science, public administration, sociology, law, and statistics: policy analysts should be versatile and knowledgeable in a variety of disciplines (Dye 2002: 17). Accordingly, policy analysis aims to find solutions to political problems of daily life, and several activities carried out for this purpose (such as producing information, giving advice, and defining the problem) require the acquisition, processing, and use of professional, technical, and other types of concrete information. Based on this discussion, the main differences between the concepts of policy analysis being craft and art emerge as follows: • Art is a way of working that expresses emotions. Craft, on the other hand, is a physical form of work, as in foundry and engraving. • Craft can be expressed quantitatively, but art cannot be expressed quantitatively. • Craft forms can be copied and reproduced, but this does not go for art forms. • Art forms attract people emotionally, while craft forms do not. • Unlike craft, art comes from the heart and soul. Craft works are the product of the mind. • Art is largely based on one’s innate skills, while craft is based on skills acquired through experience. 4.1.1  Policy Analysis as Craft Based on the earlier evaluation, the basic features of the works that require craftsmanship can be determined. Accordingly, works that require craftsmanship have physical forms and outputs. They can be expressed quantitatively (digitized), copied by others, and reproduced and are based on reason and rational judgment. They also include developing some skills with experience. The craft aspect of policy analysis is discussed on the basis of the functions it performs. It is possible to examine the functions performed by policy analysis activities in decision-making processes under three titles. These are functions of producing knowledge, identifying/solving problems, and advising decision-makers. Knowledge Production Function  Lasswell’s vision of political science was to turn it into a hands-on social science. He aimed to bridge the gap between knowledge produced in the academic world and the real world of politics and problems. Lasswell explained the political sciences based on an example of a medical doctor: the job of the political scientist is to diagnose the diseases of the political world, to understand the causes and symptoms of these diseases, to recommend treatment, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment. Just like a doctor, a political scientist should receive a science-based education, but use this knowledge for a larger value-oriented purpose (Smith and Larimer 2009: 10). In his analysis of the political sciences, Lasswell (1971: 1) argued that the main goal is to learn about the decision

32

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

processes in public realm. According to him, this information takes the form of systematic, empirical studies about how policies are produced and implemented (Smith and Larimer 2009: 29). Therefore, it would be doing justice to say that the rationalist approach to policy analysis is based on Lasswell’s notion of political science. This approach addresses public policy in an instrumental way in that policies are seen as tools to address problems or achieve goals. Here, policy analysis emerges as a technical challenge, including evaluating cause–effect relationships; in this respect, it is a process in which information is produced to answer questions about “what to do.” Policy analysis is defined by Dunn (1981: 35) as an “applied social science discipline that uses various research and argument methods to produce information that can be used in political environments to solve policy problems and turn them into politics.” Therefore, policy analysis is a method of producing information for policy, but it should be emphasized that this information is scientific, not political. Here, the definition of “scientific” has to be considered in a context where uncertainties prevail. Authors such as Jasanoff (1990), Functowicz and Ravetz (1991), and Hillgartner (2001) refer to this phenomenon as “regulatory science.” For example, even if a technology can be fully tested, it will always be tested under certain “adjusted,” “other factors considered constant” laboratory conditions; therefore, its effects in “real-life” circumstances where other factors cannot be controlled will never be fully predicted. In this sense, the world, with its natural and social environment, is both a real-life condition (Hajer and Laws 2006: 415–419) and the laboratory of the policy analyst. On the other hand, the concept of “value” should not be ignored when discussing the information providing function of policy analysis. A political approach says that knowledge and the “facts” that are thought to represent must be made available to democratic values. However, it is possible for facts and values to contradict, sometimes even to determine the facts. People interested in shaping policies for the common good may not find satisfactory theoretical and scientific analysis of public policy. From this perspective, it is understood that the only function of policy analysis is not to produce information. Informational analyzes are not made only in the face of “real-life” questions such as whether citizens are entitled to universal healthcare in society, what effect minorities’ opinions should have in the production of public policies, because decisions on such issues will have political consequences. “The answers to such questions are not in the regression coefficient produced by a model that assumes that we live in an independent, value-free world” (Smith and Larimer 2009: 14). Problem Identification/Solution Function  One of the most important features of policy analysis is that it is problem oriented and focuses on researching opportunities for effective intervention in social problems. Lasswell emphasized the intervention and problem-solving function while perceiving social sciences as methods that solve social problems and argued that they should be understood as “policy ­sciences”

4  Policy Analysis

33

(Torgerson 2007: 15).31 Bardach (1977), who built the concept of policy analysis on the concept of “problem,” suggested that the process consists of eight stages: (i) defining the problem, (ii) gathering the findings, (iii) creating alternatives, (iv) selecting criteria, (v) predicting results, (vi) facing trade-offs, (vii) making decision, and (viii) telling the story. MacRae and Wilde (1979: 22) define policy analysis as “using logic and findings to select the best policy among several alternatives to address a particular problem.” Patton and Sawicki (1986: 76) define it as “a process in which alternative policies or programs are identified and evaluated to solve social, economic or physical problems.” Some of the policy issues are not always the subject of policy analysis; but when they are, analysis supports decision-making behavior in a variety of ways. Policy analysis includes such activities as determining whether a new policy is required to address a problem, if a policy is already in effect, whether it should be modified or terminated, as well as analyzing a policy retrospectively or prospectively, comparing multiple policies addressing similar issues, evaluating the future effects of new policies, and revealing the stages in the process of developing certain policies. The rationalist approach sees public policy as a linear problem-solving process. In this context, public policy is a tool for choosing alternatives to solve social problems (Shulock 1999: 227). Researchers in favor of this view argue that it is necessary to use the theoretical and methodological tools of social sciences in order to make a reasonably objective and impartial ranking among policy alternatives and to make rational choices. Another view on how to approach problems is that all decisions are based on a normative basis. According to this view, decisions are not only of a technical or instrumental nature. When a government faces the question of what to do on a particular issue, there is always the possibility of a conflict of values. There will be differences between the desires of liberals, conservatives, social democrats, feminists, environmentalists, and others. Political decision-makers, to whom policy analysis provides information services, are often influenced by values and do not pay much attention to policy analyzes that do not support their preferred values.32 Rationalist policy analysis is instrumental; in this sense, it is an effort to find a technical solution to a well-defined problem. In politics, solutions are advocated not because of their technical superiority but because the results to be achieved by using them have the potential to support political agendas. Therefore, the information produced by rationalist analysis is weighed against the values that determine the political discourse. Politicians resort to the results of the researches conducted within the scope of policy analysis as long as they match their preferences (Smith  However, Lasswell’s approach is not devoid of theoretical infrastructure. An important representative of the Chicago school, Lasswell blended the philosophical pragmatism and political progressiveness of this school with the theoretical debates to identify and solve social problems encountered in practice, and introduced a “policy” orientation. 32  See Regan (1995) on the role that values play in determining public policies as he examines public policies on privacy. Fischer (1980) discussed the importance of values in American foreign policy. Aaron (1994) evaluated the role played by value judgments in the government’s economic policies. Jamieson (1992) explained how values shape environmental policies. 31

34

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

2005). Thus, policy responses to a problem will generate winners and losers, and stakeholders in this process will struggle to make their choices accepted and see them turn into policy. The analyst’s job is to demonstrate the ability to interpret and facilitate such a situation that is appropriate for the reality of the policy. The analyst should understand and evaluate the different perspectives that lead to the conflict of values. The question “what to do?” finds the best answer by negotiation and discussion; and theories or statistics often prove inadequate (Smith and Larimer 2009: 101–102). Policy problems are complex due to their interdependent, dynamic, subjective, and occasionally artificial structures. According to Dunn (1981: 75–76), the most important feature of policy problems is that they have a very complex structure. These features require policy issues to be structured carefully and with the participation of stakeholders. Dunn (1981: 82) states that structuring the problem is the most important dimension of policy analysis and that creative thinking plays a big role at this stage. Structuring of the problem is a constantly re-emerging phase of political research activity; at this stage, analysts must evaluate problem formulations of different stakeholders competing with each other. Therefore, the most important activity of political analysts is the constructing and defining the problem. Political analysts try to apply wrong solutions to the right problem from time to time; however, trying to solve the wrong problem is a mistake they make more often (Hajer 2003; Weimer and Vining 2017). When breaking down complex problems, one may not avoid the risk of applying the right solution to the wrong problem. Recognition of the interdependent, subjective, artificial, and dynamic nature of policy problems requires paying careful attention to the unpredictable consequences of the policies implemented based on the right solutions developed to solve the wrong problems. Policy issues can be the scene of conflicts not only about the paths and methods to follow but also about defining the problem. It is essential for analysts to take an active role in defining the problem in order to solve poorly structured and defined problems. Bardach argues that the concepts used to identify problems are decisive for its solution. For example, revealing the problem as “there are few shelters for homeless families” implies that the best solution is to build “more shelters”; this perspective can prevent policymakers from thinking about policies to prevent families from becoming homeless. Instead, putting the problem as “there are too many homeless families” has the potential to lead policymakers to a completely different solution.33 However, policy research does not always perform the function of providing information that can be applied directly to problem solving. Generally, there is an “enlightenment” function of politics that makes decision-makers and the public think about policy issues, but it does not necessarily solve the problem directly. Lasswell’s understanding of the policy process model is normative rather than analytical: The linear ordering of the different stages is essentially designed as a problem-­solving model and is in line with organizational theory and other ­descriptive

33

 For more examples, see Bardach (1977).

4  Policy Analysis

35

rational planning and decision-making models developed in public administration field (Jann and Wegrich 2007: 43–44). Policy analysis activities can be examined in terms of their impact on the problem-solving phenomenon, but this activity should not be interpreted as that policy analysts primarily act for problem solving. Advice-Giving Function  One of the most important functions of policy analysis is giving advice. The analyst should develop suggestions for decision-makers on issues such as identifying policy priorities, revealing their advantages and disadvantages, and the relevance of the objectives achieved and desired goals to the political agenda and the program. Contributing to the agenda-setting process in this way is an essential part of policy analysis. The advice-giving activity includes not only the recommendations but also the structured preferences, preparation for the choice, and indirect advice to those who advise the decision-makers. It involves setting out and justifying criteria for political choices; therefore, it is not limited to the “knowledge” provided only by empirical cause and effect relationships (MacRae and Whittington 1997: 12). Policy can be defined as the actions, goals, statements, and steps taken by governments to implement solutions. In addition, explanations about what is happening (or not happening) in the political arena can also be considered as policy. Therefore, politics has both an action and a discourse dimension. Giving policy advice is a kind of discourse policy, which is itself a policy. Policy recommendations can guide people in decision-making on issues such as how to reach a target that has been decided on. The advice-giving function is for ordinary people other than experts. Users of policy recommendations are primarily decision-makers; but citizens, customers, and anyone else who follow these recommendations can be considered as users. It should not be overlooked that advice giving also has multiple meanings. This term may refer to efforts to draw a preliminary framework for a policy question, as well as suggestions for a specific policy alternative (MacRae and Whittington 1997: 351). If we consider policy as a concept of government’s use of force, policy advice can also be understood as suggestions on how to use this power. The extent to which policy advice affects government actions and discourses represents a form of “informal use of force.” Therefore, policy analysis is an activity that forms the basis of the use of force, and itself is the use of force as it affects the actions and discourses of decision-makers. On the other hand, the policy process takes place neither inside a glass jar nor in a pure rational world.34 The policy process can only be understood in a political context. Policy advice is an activity that should take into account such issues; in this way, it extends the scope of policy analysis by including the concept of “power.” While conducting policy analysis, it requires the practice of evaluating what can be achieved within the constraints that limit a government’s freedom of

 The classical analysis that decision-making behavior takes place on a non-rational ground belongs to Simon (1947), as we have seen earlier.

34

36

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

maneuver in the context of “the art of what is possible.”35 These constraints are numerous and diverse. Various factors restrict policy options available to governments, such as lack of resources, lack of parliamentary support, public opposition, opposition within the government, opposition of strong interest groups, real or perceived responses of financial markets, and lack of know-how (Wilson 2006: 154–155). From an empirical point of view, policy advice is considered a comprehensive process in which politicians and bureaucrats are not affected by a single study or report. On the contrary, policy analysis has an impact on general problem perceptions and changes in world views (Weiss 1977). In this context, scientific research on policy analysis is one of the various sources of information included in the policy-­making process (Lindblom and Cohen 1979: 10–29). 4.1.2  Policy Analysis as Art In addition to the three functions of the policy analysis discussed earlier, there are also studies that emphasize its artistic aspects. The most important of these is the book titled “Policy Analysis as Art and Craft” published by Wildavsky in 1979. In the book, the author addresses the art aspect of policy analysis and points out the weaknesses of the technical aspect. The technical dimension of policy analysis is unfunctional due to various limitations, the most important being that the policy advices presented within the scope of policy analysis are numerous and different, even unrelated, and that their applicability is uncertain and superficial at best. Policy analysis requires imagination, and policy analysts are often those who need to do “thought experiments.” It is necessary to be aware that policies cannot produce valid truths anytime and anywhere; policies are hypotheses that are constantly changed and leave replaced by better policies, which necessitates continuous thinking, designing, and hypothesizing activity. Policy analysis is also a process related to the relations between people. According to Wildavsky, “when we like the results of the relationships between doctors and patients, teachers and students, we more strongly endorse the institutional arrangements that these people come together. If we do not approve, we would like to change these relationships. When we change the pattern of these relationships, we make a huge difference, so the results also change” (1979: 417). Another aspect of policy analysis that highlights its artistic tenets is its relationship with decision-making processes. Decision-making is the art of developing reasonable decision rules that are appropriate in the context of each decision. Reasonable decision rules are consistent in themselves and are based on values as long as they are the results of moral arguments. Analysis, on the other hand, is the science of rational application of the rules regarding these decisions according to the appropriate standards. Rational analysis should be logical, valid, reliable,

35

 For a more comprehensive discussion on this topic, see Vickers (1980).

4  Policy Analysis

37

e­ mpirically tested, and factual. Although values and facts are very different intellectual categories, it is not easy to isolate them from each other in practice (Andrews 2007: 163). The ability to logically analyze policies requires an insight into the creation of acceptable alternative policies. Analysts often attempt to build a political consensus after breaking a policy argument into its constituent parts. In this process, we usually observe that the concept of static policy positioning has turned into a dynamic one, including the power of persuasion. Analysts can identify alternative policy proposals that address key areas of conflict once they have identified possible areas for conflict on policy. This alternative argument can face criticism and objections of the audience it is trying to persuade, encounter obstacles on its way to reach out to the audience it is trying to appeal to, and may lead to more and more diverse opinions than it is supposed to in the first place. Each of these implies new problems for the policy analyst. In most cases, the analyst has to go beyond his/her original suggestion, while aiming not only to defend his/her argument in a narrow framework but also to reveal a much more comprehensive picture of the political situation. A narrow argument can only be defended in the context of a limited belief; nevertheless, the policy analyst should try to provide a new or reformulated view of revising the belief system that hinders consensus building, or even replacing it with a new one, once he/she encounters such problems as described earlier (Fischer 2007: 235). The development of such policy proposals is definitely art as well as craft. This process requires making predictions, developing analogies, and using metaphors, in addition to reaching logical deviations from established cause–effect relationships and facts. All this differs from scientific analyzes based on closed, generalized models, and must be open and contextual. While the scientific model follows the official principles of inference, the artistic model follows the rules and procedures of informal logic. Symbols use personal imagination and experiences, and tend to involve observers as active participants in artistic activity. Stone points out that the uncertainty such informal processes inevitably involve is a source of wealth and depth in art. But uncertainty is a phenomenon mostly excluded in science. The scientific method is based on repeated observations by various observers at different times and places, and scientific observations are considered to be uncertain and unaffected by the observer’s identity, emotions, and beliefs. However, much of science does not comply with such pure idealization; for example, medical doctors accept that diagnosing the disease is both an art and a craft. Politics is art rather than science, because uncertainties are at the heart of political strategy. The forms of policy analysis that ignore or try to eliminate the concept of uncertainty cannot capture the core of policy discussions (Stone 2001: 178). According to this definition, if we consider that public policy is a chain of decisions and actions of a variety of actors acting in coordination to solve a public problem, we can see that public policy is an analysis fiction. Thus, when we want to analyze a public policy, we must first rebuild it, because no public policy comes up with a clearly defined boundary from a to z. It is not possible to have adequate information about all aspects of public policy by reading in a book or report: as an analyst, we need to identify the problem, the actors

38

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

involved in the process, and the actions taken by the relevant stakeholders to solve the problem, and reconstruct public policy by bringing them all together. Public policy analysis suggests that the government agencies and public officials are in charge of solving collective problems. It evaluates the state from an instrumentalist perspective: the state makes decisions to solve problems built as a collective problem and takes action through the government. Despite the emphasis on the state, it is not the only public actor that will solve a public problem in general, which is a combination of a large number of public actors. The government cannot solve problems such as increased unemployment, pollution of water resources, or insufficient public administration education. There are many different actors that need to be coordinated, which can be different ministries or power centers (economic, social, etc.). It is possible for different public actors, both nationally and locally, to come together to discuss and manage public policies. In some cases, tasks related to public policies are delegated to private actors through mechanisms such as voluntary work. The number of actors trying to solve public policy problems together is one of the factors that make it difficult to work on this issue. High-level coordination is required between actors that belong to different organizations, have different interests, and use different resources such as staff, financing, or knowledge. The ability of problem solving in multifaceted public policy areas such as crisis and disaster management, counterterrorism, and public administration reforms is directly proportional to the government’s coordination capacity. Consequently, policy analysis today is an issue that is clearly on the agenda in social sciences; it is a practice used not only in the government but also in other political institutions. In addition to academia, policy analysts are employed as researchers in official institutions, think tank organizations, research units, consultancy companies, interest groups, and nongovernmental organizations. They also perform various functions in public relations departments of large companies, including monitoring economic regulations and policies, and research functions. Policy analysis is far from being a routine exercise. Each stage of the policy analysis process, with both craft and art dimensions, requires informal reasoning and a good understanding of what methodological preferences imply. In addition to scientific methods such as surveys, statistics, and instrumental impact assessments, insight, intuitive predictions and other informal processes also play an extremely important role in policy analysis.

4.2  The Debate in Turkey Although public policy studies in Turkey mainly focus on political science, social policy, foreign policy, security policy, urbanization and environmental policy, fiscal policy, and various subpolicy areas of the economy, “public policy” or “public policy analysis” has not been considered as a separate discipline (Akdoğan 2008: 80; Robins 2009: 289). However, the tendency of indifference toward public policies and policy analysis seems to have reversed since the 2000s. During this period, the

4  Policy Analysis

39

field of public policy climbed to the top among the subjects that aroused great interest especially in the public administration academic community. The noticeable increase in the number of publications in this field, the fact that the courses on public policy and policy analysis find more space especially in the public administration departments, and the organization of workshops and symposiums on the subject are concrete reflections of this interest. 4.2.1  Policy Analysis as Craft Examples of exceptional works that meet the examine issues and questions of today’s public policy analysis are found in the history of Turkish-Islamic administration. Thinkers, scientists, and advisors of the rulers guided and gave advice to the rulers of their time in the state administration with their treatises36 and “names.”37 “Kutadgu Bilig” was written in Turkish between 1069 and 1070 by Yusuf Has Hacib, who was a vizier in the Karahanlılar State; “Siyasetname” was submitted by Nizam’ül Mülk, vizier in Seljuk State, to Sultan Melikşah between 1077 and 1078; “The Ways to be Taken for Correction of Corruptions” written by Katip Çelebi in the Ottoman Empire and “Advice to the Statesmen” written by Defterdar Sarı Mehmet Pasha are the leading exceptional works of this kind (Eryılmaz 2012: 62–71). Public policy issues such as the duties and responsibilities of the ruler and other statesmen, advices on the state administration, the importance of justice in administration, and the importance of government consultants are discussed comprehensively in treatise and names. These works mainly include qualitative analysis based on experience, history, and geographical comparison (Yıldız et  al. 2016). However, some include quantitative analysis as well. For example, in the treatise written by Katip Çelebi in 1627, analyzes were made on the army and the treasury based on quantitative data. Kâtip Çelebi analyzed the burden of the increase in the number of soldiers on the budget. In his analysis, he concluded that it was difficult to keep the number of soldiers at a certain rate, but that precautions should be taken for reducing the burden of salaries. In addition, by showing the income and expenditure rates in the budget since 1564, he determined that the expenditures increased on a daily basis. Stating that it is difficult to find a way to increase the income and reduce the expenses in a sustainable way, he stated that it is necessary to create an opportunity to find some relief in order to break this deadlock. In this context, policy consultancy has long been considered within the staff functions of the administration in the modern Turkish public administration system and has been carried out by staff members such as staff officers, advisors, consultants, and experts. Generally, the duty of such staff members is to provide consultancy services to the decision-making bodies and executive units of managers on

 In Turkish, “risale.”  “Name” is the title given to brief texts of political advice addressed to the people in government.

36 37

40

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

issues that they cannot spare time or do not have sufficient knowledge (Eryılmaz 2012: 111). These personnel perform functions such as collecting data on the issues that decision-makers need; analyzing, interpreting, and reporting them; and developing policy recommendations. Besides the Presidency, ministries, and the legislative body, staff personnel also work in other institutions and organizations of the public administration, such as the armed forces, local administrations, and supreme boards. Most of the staff that providing policy consultancy services to senior executives are regulated as “exceptional civil service” in Article 59 of the Civil Servants Law (DMK) numbered 657. The characteristic of the exceptional civil service is that the institution administrators have a wide discretionary power in the appointments to be made to these positions as political appointments can be made without being subject to the central examination system. In order to be appointed to these exceptional civil service positions, it is sufficient to meet the general conditions that are valid for civil servant appointments specified in the Civil Servants Law. The scope of the exceptional civil service application has been continuously expanded since 1965 when the DMK was accepted. Finally, the “deputy minister” position, which was created in 2011 with the amendment made in the Decree Law No. 3046 regulating the principles of establishment, organization, and duties of ministries, was created as an exceptional civil service position. There are units and staff that are regulated in Article 59 of the Civil Servants Law and expected to fulfill the policy consultancy function. These are legal counsel, press consultancy, department, general secretariat units of various institutions and organizations, and legal advisors, department heads, experts, assistant experts, and press advisors. However, due to the continuous increase in the number of exceptional civil service positions, titles, and staff, this practice has moved away from its purpose and has generally become a backdoor to become a civil servant. It is observed that these positions are used for very short periods of time, and those who are appointed are transferred to other institutions quickly. It can be said that the staff performing consultancy duties within the scope of exceptional civil service are not excluded from this situation. As a matter of fact, the fact that there are a large number of consultancy staff in the President’s Office and ministries is explained by the desire of the political authorities to find an equivalent hierarchy and, in special terms, a “place in the shelves” for the dismissed administrators (Bozkurt et al. 2008: 60; Eryılmaz 2012: 385). Similarly, researchers are expected to conduct research and investigations and evaluate the tasks and services of the unit or institution they are assigned to determine the solutions to the problems, write reports, prepare research programs and consultancy, in other words, to fulfill their duty of policy consultancy and analysis. However, in reality, these positions are generalized to be used in the transfer of civil servants who have become unemployed as a result of privatizations to other public institutions (Sayan and Demirci 2012: 201–203). From the explanations made so far regarding policy consultancy as a profession, it is understood that consultancy is not employed properly in Turkey. Units or cadres whose main function should be to conduct policy analysis, make policy drafts, and

4  Policy Analysis

41

develop policy proposals are often used as a kind of waiting place for public ­officials whose new director does not want to work, or for those waiting for an office from the new administration, senior public officials who are left out as a result of privatization. They are also evaluated as an exile for troubled personnel or a last stop for high-level bureaucrats waiting for their retirement. Although the number of studies based on quantitative or qualitative research methods is low in terms of using public policy analysis in decision-making processes in Turkey, a study published by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA) in 2005 offers some clues. According to the results of the research conducted based on in-depth interview method with 52 members of politics, bureaucracy, civil society, and the media (TÜBA 2005: 19–20), the detailed and institutionalized policy-­ making and implementation processes in Turkey are quite insufficient. In policy development processes, personal observation and experience come to the fore rather than scientific research. The use of scientific knowledge is rarely used due to constraints such as ideology, time, and financial means. In addition, although decision-­ makers and bureaucrats benefit from the studies of the State Planning Organization and the Syrian Statistical Institute, they do not work in coordination with these institutions in policy-making, implementation, and evaluation processes. Although scientific research is needed during the application phase, it is preferred to obtain an unsystematic expert opinion rather than conducting extensive research. 4.2.2  Policy Analysis as Art When approaching public policy analysis as an art, it can be argued that public policy is in the tradition of Turkish-Islamic administration as providing policy advice to decision-makers or as “speaking truth to power” to use Wildavsky’s (1979) phrase. The “kurultay,” (parliament) which constitutes the basic element of the administration tradition in ancient Turkish societies, and the tradition of “divan” (cabinet) and “meşveret” (consultation) that became institutionalized with the adoption of Islam reflect the importance attributed to the concept of consultation. The roles of these institutions, which are included in the Turkish governance tradition, cannot be denied. For example, all kinds of governmental matters were discussed in the Divan-ı Hümayun, which convened regularly and in compliance with certain rules. Due to the weakening of the Divan-ı Hümayun since the middle of the seventeenth century, the consultation councils,38 where officials with experience and knowledge in every field of state administration participated, and scientists were invited to provide their opinions, gradually came to the fore in decision-making and policy-making processes (Mumcu 2007: 146–148).

38

 In Turkish, Meşveret Meclisleri.

42

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

4.2.3  Policy Analysis as Discipline The number of studies based on quantitative or qualitative research methods in terms of using public policy analysis in decision-making processes in Turkey is low. A study published in 2005 by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA) offers some clues. According to the results of the research based on in-depth interview method with 52 people in politics, bureaucracy, civil society, and the media, detailed and institutionalized policy-making and implementation processes in Turkey are rather insufficient (TÜBA 2005: 19–20). In policy development processes, personal observation and experience come to the fore rather than scientific research. Scientific knowledge is rarely used due to constraints such as ideology, time, and financial opportunities. In addition, although decision-makers and bureaucrats benefit from the studies of the State Planning Organization and the Turkish Statistical Institute, they do not work in coordination with these institutions in policy-making, implementation, and evaluation processes. Scientific research is needed in the application phase, but it is preferred to obtain expert opinion haphazardly rather than conducting extensive research.

4.3  Problems of Policy Analysis In many cases, the effect of policy analysis may be less than expected due to a number of factors. Dye has identified some factors that undermine the ability of policy analysis to address a country’s problems. Accordingly, these factors can be listed as follows (Dye 2002: 15–17): Limited Power of Government  Governments are not almighty; their policies may not be able to correct all the problems a society faces. Governments are limited by several strong environmental factors; these include community welfare, technology, family lifestyles, class structure, child-rearing practices, and religious beliefs, to name a few. It is not easy for governments to regulate and control these factors. For example, in order to ensure equality of opportunity, children must be taken away from their social environment, including their families, at a very young age and raised by the state in a Platonic structure, since the majority of factors that create inequality of opportunity relate to the social environment into which people are born. Subjectivity in Interpretation  Due to different ideological positions, sometimes there is no general agreement on what the problem is; in such cases, policy analysis cannot produce generally accepted solutions. Policy analysis deals with highly subjective issues and mostly is based on the interpretation of results. Professional researchers often interpret the results of the analysis of the same policy differently from each other. This is a direct result of the social sciences not being independent of values. Even the topic selection for research is influenced by the values of what is important and remarkable in the society.

5  Policy Cycle Model

43

Limitations in the Design of Research Involving People  The long-standing challenges in the design of social science research make it impossible to conduct controlled experiments on humans. Since we cannot control all the factors that affect real-world situations, it is not possible for us to be able to pinpoint the reasons for success or failure of some policies.39 Another problem with research is that they are usually conducted or sponsored by program managers, who tend to use research as a tool to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program and the “validity” of positive results. The Complexity of Human Behavior  Social problems have a complex structure; therefore, social scientists may not be able to make accurate predictions about the effects of proposed policies. Social scientists may not have the knowledge of individual and group behavior to provide reliable advice to policymakers. Most of the problems facing society are based on multiple variables, so it can be impossible to develop a simple explanation or solution for these problems. What social scientists can do is to measure the impact of current and past public policies and to deliver this information to policymakers.

5  Policy Cycle Model The basis of this model is based on the concept of the “black box” mentioned earlier. The approach that tries to understand how public policies are formed within the “black box” of the government and how demands turn into decisions and actions has developed the public policy cycle model for this purpose. This approach can be dated back to the 1970s. Public policy tries to respond to collective problems. The public policy cycle model then represents a cycle that starts when a problem arises. This problem can be addressed by public or private actors who are in a position to bring it to the policy agenda. These actors develop a discourse that the problem in question is a priority, that it concerns the government, that it needs to be resolved by the government, that it is imperative to adopt a public policy and eliminate grievances, and that the situation cannot tolerate inaction. In this case, the first stage of public policy is to perceive a problem and to be successful in attracting the attention of policymakers. This is not as easy as it seems; a vast majority of problems never come to the government’s agenda and attract the attention of decision-makers. Let’s assume that a management has come to the fore. This is sometimes done by external shocks such as a terrorist attack, natural disaster, global economic crisis, or a nuclear accident; but even then, there is often an accompanying internal process. Public policy mechanisms will try to address this problem, whether internal or  For example, it is out of the question for middle-class white children to be educated in schools in the ghettos for a couple of years to see if it will have an impact on the level of success. Instead, social scientists should identify situations where educational-related deprivations naturally occur and make observations to learn the causes of this deprivation (Dye 2002: 16).

39

44

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

external. Thus, the stage comes where alternative solutions for the problem are formulated. At the end of this phase, one of the solutions is preferred over the others. Preparing alternatives and adopting a solution is often the duty of the bureaucracy, government, and parliament. In many cases, a law is adopted. If the law is publicly debated or needs to be submitted to a referendum, it can be said that the public is also involved in the formal adoption of public policy.40 Thus, the second stage of public policy involves finding a practical solution and generally arbitrating this solution with the legislation. If there is enough consensus to adopt after finding a solution, the implementation phase will be started. In this context, for example, the implementation of the provisions in a law will be carried out by the bureaucracy. Bureaucracies do not always work perfectly; therefore, sometimes complications occur in practice. The law may not be enforced satisfactorily or as intended. But whether it is enforced properly or not, the final link of the public policy cycle will include an assessment of the effects of the policy. At this point, the question as to whether all the activities performed can solve the problem faced. It is questioned whether the public policy is prepared and implemented properly, or if the problem tried to be solved is correctly understood. This stage of the policy cycle is not always implemented; evaluation is not performed for a majority of public policies. However, in cases where the evaluation is conducted, it can be revealed whether the policy is effective, whether the objectives set at the beginning are achieved, and whether the problem can be accepted as solved. If the problem in question has not been solved completely, it may represent the starting point of a new policy cycle. If public policy has produced all the desired effects, it is possible to end the policy.41 The public policy cycle outlined in this way can be seen as a sequential ring or a spiral of interlocking rings. After all, public policy is an exercise that “never ends” (Capano 2013). It will continue with systematic redefinition of the problem, transformation of the solution, putting into legislation, redefinition of implementation activities, and performing new evaluations. One of the advantages of the public policy cycle model that tries to open the “black box” in this way is that different types of analytical questions can be asked at different stages of the cycle. For example, if you are interested in bringing some issues to the agenda, you might ask why some issues have caught the attention of politicians, whereas others have not. The answers to these questions may explain why the state takes into account some sec For example, there is an optional or mandatory “referendum phase” after the public policy preparation phase controlled by the government and the parliamentary debate and decision-making processes in Switzerland. 41  For example, after the Marmara earthquake in 1999, special communication tax was introduced in Turkey on mobile phones to finance the spending that the government had to make to heal the wounds of the earthquake. Later, similar taxes were imposed on other products and these were combined into Special Consumption Tax (SCT) in 2002. Almost a quarter of the 2017 budget (136.3  billion TL corresponding to 23.24%) was covered by this biggest tax item. As the SCT practice continues, it can be thought that it does not bring all the desired effects, that is, the government has not yet been able to finance the spending made in order to heal the wounds of the 1999 earthquake, which does not sound reasonable. 40

5  Policy Cycle Model

45

tors while neglecting others in the stage of public problem construction. If you are interested in the preparation and adoption of public policies, you can investigate which actors or the coalition of actors ensured the adoption of a particular public policy, which political parties in parliament voted in favor of that public policy, and if the referendum was held, which segments of the society or which regions/constituencies of the country accepted the proposed public policy. Regarding the implementation phase, the actions of the bureaucracy are generally in focus. At this point, the answers to the questions such as which is the best mechanism to implement a public policy and which the best administrative arrangement should be for the policy to be implemented properly are sought. At the evaluation stage, questions can be asked as to who will evaluate the results of public policy, whether public policies are properly and satisfactorily implemented, whether it is properly formulated, and whether it should be able to solve the problem in question. In this way, the public policy cycle model divides policy issues into a number of analysis stages and provides an understanding of what is going on in the state mechanism. This approach is consistent with the understanding that public policies are about problem solving. The public policy cycle is essentially a problem-solving cycle, and there is a large degree of similarity between the problem-solving stages in technical fields such as engineering or medicine and the public policy. In public policy, although the rules of the game and the actors involved in the process are different from engineering or medicine, policies are produced and built more or less in the same way (Preston and Post 1981; Post and Preston 2012). The first version of the public policy cycle model was proposed by Lasswell. His model includes the following stages (Lasswell 1956a): • • • • • • •

Understanding (information gathering and circulation for decision-makers) Decision-makers revealing options Choosing a method on how to do things Compulsiveness (e.g., establishing sanctions to adopt proposed measures) Application/enforcement by bureaucracy and courts Completion Assessment

Similar models to this one can be identified in textbooks from the 1970s.42 The formula set out in the 1970 dated textbook by Jones which has been later known as the “Jones Grid” consisted of five stages, adapted from the seven-stage model of Lasswell (1956b): • Problem detection until the government addresses the problem: Several functional activities are carried out at this first stage. For example, among these activities are actors identifying the needs of the society, these actors being organized collectively to turn needs into demands and convey them to the public authorities, and these needs being perceived by the public authorities. At this stage, the most important factor is to formulate the problems and convey them to the public 42

 For example, see Sharkansky (1978), Robinson (1979), and Hague (1975).

46

• • •

•

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

authorities. The most important contribution of the Jones grid at this point is that nonstate actors are taken into consideration during the detection of problems. Development of a public policy program: this stage involves the intervention by public authorities. At this stage, a solution is formulated among those proposed for public action, and the action is legitimized, both legally and politically. Implementation of the program: measures to be implemented are implemented by public authorities. The bureaucracy comes into play at this point. This is also the stage where solutions are shaped in flesh and bones. Evaluation of the program: this stage includes measuring and analyzing the results. The effects of the policy followed and the reactions to this policy are at the center of this stage. From time to time, it is also possible to identify new problems and to produce new solutions for them. Policy completion or termination: the program is completed if the problem leading to the application is resolved. In reality, this seldom happens (e.g., the land use program required for the construction of a roadway is completed when the road construction is finished); it is more common for public policy to undergo transformation in one way or the other rather than to be declared ended.43

References Aaron, H. J. (1994). Distinguished lecture on economics in government: Public policy, values, and consciousness. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 3–21. Adelle, C., & Weiland, S. (2012). Policy assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 25–33. Adler, M., & Asquith, S. (1981). Discretion and power. Discretion and Welfare, 9–32. Akçadağ, E. (2011). Türkiye’de ve Dünya’da Kamu Diplomasisi. İstanbul: Kamu Diplomasisi Enstitüsü. Akdoğan, A. (2008). Türk Kamu Yönetimi ve Avrupa Birliği: Karşılaştırmalı Eleştirel bir İnceleme. Ankara: TODAIE Yayınları. Akıncı, B. (2018). Türkiye’de Kamu Politikası Oluşturma Sürecinde Yeni Aktör: Cumhurbaşkanlığı Politika Kurulları. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(16), 2128–2146. Akman, E. (2019). Cumhurbaşkanliği Hükümet Sisteminde Kamu Politikasi Aktörleri. Paradoks Ekonomi Sosyoloji ve Politika Dergisi, 15(1), 35–54. Altunok, M., & Metin, H. (2003). Karşılaştırmalı Bir Yaklaşımla Karar Verme Modelleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(7), 93–104. 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. Anderson, J. E. (2014). Public policymaking. Nelson Education. Arts, B. (2003). Non-state actors in global governance: three faces of power (No. 2003/4). Preprints aus der Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter. Ateş, H., & Nohutçu, A. (2006). Kamu hizmeti sunumunda gönüllü kuruluşlar ve devlet. Selçuk Üniversitesi İİBF Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(11), 244–276.

 The special consumption tax example in Turkey mentioned earlier can be evaluated from this point of view.

43

References

47

Ayata, G., & Karan, U. (2015). Sivil Topluma Aktif Katılım: Uluslararası Standartlar, Ulusal Mevzuattaki Engeller, Öneriler. İstanbul: TÜSEV. Aytaç, S.  E., Çarkoğlu, A., & Yıldırım, K. (2017). Taking sides: Determinants of support for a presidential system in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 22(1), 1–20. Babaoğlu, C. (2013). Kamu Politikası Sürecinde Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Rolü. In M. Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı (Eds.), Kamu Politikası – Kuram ve Uygulama (pp. 166–187). Ankara: Adres Yayınları. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Basu, K. (1997). On misunderstanding government: An analysis of the art of policy advice. Economics and Politics, 9(3), 231–250. Beeson, M. (2001). Globalization, governance, and the political-economy of public policy reform in East Asia. Governance, 14(4), 481–502. Berber, E. (2017). Kurgu ve Gerçeklik Ekseninde Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum Örgütleri: İnsan Hakları Örgütleri Özelinde Bir Değerlendirme. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 7(3), 181–202. Berkman, A. Ü. (1995). Türk kamu yönetimi disiplinine ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 1, 51–58. Bozkurt, Ö., Ergun, T., & Sezen, S. (2008). Kamu yönetimi sözlüğü: Fransızca ve İngilizce karşılıklarıyla. Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü. Çabuk, D. (2017). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren sivil toplum kuruluşlarının itibarını ölçmek. Global Media Journal: Turkish Edition, 8(15), 233–258. Calvert, R. L. (1985). The value of biased information: A rational choice model of political advice. The Journal of Politics, 47(2), 530–555. Capano, G. (2013). The never-ending puzzle. In E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X.  Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp.  451–461). London/New York: Routledge. Çelik, S. (2010). Kamu Politikasi Analizinde Doğrusal Modelin Yetersizliği: Karmaşik Bir Model Önerisi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 217–234. Çevik, H.  H. (1998). Kamu politikaları analizi çalışmaları üzerine Türkiye açısından bir değerlendirme. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 31(2), 103–112. Çevik, H. H., & Demirci, S. (2008). Kamu politikası: kavramlar, aktörler, süreç, modeller, analiz, karar verme. Seçkin Yayıncılık. DeLeon, P. (1988). Advice and consent: The development of the policy sciences. New  York: Russell Sage Foundation. Demir, F. (2011). Kamu Politikasi ve Politika Analizi Çalişmalarinin Teorik Çerçevesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 30, 107–120. Demir, F. (2018). Avrupa Birliği’nde Kamu Yönetimi Reformlari Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. ASSAM Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi, 5(12), 10–20. Demir, F., & Kurt, M. (2019). Türkiye’nin Suriye’den Gerçekleşen Göçlere Yönelik Politikalarının Çoklu Akış Modeli ile İncelenmesi. In E.  Akman & C.  Babaoğlu (Eds.), Kamu Politikası Analizi: Türkiye Uygulamaları (pp. 397–422). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi. Diez, T., Agnantopoulos, A., & Kaliber, A. (2005). File: Turkey, Europeanization and civil society: Introduction. South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 1–15. Doyle, J. L. (2017). State control of civil society organizations: The case of Turkey. Democratization, 24(2), 244–264. Daw, T., & Gray, T. (2005). Fisheries science and sustainability in international policy: a study of failure in the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy, 29(3), 189–197. Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public policy analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Dupuy, F., & Thoenig, J. C. (1985). L’administration en miettes. Fayard. Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Easton, D. (1967). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.

48

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

Emini, F. T. (2013). Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarinin Politika Belirleme Sürecindeki Rolü: TÜSİAD Örneği. Dumlupinar University Journal of Social Sciences, 36, 43–56. Eryılmaz, B. (2012). Kamu Yönetimi. Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları. Fischer, F. (1980). Politics, values, and public policy: The problem of methodology. Boulder: Westview Press. Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). Sydney/London/New York: CRC Press. Frewer, L., & Salter, B. (2002). Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: the case of BSE. Science and public policy, 29(2), 137–145. Functowicz, F. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. Ecological Economics, 10, 137–152. Gökçe, G., & Gökçe, O. (2015). Devlet Kapasitesi: Kavramin Kuramsal Çerçevesi, Bileşenleri ve Türkiye’nin Görünümü. Gazi Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 17(2), 1–34. Güvenç, İ. (2019). Applicability of presidential system in Turkey. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 3(9), 6–17. Hague, D. C. (1975). Public policy and private interests: The institutions of compromise. London: Springer. Hajer, M.  A. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175–195. Hajer, M., & Laws, D. (2006). Policy in practice. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 409–424). New York: Oxford University Press. Heinelt, H. (2007). Do policies determine politics? In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp.  109–119). London/ New York: CRC Press. Heper, M. (1974). Bürokratik Yönetim Geleneği: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Suriye Cumhuriyetinde Gelişimi ve Niteliği. Ankara: ODTÜ Yayınları. Heper, M., & Yıldırım, S. (2011). Revisiting civil society in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 11(1), 1–18. Hillgartner, S. (2001). Science on stage. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hoppe, R., & Jeliazkova, M. (2006). How policy workers define their job: A Netherlands case study. In H.  K. Colebatch (Ed.), The work of policy: An international survey (pp.  35–60). Latham: Lexington Books. http://www.gaullisme.fr/2011/08/02/commissariat-­general-­du-­plan/. Last accessed: 19 Sept 2020. https://www.coe.int/en/web/ingo/civil-­participation. Last accessed: 19 Sept 2020. Jamieson, D. (1992). Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Global Bioethics, 5(1), 31–42. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). Sydney/ London/New York: CRC Press. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1982). Professional roles for policy analysts: A critical assessment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(1), 88–100. Jobert, B., & Muller, P. (1987). L’Etat en action: politiques publiques et corporatismes. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Kadıoğlu, A. (2005). Civil society, Islam and democracy in Turkey: A study of three Islamic non-­ governmental organizations. The Muslim World, 95(1), 23–41. Kapani, M. (2001). Politika Bilimine Giriş (16. Edition). Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi. Kaptı, A. (2011). Kamu politika sürecinde klasik yaklaşım modeli. In A.  Kaptı (Ed.), Kamu Politika Süreci (pp. 5–28). Ankara: Nobel. Karkın, N. (2012). Kamu Siyasalarının Üretilmesinde Yeni Bir Ölçüt: Kamusal Değer Kavramı ve Kritiği. Kamu Politikalarında Dönüşüm KAYFOR.

References

49

Kayıkçı, S. (2013). Türkiye’de Kentsel Dönüşüm Politikası Analizi. Bilgi, 15(1), 62. Kazem, A. A., & Ahmed, J. M. (2019). The Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the problematic transition to the presidential system in Turkey A vision in analyzing political reality and facing challenges. Tikrit Journal for Political Science, 3(10), 38–55. Keyman, E. F. (2007). Modernity, secularism and Islam: The case of Turkey. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(2), 215–234. Keyman, E.  F., & İçduygu, A. (2003). Globalization, civil society and citizenship in Turkey: Actors, boundaries and discourses. Citizenship Studies, 7(2), 219–234. Lasswell, H. D. (1956a). The political science of science: An inquiry into the possible reconciliation of mastery and freedom. American Political Science Review, 50, 961–979. Lasswell, H. D. (1956b). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of the policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier. Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucrats. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lowi, T.  J., & Ginsburg, B. (1996). American government: Freedom and power. New  York: W.W. Norton and Company. Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2006). Democratization of expertise?: Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (Vol. 24). Dordrecht: Springer. Mackreath, H., & Sağnıç, Ş. G. (2017). Civil society and Syrian refugees in Turkey.. Yurttaşlık Derneği. MacRae, D., Jr., & Whittington, D. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. MacRae, D., Jr., & Wilde, J. A. (1979). Policy analysis for public decisions. North Scituate: The Duxbury Press. Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics? Daedalus, 169–190. Marsh, D., & Furlong, P. (2002). A skin not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science. Theory and Methods in Political Science, 2, 17–41. Mény, Y. (1989). The national and international context of French policy communities. Political Studies, 37(3), 387–399. Muller, P. (2000). L’analyse cognitive des politiques publiques: vers une sociologie politique de l’action publique. Revue française de science politique, 189–207. Mumcu, A. (2007). Divan-ı Hümâyûn. 2nd edition. Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları. Neustadt, R. E., & Finebert, H. V. (1978). The swine flu affair. Washington, DC: USA Ministry of Health, Education and Welfare Publications. Oktay, C. (1997). Siyasal sistem ve bürokrasi: yükselen istemler karşısında Türk Siyasal Sistemi ve kamu bürokrasisi. Der Yayınları. Orhan, G. (2007). Kamu politikalariyla ilgili sorunlar nasil çözülür? Disiplinler arasi bir yaklasim olarak kamu politikalari analizi ve getirdigi açilimlar. Kamu yönetimi: Yöntem ve sorunlar, 287–304. Örselli, E., Babahanoğlu, V., & Bilici, Z. (2018). Kamu Politikalarinda Yeni Aktörler: Cumhurbaşkanliği Politika Kurullari ve Ofisleri. Turkish Studies, 13, 30. Özbey, K. (2019). State, civil society and nationalism in Turkey: A critical approach. In Living together (pp. 27–44). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. Özen, Ş. (1996). Bürokratik Kültür 1: Yönetsel Değerlerin Toplumsal Temelleri. Ankara: TODAIE Yayınları. Patton, C., & Sawicki, D. (1986). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Post, J., & Preston, L. E. (2012). Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.

50

1  Basic Concepts of Public Policy

Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1981). Private management and public policy. California Management Review, 23(3), 56–62. Regan, P.  M. (1995). Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Reinicke, W. H., Benner, T., & Witte, J. M. (2001). Global public policy: Globalisierung gestalten durch globale politiknetzwerke. Networks, 117, 44–57. Robins, P. (2009). Public policy making in Turkey: Faltering attempts to generate a national drugs policy. Policy & Politics, 37(2), 289–306. Robinson, R. (1979). Housing economics and public policy. London: Springer. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. Theories of the Policy Process, 117–166. Şahin, O., & Akboğa, S. (2019). Türkiye’de Devlet-Sivil Toplum Kuruluslari Iliskisi ve Sivil Toplum Kuruluslarina Katilim. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies, 7(2), 405–427. Şahin, B., & Kara, H.  B. (2016). Kamu Kurum ve Kuruluşlarına Duyulan Güveni Etkileyen Faktörler Üzerine Nicel Bir İnceleme a quantitative review of factors influencing trust in public institutions in Turkey. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2), 347–358. Sapru, R.  K. (2011). Public policy: Art and craft of policy analysis. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited. Sarıca, A. (2019). Sivil toplum kuruluşlarında kurumsal kapasite geliştirme zorlukları. Unpublished master’s thesis. Istanbul: Marmara University. Sayan, İ. Ö., & Demirci, A.  G. (2012). Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamelerle Değişen Personel Sistemi. In A. A. Akdoğan (Ed.), Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamelerle Yönetmek (pp. 179–238). Ankara: Nobel. Saybaşılı, K. (1999). Siyaset biliminde temel yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Doruk Yayımcılık. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Semiz, Ö. (2009). Bir kamu politikası analizi: Türkiye’de korsanla mücadele odaklı fikri haklar politikası. Ankara Barosu Fikri Mülkiyet ve Rekabet Hukuku Dergisi, 9(4), 9–40. Şengül, R. (2018). Kamu Yönetiminde Şeffaflık Dönüşümü. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri, 4(5), 154–163. Sharkansky, I. (1978). Public administration: Policy-making in government agencies. Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub. Co. Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 226–244. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Macmillan. Simon, H. A., Dantzig, G. B., Hogarth, R., Plott, C. R., Raiffa, H., Schelling, T. C., & Winter, S. (1987). Decision making and problem solving. Interfaces, 17(5), 11–31. Smith, K. B. (2005). Data don’t matter? Academic research and school choice. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 285–299. Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2009). The public policy theory primer. Boulder: Westview Press. Smith, P. C., Davies, H. T. O., & Nutley, S. M. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press. Sobacı, M. (2011). Politika Transferi Bağlamında Kamu Yönetiminde Neo-Liberal Reformların Yayılması: Açık Toplum Enstitüsünün Rolü. Sosyoekonomi, 16(16), 191–210. Sobacı, M.  Z., Miş, N., & Köseoğlu, Ö. (2018). Türkiye’nin yeni yönetim modeli ve Cumhurbaşkanlığı teşkilatı. SETA Analiz, 216, 1–6. Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Tonta, Y. (2006). The World is Flat, Yet Not Open: How Could Open Access Really Flatten the Information World. in International Workshop on Open Access and Information Management, Oslo (Norway), 10 May 2006.

References

51

Torgerson, D. (2007). Promoting the policy orientation: Lasswell in context. In F.  Fisher, G.  J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 15–28). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press. TÜBA. (2005). Bilimsel Araştırma ve Politika İlişkisi. Ankara: TÜBA. Tunç, H.  A. (2008). Bir kamu hizmet hastanesinde çalışan hemşirelerin problem çözme becerilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Unpublished master’s thesis. Istanbul: Okan University. Vickers, G. (1980). The assumptions of policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 9, 552–558. Wagner, P. (2007). Public policy, social science, and the state: An historical perspective. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 29–42). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press. Walton, J. F. (2017). Muslim civil society and the politics of religious freedom in Turkey. Oxford University Press. Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Taylor & Francis. Weinter, D.  L. (1992). The craft of policy design: Can it be more than art? Review of Policy Research, 11, 370–388. Weiss, C. H. (1977). Using social research in public policy making. Lexington: Lexington Books. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little Brown. Wildavsky, A. (1980). The art and craft of policy analysis. Cham: Springer. Wilson, R. (2006). Policy analysis as policy advice. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 152–168). New York: Oxford University Press. Yıldırım, Y. (2018). Türk Sosyolojisinde Yöntem ve Nesne Alani Sorunu Olarak Sivil Toplum. Muhafazalar Düşünce Dergisi, 8(29–30), 77–100. Yıldız, M., Demircioglu, M. A., & Babaoglu, C. (2011). Teaching public policy to undergraduate students: Issues, experiences, and lessons in Turkey. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(3), 343–365. Yıldız, M., Babaoğlu, C., & Şahin, B. (2016). Kamu politikasını Türk idare tarihi üzerinden çalışmak. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 133–158. Yilmaz, B. (2018). The presidential system in Turkey: Opportunities and obstacles. Cham: Springer. Zariç, S. (2019). Demokratikleşme: küreselleşme bağlamında Türkiye’de sivil toplum ve bir STÖ örneği: BİLSAM. Hiperlink.

Chapter 2

Agenda Setting

Abstract  Agenda setting involves attracting the attention of public officials and the general public to specific public problems in order to determine what to decide on. Who decides what the decision action will be about? The answer to this question shows who determines the agenda. Defining the problems of the society and proposing alternative solutions is one of the most important stages of the policymaking process. Policy agenda, in whatever form, consists of all of the problems dealt with by public authorities and thus is likely to be the object of one or more decisions. In this regard, the agenda consists of a series of priority issues, public policy issues, and public issues addressed by policy actors. They may sound like ciphers of some kind, but models such as punctuated equilibrium, garbage can, multiple streams, and advocacy coalition framework have considerable potential in explaining agenda-setting processes. Policy communities and policy networks are also critical in understanding policymaking processes. After all, agendas consist of public problems that stand out among their likes or are given priority, and policy communities and network strive for keeping their problem in plain sight. Keywords  Agenda setting · Policy networks · Multiple streams · Policy communities

Agenda setting involves attracting the attention of public officials and the general public to specific public problems in order to determine what to decide on (Dye 2002: 16). Schattschneider (1960: 66) states that “defining alternatives is the ultimate political power.” Who decides what the decision action will be about? The answer to this question shows who determines the agenda. Defining the problems of the society and proposing alternative solutions is one of the most important stages of the policymaking process. At this stage, situations that are not defined as a problem in a society and for which alternatives are not recommended can never become policy issues and be included in the “agenda” of decision makers. The authority to decide what will be the policy issue is crucial for the policymaking process. Deciding what is going to be accepted as problem can be even more important than making © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Demir, Public Policy Making in Turkey, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_2

53

54

2  Agenda Setting

decisions about solutions. Policy issues do not arise suddenly and spontaneously. In many cases, to create a topic, to dramatize it, to draw attention to it, and to press the government to do something about it are important political tactics. These agenda-­ setting tactics are used by influential individuals, organized interest groups, policy-­ planning organizations, political candidates, people in office, and mass media organizations (Dye 2002: 33–34). Since 1960s, the view that problems have been built by social actors based on their own values has become widespread.1 According to this constructivist perspective, problems are the result of the “labeling” activity carried out by collective actors. The processes of labeling and building a problem depend on various factors, especially context, relevant actors, and mobilized values. So, if all social facts are built as a “problem” by various actors, such as the media, social movements, parties, lobbies, intellectuals, and public officials, they can become a social problem, a public problem, and eventually a political problem, and bring about response that takes the form of public action. This answer of the government to public problems is called “public policy.” According to Garraud (1990), policy agenda, in whatever form, consists of all of the problems dealt with by public authorities and thus is likely to be the object of one or more decisions. In this regard, the agenda consists of a series of priority issues, public policy issues, and public issues addressed by policy actors. The public policy agenda is actually very limited. If we examine the debates in parliaments, we are likely to see that only a few issues can be addressed, despite the numerous problems that have been raised in the media or that the public has discussed on various platforms at local or national level. A serious problem arises when it comes to problematizing the attention of the media, political parties, lawmakers, or government members to raise a public policy: none of the actors involved have enough time and opportunities to address all problems. Their capacities are very limited and they have to be very selective about the problems to address. Therefore, it is inevitable to create a competitive environment between different topics. If one subject manages to come up, it means that another has lost its chance. The capacity of the media to contain problems is limited. On the other hand, the number of sessions and working hours of the parliament are also preset. An actor who wants to raise any issue will try to build this problem and thus draw the attention of the press, political parties, lawmakers, or government in due time, and do it dramatically. Putting something on the agenda is largely a problem of attracting “attention” and appealing to the limited resources of actors such as policy makers or the media. Therefore, the agenda consists of public problems that stand out among their likes or are given priority. In this sense, agenda building is a process in which problems and alternative solutions gain and lose importance in public or among the elite. According to Hilgartner and Bosk (1988), there is a fierce competition between groups because no society or political institution has the capacity to address all possible alternative solutions to problems that arise in any time period. Therefore, the groups wait for a crisis that will cause  Blumer (1971) and Becker (1966) are among the first and most important advocates of this view.

1

2  Agenda Setting

55

their problems to take up more attention in the agenda, and prepare for such a situation (Birkland 2007: 63). Even when a problem arises, groups struggle to ensure that their own definition of the problem remains at the forefront and that their own approach to problems becomes the solution that gets the most attention. According to Schattschneider (1960), the reason they do this is the fact that the group that most successfully identifies a problem will be the group that also defines solutions for that problem; thus, this group will maintain its dominant position in the policy debate. There are several different views on the issue of public policy issues. Their perspectives can be summarized as follows: • If social actors are largely mobilized, they can bring an issue to the agenda through mobilization. Even though awareness starts at the individual level, it becomes a social phenomenon as a result of the positive search for support and sharing of perception of problems. Efforts to bring up the agenda based on the actions of organized groups such as associations or unions can be evaluated within this scope.2 • Sometimes public policy issues can be brought to the agenda not by organized nongovernmental organizations, but by actors who directly belong to the world of politics who are not in a decision-making position (such as opposition parties). In this way, public policy problems may come to the agenda by taking the form of a political proposal. Such political parties aim to strengthen their position in political competition by providing a solution to a problem from which certain segments of public suffer.3 • If any phenomenon is seen as a problematic situation due to its gravity, public policy may emerge momentarily. This is the case in most natural disasters. In such a case, the media plays a central role. The problem is brought directly to the official agenda because it requires rapid decision making.4 • Fourth, problems can arise without the need for social mobilization. The problems in this category have an autonomous mechanism of receiving social interest, and they can “appear spontaneously” in the words of Favre (1981). For example, such a situation may occur as a result of statistical indicators. If a certain threshold is exceeded, media attention may immediately turn to the problem (e.g., sudden depreciation of the national currency). Garraud (1990) described this phenomenon as “internal initiative model.” • Finally, in cases where social mobilization is important, there is a “seized model.” Accordingly, an institution outside the field of politics undertakes collective management of some difficulties related to a particular problem and is considered as the legitimate and exclusive representative of the social sector facing this problem (Favre 1981). This “capture” can be done by interest groups such as associations, unions, or political parties, or by public figures who appear around the problem and politicize it. Examples of this are institutionalized responses of  See Jones and Baumgartner (2004), Guo and McCombs (2015).  See Willnat (1997), Saldaña and Ardèvol-Abreu (2016), Miller-Stevens (2010). 4  See Haby et al. (2016), Jones (1994), Dellarco et al. (2017) . 2 3

56

2  Agenda Setting

local communities or environmental scientists arising from environmental issues, demanding that the government develop a specific public policy. No matter how a public policy issue has come to the agenda, it usually begins with a specific situation that is considered to be “problematic” affecting a ­respectively large number of people in their particular area; however, it should also be such that it has the potential to threaten a large part of society, not just the people who are exposed to it. Many people should be convinced that maybe not today, but 1 day they may suffer from the problem in question. Thus, the problem acquires a “collective” or “social” feature. This means that it is very important to ensure the social recognition of the problem. For example, if we consider the issue of domestic violence, statistics show that it is not a minor problem.5 However, when it comes to ensuring that this issue is recognized as a collective problem, the first obstacle is the difficulties encountered with the “transfer of the problem” from the individual to the collective space. The transfer of a “private” issue that concerns a certain number of people to the collective space does not happen by itself. For example, if a public like a politician or a famous artist makes a statement saying “I am also a victim of this problem, and I am a victim of domestic violence,” it will attract the attention of the media and will more likely to be brought to the government agenda.

1  Agenda-Setting Models There are several models in the literature that try to explain how public policy issues are brought up. Of these, punctuated equilibrium model, the garbage can model, and the multiple streams model will be discussed below.

1.1  Punctuated Equilibrium Model Schattschneider (1960) suggested that national political systems are conservative. According to him, political systems tend to preserve the status quo; this requires either a conflict or an extraordinary effort for major changes. The punctuated equilibrium theory developed by Jones and Baumgartner (2012) is based on this approach: political processes are often characterized by stability and incrementalism, but occasionally large-scale breakthroughs occur. In most policy areas, stagnation prevails; even if public policy in a particular area changes, it happens very slowly and incrementally. But there are also crises in politics and public policy. These moments of crisis lead to a radical change in public policy, which can be 5  According to a research by Hacettepe University (2019) which was sponsored by the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Security, 36% of women in Turkey face domestic violence in their lives. In addition, 44% of women suffer from emotional violence and abuse.

1  Agenda-Setting Models

57

referred to as “punctuation” and the interruption of balance.6 According to this approach, political systems are dynamic as well as static. Most policies remain the same for many years, but some undergo sudden and dramatic changes. The purpose of the punctuated equilibrium model is to explain these long periods of stability, and short and intense periods of change that interrupt them (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Incrementalism has long been the dominant theory in explaining public policies (especially fiscal and budget policies).7 However, starting from the 1970s, the criteria and methods used to support the incremental model began to be questioned.8 Incrementalism did not comply with empirical findings during this period. All studies that examine changes in public policies enjoy a certain degree of stability, but sudden and major changes are also observed that the incremental model cannot explain. Based on these objections, Baumgartner and Jones tried to explain the changes in public policies with the punctuated equilibrium model they borrowed from biology. In their study entitled “Agendas and Instability in American Policy” published in 1993, they claimed that the production of public policies followed an evolutionist process with a broader perspective, rather than an increase, and that this process included sudden policy changes from time to time. Punctuated equilibrium model argues that policy makers make their decisions in a bounded rational environment. This dynamic operates in two ways: demands of policy entrepreneurs, exogenous shocks, or any internal or external movement hoping that it can change policies may initially encounter resistance from some institutions. There may also be reactions from the political system or from actors mobilized against those demands. Against this phenomenon, which is called the “negative feedback process” (Baumgartner and Wilkerson 2002), the system returns to its previous balance. However, the system can approve change in the face of some requests. Thanks to this phenomenon, which is called the positive feedback process, a radical change can occur and a new value can be established in a different manner from the previous one. The ability of political systems to initiate fundamental policy changes relates, among other things, to how they process information (Jones and Baumgartner 2005). However, society is not static and political systems should not be expected to be completely static either, even if the main players remain unchanged. However, significant mismatch may occur in the first reaction of political systems. When this mismatch is resolved, the system leaps forward visibly. However, if the forces that urge change are not strong enough, we may face a political stalemate led by the “veto players.”9 This mismatch results from the mismatch between main power  Education policies in Turkey constitute a good example.  There are several studies in the literature explaining budget policies with an incremental approach. See Wildavsky (1964), Danziger (1978), Fenno (1966), Davis and Hinich (1966), Leloup (1978). 8  Among these studies, Wanat (1974), who revealed that the conceptual basis of the incremental model was weak, and Padgett (1980), who showed that it was not theoretically clear enough, have an important place. 9  Veto players are often discussed in the literature as a concept of policy change. Veto players refer to individual or corporate actors whose approvals are needed to make a change in the status quo (Tsebelis 1995: 289). 6 7

58

2  Agenda Setting

holders or institutions, which are reluctant to recognize the need for change due to their strict adherence to group interests or ideology (cognitive dissonance).10 However, democratic political systems are not supposed to be locked on to some constant options forever; on the contrary, they are expected to be compatible with responding to new challenges (Baumgartner et al. 2006: 962). Punctuated equilibrium is clearly a theory of policy dynamics that focuses on mechanisms leading to policy changes. As such, it is linked to other dynamic theories to understand political change by explaining a specific mechanism (or the formation of related mechanisms) responsible for policy change (Jones and Baumgartner 2012: 4). 1.1.1  Punctuated Equilibrium Model in Turkey: Example Cases The punctuated equilibrium model plays an important role in explaining the change patterns in the public policy process in Turkey. In the explanation of the model, the transformation processes of tobacco policies in the United States and Turkey show similarities. We can see these processes of change much more clearly from the perspective of the punctuated equilibrium model. For example, there has been an intense activity in Turkey regarding the strict change or regulation of tobacco consumption policy. The law, which includes restrictions such as smoking in closed spaces in Turkey, entered into force in 1996, and further restrictions were imposed in 2008. It can be considered that the biggest reason for failing to pass a regulation on tobacco consumption in Turkey until 1996 was that the tobacco industry dominated the smoking policy. Another reason is that tobacco policies have never been approached as a matter of public health. However, it is useful to examine how the law enacted banning smoking indoors came into effect and how the cigarette industry lost its dominance in this area. Givel (2006) claims that one of the conditions for public health advocates to strictly regulate tobacco consumption policy is the coming to power of politicians who advocate the control of tobacco policy. Since 2002, it has been seen in the media many times that the nonsmoker prime minister of Turkey seized the cigarette packs of the smoking deputies from his party in the parliament backstage. In addition to this, it is known that the prime minister visited the homes of middle- and low-income citizens and collected the cigarette packs of those who broke their fast by smoking in Ramadan months. He took the cigarette pack and wrote the quitting date of the person on it, and had the officials at the prime ministry to monitor the developments. As can be seen from this example, the fact that a politician in charge of the executive body does not smoke and struggles with tobacco consumption individually proved effective in bringing the issue to the agenda of the legislature.

 For analysis of the relation between the concept of cognitive resonance and public policy, see Brady et al. (1995), McGregor (2013), Mullainathan and Washington (2009), Donsbach (1991).

10

1  Agenda-Setting Models

59

It can be seen that the fight against smoking has been approached in terms of public health and strict regulation of tobacco consumption has been ensured. Of course, loser segments of society have emerged from this change. However, this not only reduced the profit margin of the cigarette industry, but spillover effect was witnessed with coffeehouses, where people spend their time playing or sitting idle. The number of people going to the coffeehouses decreased, and many coffeehouses laid off or closed. As can be seen, a change in a public policy has not only negatively affected the interests of many individuals or organizations, but also positively affected the interests of many individuals and organizations. In any case, those who want to change a policy are those who do not obtain any benefit from that policy. For example, nonsmokers can be viewed as the group that cannot benefit from smoking in closed areas. Keeping an existing public policy is in line with the individual or corporate interests of the prostatus quo groups, that is, those who benefit from the current policy remaining in effect. An example is the cigarette industry constantly trying to increase its profit share. It is clear that, in a policy change, the groups will put forward their arguments and only one of them will be accepted by the legislator, or a compromise will be made to an arrangement that is in the interests of both parties (Veenman et al. 2009; Mintrom and Norman 2009; Sabatier 1987). In line with the argument of protecting public health in Turkey, the legal regulation regarding the consumption of tobacco products was first introduced in 1996. The “Law on Prevention of Harmful Effects of Tobacco Products” dated 1996 and numbered 4207 was enacted and a legal arrangement was made. Later, the scope of this law was expanded, additional regulations restricting the issue of tobacco consumption further, and laws dated 2008 and 2010 were enacted. The title of the law was also changed as the “Law on the Prevention and Control of the Harmful Effects of Tobacco Products” which reflected its expanded coverage (Ergüder et al. 2008, 2012; Erdöl et al. 2015). When the Law No. 4207 is examined, it can be seen that a political action on restriction of tobacco consumption in Turkey was not debated and brought to the agenda until 1996. In other words, it can be said that until 1996, in Turkey, the tobacco industry dominated the policies on the consumption of tobacco products, enjoyed a monopoly on this policy (Elbek et al. 2015), and prevented policies to restrict the consumption of tobacco products. The stability of a political system does not necessarily mean that the system is in balance. The lack of change in any public policy or lack of demand for a change can be due to the nonexistence of alternative powers in this area or their negligence for this political issue (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Although smoking in long-­ distance intercity bus travels caused the reaction of nonsmoking citizens before 1996, it is clear from many observations that the prohibition of smoking in public transportation vehicles did not even come to mind of people culturally (Keklik and Gültekin-Karataş 2018). The main reason for this can be sought in the fact that the argument for protecting public health had not entered the public agenda yet. In other words, it can be said that the public in Turkey never viewed tobacco consumption as a public health issue until 1996. In addition, it can be said that before 1996, serving

60

2  Agenda Setting

tea and cigarette in all kinds of government offices or private sector shopping areas were considered normal as an inevitable part of life. With the inclusion of public health activists or public institutions in charge of protecting public health into the political sphere regarding the consumption of tobacco products, regulations thwarting the interests of the tobacco industry began to be made in Turkey since 1996. With the regulations introduced in 2008 in Turkey, consumption of tobacco products is strictly regulated. Even though smoking areas are allowed in public places in most of the states in the United States, this is forbidden in Turkey. The consumption of tobacco products is prohibited in public service buildings, private sector buildings, taxis, highway, railway, seaway, and airline public transport vehicles, and places that provide entertainment services such as restaurants, coffeehouses, cafeterias, and pubs (Law No. 4207, Article 2). In addition, advertising of tobacco products is also prohibited. It was forbidden to show it on all kinds of programs broadcast on television, and even in movies, smoking scenes are pixelated. Tobacco products are not sold to people under the age of 18. Its sale in places providing health, education and training, culture, and sports services is prohibited (Law No. 4207, Article 3). In addition, it is obligatory for TV and radio organizations to broadcast at least 90 min a month in a warning and educational nature about the harms of tobacco products and other harmful habits. It was also stipulated to place warnings and messages in Turkish on the wide side faces of cigarette packs indicating the damages of tobacco products (Law No. 4207, Article 4). As can be seen in the articles of this law, the aim of the strict regulations is to reduce the consumption of tobacco products and thus protect the public health. All these articles of law have been ruled in line with the perspective of protecting public health as a result of the public health protection advocates entering this policy area by challenging the policy monopoly of the tobacco industry. Otherwise, it is not possible to think that the for-profit tobacco industry will support these regulations. However, some authors state that the pictures on cigarette packages are not sufficiently illustrating the harms of tobacco products. For example, Tecimer et al. (2010) state that the operation on cigarette packs is a ridiculous fiasco and none of these pictures will deter people from smoking. This point brought to our attention by Ardıç may suggest that, contrary to what Givel (2006) argues in the conclusion of his article, the monopoly of the tobacco industry was not totally broken, or at least the tobacco industry intervened in order to prevent the usage of dissuasive photographs on cigarette packs. In conclusion, the punctuated equilibrium model explains why public policies change suddenly and drastically. It also explains how a public policy does not change for a long time or why it remains unchanged for a long time once it is changed. On the other hand, it may be useful in predicting that a major change or event in the system could cause a major transformation in one or more public policies. For example, major loss of life and property as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis can cause sudden and major changes in some policies. While zoning is considered in terms of making houses cheap and low-income people homeowners with low payments, the perspective of building “earthquake resistant” houses may also cause major changes in the zoning legislation by entering the

1  Agenda-Setting Models

61

relevant policy area. As a similar example, strict regulations in tobacco consumption would be a predictable consequence as a result of starting to view tobacco consumption from the view of “public health.” With the change of perspective on a political problem, new political forces can be included in the field that is struggling to solve that problem, and a sudden major public policy change can be witnessed in the relevant field by ending the domination of a political actor in that political area. Public policies also reflect the political power struggle. Power centers (policy monopolies), who dominate the decision-making mechanisms, can decide whatever policy they want. Or, maintaining the dominance of the power focus that dominates the decision-making mechanism for a long time can ensure that a policy in question continues unchanged for a long time. In addition, representative democracies are forms of government in which power passes from one power to another as a result of elections, quietly and calmly. With the change in the political power that dominates the system, major alterations can be experienced in some public policies. For example, it will not be difficult to predict that major policy changes will be made in the upcoming days when the government shifts from party A to party B in the general elections. This is because the political agenda of party B may be different from that of Party A, or the interests of the people who vote for that party may be different. Above all, the public policies advocated by the leading businessmen who finance politics or the election campaigns of the parties may differ from party to party. Therefore, when party B comes to power, it will not be difficult to predict major policy changes in the relevant policy areas. The punctuated equilibrium model explains such situations in a cause and effect relationship.

1.2  Garbage Can Model Garbage can model developed by Cohen et  al. (1972) attempts to explain the decision-­making processes about public policies by comparing them to organized anarchies. Organized anarchy has three main features. First, these are problematic (controversial) choices. The organization operates on a variety of incompatible and incompletely defined preferences. Rather than being a harmonious structure, it can be defined as the sum of ideas without intuition. The second feature is uncertain technology. Although the organization continues to survive and produce, organizational processes are not fully understood by its members. They operate on the basis of trial-and-error procedures, elements learned from the encounters of past experience, and utilitarian approaches. The third feature is fluent participation. Participants vary in terms of effort and time devoted to different fields of knowledge; the level of commitment is not always the same. As a result, the boundaries of the organization are ambiguous and variable; decision makers and audiences for any choice differ in a variable way. These features mentioned about organized anarchy have been frequently expressed in studies related to organizations. These are the features that are also evident in public organizations. In order to understand the processes within public organizations, it is possible to see the selection process as a garbage can in

62

2  Agenda Setting

which various problems and solutions are thrown. The mix of garbage in a single waste bin depends on the mix of suitable waste bins, labels attached to alternative waste bins, the inputs used to produce the garbage, and the speed at which garbage is collected and removed (Cohen et al. 1972: 2). Thus, the garbage can model refers to the government as an “organized anarchy” by recalling a system image that reveals both order and disorder. At a certain time, certain items on the agenda are a function of the mix of “garbage” in the garbage can. The garbage can has three streams: problems, solutions, and politics. When a problem is recognized, a solution is possible, and the political climate finds the right time for change, issues are raised. When a “focus event” draws attention to any problem, or when social indicators respected by the masses point to a change, the problem becomes noticeable. Solutions refer to the totality of all information and perspectives among experts in any field and the production and distribution of policy proposals prepared by them (Mucciaroni 1992: 460). As a result, the garbage can model describes a decision-making process that occurs at the intersection of independent streams. These are problem stream, solutions stream, participants stream, and preference stream. The independent and relatively “anarchic” nature of these streams brings uncertainty and lack of structure to decision-making processes. This conceptualization of the garbage can model is the basis of Kingdon's multiple streams model.

1.3  Multiple Streams Model Kingdon’s policymaking model is also based on three “stream” metaphors that make decision-making processes: problems, policies, and politics. As the garbage can model suggests, these streams develop and operate independently at first, but these streams can merge in critical turns, which is a situation that significantly increases the likelihood of an issue that is in the government's decision agenda (Kingdon 1995: 3–4). Kingdon developed this model to explain the structuring of the US federal government's policy programs. The policy program is the result of the agenda setting and formulation stages. It consists of the agenda and alternative policies. The agenda consists of a list of issues the government is interested in. Policies are solutions accepted by the government regarding these problems. Kingdon tried to explain why some issues were brought to the government's agenda while others were ignored and why some were not taken into account while others were paid due attention. Accordingly, the policy agenda is influenced by two types of factors: participants and processes. Participants identified as policy entrepreneurs correspond to actors involved in policy processes to influence the policy program. Therefore, the concepts of participant, policy entrepreneur, and actor can be used interchangeably.11 The processes correspond to three streams defined by

11

 In this book, these three concepts are used interchangeably.

1  Agenda-Setting Models

63

Kingdon. The author uses the stream metaphor to emphasize that processes occur independently and continuously. The problems bring together significant changes in the accepted flow of indicators, milestones, and feedback. The policies stream corresponds to the knowledge that public policy experts have in their stock to offer solutions to various problems. Politics stream corresponds to the balance of power between actors. These three streams evolve independently, but from time to time two or three of these streams come together. This merger opens a window of opportunity and changes in public policy occur while this window is open. The multiple streams model of Kingdon, as a modification of Cohen, March, and Olsen's organizational selection trash model, can be considered as a theoretical perspective used to explain the dynamic and complex agenda-building process (Sabatier 1999). For example, the deaths in traffic accidents and prices of accident prevention programs may indicate the extent of the conditions. Statistics and numbers are always used as shocking indicators to show the gravity of circumstances. Statistics of traffic accidents in Turkey during religious and national holidays and the number of deaths in accidents are used to show the importance of traffic-related conditions. Indicators alone are not useful for realizing the facts. How these indicators are gathered and how they are interpreted will create a more heated debate on emerging facts, which will make the issue come to the agenda more effectively. Problems Stream  On the agenda of society and government, some problems always attract more attention than others. The interest that the problems are paid to varies according to how decision makers are aware of the problem and how the problem is defined. Regarding instruments, Kingdon argues that a change in an accepted indicator may divert decision makers’ attention to a particular situation. The larger this change, the more attention will be paid to the problem. For example, a sudden and large increase in the inflation rate or unemployment rate, or the increase in the value of the US dollar against the Turkish lira will attract the attention of the policy community and lead to more effective mobilization than, say, the slow deterioration in the quality of academic research. Important events such as natural disasters or terrorist attacks draw more attention than indicators, but this attention will be shorter. Therefore, their effects will be smaller compared to significant changes in indicators. The feedback that emerges as a result of the evaluation of public policy programs or in the form of complaints from citizens and the policy community ensures that decision makers are familiar with the operational problems of the government programs. The process of defining the problem is also very important for the attention a problem receives. In order for a situation to be included in the government agenda, it must be defined as a problem. Generally, if a situation is against social values, it can be described as a problem. For example, if social values prioritize solidarity and the collective prosperity of society, high poverty rates are likely to be perceived as a problem.

64

2  Agenda Setting

Problems may take precedence over the government agenda in the process, but they may also lose importance over time. This can be partly explained by the action or inaction by the government. If the government solves a problem by dealing with it effectively, it will be off the agenda. The opposite may also be the case: if the government lacks the ability to solve the problem, the issue may benefit from this lack of ability. The problem may be solved spontaneously without government intervention, or the community can learn to tolerate the problem and reduce the pressure it exerts on the authorities to solve the problem. Finally, new problems may arise and overshadow existing problems on the government's agenda. In any case, when a situation that is accepted as a problem by the society emerges, it attracts attention and the actors put forward their own solutions. Therefore, policy entrepreneurs spend effort, time, and money to convince other actors that the problem is important and to make their own definitions acceptable. Policies (Solutions) Stream  It is linked to both agenda setting and policy formulation. First of all, in order for a policy to be accepted as a solution to a problem on the agenda, it must meet a number of criteria such as operational feasibility and compatibility with social values. It must also comply with budget constraints and be acceptable to appointed and elected officials. A proposal that meets such criteria has an increased chance of being considered by decision makers. At this point, it should be emphasized that solutions can develop independently of problems.12 According to Kingdon, sometimes government members or other actors close to the government prefer to defend only certain solutions rather than solving problems. Experts conduct research to popularize their preferred solutions and try to persuade relevant actors about the validity of their stance. When the community does not accept a solution in the beginning, these experts rework their proposals to make them more acceptable. In order for a solution to be accepted by the society, it must be more or less employable. For example, when a specialist proposes a new solution, other specialists often oppose it. But when this idea is brought up again and again, experts who initially oppose the solution may eventually get used to and react less rigorously. Experts spend a lot of energy to accustom other specialists to the solution of their choice, because when the policy window opens, some distance must have been taken to make sure that this idea is a serious option. Politics Stream  A new government coming to power leads to the emergence of a new set of issues. For example, a change in the atmosphere of the country toward economic liberalism will change the importance given to issues such as state-owned enterprises and privatization. A strong and mobilized interest group will put pressure on elected officials and try to ensure that they value their priority. All such

 The return to the example of the death penalty removed from all laws in Turkey in 2004 comes up frequently as a solution to serious crime. The discussion of the death penalty after the coup attempt of July 15, 2016 and the abuse and murders of children in June 2018 shows that the penalty is always present as a solution regardless of the nature of the crime (e.g., against the state or against the individuals) and is raised whenever a problem arises.

12

1  Agenda-Setting Models

65

changes will have implications for the balance of power between different actors. Kingdon draws attention to the fact that compromise with politically dominant tendency is achieved through negotiation rather than persuasion. The Merger of Streams  Problems, policies, and politics streams are independent from each other, but in some cases they come together and a policy window opens that enables policy change. The situation that occurs when two streams come together is called a partial merger. For example, if a specialist has found a solution to an urgent problem, but the flow of politics is not appropriate, or if the actors are dealing with another acute problem, and no proposed solution is acceptable, then partial merger is in question. When the three streams come together, full merger takes place. Here, policy entrepreneurs make use of the sensitivity of elected politicians to voters, and put forward their solutions for the problems that are thought to require special attention. Compared with the partial merger, full merger significantly increases the chance for the issue to come to the government's agenda and to receive a decision. Kingdon points out that a policy window may open as a result of an important event occurring in current problems; however, it is also possible to open the window in cases of government change. In any case, the windows open rarely and for a short time. The window, like a magnet, creates a “traffic jam” by attracting problems and solutions. In such an environment, only certain problems and solutions can come to the agenda of decision-making authorities. Other issues and solutions will have to wait for the next window to open. In order not to miss this opportunity, advocates of a particular solution must constantly mobilize other actors around their solutions and keep them in an alarmed state; only in this way can they be accepted by associating them with the window created by problems and political movements. Kingdon’s approach differs from other approaches in several ways. First, the author does not accept the view that events follow well-defined steps. Instead, he claims that problems, policies, and politics streams flow independently from each other in their own media, and occasionally come together to bring about policy change. These changes do not follow such a sequence as the problem arising, its acceptance, its being on the agenda, the search for a solution, and finally making a rational choice among the solutions. Empirical findings show that sometimes solutions can precede problems as described earlier. Kingdon’s theory differs from approaches that view policy changes as a rational or incremental process. Although these processes are also available from time to time, the biggest changes occur at times when policy entrepreneurs manage to bring these three trends together in their favor. Kingdon argues that the merger of the three streams provides the ability to predict whether a particular issue will be on the government’s agenda. While responding to criticism that his approach has no predictive power, he reemphasizes that the events do not necessarily follow a certain order. First of all, the processes within each stream minimize randomness. For example, when we consider the streams of problems, the perception of the cases perceived by the society as a problem is rein-

66

2  Agenda Setting

forced. It is possible that such problem areas may attract attention as a result of serious fluctuations in a particular indicator, a striking event, or intense feedback. In addition, research13 shows that situations that meet criteria such as feasibility and sensitivity of public officials increase the likelihood of some issues coming to the government agenda. Finally, some institutions that Kingdon calls “system constraints” reduce randomness by limiting the area of maneuver of policy entrepreneurs. In particular, the constitution, laws, budget, and the public opinion create restrictions on the actions of policy actors. Kingdon’s approach assumes that policy entrepreneurs need to draw attention to problems to influence public policies, control discussions on the policies under consideration, and gather support for their views. 1.3.1  Multiple Streams Model in Turkey: Example Cases Most of these theories have their origins outside Turkey, but since the theories try to explain certain issues regardless of time and space limitations, they should also be discussed and tested in Turkey. The multistream model has been applied in explaining the policy process in a number of countries and has produced successful results. However, few scientific studies have been conducted on the implementation of this model in Turkey. The applicability of this model in Turkey, which has a dynamic structure in terms of the policy process, will be tried to be explained by using an example policy. Starting with a concrete example can make the multiple stream model be better understood. In this section, we will try to explain how the human rights policies in Turkey emerged and how they came to the agenda using the multiple stream model. In the first stream, the problem stream, the authorities become aware of the conditions and therefore legislators pay attention to these problems. Kingdon mentioned three methods to define relevant conditions. The first is the indicators. The first terrorist attacks in eastern Turkey in 1984 brought this issue to the agenda of military and police officials. Some misconduct by the security forces during the fight against terrorism was reflected in the reports and the citizens living in the region also filed such complaints. The second method after indicators is that some dramatic events or crises cause the problem to be focused. These misconduct and human rights violations of the security forces in the region were first addressed in our domestic legal system. Despite this, complaints emerged that the actors in our domestic legal system also had an attitude to protect the security forces. A dramatic incident involving human rights violations has attracted the attention of all actors in the criminal justice system. This dramatic event was Turkey’s acceptance of the right of individual application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 1987. Using this right, those who think that they cannot find what they

13

 See, for example, Webber (1986), Parsons (1995), Kendall (2000).

1  Agenda-Setting Models

67

are looking for in Turkish domestic law, and all individuals who have complaints about the criminal justice system, have begun to file applications to the ECHR. The second dramatic event was the signing of the customs union agreement between the European Union (EU) and Turkey in 1996. This incident increased the curiosity and interest of the Turkish public in Turkey’s EU membership adventure. The last event is the EU’s announcement of Turkey as a candidate state in 1999 and the starting of negotiations between the EU and Turkey. The final indicator defining the terms is the feedback from existing programs. The most important and effective feedback is the decisions of the ECHR and the compensation penalties it has given against Turkey. In the early 1990s, Turkey was sentenced by the ECHR to pay fines amounting to millions of dollars to the victims whose human rights were violated during the fight against terrorism in the east and southeast of the country (Gölcüklü and Gözübüyük 2002). The second stream is the policy stream. In this stream, ideas are developed by policy communities. Bureaucrats, members of parliament, academics, and researchers make up various policy communities. During the years when the conditions regarding human rights in Turkey were formed, as the problem attracted the attention of the public and the media, policy communities started to focus on human rights issues. Academicians began to write articles and do research on human rights. The Turkish Grand National Assembly established a commission called “TBMM Human Rights Investigation Commission” to investigate the allegations of human rights violations in the country in the 1990s. This commission examined human rights violations and submitted reports to the parliament on this issue. These reports attracted the attention of legislators to the issue. The last stream is the stream of politics and consists of three main items: the national public, the campaigns of pressure groups, and the administrative or legal workload (Kingdon 1995). National public opinion is generally measured by public opinion polls devised to determine the tendency of the society on an issue. The mass media play an important role in shaping national public opinion. Human rights violations have been on the agenda of the media since the 1990s. This interest has intensified especially after the customs union agreement between the EU and Turkey. In addition, the campaigns of pressure groups played an important role. National and international human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Association, kept the human rights issue on the agenda and at the same time pressured politicians on this issue. The last component of the political flow is the change of key personnel in management. The rise of the current government and ruling party in Turkey has also been key to potential changes. The ruling party directed the country toward the EU. All these flows come together at a critical time, which Kingdon (1995) calls these critical times “the window of policy” and calls it “unification.” The policy window for Turkey and human rights is the acceptance of Turkey as an EU candidate country and the beginning of negotiations between the EU and Turkey. All these flows came together at this critical time. Thus, Turkey developed new human rights policies and adapted some human rights policies from the EU to increase the quality of life and welfare of its citizens. Negotiations are still going on (in 2020)

68

2  Agenda Setting

between Turkey and the EU. In this process, Turkey is changing and developing its laws to comply with the Copenhagen criteria. One point that should especially be underlined is that Turkey has changed its constitution several times14 in order to offer more advanced human rights to its citizens. Another example is Turkey’s policy toward Syrian immigrants. Kingdon’s effort to explain any policy based on the multiple streams model has both deductive and inductive features. On the one hand, it is deductive as it relies on the multiple streams model to explain different policies. However, it is also inductive as it examines useful examples to increase the explanatory power of the model. The multiple streams model is essentially based on monitoring social processes. This method determines the connections, cause and effect relationships, and interactions between the elements of a model that looks like mechanical (Toshkov 2016: 150). It is important to identify cause and effect relationships and interactions, as the model takes into account a large number of explanatory variables. Thus, the processes that lead to the development of the policy are made concrete and can be more easily understood. Identifying and monitoring interactions is of great importance in terms of revealing the effects of different actors in the development of Turkey’s migration policies. As of 2020, approximately 90% of asylum seekers and refugees living in Turkey are of Syrian origin and Syrians constitute the most important immigrant population in terms of socioeconomic effects created. In order to understand and explain Turkey’s Syrian immigration policy approach, changes in policy should be analyzed. The multiple streams model developed by Kingdon has gained great importance in terms of explaining policy changes and is a widely used instrument. The Turkish government initially acted on the assumption that the conflicts in Syria would end soon and that displaced Syrians would return to their homes.15 However, the political and humanitarian situation in Syria continued to deteriorate and the conflicts intensified. Therefore, a policy change that required longer term solutions came to the agenda. On the other hand, in the same period, the Turkish government had to reconstruct its immigration policy in line with the EU standards (İçduygu 2015: 1). The law on foreigners and their international protection of 2013 anticipated significant policy changes in this direction. The provisions of the law, which provide for the allocation of urgent technical and financial resources to improve the humanitarian situation of migrants, limited the ability of the Turkish authorities to manage the migrant crisis, and in the short term required civil society organizations to take a more active role in this process. The huge immigration waves in 2015 also tested the Turkish people’s attitude toward immigrants and their spirit of solidarity. The arrival of a large number of immigrants to the country in a short time put the central and local public institutions responsible for providing public services such as education, health, and security  Constitutional amendments made in 2002 and 2003 within the scope of EU harmonization packages played an essential role in this regard. 15  The statement made by the then prime minister R. Tayyip Erdogan on September 5, 2012, “We will perform eid prayers in Damascus” revealed the Turkish government’s belief that the conflicts in Syria would come to an end shortly as the eid prayer was scheduled for October 25. 14

1  Agenda-Setting Models

69

under great pressure. In addition, although not on the scale in Europe, there have been debates about whether it is necessary to accommodate such a large number of Syrians in Turkey, Erdoğan and Gönülaçan (2018) determined the rate of those who want Syrians to stay in Turkey as 20.4% in a public opinion survey conducted in 2017. The rate of those who argue that Syrians should not be given work permits was 54.6%. In addition, 75.8% of the participants in the study stated that Syrians should not be given Turkish citizenship. This ratio, which was found at similar levels in other studies, shows that social acceptance of Syrians is low.16 Partly due to these public reactions, the amendment planned to be made in the Turkish Citizenship Law remained limited. In accordance with the amendment made in November 2017, it was possible for 36,323 Syrians to acquire naturalized citizenship 2017. Approximately 50,000 Syrians were identified to be granted naturalized citizenship. These people, including those who resided in Turkey without temporary protection before the conflict in Syria started, are highly qualified and well-educated Syrians.17 Another important turning point in Turkey’s policy toward Syrian immigrants is marked by the building of the wall on the border of the two countries. The construction of the wall started in 2014 and was completed in 2018. On the one hand, the Turkish government developed a discourse that it accepted Syrian immigrants unconditionally in both domestic and foreign arena; on the other hand, in order to prevent illegal crossings, the government built one of the longest walls in the world on the Syrian border, which is fortified by towers. The Turkish government, which accepted millions of Syrians with humanitarian considerations and compared its open door policy with Europe’s restrictive immigration policies, came to the point of building walls on the border after 3  years, indicating a radical policy change. During this period, 17 of the 19 gates on the Turkey–Syria border were closed. Crossings through the remaining two gates are also subject to severe restrictions. As of March 2015, the number of Syrians who can pass through these gates fell to a maximum of 200 per day. The terrorist attacks which took place between the bombing in Ankara Kumrular Street in September 2011 and bombing attack at Diyarbakır Police Headquarters in April 2017 claiming some 1000 dead and 4700 wounded are mainly responsible for this radical policy change toward Syrian immigrants (Özgüzel 2019).18 As a result of Turkey’s open door policy toward Syrian immigrants, as of August 2020, Turkey is home to approximately 3.5 million Syrian and 365,000 non-Syrian refugees, which makes it the biggest refugee-hosting country in the world. However, Turkey’s policy toward Syrian immigrants has changed due to the security weakness caused by intense immigration and the terrorist attacks that occurred as a result, the deterioration in the economy and especially the increase in unemployment. In addition, Turkey has lost its status as a transit country as a result of the readmission  For example, see the Metropoll survey of July 2016 and the Xsights research survey of September 2017. 17  See European Commission Turkey 2018 Progress Report, p. 47. 18   Numbers are based on network analysis on the website https://140journos.com/ terror-attacks-in-turkey-between-2011-and-2017-4b5981c974ca. 16

70

2  Agenda Setting

agreement signed with the EU. Since 2016, the number of Syrian migrants admitted to Turkey has been decreasing and the number of irregular immigrants apprehended is increasing.19 For example, while the number of Syrian immigrants in Turkey increased 15 times between 2012 and 2013, this increase was only around 21% between 2016 and 2017.20 In this sense, the government, which has been under immense pressure to meet the needs of Syrian migrants such as education, health, and employment, saw an opportunity in the readmission agreement and the change in public attitude took steps to amend its policies toward Syrian immigrants/refugees. The education, health, employment, and security problems (problems stream) caused by mass irregular migration originating from Syria have led to the establishment of the Directorate General of Migration Management, the registration of Syrian migrants and their integration into the society, as well as the creation of policies for the prevention of migration originating from Syria (policy stream). These policies include some radical changes compared to the approach announced by the government in 2011 when the Syrian civil war began. The rationale needed for these changes is the will of the EU to restrict migration flows, the negative changes in the perception of Syrian immigrants in the Turkish public, and terrorist attacks all over the country (politics stream). Thus, Kingdon’s “window of opportunity” opened for the government to bring about a change in its policies toward Syrian immigrants. As a result, the multiple streams model is a model that tries to explain the process of bringing an issue to the agenda and is used in policy analysis. This model, which first tried to explain putting the health and transportation policies of the United States on the agenda and the process of enactment, was later used in different policy analyses of different countries. The model, which has also been tested with empirical studies, has generally been successful in explaining the emergence of issues in different policy areas and in different countries. In a sample study on how human rights policies in Turkey came to the fore, it can be argued that the multiple streams model successfully explained the issue of an issue specific to Turkey.

1.4  Nondecision Making If the first stage required for the transfer of the problem to the social or collective sphere is passed, it will be possible to ensure that the problem is recognized as a “public” problem in the next stage. At this point, the problem is not only accompanied with the participation or interest of other social actors, but also with the intervention of political authorities to become a “public policy.” For example, child abuse and child labor are problems that have been known for years and discussed  See Turkish Red Crescent Directorate of Migration and Refugee Services, 2017 Migration Statistics Report and General Directorate of Migration Management website. 20  The decline in the number of Syrians who could come from Syria to Turkey should not be ignored. The Syrian population, which was 21 million in 2010, is estimated to be 17.5 million as of September 2020 (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/syria-population/). 19

2  Policy Networks

71

both in society and in the media, but it is not easy for them to turn into permanent agenda topics at the political level because of the reluctance of politicians to include these issues on their agenda. If the government cannot envision an easy and quick solution to the problem, it prefers to take the problem out of the agenda rather than address it. This is called “excluding from the agenda” or “nondecision making.” As Bachrach and Baratz (1963) stated, it is not enough to look at who influences the decisions made in public policies to understand who has power in a democracy; it is also important to see who is able to get some issues out of the agenda. It is a conscious act and a policy in itself to ensure that the state does not “make decisions” in the sense of preventing it from dealing with a problem and developing a public policy. Various groups struggle to keep certain issues out of the agenda; this blocking action is as important as attempts to attract attention. It is an important political tactic to prevent certain problems in the society from becoming policy issues. “Nondecision making” means that effective individuals or groups, or the political system itself, function to prevent the emergence of challenges to dominant values or interests in society. According to Bachrach and Baratz (1979: 7), decision making is an action that results in suppressing or eliminating an implicit or explicit challenge to the values and interests of the decision makers. Nondecision making is the silencing of a request to change the distribution of benefits and privileges before it is voiced, or covering and eliminating it before reaching the relevant decision-making arenas. If, despite all these efforts, it has caught the attention of decision makers, it has to be destroyed in the policy process. When the dominant elite fear that something will be done about a problem if the public is notified and that their interests will be damaged, they try to suppress it, and usually do it successfully.

2  Policy Networks Kingdon introduced the concept of policy networks to describe the interaction between policy experts. He argued that the communication networks between the experts in the government and other organizations are extremely open, and ideas and information pass through these channels and reach the policy networks of relevant people, regardless of their official positions (1995: 48). The concept of public policy networks is based on the notion that public policies are not only produced by the state and are developed by a wide range of public and private actors in interaction. Networks are the result of more or less stable, nonhierarchical collaborations consisting of actors that know each other, negotiate, exchange resources, and share norms and interests (Le Galès 2001). These networks have a horizontal character, and the cooperation between actors and organizations are heterarchical. However, the institutions which define roles related to this cooperation create routine practices, allocate resources, and provide strategies to be followed by other stakeholders. This approach, also termed as the network approach, refers to the regular relationships that independent actors develop in order to influence certain policies or

72

2  Agenda Setting

programs (Babaoğlu 2013: 173). Accordingly, the increase in the number of actors in the decision-making processes turned them into a form of joint decision-making practice. The decisions taken by the state alone from the top in the past are no longer just state centered, but have turned into an interaction in bottom-up and top-down fashion, in which many actors are involved in this process. It is argued that the relationships among different actors will also directly affect policy change. However, considering that the power of nongovernmental organizations depends on their relations with other networks (Fioramonti and Heinrich 2007: 27), cooperation of national NGOs with international civil society organizations or cooperation with the private sector is a factor that increases their power when evaluated in terms of their level of influence on the policy. Although there are different factors (education, financial opportunities, etc.) that trigger networks in Turkey, studies show that these networks are at a limited level. For example, it is striking that NGOs are not counted among the actors of the policy network in the studies conducted in İzmir and Antalya regions (Yıldız et al. 2013: 167–169). The public policy networks approach makes several contributions to the understanding of public policies: • First of all, according to this approach, state actors and nonstate actors are accepted at the same level of analysis. In the analysis, the state sees the same value as other actors. • Public policy networks approach represents a break from the understanding of public policy, consisting of linear and sequential phases. Accordingly, public action is the product of multiple interactions between various actors at all stages of public policy. • The approach provides a general scheme to explain public action. The form of a public action network makes it easier to understand that public action. Take, for example, industrial policy in OECD countries. If networks are dominated by the state in an expanding industrial sector and corporatist networks dominate the industry, industrial policies will have a character that is largely open to government intervention and integrated with each other (Atkinson and Coleman 1989). On the other hand, if public action networks related to the industrial sector are more pluralistic, industrial policies will have a less planned, more spontaneous, and more reactive character. There are two main types of public action networks. Subject networks are formed by gathering groups of different actors around a problem or demand. An example of this is the determination of the content of a law. In such networks, members are diverse and their interdependence is low. Public policy communities have a more stable outlook. Interdependence is higher among members of such networks both horizontally and vertically. Members use common resources and contribute to the production of a common output.

2  Policy Networks

73

2.1  Policy Network Studies in Turkey The network theorem and the governance approach have been interpreted from a Marxist perspective in some academic circles as a method used by powerful elites to crush the people. Ataay (2006) argues that governance came to the fore with the imposition of international institutions with great financial and political power. From this point of view, governance is actually a new exploitation tool with a flashy package. The author criticized the network theory heavily by saying that even NGOs are part of the exploitation system and that true democracy cannot be realized in this way. Taking a similar approach, Aygül (2006) states that even early policy network theorists regarded this theory as a tool that aims to create an elite upper class by excluding the public from the scene. Governance network theories among Turkish academics have been intensely debated, especially in the literature on local administrative units. Eraydın et  al. (2008) reveals in their research at the city-neighborhood and formal-informal levels that the people in İzmir province show limited interest in participating in administrative activities. According to the study, which observes that this participation increases as the level of education increases, it has been revealed that İzmir is in a process of social development in the process of transition from management to governance, but has not yet completed this process. Arguing that the governance process is inevitable, Eraydın et  al. (2008) underlined that the more horizontal decision-making mechanisms created by political networks increase the overall quality by increasing the competitiveness. In another study, Sertesen (2009) revealed policy networks in the Antalya region of Turkey. The author stated that policy network theory can easily reveal complex relationships and provide detailed information about public policy and the actors that produce it. In the study, it was argued that by forcing all network members to reach a consensus, it is the best way for the resulting policies to benefit everyone. The research concluded that local communities providing job opportunities in the Antalya region are more involved in networking than others, which is accelerated by the education level of the public. In addition, Semiz (2009) stated in his research on the enactment process of the antipiracy law that most of the NGOs abroad and in Turkey took an active role in this process. In this article, in which the theoretical infrastructure was not examined sufficiently, it was shown with the economic data in this process that the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the EU made it possible to enact a law by exerting pressure on Turkey. It has been understood that the actors forced Turkey to reach a consensus through constant negotiations and that several NGOs were involved in the process. The success of this policy network, on the other hand, has been documented by the falling rate of pirated products, the increased tax returns resulting

74

2  Agenda Setting

from the increased income generated by intellectual and artistic properties. Semiz (2009) emphasized that mere police interventions will never reach the success achieved by the actors in established policy networks. Another interesting policy analysis is Kayıkçı’s (2005) critical work on TEKEL policies. In this study, the privatization process of TEKEL21 and its tobacco policies for years were analyzed. In the study based on Marxist theory, Kayıkçı held responsible the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the governments that sought interest by acting together with these NGOs for Turkish tobacco policy and the privatization of TEKEL. In addition, it was stated that some large tobacco companies acted together with a group of capital formations in Turkey in this process (Yalman and Topal 2019). Tobacco workers and their NGOs are not considered among the actors of the policy network. These methodological shortcomings affected the credibility of the conclusions reached. Policy networks theory, like other fields of science, will yield successful results when examined with proper selection of method and adequate literature review. This new public policy perspective has been the subject of numerous studies in almost all developed and developing countries on a global scale. However, in Turkey, it can be said that there are very few empirical policy network studies, and some of the existing ones are highly influenced by the confrontational theory and suffer from serious methodological and scientific biases.22 The reasons for this are that those who manage the public policy process do not care about scientific policy analysis, they carry out their decision-making mechanisms as they are used to without the need for new research in this field. In addition, Turkish public administration system has a more centralized structure compared to the systems of the EU countries. Personnel transactions, promotions and appointments, salary payments, and other transactions of nearly 3 million civil servants are still carried out by the central institutions located in the capital Ankara. The appointments of the highest level civilian authorities, security forces, judges, and prosecutors in the provinces and districts are made by the central governments without seeking the opinion of the communities or NGOs in these regions. Although the situation started to turn in favor of local administrations with the radical reforms made in the 2000s, it can still be observed that there are many steps to be taken in this direction. It can be argued that the concept of the state in our country is perceived as different from the Western democracies. Although the neoliberal understanding and the EU accession process are expected to change this mentality, it is not easy to talk about a radical difference for now. The opinion that the strengthening of local governments means weakening of the unitary state structure and the nation state is the biggest obstacle to the participation of the society in administration. For example, in Turkey, private unions and pressure groups include associations, housing, and  Transformed into a public economic organization (GCC) in 1983, TEKEL was renamed the General Directorate of Tobacco, Tobacco Products, Salt and Alcohol Enterprises in 1987. In 2002, it became an economic state enterprise (İDT). 22  See, for example, Biddle and Milor (1997), McGann and Whelan (2020), Doğan and Akgüngör (2013). 21

3  Policy Communities

75

some independent agricultural cooperatives. These unions are usually established directly by the public without the need for an official permission. However, they still have to register with the relevant ministries after they are established. Their ­activities must strictly adhere to their founding statutes. In other words, they cannot operate outside of their statutes which they accepted when they were established. Public unions with corporatist channels in the representation of pressure groups are established by special laws. These unions have a guardian ministry. The relevant laws that ensure the establishment of these unions determine all the details on membership, activities, and other issues. As long as this negative perspective continues to be widely accepted by the public, analysis of policy networks will be adversely affected. Nevertheless, it should be considered as a positive development that NGOs express their opinions increasingly in public opinion about different policies. In the process of “democratic initiative” launched by the government in 2010, not only major political parties and major employer organizations, but all segments of society from all religions and sects, all NGOs large and small, local governments, almost all political entities, artists, and even individuals were given the opportunity to voice their positive or negative opinions. Probably the most discussed, the most debated, and the most citizen-oriented constitutional amendment package in the history of the republic emerged as a result of this initiative. Although the democratic initiative project ended tragically in 2015 with intense military operations by the government, it produced positive results for the networking experience of civil society organizations.23 Policy networks will be more discussed in the future in the Turkish public administration sector with the acceleration of communication, the drive to participate in the administration, and popularization of liberal ideas.

3  Policy Communities The concept of policy communities, which is generally discussed within Kingdon’s multiple streams model, is related to the “policy actors” and “policy networks” that are frequently cited in public policy literature. According to Kingdon, policy communities consist of experts in a particular policy area. These experts can work within or outside the government (1995: 123). Experts are interested in policy problems that arise in a particular policy area and develop policy alternatives by interacting with each other. These alternatives can be developed by, for example, having lunch together, sending reports to each other, publishing articles, interviewing or revealing their testimonies (1995: 122). Kingdon examines the participants in two categories as “visible” and “hidden.” Visible participants are primarily members of the government, the media, and politi There is a vast literature on the impact of democratic “opening” of Turkish government between 2010 and 2015 on civil society. See, for example, Ulusoy (2010), Köker (2010), Keyman (2010, 2016)Gürbüz and Akyol (2017), Christofis (2019).

23

76

2  Agenda Setting

cal parties. These visible participants have a major impact on the government agenda. Academicians, researchers, consultants, bureaucrats, analysts, and interest groups are regarded as “hidden participants” involved in the structuring of policy processes as the public is not in direct contact with these actors. Hidden participants are experts who create more or less fragmented communities in a subpolicy area such as health, education, economy, or security. These hidden participants are experts who have technical knowledge. However, it is the visible participants (1995: 208) who can largely control the problems and/or changes in the policy stream that determine the government’s agenda. The opening of the policy window and the emergence of opportunities to change the agenda related to decision making are also related to this phenomenon. At this stage, visible participants apply to less visible hidden participants to develop alternatives that would allow for an acceptable selection (1995: 74). According to Kingdon, members of a policy community are in communication with each other. Each member of a policy community knows about another’s ideas, suggestions, and research (1995: 123). Therefore, when a researcher's ideas are explained and discussed by other members of the community, they become property of that community. Thus, the most important feature required to be a part of the policy community is to contribute to solutions in a specific policy area and to make other members of the community realize this.24 This feature indicates that the policy community is not a closed community and that access to such a network is easy. The policy networks that form the basis of the concept of policy communities were actually examined before Kingdon.25 The concept of policy networks was first introduced by Heclo to the literature as a reaction referring to clusters that have a closed structure and actively make most of the routine decisions in a particular policy area.26 The main concept in the literature in question is the “iron triangle” concept that defines the closed and fixed relationship between at least one interest group, a central public institution, and a parliamentary commission (Marsh 1998: 4–5). Against this view, which implies that access to policy making is limited, Heclo argues that there are various participants with different degrees of mutual relations

 For example, an academic who proposes a solution that draws the government’s attention to a policy problem in a television program may immediately become a member of the policy community. Later he/she may even become an MP candidate, or be appointed as deputy minister or a political advisor. 25  The concept of policy communities was also used before Kingdon, but it was Kingdon who thoroughly analyzed the concept and made it known by taking it with a policy windows approach. For example, trying to understand the dynamics of creating an agenda in public policy by conducting a number of case studies, Walker introduced the concept of “policy communities” to define a “network of policy professionals who shape policy agendas by reaching professional consensus” (1974: 113). In his other works, he used concepts such as “specialized communication networks” (1969: 894), “communities of policy professionals” (1981: 79), “professional forums” (1991: 79), or “semi-bureaucratic communities of policy experts” (1991: 2). According to Walker, policy communities are made up of people interested in a particular set of policy problems. 26  See examples of studies that define decision-making processes as closed systems in Nutt (1976), George (1969), Heller (1971). 24

3  Policy Communities

77

with many actors who aim to influence policy making (Heclo 1978: 102). These networks include strong interest groups, people inside or outside the government with widespread belief that they are knowledgeable, and actors who are skilled in a particular subject (regardless of their formal professional education). The formation of these policy networks is different from each other because new members join the network and some of them leave the network (Heclo 1978: 102). As a result, a policy community is a network where public officials, interest groups, academics, researchers, and consultants who are interested in developing alternatives to policy problems of a particular policy area are more or less loosely connected.

3.1  Advocacy Coalition Framework The advocacy coalition framework (ACF), introduced by Sabatier (1988) to address a specific type of policy community, is a model that tries to explain policy changes. Based on empirical data on environmental protection policies in the United States, Sabatier and his team studied the issue of public action and sought answers to the following questions: • Is public action a result of the ability of certain sectoral elites to control the chain of interactions and to impose solutions to problems that have been addressed? • Is public policy an unpredictable output resulting from the interaction of a wide variety of actors competing on power supplies? • Can there be some rationality specific to actors mobilized for any public policy? • How are relevant actors identified when defining a public policy? • How is the change in public policy explained? Is the limited and progressive model envisaged by the incrementalism, or by models that imply radical revolutions and the occasional substitution of dominant coalitions (Sabatier 1988)? The above concepts relate to change in both public policy actors and public policy. At the same time, ACF, which envisages a synthesis of top-down and bottom-up approaches related to agenda setting, has a content that goes beyond the discussion between these two approaches and is close to the rational choice approach. In this context, the author explains the model based on the concepts of “individual rationality” and “collective action conditions” (Sabatier 1998). Methodologically, public policy actors are assumed to be rational. However, this rationality is always bounded. Actors’ goals are complex and capacity of individuals to perceive and process information in all aspects is restricted by various factors. However, since the public policy subsystem consists of actors that are essentially mobilized, these actors are considered to have both a precise and consistent belief system, even if they are not based on full rationality. Therefore, a policy can be defined as the product of a belief system occurring as a result of the conflict and reconciliation cycles between belief systems within a particular policy subsystem (Sabatier 1986).

78

2  Agenda Setting

This approach enables cooperation between different actors in the decision-­ making stage by reducing the dominant role of the state (Babaoğlu 2013: 171). This cooperation creates the desire of nongovernmental organizations to influence the formulation process of public policies as an actor. In particular, they can become an important actor in the formation of agendas regarding the determination of social priorities in the process of maturing issues, problems, and demands in the political system. In this respect, according to this approach, such cooperation increases the interaction and communication between the actors, which develops as a tool of democratization. In order for this approach to develop and to be seen as a valid instrument, each actor must have a belief that they can change the ideas of other actors (Sabatier 1998: 120–122). It can be claimed that the attitude of NGOs against international problems such as environmental problems, corruption, and human rights is the source which feeds this approach. In other words, cooperation is created for state and nonstate actors to act jointly for a specific purpose in common values (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999: 120). For this reason, first of all, the policy that needs to change should be determined and then the subpolicies should be investigated. Identification of Relevant Actors  There are three elements that play an important role in identifying relevant actors involved in public policy processes: subsystem, litigation coalitions, and public policy brokers. Among these, the public policy subsystem is defined as “a group of people or organizations that interact regularly for a decade or more to influence the formulation and implementation of public policies in a particular area” (Sabaiter 1988). The criteria that point to the existence of a subsystem are as follows: • Actors should see themselves as a relatively autonomous community that shares a specialty. • Actors should constantly try to influence public policies in one particular area. • There should be competent and authorized administrative units in the area in question at the level of both central government and local governments. • There should be interest groups that view the area as a major political issue. Discourse Coalitions  Sabatier (1998) defines “discourse coalition” as the association of actors belonging to the public or private sector, sharing the same normative values, which operate in a coordinated manner. The discourse coalitions approach maintains that most coalitions are not consisted of just leaders of interest groups. Officials of public institutions, national and/or local councilors, experts, and journalists can be members of various defense coalitions. The most important fact that draws the boundaries of the coalition and ensures coordination between actors is the sharing of specific beliefs. A discourse coalition cannot be detected by referring to a specific social or geographic area. Although some sections and regions stand out, coalitions are represented in all social and geographical regions. Most discourse coalitions compete with each other within the same subsystem. Public policy emerges as a result of this competition and conflicts between coalitions, each striving to represent their own priorities and belief system at the decision-­ making stage and to receive resources for their own discourses. The most important

79

3  Policy Communities

disadvantage of discourse coalitions in terms of pluralist democracy is that in this competitive environment, it overconsolidates its members and creates categories such as “allies” and “enemies” (Hajer 2002; Singer 1990). Learning  Discourse coalitions draw lessons from policy implementation results over time; it is in this way that “policy learning” takes place. However, such learning is not independent from the perspective provided by deeply rooted beliefs: facts and events in different coalitions are interpreted in different ways. In this context, learning can be seen as a political process: coalitions interpret information selectively and use it to practice “power.” In some cases, there are generally accepted methods for measuring policy performance; however, technical information is often politicized and the dominant coalition can successfully resist data supporting policy change for long years (Cairney 2015). Therefore, policy-oriented learning belief system transforms in a progressive manner by conflicting with facts and other belief systems, but this transformation generally takes place not in the foundations of the belief system but in its secondary aspects that can be easily adapted in the light of changes in new data, experiences, and strategic considerations (Sabatier 1998: 104). On the other hand, if certain conditions are met, it is possible to witness more radical policy-learning processes. Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier (1993) argue that analytical discussions will occur and changes in the belief system of a defense coalition may be observed under the following circumstances (Fig. 2.1): • If conflicts and differences between coalitions' belief systems are relatively insignificant, mobilization of coalitions is also weak. In this case, resistance to change will also be insignificant and learning will take place.

RELATIVELY FIXED PARAMETERS 1. Basic features of the problem area (products) 2. The basic distribution of natural resources 3. Basic sociocultural values and social structure 4. Basic constitutional structure (rules)

EXTERNAL (SYSTEMIC) CASES 1. Change in socioeconomic conditions 2. Change in public 3. Change in systemic government structure (coalition etc.) 4. Policy decisions and effects of other subsystems

LONG-TERM COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES 1. Overlapping social segregation areas 2. The degree of consensus needed for major policy changes

POLICY SUB-SYSTEM Coalition A Policy Coalition B brokers a.Policy beliefs

a. Policy beliefs

b.Resources

b.Resources

Strategy as regards guiding instruments

Strategy as regards guiding instruments

Decisions of Government Authorities SHORT-TERM RESTRICTIONS AND RESOURCES OF SUBSYSTEM ACTORS

Fig. 2.1  Advocacy coalition framework flowchart. Source: Weible et al. (2009: 123)

80

2  Agenda Setting

• Policy learning will be easier if the problem in question is relatively less complex and accepted by all coalitions where scientific methods used are based on objective and sound foundations. • In cases where opinions about problems are discussed in certain forums, the creation and operation of these forums in accordance with professional standards will enable policy learning. In particular, closed forums serve to filter actors; so these actors can create a community that shares the same language, values, and information.

References Ataay, F. (2006). Türkiye’de yönetişim ve “sivil toplum” tartışmaları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Memleket Siyaset ve Yönetim, 1(1), 119–140. Atkinson, M. M., & Coleman, W. D. (1989). Strong states and weak states: sectoral policy networks in advanced capitalist economies. British journal of political science, 47–67. Aygül, C. (2006). Şebeke Kuramlarına Eleştirel Bir Bakış. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 2006/1, 141–153. Babaoğlu, C. (2013). Kamu Politikası Sürecinde Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Rolü. In M. Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı (Eds.), Kamu Politikası—Kuram ve Uygulama (pp. 166–187). Ankara: Adres Yayınları. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M.  S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57(3), 632–642. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1979). Power and poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baumgartner, F.  R., Jones, B.  D., & Wilkerson, J. (2002). Studying policy dynamics. In F.  R. Baumgartner & B.  D. Jones (Eds.), Policy dynamics (pp.  3–28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baumgartner, F.  R., Green-Pedersen, C., & Jones, B.  D. (2006). Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 959–974. Becker, H. S. (1966). Social problems: A modern approach. New York: Wiley. Biddle, J., & Milor, V. (1997). Economic governance in Turkey: Bureaucratic capacity, policy networks, and business associations. In S. Maxfield & B. R. Schneider (Eds.), Business and the state in developing countries (pp. 277–315). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Birkland, T. A. (2007). Agenda setting in public policy. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 63–78). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press. Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298–306. Brady, G. L., Clark, J. R., & Davis, W. L. (1995). The political economy of dissonance. Public Choice, 82(1–2), 37–51. Cairney, P. (2015). The advocacy coalition framework. In S.  J. Balla, M.  Lodge, & E.  C. Page (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the classics of public policy and administration (pp.  484–497). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Christofis, N. (2019). The state of the Kurds in Erdoğan’s ‘new’ Turkey. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 21(3), 251–259. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Danziger, J. N. (1978). Making budgets. London: Sage.

References

81

Davis, O.  A., & Hinich, M.  J. (1966). Some results related to a mathematical model of policy formation in a democratic society. Carnegie Institute of Technology, Graduate School of Industrial Administration. Dellarco, M., Zaleski, R., Gaborek, B. J., Qian, H., Bellin, C. A., Egeghy, P., Heard, N., Jolliet, O., Lander, D.  R., Sunger, N., & Stylianou, K.  S. (2017). Using exposure bands for rapid ­decision making in the RISK21 tiered exposure assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 47(4), 317–341. Doğan, E., & Akgüngör, A.  P. (2013). Forecasting highway casualties under the effect of railway development policy in Turkey using artificial neural networks. Neural Computing and Applications, 22(5), 869–877. Donsbach, W. (1991). Exposure to political content in newspapers: The impact of cognitive dissonance on readers' selectivity. European Journal of Communication, 6(2), 155–186. Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Elbek, O., Kılınç, O., Aytemur, Z. A., Akyıldız, L., Küçük, Ç. U., Özge, C., Sağlam, L., Bostabn, P., & Dağlı, E. (2015). Tobacco control in Turkey. Turkish Thoracic Journal, 16(3), 141–150. Eraydın, A., Armatlı, B., Öztürk, H., & Yaşar, S. (2008). Politika ağlarının rekabet gücüne katkısı: İzmir bölgesindeki yerleşmelerin gelişmesinde politika ağlarının rolü. İzmir 2. Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu, TEPAV Yayınları, N. 37, Ankara. Erdoğan, M., & Gönülaçan, A. (2018). Kadin ve Göç Ekseninde Trabzon’daki Suriyeli-Afgan Kadinlarin Sosyo-Demografik Analizi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(18), 547–567. Erdöl, C., Ergüder, T., Morton, J., Palipudi, K., Gupta, P., & Asma, S. (2015). Waterpipe tobacco smoking in Turkey: Policy implications and trends from the global adult tobacco survey (GATS). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(12), 15559–15566. Ergüder, T., Çakır, B., Aslan, D., Warren, C. W., Jones, N. R., & Asma, S. (2008). Evaluation of the use of Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) data for developing evidence-based tobacco control policies in Turkey. BMC Public Health, 8(S1), S4. Ergüder, T., Polat, H., Arpad, C., Khoury, R. N., Warren, C. W., Lee, J., & Lea, V. (2012). Linking Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) data to tobacco control policy in Turkey-2003 and 2009. Central European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 87–91. Favre, P. (1981). La science politique en France depuis 1945. International Political Science Review, 2(1), 95–120. Fenno, R. F. (1966). The power of the purse: Appropriations politics in Congress. Boston: Little Brown. Fioramonti, L., & Heinrich, V. F. (2007). How civil society influences policy: A comparative analysis of the CIVICUS civil society index in post-communist Europe. Overseas Development Institute and CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Report March. Garraud, P. (1990). Politiques nationales: élaboration de l’agenda. L’Année sociologique (1940/1948-), 40, 17–41. George, A. L. (1969). The operational code: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190–222. Givel, M. (2006). Punctuated equilibrium in limbo: The tobacco lobby and US state policymaking from 1990 to 2003. Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 405–418. Gölcüklü, F., & Gözübüyük, Ş. (2002). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Uygulaması-Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi İnceleme ve Yargılama Yöntemi. Ankara: Turhan. Guo, L., & McCombs, M. (Eds.). (2015). The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. London: Routledge. Gürbüz, M., & Akyol, Ş. (2017). Ethnic reforms and the puzzle of public framing: The case of Kurds in Turkey. Contemporary Islam, 11(2), 157–169. Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2016). What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: A rapid review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14(1), 83–91.

82

2  Agenda Setting

Hajer, M. A. (2002). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–77). London: UCL Press. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A.  King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute. Heller, F. A. (1971). Managerial decision-making: A study of leadership styles and power-sharing among senior managers. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78. http://www.worldometers.info/world-­population/syria-­population (last accessed: 19 Sept 2020). https://140journos.com/terror-­attacks-­in-­turkey-­between-­2011-­and-­2017-­4b5981c974ca (last accessed: 19 Sept 2020). İçduygu, A. (2015). Syrian refugees in Turkey: The long road ahead. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of the public policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & H.  Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 1–9). Boulder: Westview Press. Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, B.  D., & Baumgartner, F.  R. (2004). Representation and agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 1–24. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, B.  D., & Baumgartner, F.  R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1–20. Kayıkçı, S. (2005). Bir kamu politikası süreci analizi: 1980 sonrası Türkiye’de tütün politikası. Mülkiye Dergisi, 29, 247–268. Keklik, S., & Gültekin-Karakaş, D. (2018). Anti-tobacco control industry strategies in Turkey. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–16. Kendall, J. (2000). The mainstreaming of the third sector into public policy in England in the late 1990s: Whys and wherefores. Policy and Politics, 28(4), 541–562. Keyman, E. F. (2010). The CHP and the “democratic opening”: Reactions to AK Party’s electoral hegemony. Insight Turkey, 7(2), 91–108. Keyman, E. F. (2016). Rethinking the ‘Kurdish question’ in Turkey: Modernity, citizenship and democracy. In Toward new democratic imaginaries-İstanbul seminars on Islam, culture and politics (pp. 75–85). Cham: Springer. Kingdon, J.  W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New  York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Köker, L. (2010). A key to the “democratic opening”: Rethinking citizenship, ethnicity and Turkish nation-state. Insight Turkey, 7(2), 49–69. Le Galès, P. (2001). Urban governance and policy networks: On the urban political boundedness of policy networks. A French case study. Public Administration, 79(1), 167–184. Leloup, L. T. (1978). The myth of Incrementalism: Analytic choices in budgetary theory. Polity, 4, 488–509. Marsh, D. (1998). The development of the policy network approach. In D. Marsh (Ed.), Comparing policy networks (pp. 3–20). Buckingham: Open University Press. McGann, J. G., & Whelan, L. C. (2020). Global think tanks: Policy networks and governance. London: Routledge. McGregor, R. M. (2013). Cognitive dissonance and political attitudes: The case of Canada. The Social Science Journal, 50(2), 168–176. Miller-Stevens, K.  L. (2010). State nonprofit associations and agenda setting: An exploratory study of lobbying strategies. University of Colorado at Denver.

References

83

Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667. Mucciaroni, G. (1992). The garbage can model and the study of policy making: A critique. Polity, 24(3), 459–482. Mullainathan, S., & Washington, E. (2009). Sticking with your vote: Cognitive dissonance and political attitudes. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 86–111. Nutt, P. C. (1976). Models for decision making in organizations and some contextual variables which stipulate optimal use. Academy of Management Review, 1(2), 84–98. Özgüzel, S. (2019). Syrian immigrants in Turkey: Services, satisfaction and suggestions for policy-­ making. Revista San Gregorio, 36, 402–416. Padgett, J.  F. (1980). Bounded rationality in budgetary research. American Political Science Review, 74, 354–372. Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy. An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. London: Edward Elgar. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research. A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48. Sabatier, P.  A. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework. Knowledge, 8(4), 649–692. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-­ oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168. Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130. Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The need for better theories. Theories of the Policy Process, 2, 3–17. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Saldaña, M., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2016). From compelling arguments to compelling associations at the third level of agenda setting. In L. Guo & M. McCombs (Eds.), The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting (pp. 104–118). London: Routledge. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Semiz, Ö. (2009). Bir kamu politikası analizi: Türkiye’de korsanla mücadele odaklı fikri haklar politikası. Ankara Barosu Fikri Mülkiyet ve Rekabet Hukuku Dergisi, 9(4), 9–40. Sertesen, S. (2009). Determinants of economıc performance and networkıng patterns of settlements in Antalya Region. Unpublished master’s thesis, ODTU. Singer, O. (1990). Policy communities and discourse coalitions: The role of policy analysis in economic policy making. Knowledge, 11(4), 428–458. Tecimer, C., Ardıç, S., Pehlivan, E., Yoloğlu, S., Özdemir, R., Aladağ, M., & Üstün, B. M. (2010). Malatya Tekel tütün fabrikası işçilerinde solunum fonksiyonlarının araştırılması. Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi, 1(2). Toshkov, D. (2016). Research design in political science. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 289–325. Ulusoy, K. (2010). The “democratic opening” in Turkey: A historical/comparative perspective. Insight Turkey, 3(10), 71–90. Veenman, S., Liefferink, D., & Arts, B. (2009). A short history of Dutch forest policy: The ‘de-­ institutionalisation’ of a policy arrangement. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(3), 202–208. Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899. Walker, J. L. (1974). The diffusion of knowledge and policy change: Toward a theory of agenda setting. Ann Arbor: Institute of Public Policy Studies. University of Michigan.

84

2  Agenda Setting

Walker, J. L. (1981). The diffusion of knowledge, policy communities, and agenda setting: The relationship of knowledge and power. In J. E. Tropman, M. J. Dluhy, & R. M. Lind (Eds.), New strategic perspectives on social policy (pp. 75–96). New York: Pergamon. Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Wanat, J. (1974). Bases of budgetary incrementalism. American Political Science Review, 68, 1221–1228. Webber, D. J. (1986). Analyzing political feasibility: Political scientists’ unique contribution to policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 14(4), 545–553. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140. Wildavsky, A. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little Brown. Willnat, L. (1997). Agenda setting and priming: Conceptual links and differences. In M.  E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D. H. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp.  51–66). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Yalman, G. L., & Topal, A. (2019). Labour containment strategies and working class struggles in the neoliberal era: The case of TEKEL workers in Turkey. Critical Sociology, 45(3), 447–461. Yıldız, B. Y., Şahin, M., Şenkal, O., Pestemalci, V., & Emrahoğlu, N. (2013). A comparison of two solar radiation models using artificial neural networks and remote sensing in Turkey. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 35(3), 209–217.

Chapter 3

Policy Formulation

Abstract  The main objective of public policy-making process is the formulation of a solution to the problems of the society. These solutions need to be operational and able to guide different actors involved in various stages of public policy; they also should engage specific, sustainable, realistic, and time-limited measures. In traditional public policy models, policy formulation is the stage before policy-making. This phase involves identifying and/or creating a set of policy alternatives to address a problem and reduce the number of possible solutions involved in preparing the final policy decision. One of the basic concepts related to policy formulation is policy design. Policy formulation and policy design processes have a decisive influence on the results of implementation. In fact, the limited amount of human cognition and interest, as well as our limited knowledge of the social world, inevitably causes policy-makers to focus on some aspects of the problem and ignore some others. After switching to presidential system, Turkey took some steps in creating a policy formulation and design bureaucracy populated by policy professionals. In particular, innovation policies provide an interesting example of policy formulation and design. Keywords  Policy design · Policy formulation · Policy paradigms · Policy professionals

Once a problem has been raised, major political actors such as the government, parliament, and bureaucracy are responsible for developing different options and solutions to solve the problem. The formulation and programming phase often results in making normative decisions that bring about changes in national or international law. When we analyze the content of public policies formulated by political actors, we see that particularly three factors come to the fore: (1) the objectives of public policy, (2) the means of action to achieve these objectives, and (3) the institutional or organizational actors responsible for implementing these means. In essence, the objectives of public policy are the formulation or explanation of a solution that is considered to be achieved when a certain problem is solved. As © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Demir, Public Policy Making in Turkey, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_3

85

86

3  Policy Formulation

frequently emphasized, a public policy aims to solve a problem; therefore, the objectives are nothing more than an explanation of the ideal situation to be achieved when the problem is solved. These objectives need to be operational and able to guide different actors involved in various stages of public policy; they also should engage specific, sustainable, realistic, and time-limited measures. For example, if we consider combating unemployment, the aim of a convincing public policy to solve this problem may be to reduce the rate of unskilled jobseekers registered to employment agencies within 3 years by 20%. However, when we take a general look at laws, we see that the objectives of public policies are different from the definition provided above. The objectives of public policy can often be ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. The main reason for this is that the more precise the objectives, the less politically acceptable they will be. The more concretely we put forward what we want, the more clearly we express what we don’t want indirectly. When we set and declare clear targets, the distributive and redistributive effects of public policy are clearly revealed. As a result of this, the social sector expected to solve the problem is clearly manifested. However, there will also be aspects of the problem that are not primarily addressed and therefore not resolved. The more explicit an issue is, the less the political admissibility of public policy will be. For this reason, the objectives set out in the Constitution or laws are uncertain and general, whereas objectives and goals become more precise and clear in texts such as regulations or directives that detail the implementation of the laws. In traditional public policy models, policy formulation is the stage before policy-­ making. This phase involves identifying and/or creating a set of policy alternatives to address a problem and reduce the number of possible solutions involved in preparing the final policy decision. The questions asked during the policy formulation are usually as follows: (1) What is the plan to address this problem? (2) What are the goals and priorities? (3) What options are available to achieve these goals? (4) What are the benefits and costs of each option? (5) What positive and negative externalities exist with each alternative?” (Sidney 2007: 79). This approach assumes that those involved in the policy process have previously identified a problem and then moved on to the agenda-setting stage. Therefore, formulating a number of alternatives involves identifying various approaches to the problem in question and then designing specific policy instruments that represent each approach. Designing legislative and regulatory efforts for each alternative, calculating whom each will affect and how, and predicting when they will show their impact are important elements of this process. Policy formulation examines how actors prepare alternatives, sets out some means for use in this process, and tries to explain why some policy alternatives are on the agenda while others are not. In this context, the original aspect of the policy formulation, which is related to other activities such as agenda-setting, problem-­ defining, implementation, and establishing policy coalitions, focuses on the micro level of public policies. Policy formulation combines empirical and normative: on the one hand, it organizes trends and explains relationships, and on the other hand,

1  Policy Instruments

87

it proposes normative criteria for evaluating policy processes and instruments, and takes into account their impact on a democratic society (Sidney 2007: 80). Another feature of the policy formulation process is that it does not occur before the public eye, unlike agenda-setting. Policy formulation takes place within government bureaucracies, inside the offices of interest groups, chambers of parliamentary committees, at the meetings of special committees, and venues of think tank organizations, where details are usually created by the staff of relevant institutions (Dye 2002: 40–41). In other words, it can be said that the policy formulation is the job of experts; these are people that Kingdom calls “secret participants” or Fischer calls “technocrat or knowledge elite” (Sidney 2007: 79).1

1  Policy Instruments As mentioned above, bureaucracies are not always endowed with well-defined objectives. The instruments to be used by the bureaucracy to achieve these objectives are the most concrete elements linking civil society and interest groups to the administrative mechanism in democratic systems. Public policy instruments can be in the form of authorization, prohibition, or instruction. The government will choose one of the many instruments it can use to achieve the desired goal while formulating public policies. A large part of public policy analysis studies is aimed at understanding why a particular instrument has been chosen and implemented, and at identifying how different instruments can be evaluated relative to each other in achieving the objectives of a particular public policy. The government can use overly intrusive instruments, or it can suffice with regulating almost self-functioning instruments, depending on the approach dominant in the respective polity. Regardless, while formulating public policy, different actors compete to keep state intervention at their desired level. Let us consider situations where the government formulates public policy using self-functioning instruments. When the government wants to solve a problem, it may choose to change the behavior of some actors leading to the emergence of the issue. In this way, it can authorize these actors on how to implement public policy. “Gentlemen’s agreements” regarding the obligation of banks to pay due attention in the field of banking policies can be given as an example. Banks are often encouraged to develop their own practices to tackle problems such as money laundering, tax evasion, circulation of dictators’ assets, and financing terrorism. Until recently, when international pressures have increased, governments’ approach to this issue had not changed much. Leaving the management of public policy to the target group may seem like a very liberal approach. Fortunately, states are usually more intrusive than that. For

1  Fischer (2000) argues that technocrats and elites who hold knowledge jeopardize democracy. See also Fischer 1990.

88

3  Policy Formulation

example, the government tries to guide the behavior of the target group more directly by conducting information or persuasion campaigns. It is the result of such an approach to ensure that photos are placed on the packages to discourage smoking or to prepare public spots and encourage citizens to donate to Darüşşafaka2 by avoiding unnecessary expenses. Here, the assumption is that the target group is suffering from lack of information. It is anticipated that smokers or the people who spend money on unnecessary consumer products will be ready to adopt the desired cognitive and psychological behavior after receiving the information provided by the government. The incentives provided by the government to some economic sectors, such as agriculture and industry, are also effective as positive drivers for the adoption of certain behaviors. Finally, instruments of public policy implementation with the highest restriction level can be mentioned. In some cases, the government assumes that civil society can manage the policy area, giving monopoly to its actions to solve problems. An example of this is the economic sectors that are nationalized and the sectors where only public services are allowed to be provided. Keynesian economic measures, which were used to deal with the economic crisis that shook the world in the 1930s, created state monopolies in several economic sectors. Starting with the 1970s, the opposite process has taken place, but today, in areas such as the fight against crime, high level of restriction and fully interventionist state policies continue to be implemented. How can one explain the problem in different ways in different countries, and produce and apply different answers to the same problem in terms of public policy? This has to do with the choice of public policy instruments mentioned above. Instruments are selected at different times and consist of different elements, and their mixture is not ​​ the same in every country. The government policy and level of social acceptance for the selection of interventionist and coercive instruments are different from one society to another. Some hypotheses have been developed to explain the differences between the selected public policy instruments. First of all, it is accepted that a public policy instrument will have a level of restriction compatible with the ideology of the majority of a society. For example, if a center-right party is in power, it is likely that only informative instruments will be adopted. However, if a leftist party is in power, more intrusive instruments such as taxation or binding standards are likely to be implemented. In the USA, in 1978, many interventionist standards regarding the economy were put in force under the Democratic Party. When the Republican Party came to power in 1981, it chose to prevent the implementation of these standards. Thus, among others, the choice of public policy instruments varies according to the ruling political party; public policies take different forms depending on the ruling parties being more or less “statist.” Second, these instruments usually target more or less organized groups. For example, consumers are poorly organized groups, whereas sellers and distributors

2  Darüşşafaka is the foundation of a secondary school for orphans founded in 1863. It is the first civil society organization of Turkey in the field of education.

2  Policy Design

89

are more organized; the organizations of manufacturers are the most organized of all. These groups participate in the formulation phase of public policies on a mobile basis. In this way, while trying to prevent the imposition of some binding norms and standards, they endeavor to impose their own recommended norms and standards. It is therefore important to understand the role played by interest groups that bring together various actors such as manufacturers when analyzing the choice of instruments to be used in public policy. The third factor is the level of competition or international harmonization between different countries. For example, when the USA adopts some standards, a huge amount of global products loses their compliance in the beginning. These products are denied a place in the US market in the short term, but they may head to the Mexican market, where lower standards apply. Firms apply discounted prices to enter the market in Mexico; as a reaction of Mexican manufacturers, standards similar to those in the USA are put into implementation in a very short time. Thus, contrary to what globalization predicts, international competition can lead to more regulation and state intervention. Finally, the choice of a public policy instrument determines the policy actors that will decide this instrument, the groups to be targeted, and the bureaucracies that will implement these instruments. For example, during the energy crisis in 1973, most countries did not have a ministry of energy. Energy policies were viewed as a task of ministries of the exterior or trade. Over time, energy bureaucracies were established and energy demand management emerged as a public policy. Later, this issue was associated with the environment, and at the Rio Conference in 1992, international environmental and energy policies were adopted (Fischer 1992; Skjærseth 1994; Elliott 2004). Then, more bureaucracy was created to implement these policies. Similar processes are experienced in other policy areas.

2  Policy Design One of the basic concepts related to policy formulation is policy design. After the bureaucracy was held responsible for policy failures in the 1970s,3 studies on policy design began to make their first appearance in the literature. Approaches to policy design suggest that it is necessary to go to the very beginning of the cause-and-­ effect chain in order to understand why policies are successful or failure (Howlett 2012). Policy formulation and policy design processes have a decisive influence on the results of implementation. In fact, the limited amount of human cognition and interest, as well as our limited knowledge of the social world, inevitably causes 3  In the public policy literature, the 1970s are referred to as a “decade of failure” especially for the USA and the UK. Many examples such as the energy crisis and the subsequent economic crisis, the empty-handed withdrawal from Vietnam and the failure of the welfare state are shown as examples. These failures were presented as the rationale for the change in the public administration paradigm (transition to public management) that began at the end of the same decade.

90

3  Policy Formulation

policy-makers to focus on some aspects of the problem and ignore some others, and compare only some of the possible solutions with each other. Therefore, research on policy formulation involves an effort to understand the context in which decision-­ makers take action and to identify selectivity in interest. Dahl and Lindblom were the first to address the importance of policy design. The authors argued that the development of new policy techniques was “perhaps the biggest political revolution of the time” (1953: 38–39). Accordingly, an action is rational to the extent that it is designed “accurately” to maximize achievement of goals.4 A more rational action also means more efficient action, so much so that the concepts of “rationality” and “efficiency” can be used interchangeably. Therefore, a “correctly” designed policy is expected to produce efficient results. Dahl and Lindblom debated a series of normative dimensions to evaluate policy designs such as rationality, freedom, efficiency, political equality, and subjective equality, but they did not develop categories that specifically define policy content (Schneider and Sidney 2009: 104). In their study of policy design in the context of social building theory, Schneider and Sidney argue that policy design has made significant progress in recent years. There has been a remarkable development in understanding why the political system produces certain types of policy designs and what consequences they have for democracy. Although the importance of policy design in terms of the content of the policy was understood in the 1950s, it lost its popularity in the 1990s (2009: 104). One of the most important reasons for this is that policy studies have started to focus on the impact of changes in society and international environment on policy outcomes (Howlett 2014: 187). In this period of time, studies on globalization and governance ignored traditional design issues and emphasized that cooperative governance and network management instruments played an increasingly essential role. The transformation caused by the public management approach has a significant part in this change. The increasing complexity of social life and the international environment has removed governments from using traditional command-control mechanisms such as public companies, regulatory agencies, and affiliated institutions in most democratic countries. Many governments today use different organizational resources and tools (Majone 1997; Peters 1998; Klijn and Teisman 1991). As a result of this change, policy designs based on methods such as reorganization and review at government level, government-NGO collaborations, and stakeholder consultation have gained currency. In this conjuncture, tactics such as ensuring that 4  However, in order to decide whether one action is more rational than the other, observers need to agree on the objectives in question and their respective assumptions of reality. They also need to agree on the consequences of certain types of action reaching the target in the context of this assumed reality. The authors have tried to explain this with the example of a person trying to warm up in the fire: “If a person is cold and wants to warm up, it is a rational choice to stand a few steps away from the fire… almost every adult in the world will agree that it is irrational to jump into the fire or to get away from it. In fact, assuming that we can’t get enough evidence about people’s reactions, most people will probably agree exactly where to stand. Nevertheless, any individual who wants to warm up to different degrees can identify a more rational and slightly different point for him” (Dahl and Lindblom 1953: 38–39).

2  Policy Design

91

policies are shaped in the direction desired by the government by manipulating policy actors and their relations are increasingly used (Bingham et  al. 2005). However, there are trends that show the development of different government activities and preferences in different sectors (Peters and Pierre 1998; Peters 1998; Knill 1999). However, more recent studies have reintroduced the role of the government at both international and national levels. Some authors point out that policy decisions in many cases can be quite random and irrational. Such decisions are based on a purely contingent logic and the idea of making use of opportunities rather than ­careful consideration and evaluation. In some decisions, the opposite is the case and the content expressed by the concept of “design” can be fully observed. These kinds of decisions are the decisions that have provided the materials emphasized in public policy studies for the last 50 years, as well as the data necessary to evaluate why one policy is more successful than the other (Howlett 2014: 187–188). One of the most important goals of policy design studies is to improve the process of designing policy alternatives. It is considered that more effective and successful policies will emerge if the processes of researching and producing policy alternatives are improved. In this way, it is aimed to minimize random elements in policy formulation. According to Alexander (1982: 289), “a conscious effort to systematically design policy alternatives will undoubtedly improve decisions and their outcomes.” Linder and Peters (1984) also provide a framework for producing and comparing alternative solutions to reduce random elements in policy design. Several factors influence the creation of policy alternatives, such as ideas about the feasibility of policies, high-profile judicial decisions, and opinions about the group targeted by a certain policy. In order to understand and explain why a policy is designed in a particular way, the process leading to the selection of that policy needs to be examined. In this sense, policy-making can be seen as an action that occurs in a specific context, as a result of original institutions and ideas. All actors involved in the policy-making process have their own rules, norms, and procedures that affect their preferences and strategies. In addition, policy-making takes place at a certain time and it is inevitable that it will be influenced by the dominant political ideas of its time. These affect the perceptions and preferences of actors when they make specific policy decisions; therefore, they cause actors to defend some solutions and oppose others (Sidney 2007: 84). Several scholars concentrate their attention on this final stage of public policy-­ making and argue that policy-making is a process of negotiation, competition, persuasion, and mutual compromise between interest groups and government officials.5 There is no doubt that these are important factors in the last “legislative” phase of the policy-making process; however, policy-making begins much earlier in the agenda-setting stage, as discussed above. In the official legislative stage, details of policy implementation are determined. So who are the actors that determine policy-­

5  See for example Mazey and Richardson 2006; Heinz et  al. 1993; Jordan and Schubert 1992; Sutton 1999; Knoke 2011; Browne 1990.

92

3  Policy Formulation

making in the process leading to policy implementation? At what stage and by whom are policy orientations and targets developed? What is the role of bureaucracy in this process? How and using which resources are voters’ demands included in the policy-making process? Policy analysis is expected to answer these questions among others. Public policies are the result of government efforts to change the behavior of the state or society to achieve certain goals, and generally consist of a variety of policy objectives and instruments. These efforts can be designed more or less systematically, and the goals and objectives achieved with these designs can be very diverse (Howlett 2014: 188). However, although it is not defined as “policy design,” a good many studies are essentially concerned with the design of public policies. In fact, policy design is a concept that requires the raising and formulation stages to be considered together. Formulating alternatives involves identifying a wide variety of approaches to a problem and then designing specific policy instruments that make up those approaches (Sidney 2007: 79), but it is important to note that policy design is not just about thinking about the two phases mentioned together. It is also possible to examine and understand these concepts independently.6 Thomas (2001) argues that policy formulation has four dimensions, each of which includes some elements of formal policy analysis and tries to explain why some options are taken into consideration while others are ignored. These dimensions are appraisal, dialogue, formulation, and consolidation. Appraisal includes the identification of and reflection on relevant data and evidence. In this process, elements such as research reports, expert testimonies, and various inputs provided by stakeholders or public discussion of the policy problem can be part of the process.7 At this stage, the government, on the one hand, reveals inputs related to policy problems and their solutions. On the other hand, it obtains some of these inputs from other actors. Dialogic action8 tries to facilitate communication between policy actors with different perspectives and solutions on a given subject. Sometimes, open meetings are held where participants discuss the proposed policy options. In some cases, a more structured dialogue takes place, where representatives of employees and employers or other social groups and experts come together and express their views in favor or against the proposed solutions. The essence of such “deliberations”9  Such arguments had a significant impact on policy design research. Changes in forms of governance have differentiated the ability of various public and private actors to play a role in policy formulation discussions and decisions. In addition, there have been important changes in the types of policy instruments selected to implement public policy. All of these are the issues at the center of policy design. See March and Olsen 1996; Offe and Preuss 2006; Weaver and Rockman 1993; Scharpf 1991). 7  This issue will be examined in detail in the section titled “Deliberation in public policy.” 8  Dialogical action is a concept that refers to the skills to be used in the event of a communication problem. Accordingly, there are four possible acts in communication: action (starting the interview, making an offer), monitoring (accepting and continuing accordingly), opposing (rejecting an offer), and observing. 9  There is extensive literature on the concept of deliberative democracy. Reader can look at the following selection: Franz and Kirkpatrick 2008; Elster 1998; Bohman 1997; Gutmann and Thompson 2009; Fishkin and Laslett 2008. 6

2  Policy Design

93

is the comparison and evaluation of evidence by various officials on a variety of policy options. Then, one or more of these options are prepared as suggestion and presented to the decision-makers for approval. The proposals submitted for approval in this way may be in the form of a draft law, or they may provide a framework for public (and private) actors to come together to continue negotiations on a more specific action plan. Advising on which policy options to follow (policy advocacy, as it were) often leads to opposition from actors who see their proposals cast aside early in the formulation phase. At the consolidation stage, these actors take steps to solve this problem, and they are given formal or informal feedback on why a particular option was chosen and became a policy design, and efforts are made to resolve their discomfort, if any. If the government can base its reasons for choosing a particular policy option on objective data, this process can work more smoothly. Both the government and actors whose proposals are disapproved can find a way to make gains from this process: the government does not offend these actors and ensures that they provide input to further decision-making processes; actors, on the other hand, keep their relationship with the government warm by persuasion (or appearing to be persuaded), and ensure that their views are sought in other policy problems in the future. However, the government does not always base its policy choice on neutral data. In many cases, the government relies on reasons such as voter tendencies or ideology to argue that an option will not work or is not acceptable. In this case, it will not be possible to eliminate the discomfort of some policy actors (Carlsson 2000). In architecture, existing scientific knowledge is used in design, but in doing so, both normative standards are observed and features such as intuition and creativity gain importance.10 The same rules apply in policy design. Linder and Peters point out that it is important for policy designers and political scientists to recognize these similarities. Whether the problem is an architectural, mechanical, or administrative problem, the logic of the design is basically the same. The crux of the matter is to develop a tool that will work as desired. In the case of policy problems, design includes both a systematic process for generating basic strategies and a framework to be used to compare them. It offers a more productive way to examine problems in terms of design, and organize our contemplation and analysis efforts (Linder and Peters 1984: 253). Many researchers argue that a significant part of the policy is designed by following the processes exactly in the case of designing a house or furniture. Accordingly, the functioning and nature of the design process can be systematically examined and improved in public policy as well as in urban planning and product creation (Schön 1988, 1992; Howlett 2014: 188) (Fig. 3.1). The concept of policy design, as mentioned above, began to lose its importance as the new public administration became the dominant paradigm. It was claimed that policy design was no longer valid in the “governance” terminology, where

 Hanson (2001) and Holl et al. (1994) present important findings about the relationship between architecture and intuition.

10

94

3  Policy Formulation

Policy design

Change in human and organizational activities

Change in the chain of results

Change in targets leading to intermediates

Change in valued results Fig. 3.1  Policy design scheme. (Source: Adopted by Bobrow (2006: 77) from Dorfman (1986: 108))

global developments took the initiative power of policy design from the hands of national governments,11 and market forces and nonstate actors set the agenda.12 Therefore, it can be thought that policy design is not independent of the erosion that the nation-state suffered during the period of globalization. Bobrow commented on this subject as follows: A policy design is based on the expectation that adopting it will produce specific patterns in the activity of people or organizations and in the chain of results. Both individually and together they are content to make certain predicted and desired changes to the objectives (intermediates); these goals create the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve an important result (Bobrow 2006: 76).

If the ways to reach a preferred future involve direct action by government agencies or authorities, all of these actions can be considered as public policy design. The same is true if these ways and methods enable actors other than official institutions or authorities to act for the same purpose. Thus, the concept of design expresses an essentially recommended plan, but it does not have to be the result of absolute statist central planning (Bobrow 2006: 77). However, there seems to be an apparent contradiction between policy design and the “invisible hand” mechanism. The former concept refers to the planning and implementation of policies in various social areas by formal or informal actors. In this case, policy design forms the early stage of policy intervention. The latter concept argues that the state does not interfere in most fields which act on their own dynamics. Accordingly, it is necessary to avoid  According to Robinson (2005), CNN is representative of this situation. See also Aminy 2002; Haas 2008. 12  See Hirst and Thompson 1995; Higgott and Payne 2000; Josselin and Wallace 2001; Arts 2003. 11

2  Policy Design

95

policy intervention. However, there are also opinions suggesting that the two concepts do not have to reject each other: policy design is necessary for the “invisible hand” to function optimally, because policy design does not necessarily mean the unilateral determination of public policies from the government center with a statist perspective.13 Today, policy design is becoming more and more difficult. One of the most important reasons for this is the complexity of the increase in the number and diversity of actors and factors. This confusion refers to the phenomenon of participation, one of the main features of the governance paradigm. Another reason why policy design is becoming increasingly difficult is that we are living in an era of rapid change that leads to policies getting obsolete or abortive before they are completed. Indeed, social and political conditions are changing so rapidly that some policies become meaningless before they come into force. As a third reason, it can be mentioned that the changes in the priority ranking can decrease the social and political support for some policies. This problem may be caused by an organized opposition running an effective campaign, or it may arise from another sudden development (e.g., a natural disaster) that alters the government’s policy preferences (Bobrow 2006: 78). How to design a policy depends on the relationship between multiple actors and contextual factors, and this is much more evident, especially in the age of governance (Lake and Baum 2001).

2.1  Policy Designers Policy designers produce policy alternatives and provide choices about how government actions are linked to identified problems. These alternatives include policy objectives, goals, tools, and different policy elements and combinations of these, such as occasional “adjustments” (Howlett and Cashore 2009). In order for policy design to produce meaningful results, policy designers should have in-depth knowledge and intuition about the work in their communities and specific policy sectors, and they should be able to raise critical questions about the capacity of policy-­ makers involved in policy formulation processes (Walker et al. 2001). Policy designers are people who can best bring these elements together. Today, policy design work is particularly prevalent in the UK, New Zealand, Israel, Canada, and Australia. These countries enjoy a complex network of policy advisors and policy counseling systems deployed around decision-makers (Halligan 1995), which includes both traditional consultants and NGOs, think-tanks, and other organizations; many other actors such as colleagues, friends, relatives of decision-makers, and members of

 For a useful discussion on the relationship between the concept of “invisible hand” and policy design, see Lake and Baum 2001.

13

96

3  Policy Formulation

political parties can also be added to this list (Maley 2000; Howlett 2002; Hajer and Wagenaar 2003).14 On the other hand, unlike an architect or engineer, a policy designer has to engage in constant dialogue with people (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987: 21). The quality of the efforts of policy designers does not only depend on the technical soundness and flawlessness of the political sciences (Kluckhohn et al. 1951). In some cases, the frequency of poorly designed policies leads to serious criticism of the concept of policy design (Dryzek and Ripley 1988; DeLeon 1988). Anderson brought a community-centered perspective to policy design. Accordingly, policy design is synonymous with “statecraft” or government in the sense of “the art of the possible.” This is, in fact, always a matter of choosing among a particular historical situation and possibilities of a cultural context. From this point of view, the institutions and procedures used by the government to shape the economy and society are in fact nothing more than the tools endowed by society itself to their leaders to solve certain public problems (1971: 121). Based on its knowledge of such procedures used in a particular political system, the policy analyst should have the capacity to recommend some innovative methods of formulating policies (1971: 123–124). At this point, one of the most important tasks of the political scientist is to reveal the tools and possible combinations of them that can work in dealing with different types of problems under certain conditions. Policy designers should ensure that the design elements are consistent with the overall policy goals and objectives, and are consistent to be used together to support a specific policy goal. In addition, policy goals and tools designed to achieve those goals should be able to work in harmony with each other (Howlett 2014: 195). When dealing with the different sub-stages and activities of policy formulation, it is necessary to take into account that different actors are involved in different dimensions of policy formulation and design. Identifying and comparing the benefits and risks of the various options is the second phase of the policy cycle. Thus, more or less formal “policy analysis” becomes an essential component of policy formulation and design activities (Gormley 2007; Sidney 2007; Dunn 1981). The structure of the policy advice system is used to identify all actors that influence design decisions and policy evaluations (James and Jorgensen 2009).

2.2  The Role of Policy Advisors and Policy Advice Systems Policy formulation process has a wide variety of players and stages. This process consists of stages that seem extremely messy and unrelated, and results are usually not easy to spot; in many cases, it may be necessary to conduct empirical studies to understand the minor nuances. However, many policy formulation processes address

 For example, how the policy consultancy system is structured in a particular sector gives an idea about the effective actors involved in design decisions (Howlett 2014: 195).

14

2  Policy Design

97

issues of policy design. One of the most important of these is that formulation usually includes a wide variety of actors (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier 1993). In addition, the formulation phase can proceed without clearly identifying the issues to be addressed, and a long-term effort may be in question involving policy problems and developing solutions repeatedly (Teisman 2000). Third, even if the actors who formulate the policies are looking for solutions that all parties have won, in many cases, the benefits and costs of the solutions cannot be distributed equally among all parties, and winners and losers emerge (Wilson and Seymour 1974). This is a result of the capacity of policy design to be dependent on technical variables as well as political variables, and its relatively “unpredictable” nature (Linder and Peters 1984, 1989). Naturally, this does not mean that policy design is an impossible or worthless effort. It just means that some designs need to be accepted as impossible to apply in certain contexts. After all, all designs will be disturbing for some segments of society and some policy actors (Dryzek 1983). At the final stage, those who produce public policies are the politicians who have the power to make decisions. However, in doing so, they often listen to the advice of public officials and other actors they trust, because they improve the quality of the decision-making process by providing expert opinion on the advantages and disadvantages of the policy alternatives considered for implementation. In this regard, it can be argued that policy experts will be organized within a general policy consultancy system. Although this system may differ for each subject matter, it will have a general hierarchical structure. In order to understand the characteristics of policy formulation and design activities in different analytical contexts, it is necessary to distinguish how policy consultancy systems are created and functioning in each policy sector.15 Policy advice systems have several features, but perhaps the most important of them is the government’s functioning as a system of information utilization. From this perspective, policy advice systems can be considered as a market for policy-related ideas and information (Howlett and Newman 2010; Howlett 2009; Howlett and Wellstead 2009). Three components are important at this point: the supply of policy advice, the demand of decision-makers, and the presence of intermediaries trying to combine supply and demand in any conjuncture (Brint 1990; Lindquist 1992). All policy actors occupy a certain position in the policy advice “market”; policy advice systems consist of a combination of analysis activities and participants associated with these positions. At the top of this hierarchy are the “decision-makers” who are consumers of policy analysis and recommendations. These are members of the executive and legislature, who have the power to enforce policy decisions, and some senior executives and bureaucrats who have been delegated some decision-making powers.16 At the bottom of the hierarchy, there are “information producers” who are located in the academic community, statistical institutions, and research institutes, and provide the basic scientific, eco See Craft and Howlett 2012; Howlett and Migone 2013; Page and Shapiro 2010. On the advantages of offering policy advice from a single center, see Mitchell 2005. 16  Provincial governors in Turkey, who benefit from decentralized authorities, can be given as example to this phenomenon. 15

98

3  Policy Formulation

nomic, and social data needed to produce analysis and make decisions. Between these two levels, there are “knowledge brokers.”17 Hargadon (1998: 214) defines knowledge brokers as “individuals or organizations that profit from transferring ideas from traditional venues to where they represent innovative possibilities.” They are among the producers and decision-makers who repackage the data and information to make it useful (Lindvall 2009; Page and Shapiro 2010). Among the actors included in this group, specialist researchers in the permanent staff working in the government, temporary experts in the commissions and task forces, and a large number of nongovernmental experts linked to think-tanks and interest groups can be mentioned (Lindvall 2009; Verschuere 2009; Howlett and Newman 2010).

2.3  The Role of Policy Ideas Ideas about alternative possible compositions of policy instruments are one of the main dimensions of policy design. Actors and their ideas in policy design processes are different from each other; the impact of these ideas on policy formulation activities is also not at the same level. Not everyone’s ideas are equally effective in comparing, choosing, and designing policies (Lindvall 2009; Marriott 2010). The ideas of key policy actors who have easier access to decision-making centers play a key role in guiding efforts toward creating policy options and evaluating design alternatives.18 Policy-making processes have several different elements; the types of ideas that affect each element are also diverse. These differences are reflected in the selection of policy instruments and policy designs. For example, policy objectives include a variety of ideas from general philosophical, ideological, and ethical principles that reflect the government’s world view, to the specific cause and effect relationship logic, pragmatic and cyclical considerations, and sociological analyses. The same can be said for policy instruments, which consist of information from past experiences and lessons learned from successful or unsuccessful examples of policy implementation. Both policy ideas and policy instruments, which are essentially policy ideas in flesh and bones, refer to ideological and other intellectual structures, as well as more practical choices to achieve certain policy goals. Even if they have different levels of generality and abstraction from each other, it can be said that different types of policy ideas are closely related. Policy ideas expressed in public are generally too broad and normative, with no direct impact on program design. However, these ideas serve to reveal the context in which policy design activity takes place. On the other hand, policy paradigms19 representing radi See Ward et al. (2012) for an examination of the concept of knowledge brokers in the health sector. The author underlines the role played by knowledge brokers to translate research results into policy and practice. 18  On key policy actors, see Ingraham 1987; George 1969; Stedman 2004; Gormley 2007; Kehoe and Ponting 2003; Ball et al. 2011. 19  Policy paradigms are discussed below. 17

2  Policy Design

99

cal changes in public policies have much more cognitive and practical content, which allows them to influence the policy instruments used by decision-makers much more radically. Analyzing policy ideas in this way serves to better understand the interactions between actors who are active at different levels of policy formulation and design and have different ideas (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987; Bobrow 2006). This shows that the influence of the public and external actors on the formulation is important during a normal policy design process, but it is manifested in a scattered manner during the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships and the selection of specific tools (Lindvall 2009; Page and Shapiro 2010). It also points out that the main actors who have a say in the design of policy goals and tools are working in an environment highly restricted by world views, ideologies, and policy paradigms.20

2.4  Limitations on Policy Design and Expertise An ideal policy advice system should include elements such as a stable and reliable advice service offered by professional public officials, policy advice provided by ministerial specialist political units to the ministers, and an expert or central policy unit developing a large number of policy options (Halligan 1995). In any case, actors such as professional policy analysts and central institution workers play a very important role in policy formulation and design (Page and Shapiro 2010). However, it should be taken into consideration that the effects of these actors are more direct but more limited. This is because the formulation process focuses on more specific and precise design dimensions over time (Meltsner 1976).21 Under normal circumstances, policy design cannot take into account all possible elements. Designers inevitably focus on the options they associate with concrete objectives at the micro level; this can only provide a “partial” perspective on alternative policy objectives and combinations of policy instruments. Therefore, in almost all policy design processes, general abstract policy objectives and implementation preferences are considered given and constitute the relevant “context.” Regulations that are more related to real life are put forward by policy experts and key actors in the form of a policy program without violating the boundaries of the relevant context. The bottom line here is the extent to which specific policy programs are compatible with the pre-existing policy elements outlined by the government. The harmonization of the macro and micro dimensions of the policy process with each other determines the perspectives and evaluations of the policy alternatives of leading actors; in this respect, it is a critical component of policy formulation and design (Walker 1991; Walker et al. 2001).

 Limitations will be discussed below under the heading “bounded rationality.”  When we ask the students to prepare homework on any subject, we expect them to determine the subject in general terms and then to “narrow it down”. Is there a policy formulation process that operates in our subconscious?

20 21

100

3  Policy Formulation

Policy Failure  If a policy has been developed to address a particular problem and this policy has been in place for a long period of time, the social environment or context in which the problem lies will inevitably change over time. As a result, the policy in question may now become irrelevant or useless and produce more harm than good. Policy failure is, in a way, one of the inevitable consequences of policy design. The link between policy and the context in which it is proposed, designed, and implemented is a phenomenon that needs to be constantly updated to address changes (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). The information that policy-makers have is not complete even in the best of circumstances. The efforts of policy-makers to design government actions to address social problems have several disabilities. Also, in most government systems, policy-makers are not sufficiently appreciated for their success, but they pay a heavy bill for failure. This leads them to be conservative and pro-status quo in the face of new challenges; the resulting policies will lose their validity in the long term (even in the medium term, and sometimes in the short term), and will prove void in the end. Governments constantly plan, decide, enforce, adapt, change, and terminate policies. Government interventions concern almost all aspects of the lives of people and communities. Even policies that involve delegating government powers such as deregulation, privatization, and the provision of more community-based public services to non-government actors require a pro-active, agile, and always alert government. Only some of the government policies produce results that are relevant to their original purpose. A considerable number of policies produce surprises, complications, delays, disappointments, and undesirable results (Moran 2001; Bovens and Hart 2016). Bobrow (2006: 79) defines policy design as a “game of failure and disappointment” and states that it is not fit “for those who are easily discouraged.” However, since this game has to be played in any case, it is necessary to explore ways to play it more effectively. For this, policy designers need to have useful skills, make accurate situational diagnoses, have a large repertoire to address specific situations, and behave realistically about available resources (Bobrow 2006: 79).22 As a result, no policy remains forever; on the other hand, no policy will be terminated until it begins to produce failure. Simon and “Bounded Rationality”  The concept of bounded rationality introduced by Simon (1947, 1990) reveals an understanding of rational choice that takes into account the cognitive limitations of decision-makers. These limitations are particularly relevant for information and computing capacity. Bounded rationality has become one of the basic concepts of behavioral economics approach, which examines how real decision-making processes affect the decisions made. Contrary to popular opinion, Simon argued that people do not have the ability to make rational decisions and that cognitive limitations seriously affect our judgment and the choices we make.

 Impact analysis, which will be discussed below, is one of the instruments developed to minimize policy failures.

22

2  Policy Design

101

There are two different directions of research on bounded rationality. One of them can be termed as seeing half the glass full: according to this approach, it is possible to argue that, despite their cognitive limitations, decision-makers produce “reasonably good” decisions even on complex issues. Lindblom, who introduced the concept of “muddling through” to the literature, is also an important representative of this approach, which he re-conceptualized as a “problem solving approach.”23 In the second group, there are those who see the glass half empty: this approach points to how people can make mistakes, even on simple issues. Tversky and Kahneman (1974), who claim that the reasoning of people is seriously flawed which leads to wrong decisions more often than not, are the most important representatives of this approach. When we examine alternative production processes, it does not seem reasonable to assume that in most cases all available alternatives have been identified. Finding alternatives is a long and costly process and it is not possible to find all alternatives in the real-life conditions involved in any policy matter. Due to the limitations arising from the complexity of human behavior, alternative generation behavior may not be perfect; it can only aim at finding a satisfactory alternative (Bendor 2010: 1). Simon’s concept of bounded rationality is crucial to explaining public policies. Many factors limit public policy decisions, such as social, demographic, economic, political and international context, other public policies in force, current tools available, and past experiences.24 Bounded rationality also implies that people need to decide which topic to pay attention, which information they should take account of, and what cost they would venture (such as the opportunity cost of time) (Gigerenzer and Selten 2002). Consequently, bounded rationality does not oppose the claim that decisions are made rationally, but suggests that this can only be within the limits of our mental abilities and knowledge.25

2.5  Policy Design in Turkey: The Case of Innovation Policies Innovation policies include the identification of practices that will support the basic elements needed to increase the effectiveness of innovation processes. Considering that policy design aims to activate the dynamics related to innovation positively, it can be considered that an analysis method that effectively reveals the basic dynamics of the innovation process is needed for an effective design. It is seen in the literature that various approaches have been developed to determine the dynamics of the  “Muddling through” is a concept that Lindblom refers to in his several works. See Lindblom 1969, 1979, 2018. 24  One of the relatively new concepts used to express the effects of organizational experiences on decision-making processes is “path dependence.” For more information about this concept, see Sydow et al. 2009; Greener 2005; Ebbinghaus 2002; Pierson 2000. 25  For more information on constraints on rationality, the reader may want to refer to the following sources: Maley 2000; Haas 2008; Eichbaum and Shaw 2008; Dunlop 2009; Lindvall 2009. 23

102

3  Policy Formulation

technological progress or innovation process. Among these, the most accepted method has been the National Innovation System (NIS) Approach (Carlsson 2007: 861). The NIS approach has also been widely adopted by policy-makers in international economic organizations, especially the OECD.  As a result, several reports and strategy documents have been published that analyze the innovation processes of countries within the framework of the system approach and produce policies within this framework (Hekkert et al. 2007: 420–422). Thus, the tools offered by the NIS method as a macro approach in determining the innovation dynamics and designing policies to activate these dynamics have been widely accepted. The first studies on the macro-level analysis of innovation process can be traced back to Friedrich List’s studies on German economy (Levi-Faur 1997). List is one of the first economists to show the importance of science and technology in terms of economic development within the framework of the system approach. However, it can be said that the most important work in the popularity of the NIS approach is the book titled “Technology Policy and Economic Performance, Lessons from Japan” written by Freeman (1987) on the Japanese Innovation System. Apart from this, the works of Dosi (1988) and Lundvall (1999) played a very important role in the development of the NIS approach. In all these studies, innovation process has been analyzed within the framework of the principles of Evolutionary Economics and Institutional Economics approaches. One of the basic assumptions of these approaches is to accept that the innovation process has a systematic character. Thus, while analyzing the innovation process, a method that considers system elements as basic variables and focuses on them is adopted. In this context, the factors that play a role in the innovation system are generally determined under four main components (Balzat and Pyka 2006): (1) actors in the National Innovation System, (2) the network of interrelations within the National Innovation System, (3) The National Innovation System institutional structure, and (4) infrastructure of the National Innovation System. As described above, as a result of the dynamics of the innovation creation process being systematically addressed by the NIS approach and defined through four main components, a significant transformation has been experienced in the policy design process. The rationale for the interventions to be made by the public sector in order to activate the innovation process by the NIS approach and the applications suggested in parallel with this are determined in a way quite different from the recommendations of the classical approach. It can be stated that the first important stage regarding the development of science and technology policies in Turkey was realized within the framework of the establishment of the State Planning Organization (SPO) and the Five-Year Development Plans prepared under the leadership of this organization. Five-Year Development Plans, which started to be prepared in parallel with the establishment of SPO in 1960, have been an important tool in the development of science and technology policies in the period before 1980. The foundation of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) in 1963 represents another important stage in the formulation of science and technology policies. TÜBİTAK has made significant contributions to the formulation of science policy regarding

2  Policy Design

103

basic and applied research in this process. However, until the 1980s, practices regarding Turkey’s innovation policies were mostly included in the Five-Year Development Plans. In other words, it was not possible to prepare an independent innovation policy document until the 1980s. In this respect, it can be argued that innovation policies produced in Turkey in the period until the 1980s can be evaluated only within the scope of the Five-Year Development Plans. The first comprehensive study on innovation policy production in Turkey was carried out only in the early 1980s. In this process, the strategy document titled “Turkish Science and Technology Policy: 1983–2003” published in October 1983 constituted an important step in innovation policy design. With this document, the science and technology policies of Turkey for the period of 1983–2003 were presented in detail for the first time (TÜBİTAK 1983). Thus, policy decisions that are partly included in development plans have been expressed in a comprehensive policy text for the first time in Turkey. It is seen that some basic targets related to science and technology capacity are determined in the report. Then, in order to achieve these goals, it is explained which areas would be given priority in production technologies and how R&D activities would be supported. In the meantime, some important structural problems that create obstacles in the process of innovation are also mentioned. However, even though this document is the first comprehensive product of policy-making efforts in Turkey, unfortunately, it has never had a chance to be implemented (Türkcan 2009: 643–645). Also in this process, with the Decree Law No. 77 published in the Official Gazette in 1983, the Higher Council of Science and Technology (BTYK) was established in order to carry out the national science policy. The BTYK, which was envisaged to meet twice a year in the establishment decree, held its first meeting in October 1989. BTYK was able to hold its 2nd and 3rd meetings on 3 February 1993 and 25 August 1997, respectively. After its 4th meeting held on June 2, 1998, BTYK could meet once a year until 2004. BTYK met twice a year from 2005 to 2010. Since 2011, the council is meeting once a year, with the exception of 2013. Thus, after its establishment in 1983, BTYK, which is expected to meet 46 times until 2016, could only meet 29 times. This instability seen during the meeting of the Board can be identified as an important deficiency regarding the innovation policy design process and implementations carried out in Turkey. Another important development in the innovation policy design process in Turkey was experienced with the implementation of a new policy document titled “Turkish Science and Technology Policy: 1993–2003” at the 2nd meeting of BTYK on February 3, 1993. The BTYK, which could not be effective in the implementation of the policy document that was previously prepared and presented in 1983 for the 1983–2003 period and was able to hold its first meeting in 1989, 6 years after the document was published, needed a new policy document to be followed for the next period in its second meeting held in 1993. This document was an enlarged new version of the first document that was prepared before to cover the period between 1983 and 2003 (TÜBİTAK 1993). Here, again, as in the first document, some basic goals were set and the production technologies to focus on in order to achieve these targets were identified. In addition, in order to achieve these goals, supporting R&D

104

3  Policy Formulation

expenditures in various ways was indicated as the main focus of policies (Türkcan 2009: 654–656). Finally, a policy document titled “National Science and Technology Policies: 2003–2023 Strategy Document” has been put into effect regarding innovation policies in Turkey covering the period 2003–2023. In its 6th meeting held in December 2000, BTYK emphasized that the latest science and technology policy work was carried out in 1993 to cover the period 1993–2003, and gave TÜBİTAK the task of preparing a new policy document for a 20-year period until 2023. A comprehensive project was prepared by TÜBİTAK regarding the fulfillment of this task and it was brought to the agenda of the BTYK’s 7th meeting held in December 2001. At the end of this meeting, “Vision 2023: Science and Technology Strategies” project was accepted for the preparation of the document that would determine the strategies regarding science and technology policies. Within the scope of this project, four sub-projects under the titles “Technology Foresight Project,” “National Technology Inventory Project,” “Researcher Information System (ARBİS)” and “National Research Infrastructure Information System (TARABİS)” have been put into effect. The project studies, which were launched in January 2002 under the leadership of TUBITAK, were designed to produce a policy for Turkey for the 2003–2023 period, were completed and published in November 2004. It is seen that the document presented with the title of “National Science and Technology Policies: 2003–2023 Strategy Document” is mainly prepared on the basis of the results of the Technology Foresight Project mentioned above. On the other hand, it is understood that the other three projects were carried out to create a database of researcher information and R&D infrastructure in both private and public sectors (TUBİTAK 2004). When the “National Science and Technology Policies: 2003–2023 Strategy Document” is examined, it is seen that the document consists of two main parts. In the first part, the results of the studies conducted within the scope of the Technology Foresight Project are conveyed, and in the second part, information is given on the National Science and Technology Strategy developed based on the results of this study. Accordingly, in the first part, information about the priority technology areas determined as a result of the studies carried out with a wide participation was given. In the second part of the document, explanations were made about the strategy to be followed and the first steps to be taken. It is stated here that the strategy developed in the policy document is based on three pillars. These pillars were expressed as “focusing,” “establishing cooperation networks,” and “ensuring management in a systematic integrity.” What is meant by “focusing,” which is the first pillar of the strategy, is to direct R&D resources to predetermined technology areas. Establishment of structures that will provide cooperation between the units conducting the research activity and the units that will transform the results of the research into economic and social benefits is expressed within the framework of “establishing cooperation networks.” Finally, with the phrase “ensuring management in a systematic integrity,” the establishment and operation of the National Innovation System was explained. No explanation other than the following statements about the National Innovation System is included in the strategy document:

2  Policy Design

105

It is essential to ensure that Turkey’s current National Innovation System functions effectively by completing its missing links and perfecting existing links and developing the social culture base on which it is established. In addition, regional innovation systems must be established to complement the national innovation system in terms of actively mobilizing and developing innovative and creative talent at the local level (TUBİTAK 2004: 27–28).

As it can be understood from the explanations above, the principles of the NIS approach were not used sufficiently in the design process of the latest policy document prepared by Turkey to support the innovation process. Although the emphasis is placed on the fact of “ensuring the management in a systematic integrity” as a pillar of the strategy to be followed in the implementation of policies, it is not easy to argue that the document in question was designed within the framework of the model introduced by the NIS approach. However, both national and international economic organizations design their innovation policies within the framework of the principles set forth by the NIS approach. However, in the 2003–2023 strategy document, neither the situation in Turkey was analyzed according to the basic components of NIS, nor the policy design process was developed for the system problems determined in relation to these components. Instead, the basis of the document is provided by the planning of the targets set for the priority technology areas determined as a result of the information obtained within the scope of the Technology Foresight Project. Beyond the foregoing, the other pillars of the strategy developed for the implementation of the policy document, “establishing cooperation networks” and “ensuring management in a systematic integrity” are actually not very different from each other. When a process is evaluated or managed with a systematic approach, the actors in the system, the interaction and cooperation between the actors, and the institutional and physical infrastructure of the system constitute the main components. Accordingly, when any process is handled with a systems approach, situation analysis, problem detection, solution proposals and appropriate policy designs are developed according to these four system components. Therefore, providing an approach within the framework of systematic integrity can be defined as the basic strategy itself, not a part of any strategy. In addition, when a process is evaluated with a systematic approach strategy, improving the interaction and cooperation between the units in the process in question is one of the basic issues foreseen by the systematic approach for the effective functioning of the process. In other words, the systematic approach also includes the creation of cooperation networks between the units in the system. Finally, another factor that attracts attention in the 2003–2023 policy document is the determination of the priority technological areas in the policy design process and to increase the intensity the R&D activities for these areas. This situation creates the impression that the document has been designed within the framework of the principles adopted by the classical approach. This is because, as we explained in the previous section, the classical approach, unlike the NIS approach, carries out the policy design process within the framework of a strategy that focuses more on R&D activities. This situation limits the policy design process to only the production of

106

3  Policy Formulation

R&D-centered science and technology policies in order to increase the innovation capacity. However, the NIS approach allows a much more comprehensive policy design process to improve the activities of the national-level system elements (actors, relations between actors and the institutional and physical structure surrounding them) in which the innovation process takes place. As a result, when the policy design processes to support the innovation creation activities in Turkey are examined, it is seen that the transformations brought by the NIS approach are not adequately adopted. In the policy design process in Turkey, instead of the principles determined by the modern NIS approach, the strategy set forth by the classical approach has been dominant. Accordingly, policy documents are limited to planning targets related to priority technology areas rather than determining innovation policies. Thus, it is seen that the policy documents in Turkey are not the product of a comprehensive design process realized within the framework of the goal of establishing an effective National Innovation System. However, the issue of being active in the process of creating innovation in Turkey should be transformed into a social project instead of being a responsibility of some science and technology-related institutions and organizations. The way to achieve this is to establish an effective National Innovation System in Turkey as envisaged by the NIS approach.

3  Policy Paradigms In political sciences, concepts belonging to different fields of study are borrowed with the effect of the new institutionalization approach. The “paradigm” concept borrowed from philosophy is one of these concepts. The concept of policy paradigms is used based on Kuhn’s concept of “paradigm” to explain the dynamics of long-term policy changes. This simulation, especially since the early 1990s, works as follows: Public policies emerge in a discourse area; therefore, policies are produced in a “system of ideas and standards” that makes sense and is relevant to the actors concerned (Anderson 1978: 24). As a result, policy-makers work within a framework of ideas and standards. This framework not only identifies the goals of the policies and the instruments that can be used to achieve them but also determines the nature of the problems they are needed to address. It is also part of the terminology that policy-makers use to inform relevant actors about their work in an integrated way; it is effective because its existence cannot be opposed and it is immune from control. Hall describes this interpretative framework as the “policy paradigm” (1993: 276). In this sense, the policy paradigm is a framework that operates in the policy-making process and refers to ideas and standards that define the objectives, tools, and qualifications of a policy issue. From this perspective, the issue of how policy-makers interpret and use evidence to build the notion of a policy greatly affects policy development. This can be called an interpretive framework or “mind map,” and is likely to be “path dependent” (Denzau and North 1994). Just as Kuhn’s model challenges the concept of scientific activity, which is compared to

3  Policy Paradigms

107

some rules of pure rationality, parallel models applied to the policy issue also challenge a single true understanding of politics; hence, policy paradigms oppose the classical policy-making perspective (Kay 2006: 11). In order to explain the concept of policy paradigms, Hassenteufel (2008) sets out the differences between the various phases to which certain characteristics of the state correspond. Until the eighteenth century, the state basically carried out three public policies that fell within the sphere of the sovereign state: public order policies, military policies, and fiscal policies. In this period, state action took place directly through the implementation of administrative tools such as police, army, courthouse, and taxing institutions. In the nineteenth century, the direct i­ nterventions of the state multiplied in number and effect and formed the foundations of the nation-state. In addition to the above, public policies were produced in areas such as transportation, communication, and education. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, redistributive policies emerged and built the foundations of the welfare state. Collective labor and labor insurance regulations were developed based on the understanding that the responsibility to provide a minimum standard of living for all citizens belongs not only to certain individuals but also to the entire society. After the Second World War, the state turned into a production machinery; in this period, the interventions of the state to economic life reached their peak and the scope of social protection systems has expanded in order to accelerate reconstruction efforts. After 1970s, state interventionism has been seriously questioned, which caused the state to emphasize procedural policies rather than direct intervention. Today, we are facing the phenomenon of regulatory state; this state has taken on an identity that avoids direct intervention, interacts with other actors, and allows non-state social actors to have a say in decision-making processes. Each of these periods that can be differentiated as explained above is characterized by the dominance of a certain type of public policy. However, in practice, it should be taken into account that contemporary states combine these different types of policies in varying proportions. All states run public policies specific to the sovereign state, nation-state, welfare state, producing state, and regulatory state, but their relative weight varies. The paradigm concept is used to explain these major changes in the implementation of public policies. The term “public policy paradigms” refers to actors promoting public policy and the collectivity of the concepts they take as a reference. Hall’s conceptualization is based on Kuhn’s approach to science epistemology. Kuhn (1963) sets out the four main elements that constitute a “paradigm” that expresses a dominant consensus in a scientific field: • General metaphysical principles: these guide worldview of scientists. In the sense of public action, global narratives such as the “neoliberal paradigm” about the functioning of society can be cited as an example. • Hypotheses and laws: these are axioms, theories of action, and forms of logic that establish the link between global principles and concrete public action systems. In this sense, it expresses the norms of action underlying an ideological whole.

108

3  Policy Formulation

• Methodologies: they are cases that depict legitimate behavior. When it comes to public action, it refers to the relationships that exist between actors, which emerge as hierarchy or partnership. • Instruments and tools: they allow scientific observation. In terms of public action, they refer to intervention mechanisms, such as sectoral aids or protective tariffs. Paradigms function as a series of elements that make a system consistent and sustainable. According to Hall (1993), the paradigm shift in public policy can be explained by the cumulative challenges facing current policies. Paradigm shift usually takes place in the field of macroeconomic policies. In this sense, it can be argued that a new liberal and monetarist paradigm has been introduced since the 1980s. Hall (1993)26 identified three types of policy changes. The first is the change in the level of policy instruments, the second is the change in the instruments actually used, and the third is the change of the general policy paradigm, all of which take place at the policy system level. According to this categorization, policy change and policy stability can be observed simultaneously. In his study, Hall presents a useful conceptualization by separating the change in the item and the change in the type. Two types of categories, namely item categories (policy instruments and their different levels) and species categories (policy paradigms), allow us to understand whether a change has been made in the current policy or whether a completely new policy has been implemented (Kay 2006: 11). As can be seen, policy paradigms are similar to the scientific paradigms Kuhn introduced to the literature. Based on Kuhn’s paradigms, it is possible to identify different types of policy changes. Accordingly, the first two of the three types of policy changes in Hall’s classification can be seen as “normal policy making:” in this sense, it refers to a process to adapt a policy without challenging the general conditions of a particular policy paradigm. In the third type, a different process, which creates radical changes in the basic conditions of policy discourse, is on the agenda; this process can be called a “paradigm shift.” Broad continuity trends witnessed within the first two types of policy patterns are preserved; however, the third kind of policy change is a more “individual” process that is related to policy discontinuities.27 The concept of policy paradigms has been described in several different ways by authors other than Hall. Some of these definitions emphasize the problem-solving dimension. Carson (2004: 38) defines the policy paradigm as “a cognitive model shared by a certain group of actors allowing problem solving.” Baumgartner (2013: 252) argues that “if ideas are widely shared by an entire policy community, they become paradigms.” Daigneault suggests that consistent and well-formed policy

 The types of policy change that Hall identified relate primarily to economic policies, but in general it can be considered to apply to all public policies. 27  One of the issues emphasized by Hall is that the first two types of policy changes do not necessarily lead to the third type of policy change over time; although the first two types of policy changes may be relatively interrelated, the policy change (third type) that leads to paradigm shift is a different process in itself (Hall 1993: 280). 26

4  Professional Policy-Making

109

ideas that have the ability to influence the content of public policy can be considered as paradigms (2014: 482). For example, Canada’s policy toward aborigines has a complex structure of property rights, constitutional rights, cultural issues, and other administrative, social, economic, and political goals and objectives. The policies of the governments that took office in the late 1990s brought up concepts such as autonomy and peaceful coexistence instead of the assimilationist policies adopted for centuries. Tobias examined the reservation camps inhabited by the locals in 1977 and described them as “assimilation camps.” In this context, the Canadian government’s policy can be considered as a paradigm shift. Legal arrangements have been made for this purpose, and institutions such as the Canadian Domestic and Northern Affairs Agency and the Canadian Domestic Services have been ­established. Today, Canadian natives are defined as “first nations” implying that they are the first settled communities in the country (see Coulthard 2007; Maaka and Fleras 2005).

4  Professional Policy-Making Democratic government requires well-designed and well-implemented policies. The number of people working on policy issues is considerable. Many actors, such as political leaders, bureaucrats, professional experts, policy advocates, and representatives of interest groups strive to be effective in the stages of public policy development and preparation. These people are called “policy workers” (Colebatch et al. 2011a, b: 11). Expert guidance helps to produce public policies more professionally. However, expert guidance services available to policy-makers and politicians are surprisingly negligible (Lomas 2000: 238).

4.1  Policy-Making Research There are several studies in the literature on policy-making, policy processes, and policy implementation. These show us how policy decisions are produced in policy-­ making institutions, particularly policy bureaucracies, and how internal and external environmental conditions affect produced policies (Noordegraaf 2011: 45). It is not easy to define and categorize professional policy-making at the government level. Gill and Saunders (1992: 6–7) defined policy analysis as “a method for structuring information and developing alternatives for the policy maker.” This definition includes providing information and advice to policy-makers regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages of different policy choices.28 Exactly how this is done remains a constant topic of discussion and research (Howlett and Wellstead 2011).

28

 Wildavsky (1969) and Mushkin (1977) provide detailed information on this subject.

110

3  Policy Formulation

If we compare the policy studies by dividing them into two groups, it is possible to say that the early studies that started in the 1960s focused on the technical dimension.29 Dror (1967) found that policy analysis is an increasingly professional field. The major reform movements of the period were influenced by the economic approach to public decision-making processes. The main tools used by this approach, which is mainly based on economic theory, especially microeconomics, welfare economics and quantitative decision-making theory, are techniques such as operational research, cost-effectiveness and cost–benefit analysis, program budgeting,30 and system analysis. Dror argues that “new professionals of this approach are system analysts” (1967: 197). The author argued that policy analysis should become a new professional role within the government. Policy analysis should be used as a new component in the political and organizational context and should contribute to policy-making processes without omitting politicians or managers in the chain of command (Dror 1967: 197). Following the same line, Meltsner (1975, 1976, 1979) argued that professional policy analysts in the government should behave like “technicians” who process private information on the subjects they have expertise. In addition to early studies, it can be seen that technical aspects of policy issues are emphasized in more recent studies as well. For example, Mintrom (1997) and Vining and Weimer (1999) stated that policy analysts should be knowledgeable on micro-economics, quantitative methods, and organizational analysis, and these are areas that policy analysts need to specialize in order to provide optimum solutions to the most important policy problems. Geva-May presents a more detailed perspective in her book “Thinking Like a Policy Analyst.” The author argues that learning to think like a “policy analyst” is not different from learning to think like a doctor or learning to think like the professionals of other clinical disciplines. All require professional training, mastery of the craft’s tricks, and the “diagnostic skills of a clinician.” Policy analysis is no different from these and is an important issue that cannot be left to untrained amateurs (2005: 2–5). Geva-May adapted the definition of “clinical cognition” of Kassirer and Kopelman (1991) to policy analysis as follows: Clinical cognition, or clinical reasoning, for policy analysis consists of a series of reasoning strategies. These strategies allow us to combine and synthesize various data to form one or more diagnostic hypotheses leading to a problem definition. They also enable us to make complex exchanges between the benefits and risks of the envisaged policy alternatives and to prepare plans for implementation. Developing a diagnostic hypothesis, collecting and evaluating clinical data, deciding whether problem diagnosis is appropriate in terms of data collection and modeling, evaluating modeling results and feasibility test outputs, revealing

 It should be noted that the organization-method school was dominant in Turkey during this period. 30  At the time, PPBS (programming, planning, and budgeting system), which was a major discussion topic in the USA, was criticized by Dror. He claimed that the system, which was brought up as an advanced policy analysis method, had serious shortcomings. Instead, it was necessary to use a more advanced type of professional information that could improve public decision-making processes further (1967: 199–200). 29

111

4  Professional Policy-Making a consistently working diagnosis and comparing the relative values of alternatives are just a few of its components (Geva-May 2005: 19).

In this sense, policy analysis is a type of professional practice. The concept of practice in business and public administration is often associated with characteristic behaviors and attitudes, social and psychological processes. In law, medicine, psychology, and economics, the concept of practice is linked to clinical reasoning processes that can be taught and learned. “Thinking like a lawyer,” “thinking like a doctor,” or “thinking like an economist” can be learned, and clinical education is given considerable importance in such areas. Thinking like a policy analyst implies the development of epistemological knowledge shared with the community of practitioners. The development of this kind of knowledge is part of the process of becoming a member of this professional community. It involves sharing “tricks of the job” at various mastery levels. There is an implicit, invisible internal acquis that includes rules, perceptions, conceptual inferences, simulations, visual symbols, and diagrams. When this tacit knowledge is combined with logical processes, it is unconsciously recruited to create new knowledge and new states of knowing (Geva-­ May 2005: 16–17) (Fig. 3.2). Recently, some empirical studies have been carried out to understand how policy research and analysis are actually performed within the government and how their results are produced, interpreted, and used by political decision-makers. As a result of these studies, it was understood that policy-making took place in quite different ways than the models put forward by the first term researchers (Colebatch 2006). For example, researchers such as Feldman (1989) and Page and Jenkins (2005) have suggested that many analysts are not technical experts, but people with general knowledge of processes (policy generalists). These policy analysts have little or no formal training on technical issues such as cost–benefit analysis or risk assessment. Although considered in the pro-technocracy group above, Meltsner (1986) states that policy analysis and professional-level policy studies in today’s governments have become much more diverse than in previous studies, professional policy spe-

Being member of a professional community

Thinking like a policy analyst Covert knowledge

Formed knowledge

Perceptions

Visual symbols

Conceptual simulators

Schemes

Rules

Production of new knowledge

Clinical experience/ Clinical education experience

Fig. 3.2  Logic of policy analysis as a clinical process. (Source: Geva-May 2005: 22)

Key points

112

3  Policy Formulation

cialists in governments are not a homogeneous group, and admitted that there are serious differences between analysts in terms of the essentials of their work. Policy analysts use various different methods in policy selection, implementation, strategic planning, and policy evaluation. It is also known that they engage in quite different activities related to politics. Policy analysts use different analysis techniques such as consultation and mathematical modeling31 and communicate with actors inside or outside the government in several different ways than those revealed in the ­literature.32 All this shows that there are much richer and more detailed analysis practices in policy studies than the previous studies suggest. The above discussion reveals the main difference between policy analysis and professional policy work. Policy analysis consists of a series of algorithmic professional practices, especially as discussed at American and Canadian universities. This field is dominated by post-positivist views that try to explain reality and especially emphasize the importance of statistics and economics in terms of political and administrative decision-making processes. Colebatch et al. (2011b: 23) argue that the shift from policy analysis to policy work shows the main features of a very basic paradigm shift. Accordingly, the main research topic of scientific studies for the activities of policy professionals should include observations about what policy workers have done most of their time and what they have achieved with their activities, rather than methodological rules: “Just as science is what scientists do, policy studies are also are what people actually do. In other words, policy studies is about how policy is made and how policy practices evolve” (2011a: 239). Therefore, policy-­making needs to be considered as a professional practice area based on expertise, beyond being an activity to achieve a desired outcome.33 Today, policy work is becoming increasingly institutional and professional. Governments tend to employ more policy officers or analysts. In addition, more and more official and central policy units are being created.34 A similar process is taking place not only at the government level, but also in businesses, professional organizations, and nonprofit organizations, which employ their own policy experts to act more professionally in their dealings with the government and public agencies. In this way, politics is gradually becoming a more professional practice.35

 For modeling in general, see Miller and Guria 1991; Sokolowski and Banks 2011. On energy policy modeling, see Pandey 2002. For modeling of agricultural policy, see Buysse et al. (2007). For monetary policy modeling, see Martin and Milas 2004. 32  As an example of the studies examining policy professionals working in various sectors, especially education and health, on this subject, Boyd 1976; Friend and Cook 1992; and Beaumont 2003 can be given as examples. 33  Among the authors who emphasized this issue are Lasswell and McDougal 1943; DarlingHammond and McLaughlin 1995; Darling-Hammond 1989 (in the field of education); Clarke 1999 (in the field of health and social care) and Bardach and Patashnik 2015 (in general). 34  United Kingdom and Canada emerge as the most advanced examples of the practice of establishing institutions that provide professional support to the central government in policy-making. 35  Geva-May (2005: 277) revealed that the process was partly due to the emergence of public policy graduate programs and the development of a specialized training and certification practice, especially in the USA and Canada in the 1960s. It is remarkable that this process is similar to cameral sciences. 31

5  Evidence-Based Policy Making

113

The most important problem of the studies on policy-making is the low number of large-scale, comprehensive, and empirical research (Howlett and Wellstead 2012: 54). But the problems are not limited to this. The few studies in the literature that focus on the major countries, especially the USA, have now become obsolete. Some studies are only partly based on survey data.36 Many studies cite several old-dated and US-focused studies to support policy analysts about their roles in contemporary policy processes.37 Lack of knowledge about the characteristics and activities of professional policy workers means that most researchers lack basic data on issues such as how many policy analysts are located in government, what subjects they work on, and what effect they have.38 As a result, researchers think that new and more participatory studies should be conducted on professional policy staff in the government in order to improve their knowledge on this issue (Kathlene and Martin 1991).

5  Evidence-Based Policy Making In the seventeenth century, English philosopher Francis Bacon dreamed of New Atlantis, where politics was based on knowledge, truth, logic, and evidence. He argued that sciences devoted to different specialties should cooperate in order to develop empirical knowledge and improve the living conditions of people. Virtuous man was the truth seeker; the righteous politician was the politician who made his decisions based on facts. In his well-known quote, he said: “knowledge itself is power.”39 Evidence-based policy-making, which is the subject of this section, has been examined in the literature to see whether or not the evidence produced by academic studies is used in policy-making by elected officials, consultants, and public officials. The demands for the use of evidence in policy-making are based on the view that people will make better, more productive and successful decisions if they carefully evaluate the available evidence of competing options and choose the one most likely to maximize their interests (Coburn et al. 2009: 1116). This is a view that is largely borrowed from the business world. The main factors underlying the increasing importance of evidence in policy-making and implementation are the increase in the education level of people, their access to more information, the widespread education and the development of information and communication technologies, the increase in the number and capacity of research units, more emphasis on pro-

 See Page and Jenkins (2005).  See Meltsner (1976), Durning and Osuna (1994). 38  Researchers such as Mackay and Uhr (1996), Bakvis (1997, 2000), Weller and Stevens (1998) pointed out these deficiencies. 39  “Ipsa scientia potestas est” in Latin. Hobbes wrote “scientia potentia est” in Leviathan in 1688 (“knowledge is power”). 36 37

114

3  Policy Formulation

ductivity and international competition, and increased importance given to the control and accountability of government (Smith et al. 2000). Recent studies show that policy-makers frequently use trial-and-error procedures to find the best solution to problems.40 Within the context of trial and error, policy-­ makers first develop a hypothesis about the best way to achieve a goal. They then test their hypotheses by applying their policies and analyzing their impact. As a result of the analysis, they have an idea of how well their policies are working and they decide whether to continue, improve, apply, or terminate their policies (Kay 2006: 51).

5.1  Principles of Evidence-Based Policy-Making Evidence-based policy-making has two major objectives: (1) using information provided by program evaluation for policy-making, and (2) generating more information to ensure that future decisions are based on more information. Evidence-based policy-making can take many forms to achieve these goals. These include the use of research findings to provide information to new policies or to improve the effectiveness of existing programs, to support data collection and analysis for research and management, and to develop policies that encourage the use of evidence. There are four principles of evidence-based policy-making that policy-makers, institution directors, and other public leaders can use to improve results in the public sector. These principles represent the compromise of researchers and practitioners who aim to improve the production of policy decisions and the management of programs, and set goals for democratic processes, policies, and programs. Evidence-­ based policy-making is an important tool to achieve these goals. • The first principle is to create and compile careful evidence of what works, including costs and benefits. • The second principle is to follow the execution of the program and apply for impact assessment to measure the effectiveness of the program. • The third principle is to use rigorous evidence to improve programs, evaluate actions that work, and shift funds from programs that are constantly ineffective. • The fourth principle is to encourage innovation and test new approaches (Nutley et al. 2002). Shaxson (2005) underlines that five factors are important for the robustness of evidence: credibility, reliability, generalizability, impartiality, and originality. Finding evidence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for decision-making processes. At this point, it is important, among other things, that the relations between policy-makers and their consultants work smoothly. Since policy-makers

40

 See Perry 1988; May 1992; Rose 1992; Hoppe 1999.

5  Evidence-Based Policy Making

115

have different backgrounds, developing a common language helps to put discussions about the soundness of evidence on a solid basis.

5.2  Evidence and Policy Advocacy According to Bellinger (2015: 8–9), policy analysis serves at least two main purposes given its relation with evidence. First, the evidence provided by policy analysts is used as arguments to support specific policy positions. Findings of scientific studies and research can always be used as evidence by political parties or interest groups. These groups finance research that is likely to support their own viewpoints. Second, independent policy research can help resolve conflicts between interest groups. Decision-makers may find the evidence presented by the parties convincing and can formulate policies based on this evidence. Many policy discussions between parties that advocate for specific policies include disagreements on values, problem definitions, evidence, and the consequences of the policies. Advocates of a particular interest group or ideology provide a range of value arguments, definitions, evidence, and policy advice designed to support their own perspectives. The use of policy analysis as a persuasive argument depends on the findings of policy studies to match the objectives of policy-makers. Therefore, it is quite natural to selectively use policy analysis and other evidence in policy discussions. These groups finance research that is likely to support their own viewpoints. Second, independent policy research can help resolve conflicts between interest groups. Decision-makers may find the evidence presented by the parties convincing and can formulate policies based on this evidence. Many policy discussions between parties that advocate for specific policies include disagreements on values, problem definitions, evidence, and the consequences of the policies. Advocates of a particular interest group or ideology provide a range of value arguments, definitions, evidence, and policy advice designed to support their own perspectives. The use of policy analysis as a persuasive argument depends on the findings of policy studies to match the objectives of policy-makers. Therefore, it is not surprising to selectively use policy analysis and other evidence in policy discussions. The 1999 government report published in the UK contains the following statements: “This government expects more from policy-makers. More focus on newer ideas, greater willingness to question established ways of doing business, better use of evidence and research in policy-making, and better focus on policies that will achieve long-term goals” (Cabinet Office 1999b). In the White Paper dated 2001 published by the European Commission, it is stated that scientists and other experts play an increasingly important role in the preparation and monitoring of decisions. Accordingly, all institutions, from human and animal health to social laws, rely on expertise to predict and identify the problems and uncertainties facing the EU, to make decisions and to make the risks publicly and simply disclosed (2001: 19). Policy advocacy, one of the key discussion topics related to the function of making recommendations, includes a wide range of activities that are largely related to

116

3  Policy Formulation

nongovernmental groups and affect decision-makers. Among these activities are litigation, lobbying, and public education. In addition, capacity building, relationship building, networking, and leadership development can be counted. All these activities are largely undertaken by nongovernmental groups because such organizations have traditionally served audiences with limited opportunities to make their voices heard in policy processes.

5.3  Interpretation of Evidence Several studies have been conducted to determine that interpretation of evidence plays a critical role in decision-making processes. Kennedy (1982) argued that decision-makers pay more attention to evidence that is similar to their previous knowledge, that they specifically use the research that supports their own views, and that they do not even mention research findings that are contrary to their own premises. Coburn (2001) revealed that the way information is processed affects how the evidence is interpreted. People with different beliefs interpret the same evidence in ways that contradict each other. There are also studies showing that decision-makers have a strong tendency to ignore evidence that does not support previous beliefs or actions. It can even be seen that, beyond ignorance, decision-­makers or their political supporters often try to “disrepute” research that present contradictory findings. Coburn et al. (2009) focuses on the interpretation of evidence while dealing with the use of evidence in policy-making. While conducting their work, the authors conducted interviews with staff working at various levels of a school district in the USA for 3 years, observed planning meetings and professional development processes, and collected a large number of internal and external documents. In this process, they determined 45 decisions made by the regional administration and conducted an in-depth analysis on 23 of these decisions. The result of this analysis was reported as follows: Decision making processes in complex organizations such as school districts are generally concerned with interpretation, discussion and persuasion. Evidence and other types of information do not provide answers; rather, they provide raw materials for meaning extraction and interpretation. These processes are largely based on pre-formed beliefs and practices; they guide one’s understanding of the problems and solutions (Coburn et al. 2009: 1117).

According to the authors, it is critical to understand the information that public officials use and how they use the data and the factors they consider when using this information. One of the tools used for this purpose is called “sense-making theory.”41 This theory involves the interpretation of information and the production of what is interpreted and tries to explain the processes of giving meaning to people’s experi-

 For more information about sense-making theory, see Dervin 1998; Savolainen 1993; De Jaegher and Di Paolo 2007.

41

5  Evidence-Based Policy Making

117

ences. It is also useful for analyzing the use of evidence because it illuminates the processes that underlie the reflections of the use of evidence in real life and provides insight into the organizational factors that shape these processes (Coburn et  al. 2009: 1117). The instrumental approach to evaluating information that provides input to decision-­making actions argues that the evidence is “neutral” and its meaning is clear without leaving room for interpretation. However, many studies today reveal that the evidence is subject to interpretation.42 Among the interpretations of the meaning and expressions of the information obtained, many may contradict each other (Johnson 1999). On the other hand, the available evidence does not always point directly to an appropriate solution. A complete overlap may not always occur between a particular finding and the appropriate action. At this point, it is possible to see that interpretation processes play a critical role in transforming information into a solution proposal. As a result, the evidence alone does not answer public policy questions. The act of interpretation is “part of a policy process shaped by interests linked to social and political processes operating in certain organizational contexts” (Sanderson 2003: 342). As Johnson (1999) put it, the evidence “provides the raw material needed to produce and interpret meaning.” Interpretation and negotiation are crucial for making sense of the evidence. In addition, “persuasion” plays a critical role in identifying a problem and using evidence in policy decision-making. It is not surprising, therefore, that different political parties achieve very different conclusions based on the same findings.

5.4  Examples of Evidence-Based Policy-Making Evidence-based policy-making practices are most evident in such fields as environment, health, and security. In this section, the debate between economists and environmentalists on using evidence for policy-making is discussed. Then, the polities where evidence is most popular such as Canada and United Kingdom are examined with special reference to “what works?” reforms in the UK. Economists and Environmental Policies  An ideological debate has been going on between environmentalists and non-economists for a long time. Most environmental policy arguments base scientific evidence on environmental damage. Environmentalists often place their discussions in the context of greedy companies and the invaluable value of nature and human life. This approach envisages the support of strict environmental standards and the view that costs of these standards should not be discussed. In contrast, environmental economists often advocate a partial comparison of all the benefits and costs of environmental policies which includes non-environmental factors such as employment and income. These differ42

 For more detailed information, see Hopf 2007; Evett et al. 2000; Pham 2007.

118

3  Policy Formulation

ent values ​​and methods tend to produce diverse results related to reducing pollution at the appropriate amount. Non-economists generally support the highest level of environmentally friendly practices from a technical point of view, while economists advocate the highest level of environmentally friendly practices where benefits exceed costs. Another dimension of this discussion is about the method by which pollution should be controlled. Here, while economists advocate policies based on incentives such as taxes or pollution permits, non-economists explicitly support regulatory standards because they have less faith in market forces (Bellinger 2015: 8). Case of Canada  One of the most important institutions in Canada that provides evidence to policy-makers is the Canadian Health Service Research Foundation (CHRSF). The Foundation devotes the ability to investigate time, energy, and resources, including research results (myth busters) that provide evidence contrary to generally accepted ideas in health-related discussions in Canada, short discussions about health where research results point to a preferred policy, and time, energy and resources. It provides a wide range of materials, such as “promising practices that research can use” that emphasize specific health institutions. CHSRF also runs a 2-year executive training program called EXTRA.43 This program aims to create capacity and leadership to optimize the use of research findings in the management of healthcare organizations. In addition, the foundation offers academic researchers a working environment with consultants to direct their work to applied healthcare or policy research. It also organizes a program called “Listening for Routing,” a policy scope determination study in which the short-term (1–2 years) and long-term (3–10 years) priorities of the health system are determined. CHSRF finances projects that gather the best evidence available, show how to act based on this evidence, and promote specific transformations within the health system (Williams 2010: 204). Another example from Canada is the initiative created under the title Information Mobilization. This initiative is partially funded by the Social and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and brings together York University and Victoria University. SSHRC’s website44 publishes summaries of research conducted in various disciplines such as anthropology, fine arts, literature, law, philosophy, and women’s studies, education, social welfare, crime, and justice. Information Mobilization has created many partnerships, from informal processes such as speaker series and graduate student internships to research collaborations with municipalities, state and community organizations. These partnerships have produced new evidence for policy-makers to consider when making decisions are being made (Phipps and Shapson 2009). It also provides a comprehensive database of Canadian and foreign organizations that aim to facilitate the transfer and exchange of information between academic researchers and policy-makers. Both universities have integrated their 43 44

 Information on EXTRA is available at http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/WhatWeDo/extra  http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx

5  Evidence-Based Policy Making

119

institutional structures with a permanent means of information mediation; in this way, they actively seek out and find relevant research topics and issues needed by government decision-makers and link them with appropriate researchers, mostly faculty members and students at the institution (Williams 2010: 205). Case of the United Kingdom  In the UK, researchers and policy activists pioneered the evidence-based policy movement to systematically use social science research. Researchers created the organization titled Campbell Cooperation45 in 1999 to systematically review the best evidence of the impact of social and educational policies and practices. This organization conducts systematic reviews that practitioners can access electronically. The organization also aims to bring social science research and i­ ndividual researchers closer to the policy-making processes of the government (Marston and Watts 2003: 147). Foundations such as Joseph Rowntree and Nuffield support and finance social science research in line with their social priorities (Young et al. 2002: 215). The British government has been closely involved with evidence-based policy-making since at least 1997. The government motto, “What matters is what works,”46 has been the rationale for massive budgets and thousands of staff dedicated to research in ministries, public institutions, and local governments. A significant portion of this effort has been spent on “post-assessment” or judgment based on the results; however, interim evaluation and formal evaluation frameworks have been part of the designs of major programs such as Sure Start, New Deals and Neighborhood Renewal, and budget allocation for these has not been neglected. The use of evidence-based policy-making in pilot practices, monitoring, performance measurement, and comprehensive assessments, as well as taking and implementing various measures based on feedback on what works, has turned into a kind of “evolutionist epistemology.”47 The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), an agency affiliated to the government, played an important role in this process.48 At first glance, evidence-based policy-making approach, especially advocated by the Cabinet Office in the UK, assumes that evidence has been handled impartially and  For detailed information on Campbell Collaboration, please visit https://campbellcollaboration. org/ 46  One of the methods used to determine what matters is “impact assessment,” which will be discussed below. 47  Kay explains the relationship between evolutionist epistemology and evidence-based policymaking as follows: “The search for what works assumes that politics must be developed in an evolutionary way and that there are strong limitations… on a universal rationality in policy-making. Indeed, myopia and random change or the importance of designed experiments are concepts at the core of evolutionist theory; this is what distinguishes it from other policy models, or other models in social sciences” (Kay 2006: 51). For a comprehensive bibliography on evolutionist epistemology, see Campbell et al. 1987. 48  In 2000, David Blunkett, then Minister of Education, said in a speech to the ESRC: “Social science research is central to policy development and evaluation… We need social science and social scientists to tell us what works and what types of policy initiatives will be most effective” (Young et al. 2002: 215). 45

120

3  Policy Formulation

scientifically to provide information to policy intervention. It is neutral and scientific rationality that is at stake here, but evidence also provides information on the “what works” policy-making process; this is a pragmatic concept that is influenced by political context as well as scientific principles. Therefore, when it comes to rationality in policy analysis, the following questions need to be asked: “Are there universal elements to be protected at all times and in every policy sector, or are policy processes functioning entirely with contextual rationality concepts? What is the relationship between context and rationality?” (Kay 2006: 57). What Works?  It is an important element of the public administration reform program that the Labor Party brought to the agenda after it came to power in 1997. The program, also implemented in Australia and New Zealand, was designed to ensure that the best evidence for useful practices was ready for decision-makers. The main purpose here was to support efforts to improve public services. In the UK, the ­government launched a program to “modernize”49 the public sector in 1999 and introduced the motto “what matters is what works.” Thus, evidence-based policymaking approach reached its peak with the Labor Party in England circulating this catch-­phrase. It was announced that ideological approaches to public policy50 were abandoned (Smith et al. 2000: 1), that research evidence must be guided by policymaking, producing effective solutions to the problems of society and achieving desired results. The government was committed to identifying “what works” in key policy areas such as crime, education, and social welfare (Sanderson 2003: 333). An initiative, called What Works Network, carried out information on the program and regularly published reports evaluating various policy areas such as crime, health, education, local growth and early intervention.51 In the report published in 2014, it was accepted that the findings obtained in some policy areas were inevitable. However, it was suggested that the “What Works” program, supported by evidence-­ based policy-making, offered several benefits in areas such as aging, health, and education.

 The “Modernizing Government” initiative started with the White Paper published by the Cabinet Office (1999a), declaring that “policy decisions should be based on sound evidence.” 50  As a left party, the Labor Party’s continuance with public administration reforms initiated by the previous Conservative Party has been subject to severe criticism. 51  Founded in 2013, What Works Network was established within the Economic and Social Research Council, which is a government unit. Members of the network include the National Institute of Excellence in Health and Care, the Early Intervention Foundation, What Works Center for Local Economic Growth, What Works Scotland, the Education Donation Foundation, the Police College, What Works Center for Well-being, the Better Aging Center, and the Welsh Public Policy Institute. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network 49

5  Evidence-Based Policy Making

121

5.5  Evidence-Based Policy-Making in Turkey: Example Cases It is seen that evidence-based policy-making in Turkey has been included in high-­ level policy documents such as development plans and government programs and in strategic plans and programs of public institutions in recent years. In this context, when the development plans are examined, it can be seen that evidence-based medicine and policy-making in the field of health have been regularly included in development plans since the eighth Development Plan covering the years 2001–2005. In the ninth Development Plan covering the period from 2007 to 2013, in line with the aim of developing policy-making and implementation capacity, goals directed toward evidence-based policy-making were determined such as: (1) rationalizing the policy-making process, (2) developing qualitative and quantitative data management so that policies are based on data and information, (3) using quantitative, fictional, and analytical methods in policy-making and costing (State Planning Organization 2007: 95). In the tenth development plan covering the period between 2014 and 2018, in addition to general objectives such as production of more ­systematic and reliable data, statistics and information (Ministry of Development 2013: 52), health-policy specific objectives including providing health services supported with data and evidence-based policies and production of high-quality data related to such service were developed (p. 34–35). Evidence-based policy-making has also been included in government programs in recent years. For example, in the 64th Government Program (2015), objectives such as ensuring the sharing of data collected and produced by public institutions and organizations, integrating public data centers, increasing the quality and number of reliable statistics, and implementing big data applications in the public were directly related to evidence-based policy-­making. The 65th government program (2016) also included elements for the evidence-­based approach stating that the political will to support evidence-based public policies would continue. There are a number of factors behind the coming to the fore of evidence-based policy-making in the last 15 years in Turkey both in academia and among policy-­ makers and practitioners. From the point of view of official policy-makers consisting of the Prime Ministry, Ministries, and the Turkish Grand National Assembly, such measures as (1) strengthening the support units for public policy analysis and decision-making, (2) policy-making and decision-making processes becoming increasingly integrated with information technologies, and (3) increasing opportunities for storing and sharing information, data and statistics between and within the institutions provide a basis for evidence-based policy-making. In addition, reform applications such as regulatory impact analysis, strategic planning and performance programs, and performance-based budgeting in public administration also tend to strengthen the evidence-based policy-making capacity of public institutions. Several driving forces have been instrumental in advancing evidence-based policy-­making in Turkey in the last decade. These can be listed as follows: (1) increasing support for social science research by universities and institutions such as TÜBİTAK, (2) increasing importance of method and methodology issues in

122

3  Policy Formulation

almost every social science discipline, (3) increasing the number and effectiveness of research centers supporting social science research, (4) the momentum of public policies in social science disciplines in recent years as a field of study, and (5) recent developments in universities and academia that provide the scientific knowledge needed in the formulation of evidence-based public policies (Demir 2020). In this context, the gradual increase in the number of courses and programs on public policy and policy analysis in general and evidence-based policy-making in particular is another remarkable development. For example, policy analysis and program evaluation, as well as basic courses on evidence-based policy-making, are included in Policy and Strategy Studies Masters with and without Thesis and Doctorate Program within Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. There are also some elements that support the development of evidence-based public policy in terms of informal actors of public policies. For example, in recent years, think tanks and research centers operating in many fields, especially foreign policy, education, and health, have become more and more professional in producing the systematic information needed in policy processes. There are some prominent policy areas in Turkey in terms of evidence-based policy-making, especially health, transportation, fight against crime, education, and social policies. For example, advances in evidence-­ based medicine in the health sector have encouraged more evidence-based health policies. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Health pointed this out in a speech he made in 2013 (Sabah Newspaper, 7.10.2013): “Evidence-based medicine is one of the most important data in our policy making. Turkey has made significant improvements in population and other important statistics to be used in all of its policies. As the Ministry, we developed the health information system and gathered information from different fields. It is extremely important to work with accurate and reliable data.” Indeed, in recent years, it has been seen that evidence-based policy-making and implementation is at the basis of health policies. In this context, the 2010–2014 Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Health aimed to follow evidence-based policies and health strategies, and training physicians in evidence-based medicine practices was determined as a sub-target. In the 2013–2017 Strategic Plan, “evidence-base” was accepted as an institutional value of the Ministry, and a strategy of inter-sectoral cooperation was adopted to improve evidence-based health communication. This issue was reviewed as a sub-component of the Multi-Stakeholder Health Responsibility Development Program (2013–2023), which entered into force in 2014, and its implementation standards were determined and concretized accordingly. In this context, another development in the health sector is the establishment of the Evidence-Based Medicine Association in 2007 and the organization of Evidence-Based Medicine Symposiums in recent years. Evidence-based medicine in particular and evidence-based decision-making and policy-making in general stand out as one of the main strategies of the Ministry of Health for the near future. In the last decade, emphasis on evidence-based decision-making and policy-­ making in the field of education has increased in high-level policy documents such as government action plans, development plans, and National Education Council decisions. The EU-supported Ministry of National Education (MEB) Capacity

5  Evidence-Based Policy Making

123

Strengthening Project, covering the years 2008–2010, revealed a series of training activities and applied studies on data collection, analysis, and protection, problem-­ solving and decision-making, performance management, monitoring and evaluation, and usage and application of statistics in education. The Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Basic Education adopted the aim of developing evidence-based policies and evidence-based performance measurement tools for education administrators by removing obstacles to access to education under the title of “Access to Primary Education and Continuation” within the framework of its 2023 Vision. The fact that the strategies, goals, and objectives regarding evidence-­ based education are included in the strategic plan of the Ministry of National Education, directly and indirectly, shows that the evidence-based approach in national education has begun to take root. The existence of think tanks and civil initiatives52 that support the creation of evidence-based education policies is ­important for the sustainability of evidence-based policies in education in Turkey. In this context, Education Reform Initiative (ERG), which was established within Sabancı University in 2003, keeps on the agenda decision-making and policy-making based on data and evidence in education with various activities it organizes and reports and analyses it publishes. ERG Turkey, which has determined that there has been a noticeable increase in the interest in decision-making based on data in the education community ranging from central administrations to local administrations and schools in recent years in the education sector, makes the following evaluations regarding evidence-based policy-making in education: Various studies conducted by Ministry of National Education on information compilation and management (e-school, MEBBİS, TEFBİS, e-performance etc.), TÜİK-ADNKS53 data, national and international test results (such as PISA, TIMSS, SBS, ÖSS, ÖBBS etc.),54 constitute the basic foundations for policy-making processes at national level and policy development and planning efforts at local level today. These data and indicator sources are widely used resources especially in the creation of strategic planning and performance programs. “Education Monitoring Indicators,” which the ERG started to publish in Education Monitoring Reports since 2009, constitute a rich data source for both Education Monitoring Reports and researchers and policy makers (Ministry of National Education 2019: 122).

In Turkey, in terms of academic literature, studies on evidence-based policy-­ making and implementation have been witnessed in recent years, especially in the fields of social services and education, together with various medical branches. In the field of health, a significant literature has emerged, especially on evidence-based approach, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based public health, evidence-based pharmacy, evidence-based nursing, and evidence-based dentistry. Due to the spread  Society Volunteers, Purple Roof Women’s Shelter, AIESEC Turkey, and the Turkish foundation for combating erosion reforestation and the protection of natural habitats (TEMA) are among the most well-known civil initiatives that promote evidence-based policy-making. 53  TÜİK is short for Turkish Statistical Institute and ADNKS is short for Address-Based Census Registry System. 54  These abbreviations stand for Programme for International Student Assessment, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, Level Identification Exam, Student Selection Exam, and Student Achievement Identification Exam, respectively. 52

124

3  Policy Formulation

of evidence-based medicine practices in various branches, the number of academic studies is also higher than other policy areas. However, there are also theoretical and empirical studies in the fields of social work and education, which are closely related to health. In summary, academic studies on evidence-based policy-making in Turkey have concentrated on the application dimension of health, education, and social service fields. It can be argued that evidence-based policy-making has relatively improved in international literature and has not yet found a serious response in policy areas such as crime, terrorism, labor relations, food, and housing. The number of conceptual, theoretical, or empirical research published in these fields in the public policy analysis literature that is newly developing in Turkey is almost nonexistent. As a result, it can be stated that evidence-based policy-making in some areas, especially in health and education, has come to the fore in the last decade in Turkey, but it has yet not gained due attention in other policy areas.

5.6  Problems of Evidence-Based Policy-Making Williams argues that evidence-based policy-making has four main problems. The first of these problems arises from the competition between the concepts of “managing with evidence” and “managing by measuring.” Policy workers, on one hand, are encouraged to use the evidence obtained in policy decisions; on the other hand, they are asked to “manage by measuring.”55 Although both are results-oriented, they are often contradictory expectations. Williams defines this dilemma as follows: As a result, policy workers often have to decide which of the following is of greater importance: activities that encourage systematic integration of research into policy decisions and require investing in large-scale human and financial resources, or activities that make him appear as a person trying to manage responsibly with the money at hand? (Williams 2010: 196).

The second problem stems from the fact that policy-related narratives are part of the policy process: a narrative can be used as a “justification” beyond being descriptive. Traditional policy statements acknowledge that the government set goals unilaterally. In such statements, research only plays a role in determining the appropriate targets and determining to what extent these targets are achieved. In this context, research can help policy-makers achieve better results by providing objective answers to these questions (Williams 2010: 197).56

 The concept of “managing by measuring” is defined as the search for “objective” indicators as the basis of initiating and evaluating political actions. See Noordegraaf and Abma 2003. 56  However, some “interpretive” authors (e.g., Fischer 2003; Stone 2001; Yanow 2000) argue that policy-making is not a simple process that involves choosing tools based solely on academic research. According to these authors, policy-making takes place in an interactive, discursive, and deliberative area. Academic research is just one of the “valid meaning frameworks.” Therefore, policymakers may experience uncertainty about where research is useful (Williams 2010: 197). 55

6  Governance and Policy-Making

125

The third problem arises at the point of how the effect is compared with other norms. Policy staff is constantly asked to further integrate research into policy, but academics are under greater pressure to influence their research in policy (Williams 2010: 198). The fourth problem is as follows: if other types of knowledge production are considered valid, what effect can knowledge based on academic research have? The demand that policy be based on evidence and that academic research has an impact on policy is based on the assumption that academic research will produce higher level, “objective” information, which will help achieve better policy results. However, in these postmodern times, this view faces objection from academics themselves. Postmodern academics claim that not only the information they produce but also other types of information (e.g., experiences) provide valid information. Postmodern researchers have shown that the claims of social sciences for superiority of knowledge and experience privilege are no longer valid (Williams 2010: 199).57

6  Governance and Policy-Making Policy studies have been focused for many years on the policy objectives, alternative ways of achieving these goals, the features and possible outcomes of these alternatives, the effects of other countries, states and local governments on policy choices, and the previously announced objectives, policy implementation, and policy outcomes. Less attention has been given to the practices and ongoing government processes that produce policy statements, and these processes are expressed in general terms such as “coordination.”58 Disciplinary debates have been largely limited to official discourses and explanations, and the task of governing has been seen as the practice of using the powers of appropriately empowered leaders to achieve known goals. With the spread of the governance paradigm, the understanding that various actors in addition to “authorized leaders” play a role in the process has been strengthened. Today, scientists are hesitant to accept the traditional discourse of “policies are made by politicians” and they respect more pluralistic, localized statements. In this way, they argue that ordinary people other than policy professionals also contribute to the formation of policies and reveal findings in their studies (Shore 2011: 212). It is believed that policy analysis is not an experimental science in the pursuit of law, but an interpretive science in the pursuit of meaning (Geertz 1973: 5). Competent authorities are aware that other participants, who are called “stakehold57  One of the most important advocates of this view, Huberman (1990, 1994) examined the effect of postmodern approach on research in the field of education. He argued that combining researchers’ findings with practitioners’ experience would increase the validity of the data they obtain. 58  For a discussion that the concept of “coordination” refers to short-term outcomes, not the process itself, see Stein 1982; Van Huyck et al. 1990; Gauthier 1975.

126

3  Policy Formulation

ers,” are involved in the policy development processes and are aware of the importance of collectively produced policies to be successful. This is precisely why policy professionals spend more time negotiating with their counterparts in other institutions than seeking advice of their supervisors (Radin 2000). In the report titled “Professional Policy Making for Twenty-First Century” published by the British Cabinet Office in 1999, the main features of professional policy-­making are listed as follows: • It clearly defines the outputs and has a long-term perspective. It takes into account the possible effects and consequences of the policy for 5 years or more. • It fully takes into account national, regional, and international conditions. • It develops a holistic perspective by transcending institutional boundaries and addressing the strategic goals of the government. • It is flexible and innovative. It is willing to question traditional ways of doing things and to encourage new and creative ideas. • It uses the best evidence available by researching a wide variety of sources. • It continuously reviews the current policy to ensure that it is not intended to produce unwanted results elsewhere while solving the problems it is designed to solve.59 • It is fair to all who are directly or indirectly affected by it and takes into account its effects more generally. • It involves all key stakeholders at an early stage and throughout its development. • It learns from experiences about what works and what doesn’t work through systematic evaluation. Policy-making is an activity that occurs in a very complex context. According to the report of the Cabinet Office, policy-makers of the twenty-first century should comprehend the traditional dimensions of policy-­making, such as knowledge of the law, understanding the perspectives of stakeholders, and designing implementation systems. In addition, they also have to understand the fact that various factors affect policy-making beyond institutional structures, processes, and culture. At the same time, policy-makers need to grasp the Minister’s priorities and know what role they will play in the real world and where they will show the effects of the policies (Cabinet Office 1999b). Parsons, who evaluates the Cabinet Office’s report, argues that the title of this report is an interesting example of abandoning the classic Wilsonian political-­ administrative distinction. According to Parsons, the report is about “policy making” and “policy makers.” The latter term refers to public officials, politicians, and others involved in the process of translating a “political vision” into action (Cabinet Office 1999b). The concept of professional policy-making acknowledges that policy-­making is an activity that does not fit the patterns of the old policy/adminis-

 The classical progressive public policy approach addresses this activity under the heading of “ongoing evaluation.”

59

7  Deliberative Policy-Making

127

trative distinction. Indirectly, the professional model also rejects the traditional public policy process model, which sees policy-making as a process that begins with problems and passes through a series of rational steps or stages that end with implementation and evaluation (Parsons 2001: 94). However, Parsons finds the model presented in the report inadequate for three reasons. First, it tries to put forward a philosophy of “what works” with little success. The report presents a model that is claimed to provide more effective policy-making, but the evidence on which this claim is based are hardly “concrete facts.” The report was not concerned with whether the model produced better results or not, or whether there has been a recent change in the process. Second, the report ignores that politics and democracy are important dimensions in policy-making and adopts a nonparticipatory top-down approach, which is not a proper analysis of the governance approach. Third, the model is also problematic in terms of “business type management” advocated by new public management. Although it gives an important place to the “strategic management” model, the report is obsolete, backward, and could not help being one-­ dimensional in theory (Parsons 2001: 108–109).

7  Deliberative Policy-Making It is possible to carry out studies on participatory planning, which is one of the first examples of citizen participation in public policy until the 1960s and 1970s. In this period, citizen participation processes started to develop mainly in the USA and Western Europe. A majority of these studies focused on the development of formal participation mechanisms in the process of public policy planning. These processes were carried out with various tools such as rule-based and open hearings, citizen commissions, “blue ribbon” committees, opinion surveys, and focus groups. During this period, laws on participation processes at both federal and state levels were enacted in the USA, and at the same time, various city and town acts were enacted in England where a similar process emerged at the local level (Shmueli and Plaut 2004: 397). Policy analysis studies that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s had a largely technocratic appearance. These were perceived as tools designed specifically for issues related to the management of public institutions and applied in a narrower area. For this purpose, the area of ​​policy analysis was shaped by a methodological framework derived from neopositive/empiricist methods that were dominant in the social sciences at the time. As a result, emphasis was put on issues such as (1) quantitative analysis, (2) objective separation of facts and values, and (3) search for findings that could be generalized, independent of their social context. It has been suggested that such an approach can develop generalizable information and tested solutions that can be applied to a wide range of policy problems in different political contexts (Fischer 2007: 223). However, these tools were also widely used for manipulation purposes. Both politicians and planning bureaucrats manipulated people’s involvement in the pro-

128

3  Policy Formulation

cesses as an instrument to expand their values and powers; people realized that actors, which form the agenda of public policies, do not give citizens a real say so as to realize their own goals by controlling information. The disappointment generated by participatory processes in the 1960s and 1970s prompted theorists who worked on participation to think in different ways. In the late 1970s, negotiation theories began to be applied to local and regional planning issues, which can be seen as a process related to the acceptance of pluralism (Shmueli and Plaut 2004: 398).60 Most social problems have a complex structure. The reasons for this may be that the expertise of the people in the state administration is different from each other, that these expertise and skills may lose their popularity over time, and that the expertise and skills needed among the various regions may differ. Cohen and Sabel (1997) argue that, for such reasons, traditional state bureaucracies assume that they are organized in separate public policy disciplines, thereby assuming some stability within the circles they deal with. Today, considering globalization, postmodernism, and new public administration paradigms, it is possible to see that this assumption is far from correct: the knowledge, skills, and qualities required by the new era pose a significant limitation on the capacity to generate public policy in traditional ways. In this context, direct participation and negotiation can also be considered as a tool to help overcome these limitations on state capacity. Opening channels of participation in public decision-making processes can enable citizens and stakeholders to apply “energies, resources and views” to the solution of complex social problems. Appropriate negotiation types can encourage the search for innovative strategies and solutions (Innes and Booher 1999) and create normative pressure to make fair and reasonable collective decisions (Fung 2006: 681–682). It can be argued, therefore, that negotiation and debate are at the core of the political science’s agenda and is essentially related to postmodern transformation. This process started with the acceptance that there may be multiple perspectives in the interpretation and understanding of social and political reality and that there may be different or even competing definitions of policy problems (Fischer 2007: 224). Hawkesworth (1988: 191) argued that, due to its controversial character, empirical claims were theoretically constructed, and policy analysis should essentially aim to identify the various dimensions of debates about specific policy issues. In addition, from a controversial and debated perspective, empirical findings from political research and political studies, and the empirical findings of policy research, have a role to play in the identification and clarification of controversial issues. Habermas, one of the leading philosophers of the Frankfurt School, argued that collaborative and deliberative planning has a transformative effect; this idea was introduced in the 1980s, but it began to gain wide currency in the 1990s. These theories have formed the basis for the development of interactive and collaborative participation strategies. Such theories that put forward the concept of “communicative rationality” have revealed that structured negotiations between all stakeholders will  For more detailed information on the implementation of the negotiation on local and regional issues, see Susskind and Ozawa 1984; Lax and Sebenus 1986; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Forester 1992.

60

7  Deliberative Policy-Making

129

result in the production of a positive public policy (Throgmorton 1996, cited in Shmueli and Plaut 2004: 398). Beginning from the 1990s, the term “negotiation” has become common among political philosophers, public opinion researchers, public policy analysts, and communication academics (Gastil 2000). Although the benefits of including the negotiation elements in the policy-making process are accepted to a large extent, a theoretical debate has developed whether negotiation would be better to be conducted inside or outside the government. A more traditional and conservative view argues that negotiation should be within the government as a feature of representative democracy (Rosenthal 1998). However, other scholars argue that negotiation can be carried out outside the government as long as it is within the scope of a process provided through mass communication (Saunders 1999). Alternatively, it can be manifested as direct citizen participation through methods such as negotiations outside the government, face-to-face meetings, or frequent public consultations. This latter represents a shift from representative or elite-­ led politics directly to citizen-led politics and is of great importance in approaching the democratic ideal (Abelson et al. 2003: 241). Deliberative approaches that come to the agenda with the strengthening of post-­ positivism argue that the role of political science in public issues is not to find answers or solutions to the public problems faced by contemporary societies. Instead, the main task of political science is to encourage political deliberative processes. Although there is a general acceptance that deliberation is important for the development of effective policies, the fact that neo-positivist and empirical approaches are dominant in this field has had a difficult effect on deliberative processes for years (Fischer 2007: 224). Neo-positivist and empirical views prevented policy analysis from improving the quality of policy discussions in public deliberations. This strengthening of views defending debate and discussion is the result of an effort to revive and reinforce the function of policy analysis. Thus, it was possible to find new and more effective methods both for understanding the nature of the problem and for policy analysis (which is one of the important dimensions of public policy) and for giving advice. These views, based on an alternative epistemological approach believing that “knowledge” emerges as a result of interaction, or even conflict, combine empirical and normative research in a deliberative framework. These views also provide a better description of what policy-makers do in the real world when examining a particular problem. Deliberation is a concept that refers to a particular type of discussion which includes careful and serious weighing of the reasons that are for or against given policy proposals. The concept of deliberation also refers to an internal process in which the individuals support specific actions or are against them (Fearon 1998: 63). As this definition emphasizes, in theory, deliberation can occur as a social or individual process: it includes the action of considering a variety of perspectives and making a decision based on reasons. According to most theorists and practitioners studying on the concept of deliberation, macro-level (social) deliberation has become a defining feature of the approach to participation; therefore, the studies focused on social deliberation and the participation issues have become necessary. Collective “problem solving” debates are seen as a very vital element of delibera-

130

3  Policy Formulation

tion because in this way “individuals with different backgrounds, interests and values ​​have the opportunity to listen, understand, persuade, and finally make more reasonable, informed and decisions with a public spirit” (Abelson et al. 2003: 241).

7.1  Forms of Deliberation Public policy deliberations can be divided into two as “hard bargaining” and “consensus building” according to the methods used. Consensus building can also be divided into models such as mutual gains, public debate arbitration, and communication. 7.1.1  Hard Bargaining In the field of public policy-making, stakeholders and decision-makers take action in a never-ending process where they try to influence each other’s thinking and behavior. Sometimes this happens through “communication,” in which one of the parties supports his/her argument with evidence; however, more often than not, exchanging views is not enough to change entrenched beliefs. Susskind argues that many interested parties therefore prefer the “hard bargaining” option. Stronger parties resort to the hard bargaining method to achieve their goals, especially when the distribution of political power is not balanced. The term “hard bargaining” refers to a series of classic negotiation tactics. While trying to persuade someone to “do what they want, when they want, as they want,” tough bargainers try to minimize the threats, bluffs, demands, and options of the other party. It is therefore very advantageous to have more “political power” from the other side in hard bargaining. These are classical negotiation techniques and are still in demand, although some highly popular alternatives such as consensus building or mutual gains have emerged (Susskind 2006: 276–277). Hard bargaining is carried out in accordance with a well-established template that has been in use for many years. First, one of the parties starts negotiations with an exaggerated demand, which they know very well that the other party will not accept. The other party then puts forward another exaggerated demand. Bluffs and blusters are often present at such negotiation openings; the impression is deliberately given that negotiations can be interrupted if the first proposal is not accepted. Each party reduces its own demand, depending on whether the counterparty reduces its demand, thereby making mutual concessions. In addition, each party tries to convince the other party that the offer it makes is the final one. The parties occasionally bring various excuses to their positions to gain sympathy. In none of these exchanges, much attention is paid to the arguments made by the other party to support their own demands. As a result, it is possible for the parties to reach an acceptable minimum agreement (Susskind 2006: 277).

7  Deliberative Policy-Making

131

7.1.2  Consensus Building There are several studies and examples on the use of consensus building method which argue that good practices of consensus have some features that are quite consistent with the spirit of “deliberative democracy” discussed in the literature of political theory.61 However, it is important to know that they were developed not to substitute representative democracy, but to complement it (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). The steps of consensus building process are given by Susskind in the table below (Table 3.1). Table 3.1  Steps of consensus building process Clarification of responsibilities Determining the roles and responsibilities of interested parties Preparation of a Setting the rules for subject assessment the observers to be involved in the process Meeting Starting the discussion

Using this assessment to identify appropriate stakeholder representatives Creating final agreements to consult with appropriate stakeholder representatives or to involve them Deciding whether to enter a consensus building process or not Ensuring that the authorities have agreed on this process

Determination of the agenda and basic rules

Assessment of the options to communicate with the groups represented and the rest of the community

Deliberation Striving for transparency

Decision Searching for unanimity in packages related to achievements Determination of conditional commitments

Application of agreements Searching for the approval of the participants

Submission of approved proposals to officially authorized and responsible parties to take action Ensuring Adhering to Trying to continuous agreed maximize decision-making monitoring of common the application interests through procedures collaborative problem-solving Ensuring that Recording the Getting help one keep up commitments from with changing made by the professional conditions participants neutrals Studying “common truth finding” for expert inputs

Development of a common language

Source: Susskind 2006: 284

 See Cohen 1983; Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Barber 1984; Dryzek 2000; Mansbridge 1980; and Fung 2004.

61

132

3  Policy Formulation

7.1.3  Mutual Gains In most democratic settings, conflicts arising from hard bargaining become subject to legal cases or other problems, which means that none of the parties can reach the desired result. Here, Susskind proposes “mutual gain” negotiations, a special form of consensus building. In this option, the parties aim to make mutually advantageous exchanges: for this, voters offer their votes for gains such as amending the proposed issues or promising support on other causes. Thus, desired results can be obtained in the discussion and negotiation process. An agreement can be reached if the parties feel that their main interests are protected and they are treated fairly, that everything possible is done to maximize gains, and that these agreements can be sustained despite difficulties in implementation (Susskind 2006: 269–270). According to the hard bargaining approach, which is a kind of zero-sum game, the best way to achieve what one party wants is to ensure that the other party does not get what they want. The “consensus building” approach, on the other hand, argues that the way for the negotiating parties to satisfy their own interests is to find a low-cost method to satisfy the most important interests of the other party. As is usually the case with public policy discussions, this principle remains true even though the number of parties in the negotiation increases. Conflict resolution theorists call this the “mutual gains approach.”62 Thus, compared to the hard bargaining, consensus building appears to place more emphasis on: (1) maximizing the value of the agreement reached for all parties, (2) paving the way for the parties to negotiate in the future and reducing the cost of implementing the agreement, (3) reducing transaction costs associated with paying effort to reach an agreement, and (4) increasing the credibility of the parties before the negotiations (Susskind 2006: 279–280). Fisher et al. state that interests consist of necessities, desires, worries, or fears. Interests are what underlie people’s positions, that is, they are concrete things they say they want (Fisher et al. 1983). When various conflicts arise around interests, several solutions are actually possible. Since individuals and groups have a wide range of interests, it is possible to reach an agreement that satisfies most, if not all, of interests in the subject, mostly with creativity and hard work. The so-called mutual gains deliberation involves the development of one’s own interests by finding packages that are in line with the interests of all parties (Susskind 2006: 272). Various stages related to mutual gains approach are pointed out in the literature. These can be grouped under the following headings: preparation, value creation, value distribution, and monitoring (estimating problems in practice).

 There are important studies in the literature regarding the mutual gains view; i.e., Fisher et al. 1983; Susskind and Field 1996; Lewicki and Literer 1985.

62

7  Deliberative Policy-Making

133

7.1.4  Public Debate Arbitration The majority of theories about deliberation and negotiation assume that there is an interaction between two parties. In the field of public policy, policy exchanges involve several interested parties represented by representatives. In this context, negotiations involving multiple parties and issues can be much more complex than theorists have put forward. Essentially, reaching an agreement in situations involving more than two interested parties requires that someone outside the related parties manage the complexity of the group interaction. This need led to the emergence of a new profession called “public debate arbitration” (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). In many controversial situations, the participants are still unable to effectively resolve their public policy debate, despite spending considerable time and money. In such cases, participants ask for help from the arbitrators in order to reach an agreement through cooperation in the next step (Susskind 2006: 270). 7.1.5  Communicative Model Persuasion and justification play important roles at every stage of the policy process. Long before the recommendations and alternatives are defined, there is a description of what the problem is, starting with the problem determination stage of the analysis. Even after acceptable alternatives are selected and implemented, political justification needs to be constantly pursued. As Majone (1989: 31) states, it is necessary to constantly develop new arguments to ensure the highest possible level of internal consistency and the most appropriate place for different political components in a constantly changing environment; this means that developing an argument in the deliberation process is a phenomenon that constantly reproduces itself. Thus, a discursive process involving the development and retouching of ideas in policy development is followed. Convincing and justifying the other party that a particular public policy is useful and appropriate or not is possible only through communication. Language and discourse are of great importance in the process of public policy-making. It is possible that problems related to politics can be represented in various languages ​​and discourses; in this context, the relationship between the language used by the analyst in his arguments and the language prevailing in the political environment is of major importance. In addition, the analyst needs to be sensitive to changes in political power between elections, elites, or coalitions, and should reflect this not only in policy decisions, but also in the language it offers to the public about policy election possibilities. It is possible that policy-makers and the public affected by these policies are affected by technical language and expertise; accordingly, the deliberative approach claims to make this understanding more explanatory (Fischer 2007: 226). Actors making policy decisions have several opinions about which public policies should be based on normative arguments. Empirical analysis comes into play only when there are some reasons for questioning or investigating the real aspects of the argument. From this point of view, it is argued that a dialogue organized

134

3  Policy Formulation

between competing normative positions will allow normative-based analysis (Fischer 2007: 228). This approach, which is designed to identify and create potential compromise areas, emphasizes the interactive and productive role of communication in cognitive processes.

7.2  Deliberative Policy-Making in Turkey In the light of the issues discussed above, it would be useful to briefly evaluate the point of the culture of deliberation and practices with the participation of the public in the process of public policy-making in Turkey. Today, democracy refers not only to the election of the people to government positions, but also to active participation of the people in the process of making these decisions and formulation of public policies (Yatkın and Sürekli 2009: 786). The practice of “not participating in government” continued in Turkey until the 1950s. The beginning date of the transformation in terms of political participation can be accepted as 1950. The people entered the political arena for the first time in the 1950 elections and realized the first democratic revolution in Turkish political history with a record high participation. However, until today, the basic rule of democracy, which can be expressed as “the governments coming to power by elections,” could not be settled in the political culture of Turkey. This fact can be expressed as one of the reasons why society is hesitant about participation: the representatives of the people elected by political participation were removed from power in 1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997 by military intervention. On the other hand, frequent changes in electoral laws aimed at preserving the ruling party’s advantage undermined the principle of representation and led to a decrease in the rate of electoral turnout (Taşkın 2015). For example, while the participation rate in the 1950 and 1954 elections was 89.3% and 88.6% respectively, the participation rate in the 1961, 1965 and 1969 elections fell to 81.4%, 71.3% and 64.3%, respectively (Akarca and Tansel 2015). The election law numbered 2839, adopted in 1983, was amended 5 times until 1991, and these changes enabled the party with the highest number of votes to have a much higher proportionate of deputies at the parliament. Therefore, although a significant part of the voters participated in the elections, the will of these voters could not be reflected in the national assembly. The public prefers to remain indifferent with the opinion that it has no effect where rules and institutions preventing public participation exist (Mumcuoğlu 1982: 220). Kalaycıoğlu states that in order to talk about the participation of the individual in political life, he/she must direct his/her behavior to influence the decisions of the authority (1984: 200). The changes made in the 1961 constitution in 1971 and especially the restrictions imposed on civil society by the 1982 constitution made it difficult to strengthen the participation culture, which was already weak in Turkey. After the military intervention in 1980, trade unions and associations were banned from politics, collective bargaining and the right to strike were

7  Deliberative Policy-Making

135

restricted, and civil servants were prohibited from establishing unions and associations. The problem of lack of participation described above can also be linked to the crisis of representative democracy in more general terms. In the transition period from modernity to postmodernity, with the effect of the understanding of multiculturalism, the demands in the society have diversified and become more complex. Representative democracy mechanisms designed for a more static social structure failed to meet these demands, and a crisis of trust against political institutions emerged in the society. As a result, the bond between voters and political parties has weakened and participation in elections has decreased (Secor 2001). Legal regulations such as Metropolitan Municipality Law No.5216 (2004), Municipality Law No.5393 (2005), Special Provincial Administration Law No.5302 (2005), and City Council Regulation (2006) have been made to improve the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity in service in the 2000s in Turkey. In this context, practices that are supposed to increase participation, such as the establishment of city councils and Local Agenda 21 studies, were witnessed. City councils aim to function as a mechanism for the relevant groups to contribute to the formulation of public policies at the local level, especially through commissions, working groups, and assemblies in almost all public service areas. Through participation in various EU Education, Culture, Local Development and Youth projects as coordinators or partners, city councils also try to increase participation in groups with low participation, especially women, youth, and disabled people. However, it is certain that there are some problems in practice. For example, it is not clear which nongovernmental organizations are invited to the City Councils using which criteria. The people of the city do not know by whom they are represented in the city council. For example, in the Istanbul City Council, which has 1106 members, it is not possible for all representatives to express their opinions. Some city councils are unable to hold meetings because they cannot reach the meeting quorum. In addition, the City Council meets only twice a year. On the other hand, political parties, which are very important tools of participation, are far from ideal representation and participation. Most political party members become members in order to find a job or to earn a rent, and when the expected benefits are not achieved, mass partings occur. Another major problem is that the level of democracy within parties is low (Kabasakal 2014: 701; Rubin and Heper 2002). This means that the governing bodies of political parties, candidates for deputies and mayors are not determined in a participatory process. The fact that this situation is known by all voters may be a factor reducing participation (Özbudun 2015: 72–74). One of the most important problems of the participation culture in Turkey is that the citizens could not become “active citizens” in the historical process mentioned above. Active citizens are those who have direct influence on many issues from the democratization of political parties to the transparency of the administration, from human rights to the pursuit of legal reforms (Keyman and Düzgit 2007). Despite all these deficiencies, if the tools provided for the participation of the people in the legislation can be used actively, it is possible to increase the participa-

136

3  Policy Formulation

tion in public policies in Turkey and thus to make democracy higher quality. A few examples of attempts to increase participation include the following: The most common forms of participation used by the municipalities in Turkey are public days. • “Town houses” were established in several places, but their main purpose which was to transform into neighborhood communication centers, neighborhood councils and advisory councils was not realized (Birgili and Banger 2009: 110). • Participatory budget trials have been made in several places. A workshop was held in 2007 within the scope of the Support Project for Local Administration Reform in Çanakkale regarding this practice, which started in the city of Porto Alegre in Brazil in 1988. In 2010, Sweden-Turkey Municipalities Participatory Budget Cooperation Project was carried out in Bursa. However, no official participatory budget practices have been implemented yet. • According to the provisions regarding the neighborhood in Article 9 of the Municipality Law No. 5393, the muhtar63 is obliged to determine common needs with the voluntary participation of the neighborhood residents and to improve the quality of life of the neighborhood. • Article 77 of the same law has the title of “voluntary participation in municipal services.” Accordingly, the municipality is obliged to implement programs for the participation of volunteers to increase productivity and to provide health, education, sports, environment, social services and assistance, library, park, traffic and cultural services, providing solidarity and participation in the town in providing services for the elderly, women and children, the disabled, the poor, and the needy. There is a provision containing almost the same expressions in Article 65 of the Special Provincial Administration Law. The Regulation on Voluntary Participation in Special Provincial Administration and Municipal Services (2005) aims to regulate the principles and procedures for volunteer participation stipulated in the enumerated law articles. However, the weakness of the tradition of voluntary participation as a result of the centralization carried out especially after the Tanzimat in Turkey suggests that leaving it to the people’s own will may not produce an effective result. • Public Participation Meetings are held for certain investment projects in accordance with Article 9 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation (... The Governor’s Office announces the schedule and contact information regarding the public participation meeting and the process in which the public can express their opinions and suggestions.) • Through city councils, citizens and NGOs can make sure that their interests are represented (Law No.5393, Article 76: City Council tries to implement the principles of asking and accountability, participation and on-site management through development of the city vision and citizen awareness, protection of the city’s rights and law, sustainable development, environmental awareness, social assistance and solidarity, and transparency.) 63

 Muhtar is the elected head of local neighbourhoods. He/she serves a renewable 5-year term.

7  Deliberative Policy-Making

137

• Citizens and relevant interest groups attend municipal council meetings (Law No. 5393, article 20: “Council meetings are open.”) • Izmir Metropolitan Municipality launched a Leader Women Project in 2007 with the joint initiative of UNDP and TOBB and aimed to increase the participation of women in decision-making mechanisms in politics. • Adana Metropolitan Municipality aimed to ensure active participation of young people in decision-making processes at all levels within the scope of Young Entrepreneurs Board and Support Center Project in 2007. • Within the scope of similar projects in many other metropolitan and other municipalities, efforts are being paid to increase urban awareness and ensure participation. • Citizens’ Meetings with the public by the Police Department within the scope of Community Policing projects can be given as an example of deliberative democracy. In these meetings, provincial and district police chiefs share issues such as fight against crime and police–public cooperation within the scope of projects such as “police-citizen hand in hand.” In conclusion, it can be argued that every citizen wants to live in a political system where people have an equal voice in policy production processes, different interests can propose solutions to public problems, discussions, negotiations and decisions are open and accessible to everyone, and policy choices are made by democratic methods (Dye 2002: 25). At this point, negotiation-based approaches have the potential to make participation in the process of public policy-making more effective, informed, and meaningful. In this way, it is possible that the concept of citizenship includes more involvement in the public policy processes. There are a variety of ways to encourage public participation. Findings are presented in the literature showing that these lead to more developed public policies. In the face of rising demands, it can be expected that these methods will be used more and developed further to increase their legitimacy. In this context, it can be claimed that important steps have been taken in Turkey regarding participation. The regulations made in the 2000s, especially within the framework of the new public administration reform, aim for a more effective, efficient, and transparent public administration as well as greater participation of the public in public policies. However, the use of tools such as citizen juries, deliberative polls, deliberative forums, planning cells, consensus conferences, citizen panels, public hearings, stakeholder meetings, opinion polls, and focus groups in public policy-making processes has not yet become popular in Turkey. There are attempts at least for the participation of stakeholders of the city, NGOs, especially women and youth, in decision-making processes at local level. However, it can be argued that participation and negotiation in decision-making processes at central (especially ministerial) level have not reached the desired level yet.

138

3  Policy Formulation

8  Democratization of Public Policy Process The phenomenon of deliberation has the potential to perform several important functions in terms of democratization. One of the most important of these is the representation of a wide variety of interests, arguments, and discourses in the analysis process. This is partly done by emphasizing citizen participation; this emphasis also includes examining the ways in which citizens’ interests are constructed discursively (Fischer 2007: 225). It is clear that the best way to know what people want and value is to ask them. In terms of the deliberation-based approach, this means adding much more political contribution to policy definition and formation processes. Theorists argue that policy analysts, decision-makers, and citizens, who are more involved in the discursive and symbolic aspect of politics, help develop alternatives that represent their own needs and interests (Fischer 2007: 225). For this purpose, theorists and practitioners emphasize the importance of developing participatory democracy and participatory policy analysis techniques; in this context, it is claimed that deliberative interaction has a vital role among citizens, analysts, and decision-makers (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003). Participatory and discursive democracy theories suggest that, through discourse and communication, citizens will be able to determine which public policies will benefit society most and which policies the public will be willing to follow (Barber 1984). According to the communitarians and the advocates of participatory democracy, liberalism has narrowed the scope of the concept of citizenship to its limits and deprived it of its original democratic qualities (McCowan 2011). For a true 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 volunteer activities for the community which should produce most of the services needed by the least advantageous members in the community together with local governments. This is because citizens are not just people who need to comply with the law, be loyal to the state and support the leaders; citizens should be active, competent, opposing people and leaders who are willing to criticize policies (Schneider and Ingram 2006: 331). When considered in this context, it is clear that the ideal of establishing public policies in a participatory way will not be regarded as independent of criticisms of democracy. Critical approaches, also known as modern democracy theories which are developed mainly for liberal/classical democracy, include social democracy, radical democracy, participatory democracy, critical democracy, and deliberative democracy. These approaches claim to redefine state–citizen and state–civil society relations in the context of rising democratic demands. However, it should be remembered that these approaches are basically “theoretical”; examining the processes of public policy-making with an empirical approach is essential to understand whether democracy is more participatory and more sensitive to rising demands for democratization and identity politics.

8  Democratization of Public Policy Process

139

8.1  Public Policy–Citizen Relationship Citizen participation is one of the cornerstones of the democratic political process. The main normative rationale for the democracy is based on the principle that government decisions should reflect the consent of the ruled (Fischer 2003: 205). It is both the right and the obligation of 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) reveal the relationship between citizenship and democracy as follows: Citizenship is about the quality of life 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, on the other hand, opens these areas to citizens and tries to control and facilitate access to them. Citizenship is a concept related to people’s rights and privileges; public policies try to define and secure these rights and privileges. On the other hand, the concept of citizenship is about identity and how one’s identity is adopted by society and nation. Public policies also help shape identity and have an impact on people’s belonging relationships with society and whether they are real members of society, using both instrumental and symbolic methods (Schneider and Ingram 2006: 342).

Segments of a society that are most affected by government policies are generally low-income, less educated and working-class groups. These groups pay more of their income as taxes, they make up the majority of those who receive social assistance or those in correctional institutions, they face the sanctions of various institutions more often, and they spend higher proportion of their income for the education of their children. At the same time, these groups are the most dependent on the state, because these are the segments with demands such as unemployment insurance, health insurance, public transportation, and housing loans. This means that citizens who belong to these groups should be the ones most actively working to influence public policy and government structuring, but in reality, they are the least active (Alford and Friedland 1975: 439). Policy analysts and political leaders are aware that policy-making can increase or prevent participation; they also know that they have the ability to keep the citizen informed or uninformed, involve different groups, or cause marginalization, and provide advantages to some groups while creating disadvantages for others. Thus, the relationship between public policy and democratic citizenship is far from being objective. In this context, the concept of democratic citizenship refers to the features and actions people will show in democracies. Public participation has several potential roles in policy decision-making, and there are several reasons to encourage participation: –– Participation can be followed as a policy: Susskind and Elliott (1983) state that participation is a desirable normative conception, as it democratizes and decentralizes public policies, and frees policy-making from the mysteries of expertise.

140

3  Policy Formulation

–– Schneider and Ingram (2006) state that participation can also be considered as an instrumental strategy to achieve other goals. –– Participation can also act as a communication method, which leads to better flow of information, making sure that better decisions are made. –– Participation can serve as therapy; in this sense, groups alienated from the system may be included in the system. –– Finally, participation can be used for conflict resolution: it can help reduce tension in controversial decisions and produce stable outputs (Andrews 2007: 167).

8.2  Democratic Public Policy-Making Models Participation cannot be considered independent from the concept of “governance” introduced by the new public management approach. Expressing a horizontal, rather than vertical form of governance, this approach is based on networks and collaboration of self-organizing actors rather than formal and institutionalized practices. In such a structure, participation in decision-making processes also takes place as well as openness and transparency (Giorgi and Pohoryles 2005: 409). In today’s information society, public policies and public participation are important dimensions of democratization. This means that issues related to decision-­ making processes and political participation for citizens should also be addressed at the level of science and technology. Increasingly, citizens are asked to make difficult decisions about science and technology, and this process tends to continue. The environments in which these decisions, debates, and discussions take place have been changing significantly in recent years. Both civil society and public sphere have witnessed major transformations. The meaning of democracy has become controversial at a time when democracy is seen as a solution to all kinds of administrative problems. Today, citizens have more opportunities than ever before in the formulation and evaluation of public policies. Science and technology offer several perspectives for people, both positive and negative, and the problems to be solved and the opportunities to be offered should be subjected to more democratic control (O’Tuama 2004: 370–388). Deliberative approach draws attention to the democratic potential of policy analysis. It is not easy to accept policy arguments as optimally transparent, believable, real, and free from political and institutional prejudices. Democratic deliberation is always unstable and fragile. However, in-depth and informed deliberation processes can help citizens become more knowledgeable about public policies. In this sense, policy analysis has a facilitating effect on this process by promoting communicative competencies and social learning. For this to happen, it is necessary to take into account how policy arguments are distorted due to inequality between sources and established power relations (Fischer 2007: 227).

8  Democratization of Public Policy Process

141

There is a vast literature on the theories of deliberative democracy.64 According to Cohen (1989), a society is democratic as far as it is governed by public deliberations among actors of public affairs. According to this conceptualization of democratic legitimacy, major political decisions should be made as a result of a “debate,” whether through negotiation or by simply voting, and all citizens, not just elected officials, should have the opportunity to participate equally. This perspective, in any case, was inspired by Habermas’s (1997) idea of c​​ ommunicative logic. The exchange of arguments is perceived as a cooperative practice: in this cooperation, partners consider themselves equal and free and try to reach a compromise by forcing themselves to produce public causes instead of merely adhering to a particular set of motives and responding to the objections of other members of the society. Thus, deliberative procedures for public decision-making are different from deliberation. According to Elster (1998), negotiation refers to a practice in which each leading player in the decision-making process tries to impose threats and promises and to exert pressure on others, and thereby maximize their interests. In this case, if there is an agreement, it is only among special interests based on the balance of powers. On the contrary, the purpose of deliberation is to reach a logical agreement on what the public interest requires. Usually such decisions are taken by the majority, but prior to the majority decision, a deliberation process takes place (Manin 2005). However, the basic idea of deliberative democracy is not just that public debates are more valuable than simple bargaining. Deliberative democracy essentially involves combining bargaining processes with the concept of political participation. The principle that disputes over political decisions should be resolved by public exchange of reasoning between the parties already existed in the classical understanding of parliamentarism that developed in the nineteenth century.65 However, the classical thinkers limited the use of the deliberation method to discussions in parliament as the masses of people were not seen suitable for generating practical ideas. It was therefore important that the monopoly of legislative work remained in the hands of representatives of the people who belonged to the elite. The contemporary theory of deliberation, on the other hand, advocates the opposite of this view, and argues that the public opinion determined in this way emphasizes the importance of including “members of the society” in deliberation processes. Accordingly, this theory links with the participatory ideal understanding on which the concept of radical democracy, which was put forward in the 1970s, is based. However, instead of being actively and directly involved in decision-making processes, deliberation changes the meaning of the concept by placing it in the context of exchange of reasoning for the formation of ideas. In this context, one of the most important facts in terms of deliberative theory is that citizens are actively engaged in public debates that provide information to decisions.

 For details, 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. 65  See Sieyés 2003; Mill 2015. 64

142

3  Policy Formulation

Among the arguments that reveal the deliberative content of democratic legitimacy, the idea of “public justifiability” (Lafont 2006: 5) is widely accepted. Accordingly, democratic processes require everyone to participate in the deliberation because it aims to jointly seek the justified decision and to make this justification mutually based on the logic of those affected by public action. Institutions can impose on individual restrictions that can be justified. When these individuals choose a political option, they should persuade those who do not share the same view and consider their arguments and objections. Processes involving all members of society in public deliberations should include this concept of legitimacy. The deliberative democracy thesis described above contains normative elements; as a result, it has been the subject of several controversies. To give some examples, Bohman (1998) and Chambers (2003) stated that the practical consequences of political systems in terms of their organization should be taken into consideration. Authors such as Pettit (2006) and Warren and Pearse (2008) have argued that the current institutional forms of representative democracy do not allow deliberative practices, they will be too discourse and individual interest-oriented, and will not include dynamic deliberations of policy decisions in terms of the nature of electoral democracy.66 Due to such reasons, the view that deliberation is not likely to be practiced by everyone has gained popularity. Various methods of deliberation are mentioned in the literature. These include citizen juries, deliberative surveys, planning cells, consensus conferences, and citizen panels. In addition, information meetings, open hearings, stakeholder meetings, opinion surveys, focus groups aim to increase participation. The defining feature of the citizen juries (or the planning cells, which are their counterparts in Germany) is holding debates. Methods such as citizen panels and deliberative surveys are more similar to traditional methods such as questionnaires and opinion surveys. On the other hand, citizen juries, panels, and consensus conferences include routine integration of technical information and values ​​into planning and resource allocation decisions in the fields of environment, education, energy, and local government. The main purpose in this practice is “to create a forum for non-specialist citizens, to combine the technical facts and the values ​​of the public, and to reach results and recommendations” (Beierle 1999).67 These methods may differ from each other in terms of the selection method of participants, the number of participants, the types of inputs obtained, and the number of meetings held. However, what is common to all is that, before making the final decision, “deliberation” is employed as a process in which participants are informed about the subject, encouraged to discuss the issue, and take into consideration each other’s views.68  About Balkanization of decision-making processes, which is a related concept, see Lindquist 2006; King 1996. 67  Pratchett (1999), Leroux et al. (1998), O’Hara (1998), Beierle (1999) conducted detailed studies on these methods. For a more detailed assessment of the aforementioned studies, see Abelson et al. (2003). 68  Most of the tools listed are interchangeable and contain more or less similar content; three of them (deliberative forums, deliberative surveys and citizen juries), which are the most emphasized 66

8  Democratization of Public Policy Process

143

On the other hand, transparency is a basic concept for making decision-makers more accountable and acting in accordance with the law, ensuring public access to records and encouraging public participation. Expanding access to information inevitably means more stakeholders participating in the discussions; this is assumed to provide further cooperation and consensus. On the other hand, however, it is also claimed that transparency allows for more objection to decisions, which leads to delays and increases the cost of public policies (Shmueli and Plaut 2004: 396). Deliberation is not just about discussing issues. Deliberation emphasizes both the output that should emerge at the end of the discussion, which can take different forms, such as a decision or a series of recommendations, and the process that leads to the emergence of this output. Fearon (1998) states that the value of the discussion of the issues prior to making decision to establish a public policy is due to the fact that it allows the following: (1) sharing views on certain issues that the voting behavior does not allow (such as communicating on issues like the intensity of the preferences and the relative weights of the preferences), (2) producing and considering a wider range of options and new alternatives, (3) promoting proposals for the public interest more than what the personal interest drives, (4) increasing the legitimacy of the final decision and making it easier to enforce or follow this decision, and (v) enhancing the moral and intellectual qualities of the participants. 8.2.1  Deliberative Forums One of the most well-known empirical studies on deliberation is Fishkin’s (2003) model of the “deliberative forum.” According to Fishkin, sound democracy requires open public forums where citizens are asked to face policy problems that directly affect them. In such forums, people are encouraged to face policy problems not only as a customer or interest group, but as citizens who can integrate the opinions of others into their own perspective, thereby contributing to the development of collective prosperity. Whether such areas occur or not is partly due to policy formation and design (Schneider and Ingram 2006). The scope of the discussion in deliberative forums is determined depending on both the institutions of the participants and the work of the organizers. The cultural perceptions and opinions of the participants about which topics will be appropriate discussion topics shape the reactions to different topics. How participants see their roles in the deliberative forum is also an important topic of debate. Although deliberative forums are effective in formulating public policies, their main functions relate to the “agenda-setting” phase of public policies. As mentioned earlier, creating agenda is a process where problems and alternative solutions gain and lose importance in the eyes of the public and/or elite. Because no society or political institution has the capacity to handle all possible alternative solutions to the problems that arise in any time period, there is fierce competition between groups to

in the literature and have relatively more distinctive features, will be discussed in this section.

144

3  Policy Formulation

set the policy agenda. For this reason, the groups expect a crisis that will make their problems to occupy more space in the agenda and prepare for such a situation (Birkland 2007: 63). Even when a problem arises, groups struggle to ensure that their own definition of the problem remains at the forefront and that their approach is the solution that is given the most attention. Forums must ensure that participants attend in a more open and egalitarian ground in the process of establishing both the formal and informal agenda of deliberation. Official mechanisms include identifying the items to be discussed and asking questions about the parameters and structure of the process. This includes providing participants with time and space to organize themselves to attend meetings on specific topics that concern them. These meetings have the potential to enable in-depth deliberations on subjects that cannot be discussed in other settings due to cultural biases or emotional sensitivities of the participants (Lang 2008: 105). Ideal deliberation requires careful attention to the participants’ information, possible forms of action and opinions; however, due to organization and coordination limitations, it may not be possible for all of these to take place completely in deliberative forums. Organizers of deliberative forums can create a number of obstacles for citizens: for example, they can control information and establish control over encounters between citizens and government officials (Lang 2008: 86). 8.2.2  Deliberative Surveys Deliberative survey is an important method used to increase public participation in public policies. Deliberative surveys were developed by Fishkin (2003) as a specific version of national city meetings. In this method, randomly selected citizens are called over the phone to interview with them about a particular public policy. These public policy issues then form the content of a deliberative survey. The respondents are then asked to meet at a weekend outside the city to discuss this issue, and all expenses are covered by the organizers. Participants who agree are sent informative materials on the subject of the deliberative survey beforehand. At the meeting held on the weekend, participants are given the opportunity to meet with experts, political leaders, and other citizens. At the last stage, a survey is applied to the participants. Luskin et al. explain the ideal deliberative survey method as follows: Take a sample at the national level from the voter population and ask them some questions about the public sphere(s). Send them balanced, accessible explanatory materials to inform them and make them think more seriously about some topics. Send them to a single point; have them spend a couple of days where they will deal with the issues, discuss them with each other in random, supervised small groups, and at the end of these group discussions, ask questions to panels made up of carefully balanced public policy experts and political leaders. Finally, ask the participants again using the instruments you used in the beginning (Luskin et al. 2002: 458–459).

The authors argue that these deliberations often have very important effects on the opinions of participants. Giving an example of a deliberative survey conducted in England in 1994, Luskin et al. found that those who think that harsh punishments

8  Democratization of Public Policy Process

145

have a deterrent effect on criminals are in the minority and that most participants have sympathy for the defendants (2002: 467). The authors state that as a result of deliberative surveys, serious changes have been observed in the opinions of the participants on issues such as energy use policy, acceptance of the Euro in Denmark, and metropolitan management (2002: 461–462). These changes may be thought to result from participants adopting more informed, consistent, and reasonable positions as a result of deliberations (Fung 2006: 674). Such deliberative forums have advantages for researchers, such as allowing pre-­ test and post-test on possible effects of public policy and enjoying significant control over the interactions of citizens. Researchers know who is talking to whom and what both sides are saying (Mutz 2006: 58).69 Another point regarding deliberative surveys is that this method should not be considered as a form of deliberative democracy in itself. In deliberative surveys, participants discuss the value of various standpoints, but there is no effort to reach a consensus or a collective choice. Those who prepare deliberative surveys fear that demanding consensus can put pressure on the participants to act in compliance, which can lead to deviations in the creation of individual preferences. The absence of a collective decision, perhaps, makes deliberative surveys the most appropriate tool to address the “lack of a stable choice” problem that many public policy processes suffer (Fung 2006: 674). 8.2.3  Citizen Juries Deliberative surveys are one of the tools that bring citizens together to negotiate as part of an effort to develop public opinions and actions and to exert a positive impact on public policies. The random selection method is also applied in citizen juries, but the groups brought together are often smaller than in the deliberative surveys, and their meeting lasts for several days, not just on the weekend. Collective findings and recommendations are published at the end of citizen juries.70 Both deliberative ­surveys and citizen juries aim to improve the quality of public contemplation about problems that traditionally arise in institutions responsible for making public poli-

 According to Mutz, the most important challenge in making cause-effect inferences about the deliberation power of deliberative surveys is the manipulation of several independent variables simultaneously. For example, explanatory materials are sent to those who agree to participate. During the study, they also obtain information from experts and politicians. As a result, it can be difficult to identify whether the benefits determined by the person come from information obtained from the political elite, the materials previously distributed by the organizers, or the deliberations among the participants at the weekend meeting (Mutz 2006: 58–59). 70  Fung (2006) cites citizen juries as an example of the Twenty-First Century Urban Meetings developed by an organization called America Speaks. Thousands of citizens attend these meetings and carry out innovative uses of technology. See http://www.americaspeaks.org/ 69

146

3  Policy Formulation

cies (Fung 2006: 674–675).71 Citizens’ juries and planning cells72 are in use in the USA and Germany since the 1970s. Citizens’ juries, generally handled together with consensus conferences and deliberative conferences, are essentially a legal deliberation process. In practice, a group of randomly selected 12–24 people is asked to form and report their opinions on a particular topic for a period of 3–7  days (Veasey 2002). Jury members are selected according to socio-demographic categories such as age, profession, gender, residence area, cultural identity as well as their interest in the subject. An advisory committee, a working group, and two moderators work intensively, which can take 4–5 months. As a result of telephone interviews, selected people are asked to make judgments and base their judgments on what they heard from witnesses or experts. The subject is explained to the jury members by experts; however, there are more “neutral” people to assist the jury members. At least half of the time allocated to this stage is spent by answering the questions of the jury members. The deliberation can take a whole day to reach a consensus. Deliberation either focuses on a single question or discusses the work of subgroups on a number of topics. All information obtained from the arguments put forward and the votes cast are determined by a survey in the final report; this survey is a basic resource for the actors who launched this procedure. One of the most important issues in citizen juries is that moderators should have a high level of communication and analysis skills. The moderator not only chairs the discussions; he/she should also play a role in facilitating deliberation and synthesis, while preventing the responses from deviating from the original question (Reber 2007: 497). Citizens’ juries, panels, and consensus conferences are techniques used to base planning and resource allocation on technical knowledge and values, particularly in the areas of environment, energy, education, and local government. The main purpose here is to emphasize that the public values represented by nonspecialist citizens are as important as technical facts; so these values can also have an impact on products such as policy or advice that emerge at the end of the public policy-making process (Beierle 1999).

 The jury method was developed by Ned Crosby, who promotes and organizes juries on state-level agriculture, water and social policies in the USA, and health reform, federal budget and candidate scores at the federal level (Abelson et al. 2003: 242). Also see https://nedcrosby.org/ 72  Planning cells in Germany receive official support from government and public institutions. For example, a Research Institute for Citizen Participation was established using public resources. The aim of the Institute is to contribute to policy making processes in areas such as local planning, national energy, technology and communication (Smith and Wales 1999). In planning cells, deliberation occurs among about 25 randomly selected citizens who meet several times. The results are announced to the sponsors, the media and other relevant groups. At the end of the process, the sponsor must agree to pay attention to the decisions made by the planning cell (Abelson et  al. 2003: 242). 71

147

9  Obstacles to Participation in Public Policies

9  Obstacles to Participation in Public Policies Fung has reached critical findings in his study, where he examined the policy-­ making process with disabilities in terms of democracy (Fig. 3.3). The figure above is adapted by Fung from the work of Przeworki et al. (1999) on representation and accountability. This figure briefly shows that citizens have preferences (2) over their interests (1) and policy options, which they think will help them achieve these interests. Citizens give signals about these preferences (3); in the elections held at regular intervals, they do this by voting for the parties and politicians who best suit their preferences. These election signals produce authority for the politicians who are representatives of the people (4), and these powers are used in policy-making to protect and increase these interests (5). Institutions in which professional managers are employed (6) are responsible for implementing these policies; as a result, these policies lead to various outcomes, and these outcomes improve the interests of citizens, and the process starts anew (Fung 2006: 671). Fung mentions four democracy gaps that prevent voter organizations from sensitizing the government to certain issues. These can be regarded as obstacles to public participation in the process of public policy-making: –– For many issues of public interest, citizens do not have clear preferences regarding public policies that best suit their interests. Even though citizens have some preferences, they can easily change if new information, arguments, or perspectives come to light. Considering this nature of public preferences, results related to politics and public policy are built on highly unstable foundations. –– If citizens’ preferences are determined, voter mechanisms only send ambiguous signals to politicians and political parties regarding these preferences. Politicians often misunderstand their electorate when there is no more permanent relationship between political elites and voters. This misunderstanding is especially relevant in issues that do not emphasize the campaigns in the election processes. It is difficult for politicians to represent their voters well when they do not understand them. –– Voter mechanisms are not strong enough to protect political and administrative mechanisms that are accountable to citizens when they have clear preferences. The interests of politicians and administrators may differ from those of citizens. Where elections are not competitive, narrow interests and broad interests con-

(A) Representation

(1) Interests (Citizens)

(2) Preferences (Citizens)

(3) Signals (Citizens)

(4) Mandates

(5) Policies (Politicians)

(6) Execution (Agencies)

(B) Accountability

Fig. 3.3  Minimal representative policy process. (Source: Fung 2006: 671)

(7) Outcomes

148

3  Policy Formulation

front. Where outputs are difficult to monitor and evaluate, it is difficult for ­citizens to make their interests stand out in the face of elites. Even though citizens can ask for accountability from politicians, they may not always be able to control the administrative bodies that prepare and implement public policies. –– Where voter mechanisms on representation and accountability allow citizens to control political and administrative actors, the administration may lack the capacity to produce results that will fulfill the interests of citizens. In some areas, such as economic development, successful results depend not only on the laws and the effectiveness of public policy, but also on the actions of actors in the economic field. In areas such as environment, education and public safety, the results are based on the involvement and contribution of citizens as individuals in addition to the soundness of the relevant public policy (Fung 2006: 672). Fung proposes four methods, respectively, to overcome the above shortcomings: expressing preferences through deliberation, communication-based re-­authorization, public accountability, and alternative management and public problem-solving capacity (Fung 2006: 681). The first of these, the preferences being expressed through deliberation, has been described in detail by Fishkin. Arguing that the quality of citizens’ preferences in democracy largely depends on the quality of institutions in the public sphere, Fung states that innovative efforts that encourage citizens to come together with representatives, other public officials and other citizens aim to improve the quality of citizens’ preferences (Fung 2006: 674). Every citizen wants to live in a political system where people have an equal say in policy-making processes, different interests can offer solutions to public problems, discussion, deliberation, and decisions are open and accessible to everyone, and policy preferences are based on democratic methods (Dye 2002: 25). As such, deliberation-based approaches have the potential to ensure that participation in the process of public policy-making becomes more effective, information-based, and meaningful. In this way, it is possible that the concept of citizenship involves more engagement in the processes. There are a variety of methods that encourage public participation; in the literature, findings are presented showing that these produce more advanced public policies. It can be expected that these methods will be used more in the face of rising democratic demands and further developed to increase the legitimacy of the policy decisions in the world and in Turkey.

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. Akarca, A.  T., & Tansel, A. (2015). Impact of internal migration on political participation in Turkey. IZA Journal of Migration, 4(1), 1. Alexander, E. R. (1982). Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sciences, 14, 279–292.

References

149

Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1975). Public participation and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 429–479. Aminy, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A, 34(3), 385–399. Anderson, C.  W. (1971). Comparative policy analysis: The design of measures. Comparative Politics, 4(1), 117–131. Anderson, C. W. (1978). The logic of public problems: Evaluation in comparative policy research. Comparing Public Policies: New Concepts and Methods, 4, 24–26. Andrews, C. J. (2007). Rationality in Policy Decision Making. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller and M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis (pp. 161–173). London: CRC Press. Arts, B. (2003). Non-state actors in global governance: Three faces of power (No. 2003/4). Preprints aus der Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter. Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. (2010). Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind sprots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63. Bakvis, H. (1997). Advising the executive: Think tanks, consultants, political staff and kitchen cabinets. In P. Weller, H. Bakvis, & R. A. W. Rhodes (Eds.), The hollow crown: Countervailing trends in core executives (pp. 84–125). London: Macmillan. Bakvis, H. (2000). Rebuilding policy capacity in the era of the fiscal dividend: A report from Canada. Governance, 13(1), 71–103. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. Balzat, M., & Pyka, A. (2006). Mapping national innovation systems in the OECD area. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 2(1–2), 158–176. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2015). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Ideas and policy change. Governance, 26(2), 239–258. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beaumont, D. (2003). Rehabilitation and retention in the workplace—The interaction between general practitioners and occupational health professionals: A consensus statement. Occupational Medicine, 53(4), 254–255. Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review, 16(3–4), 75–103. Bellinger, W. K. (2015). The economic analysis of public policy. London and New York: Routledge. Bendor, J. B. (2010). Bounded rationality and politics (Vol. 6). Berkeley: University of California Press. Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558. Birgili, M., & Banger, G. (2009). Yerel Yönetimde Yeni Değerler. In Ulusal Kalkınma ve Yerel Yönetimler Sempozyum Bildirileri Kitabı, 1 (pp. 103–116). Istanbul. Birkland, T. A. (2007). Agenda setting in public policy. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 63–78). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press. Bobrow, D. (2006). Policy design: Ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 75–96). London: Sage. Bobrow, D.  B., & Dryzek, J.  S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Bohman, J. (1997). Do practices explain anything? Turner’s critique of the theory of social practices. History and Theory, 36: 93–107.

150

3  Policy Formulation

Bohman, J. (1998). Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 400–425. Bovens, M., & ‘t Hart, P. (2016). Revisiting the study of policy failures. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(5), 653–666. Boyd, W. L. (1976). The public, the professionals, and educational policy making: Who governs? Teachers College Record, 77(4), 539–577. Brint, S. (1990). Rethinking the policy influence of experts: From general characterizations to analysis of variation. Sociological Forum, 5(3), 361–385. Kluwer Academic Publishers/ Plenum Publishers. Browne, W. P. (1990). Organized interests and their issue niches: A search for pluralism in a policy domain. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 477–509. Buysse, J., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Lauwers, L. (2007). Normative, positive and econometric mathematical programming as tools for incorporation of multifunctionality in agricultural policy modelling. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 120(1), 70–81. Cabinet Office. (1999a). Modernising Government (Cm 4310). London: Stationery Office. Cabinet Office. (1999b). Professional policy-making for the twenty first century. London: Cabinet Office. Campbell, D.  T., Heyes, C.  M., & Callebaut, W.  G. (1987). Evolutionary epistemology bibliography. In W.  Callebaut & R.  Pinxten (Eds.), Evolutionary epistemology (pp.  405–431). New York: Springer. Carlsson, L. (2000). Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 502–520. Carlsson, B. (2007). Innovation systems: A survey of the literature from a Schumpeterian perspective. In H.  Hanusch & A.  Pyka (Eds.), Elgar companion to Neo-Schumpeterian economics (pp. 857–871). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar. Carson, M. (2004). From common market to social Europe?: Paradigm shift and institutional change in European Union policy on food, asbestos and chemicals, and gender equality. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 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. Clarke, C. L. (1999). Family care-giving for people with dementia: Some implications for policy and professional practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(3), 712–720. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170. Coburn, C.  E., Touré, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161. Cohen, J. (1983). On democracy. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Cohen, J. (1989). The economic basis of deliberative democracy. Social Philosophy and Policy, 6(2), 25–50. Cohen, J., & Sabel, C. (1997). Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal, 3, 313–342. Colebatch, H. K. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Sciences, 39(4), 309–321. Colebatch, H. K., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (2011a). The lessons for policy work. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 11–30). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Colebatch, H. K., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (2011b). Understanding policy work. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 227–246). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Coulthard, G. S. (2007). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’ in Canada. Contemporary Political Theory, 6(4), 437–460. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79–98.

References

151

Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper. Daigneault, P.-M. (2014). Puzzling about policy paradigms: Precision and Progress. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(3), 481–484. Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 59–80. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi delta kappan, 76(8), 597–604. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507. DeLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297–309. Demir, F. (2020). Evidence-based policy-making: Merits and challenges. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration. Cham: Springer. Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3–31. Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36–46. Dorfman, R. (1986). Benefit/cost analysis of environmental problems. In I. Adelman & J. E. Taylor (Eds.), The design of alternative development strategies (pp. 103–123). Rohtak: Jan Tinbergen Institute of Development Planning. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120–1171. Dror, Y. (1967). Policy analysts: A new professional role in government service. Public Administration Review, 27(3), 197–203. Dryzek, J. S. (1983). Don’t toss coins in garbage cans: A prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3(4), 345–367. 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. Dryzek, J. S., & Ripley, B. (1988). The ambitions of policy design. Review of Policy Research, 7(4), 705–719. Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public policy analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Durning, D., & Osuna, W. (1994). Policy analysts’ roles and value orientations: An empirical investigation using Q methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(4), 629–657. Dunlop, C. A. (2009). Policy transfer as learning: capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy studies, 30(3), 289–311. Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Ebbinghaus, B. (2002). Trade unions’ changing role: Membership erosion, organisational reform, and social partnership in Europe. Industrial Relations Journal, 33(5), 465–483. Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2008). Revisiting politicization: Political advisers and public servants in Westminster systems. Governance, 21(3), 337–363. Elliott, L. (2004). The global politics of the environment. In The global politics of the environment (pp. 223–238). London: Palgrave. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Etzioni, A. (2004). The common good. Camrbridge: MaldenPress. European Commission. (2001). European Governance: A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 final, Brussels. Evett, I. W., Jackson, G., Lambert, J. A., & McCrossan, S. (2000). The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice, 40(4), 233–239. Fearon, J.  D. (1998). Deliberation as discussion. In J.  Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 44–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

152

3  Policy Formulation

Feldman, M. (1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park: Sage. Fischer, W. (1992). Climate protection and international policy: The Rio-conference between global responsibility and national interests. Zentralbibliothek: Forschungszentrum Jülich. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham/ London: Duke University Press. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press. Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). Sydney/London/New York: CRC Press. Fisher, F., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1983). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin. Fishkin, J. S. (2003). Consulting the public through deliberative polling. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(1), 128–133. Fishkin, J. S. (2011). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fishkin, J. S., & Laslett, P. (Eds.). (2008). Debating deliberative democracy. New York: Wiley. Forester, J. (1992). Envisioning the politics of public-sector dispute resolution. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 12, 247–286. Franz, J. S., & Kirkpatrick, C. (2008). Improving the quality of integrated policy analysis: Impact assessment for sustainable development in the European Commission. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 4(2), 171–185. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance, Lessons from Japan. London, New York: Pinter Publishers. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. New York: Longman Publishing Group. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 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. Gastil, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity? Political Communication, 17, 357–361. Gauthier, D. (1975). Coordination. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue canadienne de philosophie, 14(2), 195–221. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. George, A. L. (1969). The operational code: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190–222. Geva-May, I. (2005). Thinking like a policy analyst. In I. Geva-May (Ed.), Thinking like a policy analyst. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: MIT Press. Gill, J.  I., & Saunders, L. (1992). Toward a definition of policy analysis. New Directions for Institutional Research, 76, 5–13. 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. Gormley, W. T., Jr. (2007). Public policy analysis: Ideas and impacts. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 297–313. Greener, I. (2005). The potential of path dependence in political studies. Politics, 25(1), 62–72.

References

153

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2009). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press. Haas, E.  B. (2008). Beyond the nation state: Functionalism and international organization. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press. Habermas, J. (1997). Popular sovereignty as procedure. In J.  Bohman & W.  Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 35–65). Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. In B.  G. Peters & D.  Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). Kingston/Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press and Canadian Centre for Management Development. Hanson, J. (2001). Morphology and design: Reconciling intellect, intuition, and ethics in the reflective practice of architecture. Proceedings of the third International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 06:1-06:18. Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 209–227. Hassenteufel, P. (2008). Sociologie politique: l’action publique. Lectures, Les livres. Hawkesworth, M . E. (1988). Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany: SUNY Press. Heinz, J. P., Laumann, E. O., & Nelson, R. L. (1993). The hollow core: Private interests in national policy making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432. Higgott, R., & Payne, A. (2000). The new political economy of globalisation. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1995). Globalization and the future of the nation state. Economy and Society, 24(3), 408–442. Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Gómez, A. P. (1994). Questions of perception: phenomenology of architecture. Tokyo: A+ U, Architecture and Urbanism. Hopf, T. (2007). The limits of interpreting evidence. In R. Lebow & M. Lichbach (Eds.), Theory and evidence in comparative politics and international relations (pp.  55–84). New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From ‘speaking truth to power ’to ‘making sense together. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210. Howlett, M. (2002). Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: Evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 35(2), 235–267. Howlett, M. (2009). Policy advice in multi-level governance systems: Sub-national policy analysts and analysis. International Review of Public Administration, 13(3), 1–16. Howlett, M. (2012). The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy-­making. International Political Science Review, 33(5), 539–555. Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207. Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 33–46. Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2013). Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems. Policy and Society, 32(3), 241–254.

154

3  Policy Formulation

Howlett, M., & Newman, J. (2010). Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems. Policy and Society, 29(2), 123–136. Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2009). Re-visiting Meltsner: Policy advice systems and the multi-­ dimensional nature of professional policy analysis. Available at SSRN 1546251. Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2011). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government. Politics and Policy, 39.4: 613–633. Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2012). Professional policy work in federal states: Institutional autonomy and Canadian policy analysis. Canadian Public Administration, 55(1), 53–68. http://www.americaspeaks.org/. Last accessed: 19 September 2020. http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/WhatWeDo/extra. Last accessed: 19 September 2020. http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx. Last accessed: 19 September 2020. https://campbellcollaboration.org/. Last accessed: 19 September 2020. https://nedcrosby.org/. Last accessed: 19 September 2020. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network. Last Accessed: 19 September 2020). Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 363–391. Huberman, M. (1994). Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 7(4), 363–391. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American planning association, 65(4), 412–423. Ingraham, P. W. (1987). Toward more systematic consideration of policy design 1. Policy Studies Journal, 15(4), 611–628. James, T.  E., & Jorgensen, P.  D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of the public policy process. In P. A. Sabatier & H.  Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 1–9). Boulder: Westview Press. Johnson, B. L., Jr. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 13(1), 23–36. Jordan, G., & Schubert, K. (1992). A preliminary ordering of policy network labels. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 7–27. Josselin, D., & Wallace, W. (2001). Non-state actors in world politics. New York: Springer. Kabasakal, M. (2014). Factors influencing intra-party democracy and membership rights: The case of Turkey. Party Politics, 20(5), 700–711. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (1984). Çağdaş siyasal bilim: teori, olgu ve süreçler. Istanbul: Osman Aykaç matbaası. Kassirer, J. P., & Kopelman, R. I. (1991). Learning clinical reasoning. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. A. (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1), 46–63. Kay, A. (2006). The dynamics of public policy: Theory and evidence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Kehoe, S. M., & Ponting, J. R. (2003). Value importance and value congruence as determinants of trust in health policy actors. Social Science and Medicine, 57(6), 1065–1075. Kennedy, M. (1982). Working Knowledge and Other Essays (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED248605.pdf). Keyman, E.  F., & Düzgit, S.  A. (2007). Europeanization, democratization and human rights in Turkey. In Turkey and the European union (pp. 69–89). London: Palgrave Macmillan. King, M. B. (1996). Participatory decision making. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED397492 Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G. R. (1991). Effective policy making in a multi-actor setting: Networks and steering. In R. J. ‘t Veld, C. J. A. M. Termeer, L. Schaap, & M. J. W. Van Twist (Eds.),

References

155

Autopoiesis and configuration theory: New approaches to societal steering (pp.  99–111). Dordrecht: Springer. Kluckhohn, C., Lerner, D., & Laswell, H.  D. (1951). The policy sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Knill, C. (1999). Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 113–139. Knoke, D. (2011). Policy networks. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 210–222). Los Angeles: Sage. Kuhn, T. S. (1963). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lafont, C. (2006). Is the ideal of a deliberative democracy coherent? In J. L. Marti & S. Besson (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge. Lake, D. A., & Baum, M. A. (2001). The invisible hand of democracy: Political control and the provision of public services. Comparative Political Studies, 34(6), 587–621. Lang, A. (2008). Agenda-setting in deliberative forums: Expert influence and citizen autonomy in the British Columbia citizens’ assembly. In M. Warren & H. Pearse (Eds.), Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly (pp. 85–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1943). Legal education and public policy: Professional training in the public interest. The Yale Law Journal, 52(2), 203–295. Lax, D., & Sebenus, J. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: The Free Press. 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. Levi-Faur, D. (1997). Friedrich list and the political economy of the nation-state. Review of International Political Economy, 4(1), 154–178. Lewicki, R. J., & Literer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin. Lindblom, C.  E. (1969). The science of “muddling through”. In A.  Etzioni (Ed.), Readings on modern organizations (pp. 75–92). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Lindblom, C.  E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–526. Lindblom, C. E. (2018). The science of muddling through. In J. Stein (Ed.) Classic Readings in Urban Planning (pp. 31–40). New York: Routledge. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Implementation as a Guide to Policy Formulation: A Question of’ ‘When’ Rather Than ‘Whether’. International review of administrative sciences, 55(4), 631–652. Lindquist, E. A. (1992). Public managers and policy communities: Learning to meet new challenges. Canadian Public Administration, 35(2), 127–159. Lindquist, S.  A. (2006). Bureaucratization and balkanization: The origins and the effects of decision-­making norms in the Federal Appellate Courts. University of Richmond Law Review, 41, 659–682. Lindvall, J. (2009). The real but limited influence of expert ideas. World Politics, 61(4), 703–730. Lomas, J. (2000). Essay: Using ‘linkage and exchange ‘to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation: Encouraging partnerships between researchers and policymakers is the goal of a promising new Canadian initiative. Health Affairs, 19(3), 236–240. Lundvall, B. Å. (1999). National business systems and national systems of innovation. International Studies of Management and Organization, 29(2), 60–77. Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinion: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455–487. Maaka, R., & Fleras, A. (2005). The politics of indigeneity: Challenging the state in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand. Dunedin: Otago University Press.

156

3  Policy Formulation

Mackay, K.  R., & Uhr, J. (1996). Evaluating policy advice: Learning from the commonwealth experience. Federalism Research Centre, Australian National University and Commonwealth Department of Finance. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press. 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(2), 139–167. Maley, M. (2000). Conceptualising advisers’ policy work: The distinctive policy roles of ministerial advisers in the Keating government, 1991–96. Australian Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 449–470. Manin, B. (2005). Democratic deliberation: Why we should promote debate rather than discussion. Paper delivered at the program in ethics and public affairs seminar (Vol. 13). Princeton University. Mansbridge, J. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance, 9(3), 247–264. Marriott, L. (2010). Innovation in retirement savings policy: The New Zealand experience. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 12(1–2), 197–212. Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-­ based policy-making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 143–163. Martin, C., & Milas, C. (2004). Modelling monetary policy: Inflation targeting in practice. Economica, 71(282), 209–221. May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 331–354. Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (2006). Interest groups and EU policy-making. In European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 247–265). New York: Routledge. McCowan, T. (2011). Rethinking citizenship education: A curriculum for participatory democracy. London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi, Sydney: A&C Black. Meltsner, A. J. (1975). Bureaucratic policy analysts. Policy Analysis, 1(1), 115–131. Meltsner, A. J. (1976). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Meltsner, A. J. (1979). Creating a policy analysis profession. Society, 16(6), 45–51. Meltsner, A. J. (1986). The seven deadly sins of policy analysis. Knowledge, 7(4), 367–381. Mill, J. S. (2015). On liberty, utilitarianism, and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miller, T., & Guria, J. C. (1991). The value of statistical life in New Zealand: market research on road safety. Land Transport Division, Ministry of Transport. Miller, D. (1992). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political studies, 40(1 Suppl), 54–67. Ministry of Development. (2013). 10. Development Plan. Ankara. Ministry of National Education. (2019). National education statistics, Formal Education 2018/’19. Ankara. Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770. Mitchell, D. (2005). Centralizing advisory systems: Presidential influence and the US foreign policy decision-making process. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(2), 181–206. Moran, M. (2001). Not steering but drowning: Policy catastrophes and the regulatory state. The Political Quarterly, 72(3), 414–427. Mumcuoğlu, M. (1982). Çağdaş demokrasi kurumlarında katılma ve Türkiye’de katılmanın gelişimi. Ankara: Doçentlik Tezi, Ankara University. Mushkin, S.  J. (1977). Policy analysis in state and community. Public Administration Review, 37(3), 245–253. Mutz, D.  C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

157

Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Academic accounts of policy experience. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Noordegraaf, M., & Abma, T. (2003). Management by measurement? Public management practices amidst ambiguity. Public Administration, 81(4), 853–871. Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. Swindon: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. O’Hara, K. (1998). Comparative family policy: Eight countries’ stories. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. O’Tuama, S. (2004). Public policy and public participation in the knowledge society prospects for decision making in science and technology policies. In D. L. Faurve & E. V. Gadot (Eds.), International public policy and management: Policy learning beyond regional, cultural and political boundaries (pp. 369–393). New York: MarcelDekker. Offe, C., & Preuss, U. K. (2006). The problem of legitimacy in the European polity: Is democratization the answer? In C. Crouch & W. Streeck (Eds.), The diversity of democracy. Corporatism, social order and political conflict (pp. 175–204). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Özbudun, E. (2015). Social change and political participation in Turkey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Page, E.  C., & Jenkins, B. (2005). Policy bureaucracy: Governing with a cast of thousands. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2010). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pandey, R. (2002). Energy policy modelling: Agenda for developing countries. Energy Policy, 30(2), 97–106. Parsons, W. (2001). Modernising policy-making for the twenty first century: The professional model. Public Policy and Administration, 16(3), 93–110. Perry, J. L. (1988). Making policy by trial and error: Merit pay in the federal service. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 389. Peters, B.  G. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of co-ordination. Public Administration, 76(2), 295–311. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243. Pettit, P. (2006). Democracy, national and international. The Monist, 89(2), 301–324. Pham, M.  T. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 155. Phipps, D. J., & Shapson, S. (2009). Knowledge mobilisation builds local research collaborations for social innovation. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5(3), 211–227. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. Pratchett, L. (1999). New fashions in public participation: Towards greater democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4), 616–633. Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C. S., Stokes, S. C., & Manin, B. (Eds.). (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Radin, B.  A. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Reber, B. (2007). Technology assessment as policy analysis: From expert advice to participatory approaches. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 493–511). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press. Robinson, P. (2005). The CNN effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and intervention. London: Routledge.

158

3  Policy Formulation

Rose, R. (1992). Escaping from absolute dissatisfaction: A trial-and-error model of change in eastern Europe. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4(4), 371–393. Rosenberg, S.  W. (Ed.). (2007). Deliberation, participation and democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rosenthal, A. (1998). The decline of representative democracy. London: Sage. Rubin, B. M., & Heper, M. (Eds.). (2002). Political parties in Turkey (Vol. 3). London, Portland: Psychology Press. Sanderson, I. (2003). Is it ‘what works’ that matters? Evaluation and evidence-based policy-­ making. Research Papers in Education, 18(4), 331–345. Saunders, H. (1999). A public peace process: Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York: Springer. Savolainen, R. (1993). The sense-making theory: Reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to information seeking and use. Information Processing and Management, 29(1), 13–28. Scharpf, F. W. (1991). Political institutions, decision styles, and policy choices. In R. M. Czada & A. Windhoff-Héritier (Eds.), Political choice: Institutions, rules, and the limits of rationality (pp. 53–86). Frankfurt: Campus. 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. Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 103–119. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14. Secor, A. J. (2001). Ideologies in crisis: Political cleavages and electoral politics in Turkey in the 1990s. Political Geography, 20(5), 539–560. Shaxson, L. (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1(1), 101–112. 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. Shore, C. (2011). Locating the work of policy. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 211–226). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 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/New York: CRC Press. Sieyès, E. J. (2003). Political writings. In M. Sonenscher (Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Macmillan. Simon, H. A. (1990). Bounded rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and probability. The New Palgrave. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Skjærseth, J.  B. (1994). The climate policy of the EC: Too hot to handle. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32, 25–42. Smith, G., & Wales, C. (1999). The theory and practice of citizens’ juries. Policy and Politics, 27(3), 295–308. Smith, P. C., Davies, H. T. O., & Nutley, S. M. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press. Sokolowski, J. A., & Banks, C. M. (Eds.). (2011). Principles of modeling and simulation: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Wiley. State Planning Organization. (2007). 9th Development Plan. Ankara.

References

159

Stedman, R. C. (2004). Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1395–1406. Stein, A. A. (1982). Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world. International Organization, 36(2), 299–324. Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Susskind, L. (2006). Arguing, bargaining and getting agreement. In M.  Moran, M.  Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 269–295). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books. Susskind, L., & Elliott, M. (1983). Paternalism, conflict, and coproduction. New York: Plenum Press. Susskind, L., & Field, P. (1996). Dealing with angry public: The mutual gains approach to resolving disputes. New York: Free Press. Susskind, L., & Ozawa, C. (1984). Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator. Journal of Planning in Education Research, 4(1), 5–15. Sutton, R. (1999). The policy process: An overview. London: Overseas Development Institute. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709. Taşkın, B. (2015). Voter turnout in Turkey’s parliamentary and local elections (1950–2014): Does participation increase when competition decreases? Turkish Studies, 16(4), 465–486. Teisman, G. (2000). Strategies for improving policy results in a pluricentric society: An interactive perspective on strategic policy behaviour. In W. Salet & A. Faludi (Eds.), The revival of stategic spatial planning. Amsterdam: KNAW. Thomas, H. G. (2001). Towards a new higher education law in Lithuania: Reflections on the process of policy formulation. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 213–223. Throgmorton, J.  A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. TÜBİTAK. (1983). Turkish science and technology policy: 1983–2003. Ankarra. TÜBİTAK. (1993). Turkish science and technology policy: 1993–2003. Ankara. TÜBİTAK. (2004). Ulusal Bilim ve Teknoloji Politikaları 2003–2023 Strateji Belgesi. Ankara. Türkcan, E. (2009). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Bilim, Teknoloji ve Politika. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. Van Huyck, J. B., Battalio, R. C., & Beil, R. O. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248. Veasey, E. N. (2002). State-Federal Tension in corporate governance and the professional responsibilities of advisors. Journal of Corporation Law, 28, 441–455. Verschuere, B. (2009). The role of public agencies in the policy making process: Rhetoric versus reality. Public Policy and Administration, 24(1), 23–46. Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (1999). Inefficiency in public organizations. International Public Management Journal, 2(1), 1–24. Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Walker, W. E., Adnan Rahman, S., & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policymaking. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 282–289. Ward, V., Smith, S., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2012). Exploring knowledge exchange: A useful framework for practice and policy. Social Science and Medicine, 74(3), 297–230. Warren, M.  E., & Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

160

3  Policy Formulation

Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B. A. (1993). Assessing the effects of institutions. In R. K. Weaver & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad (pp. 1–41). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Weller, P., & Stevens, B. (1998). Evaluating policy advice: The Australian experience. Public Administration, 76(3), 579–589. Wildavsky, A. (1969). Rescuing policy analysis from PPBS. Public Administration Review, 29(2), 189–202. Williams, A. (2010). Is evidence-based policy making really possible? Reflections for policymakers and academics on making use of research in the work of policy. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy (pp. 195–210). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Wilson, V. S., & Seymour, V. (1974). Issues in Canadian public policy. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Newbury Park: Sage. Yatkın, A., & Sürekli, G. (2009). Demokratikleşme ve Katılımcı Demokrasi Anlayışı Sürecinde Yerel Yönetimlerin Rolü. Ulusal Kalkınma ve Yerel Yönetimler Sempozyum Bildirileri Kitabı, 2, 785–795. Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A., & Grayson, L. (2002). Social science and the evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 215–224.

Chapter 4

Policy Implementation

Abstract  According to the policy cycle approach, the third stage of public policy after the agenda-setting and formulation is “implementation.” There are three main views on policy implementation in the literature: top-down approach, bottom-up approach, and hybrid approach. One of the most important contributions of policy implementation studies to the field of public administration is that practice research has brought new perspectives on the character of modern bureaucracies in ongoing discussions on public administration and organizational theory. For example, implementation analysis shows that administrative actors have their own political goals and use their initiative to achieve their respective goals rather than the goals defined by the political authorities who are their superiors. With regard to the stage of policy implementation, Turkey has made important changes with the presidential system of government. Comprehending the effects of political and administrative parameters and some other secondary factors on the fate of public policies in Turkey is of major importance. Among these, four will be discussed: (i) centralized political culture, (ii) conflict between politicians and bureaucrats, (iii) conflict between center and periphery, and (iv) issues related to accountability of public administration. Keywords  Policy implementation · Policy failure · Street-level bureaucrats

According to the policy cycle approach, the third stage of public policy after the agenda-setting and formulation is “implementation.” Like other stages, implementation has been the subject of several studies. Goggin et al. (1990) identified three generations of implementation research. Implementation research emerged in the USA in the 1970s as a reaction to growing concerns about the effectiveness of large-­ scale reform programs. Until the late 1960s, political powers were considered to be clear and distinct, and administrators were thought to implement policies in accordance with the wishes of decision-makers (Hill and Hupe 2002: 42). The process of “transforming policy into action” attracted more attention as long as policies failed to achieve what is expected of them and policy failures occurred repeatedly. The first generation of implementation studies dominated most of the 1970s and had a more or less pessimistic tone. This pessimism increased even more as a result of the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Demir, Public Policy Making in Turkey, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_4

161

162

4  Policy Implementation

case studies that illustrate examples of implementation errors. The works of Derthick (1972), Pressman and Wildavsky (1973), and Bardach (1977) are the most well-­ known in this field. The study of Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) has had a significant impact on the development of implementation research as it inspired many other studies in the literature.1 Here, the authors examined the gap between policy development and practice in the field and defined implementation as “a social process in which actors demonstrate their own interests, strengths, and possibilities of influence.” Laws, directives, and other legislation are largely normative tools that different actors can use for their respective purposes. How actors in the field responsible for implementation interpret normative rules in their own interests are important for the content of public policy. We will return to this topic below. However, before the work of Pressman and Wildavsky, which is usually accepted as a turning point, some important implementation researches were conducted. Hill and Hupe (2002: 18–28) stated that implementation research was carried out under different titles before 1970s. For example, Hargrove (1975) mentioned that he discovered a missing link in studies on the policy process. However, the most important success of the first-generation implementation researchers is that they created an awareness of this issue in wider academic circles and the public. Implementation research is at the intersection of public administration, organizational theory, and political science studies (Schofield and Sausman 2004: 235). There are three main views on policy implementation in the literature. Pülzl and Treib (2007) examine them as top-down approach, bottom-up approach, and hybrid approach.

1  Top-Down Approach This approach is essentially an assessment of whether implementation results are in line with the objectives of policy decisions that were originally introduced. Advocates of the top-down approach believe that policy implementation begins with a decision made by the central government. Parsons (1995: 463) states that these studies are based on the “black box model” of the political process inspired by system analysis. Such research assumes that there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between policies and the observed outcomes, and they ignore the impact of practitioners on policy delivery. Advocates of the top-down approach have adopted a normative approach, which essentially considers policy as an input factor and implementation as an output factor. DeLeon (2001: 2) defines top-down approach as “the case of ruling elites” due to the emphasis placed on central policy makers’ deci1  The full title of the book is the astonishing “Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; or, Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation.”

2  Bottom-up Approach

163

sions. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973), Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), Bardach (1977), and Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) are among the authors who represent this viewpoint. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) highlighted the linear relationship between accepted policy objectives and their implementation. In this sense, implementation refers to the establishment of adequate bureaucratic procedures to ensure that policies are carried out as accurately as possible. For this purpose, the implementing institutions should have sufficient resources in their stock, their responsibilities should be clearly stated, and hierarchical control should be provided to oversee the actions of the implementers. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983: 20) identified six criteria for effective implementation: • • • •

Policy objectives should be clear and consistent. The program must be based on a valid cause-and-effect theory. The implementation process should be sufficiently structured. Executives responsible for implementation should adopt the objectives of the program. • Interest groups and executive and legislative bodies should give their support. • There should be no unfavorable changes in socioeconomic conditions. In this view, implementation is an apolitical, administrative process. Power is ultimately in the hands of central decision-makers; they define clear policy goals and are in a position to hierarchically guide the process of implementing these goals. Majone and Wildavsky (1978), key representatives of the top-down approach, developed a new framework to explain the policy implementation process. The main argument of the authors is that implementation is an evolutionary process and programs are constantly being reshaped and defined in this process. This conceptualization begins with policy inputs defined by central policy makers. It also recognizes that inputs will inevitably change during execution. It would not be wrong to say that incremental learning2 processes are at the center of this approach.

2  Bottom-up Approach Several studies conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s showed that political outcomes were not sufficiently relevant to the initial policy objectives, and therefore the cause and effect relationship they assumed was questionable. Studies in this direction normally begin the analysis from below, identifying the actors involved in actual policy delivery and the networks they create. They reject the view that policies are defined centrally, and implementers have to adhere to the goals to the extent 2  The term “incremental” refers to progress in policy making in small steps. The punctuated equilibrium model developed by Jones and Baumgartner, which was discussed above, is based on a similar idea.

164

4  Policy Implementation

possible. Instead, taking initiative in the policy delivery process is seen as a beneficial phenomenon because local bureaucrats are closer to problems than central decision-makers. Hjern argues that it is very important for researchers to accept the multiactor and interorganizational character of policy delivery. Therefore, it is necessary to accept that implementation analysis should start with the identification of the actors and their networks from all relevant institutions cooperating in practice, and then how they solve the problems (Hjern 1982). According to Sabatier (1986), this approach provides a very useful tool for describing the “implementation structures,” the environment in which policy making takes place. However, Sabatier also criticizes the lack of a cause-and-effect hypothesis between legal and economic factors and individual behavior. One of the concepts that are frequently referred to in implementation studies is “street-level bureaucrats.” This concept includes public officials who are always among the public in daily life. Introducing the concept to the literature, Lipsky (1980) gave examples of social workers, teachers, and police officers in his examination of the USA. It is important that the mentioned civil servants work in the USA under local administrations and do not enjoy job security as a public servant. These are public officials in the “field” who play a decisive role in practice and regularly and directly interact with the citizens they give license or provide services. They also enjoy considerable discretion when performing their duties. No matter how thoroughly thought and prepared, it is not possible for the rules and procedures to envisage behaviors of public servants to the finest detail in every conceivable situation. In addition, it is a fact that public servants in the field can behave relatively autonomously from their superiors who are usually at their desks. According to Lipsky, the devices that these bureaucrats invented to deal with the routine order they created, and the uncertainty and the pressure imposed by the work, eventually turn into public policies they carry out. The best way to understand public policy is not to investigate what is going on in the chambers of senior executives or the legislatures. The essence of public policy lies in the crowded offices of street-level officials and in their daily encounters with citizens. “Field” is where public policy is laid out and shaped; so we need to focus on how these bureaucrats interact with citizens on the ground. Bureaucrats decide how to develop routines or implement strategies for public policies in the context of these interactions. Considering the characteristics of regular and direct interaction, the power of interpretation, and the flexibility of discretion, it will be seen that these are valid for most public officials. The actions taken by public officials such as teachers, faculty members, police officers, social workers, judges, and healthcare staff to implement public policies are so diverse that no legislative text can foresee all concrete and individual situations that these officers will possibly face. So, in many cases, the decision of when to impose a sanction, when to offer a certain health service, whether to accept or reject a homework assignment depends on the judgment of these officers. Scientists who advocate the bottom-up approach reject hierarchical guidance. They believe that it is not possible to formulate laws and regulations with clear policy objectives and to apply the implementation process with a top-down process; this model advocates that there is always substantial use of initiative in practice.

3  Hybrid Approach

165

3  Hybrid Approach After many years of debate among academics who advocated top-down and bottom­up views, both sides agreed that a process was running between central guidance and local autonomy. The more centrally defined policy goals and hierarchical control efforts are taken into account, the more preferences of street-level bureaucrats and deliberations within the networks of applications should be considered as relevant (Pülzl and Treib 2007: 100). Advocates of the top-down approach begin analysis with a policy decision at the “top” of the political system and go down to implementers. In contrast, advocates of the bottom-up approach begin their analysis by identifying the actors involved in concrete policy delivery at the bottom of the political-administrative system and their activities, particularly those within their discretion. According to Parsons (1995: 471), both groups exaggerate their positions and thus show the implementation process as simple, which is actually quite complex. As Sabatier (1986) puts it, advocates of the top-down approach have exaggerated the ability of central policy-makers to rigorously set precise policy goals and manage the implementation process. Those who advocate the bottom-up approach, criticizing this perspective, dramatized the initiative of the local bureaucrats and placed more emphasis on the autonomy of “bottom” versus “top.” Elmore (1985), Sabatier (1986), and Goggin et al. (1990) tried to overcome the conceptual weaknesses of the two approaches by bringing together their various elements. Taking the concerns about the effective implementation of the top-down approach as a starting point, these academics have included many elements of the bottom-up perspective and other theories in their models. Goggin et al. (1990) tried to bridge the gap between the two approaches by accepting the viewpoint that policy decisions defined at central level, similar to those advocating the top-down approach, were implemented by lower level actors. However, their conceptualization of the implementation process acknowledges that implementers are also important political actors; it attaches importance to complicated deliberation processes between implementers and central authorities. Scharpf (1978) is also among the researchers trying to reconcile the two approaches. He tried to combine the idea that central governments’ political orientation is dominant on the one hand, whereas the implementation of policy objectives is based on the interaction of various actors having diverse interests and strategies. Emphasizing the concept of “policy networks” in implementation studies, Scharpf suggested that more emphasis should be placed on cooperation and coordination among separate but mutually interdependent actors. Scharpf’s concept of policy networks was later used as an important approach in policy change studies such as Kenis and Schneider (1991), Coleman and Skogstad (1995), and Compston (2009). According to another argument developed based on Lowi’s article (1972), the type of policy to be implemented should be given importance. Advocating this idea, Ripley and Franklin (1982) claim that the distributive, regulatory, and redistributive policies have different features. Each policy type includes different groups of stakeholders; in addition, different conflicts occur during the application phase (Heinelt

166

4  Policy Implementation

2007). Windhoff-Héritier also advocates the same view and distinguishes between distributive and redistributive policies. A regulatory policy may have distributive or redistributive features; the regulatory program can fall into one of two categories depending on the availability of clearly identifiable winning and losing parties. Windhoff-Héritier states that distributive policies can be applied within any practical structure, but that a hierarchical implementation structure is needed for effective redistributive policies (Windhoff-Héritier 1980: 90, cited in Pülzl and Treib 2007: 103). Mayntz (1983) also distinguishes between policy types. He argues that there are different types of policies such as imperatives and constraints, positive and negative incentives, procedural arrangements and public delivery of services, and there are different implementation issues associated with these policy instruments. One of the most important contributions of policy implementation studies to the field of public administration is that practice research has brought new perspectives on the character of modern bureaucracies in ongoing discussions on public administration and organizational theory. As advocates of the bottom-up approach suggest, administrative actors are often not tightly controlled by politicians and have considerable autonomy in how policies are actually carried out. This has dealt a serious blow to the view that modern public administrations are similar to the Weberian hierarchical and technocratic bureaucracy model and are completely subject to the authority of political leaders. Today, the view that public administrations have much more complex organizational structures and is organized much less hierarchically than the Weberian model assumes prevails. In addition, implementation analysis shows that administrative actors have their own political goals and use their initiative to achieve their respective goals rather than the goals defined by the political authorities who are their superiors. In this sense, Palumbo and Calista (1990: 14) have suggested that practical research ends the political-administrative dilemma. It can be said that implementation researchers paved the way for a more realistic conceptualization regarding institutional features and the role of modern public administrations in politics (Pülzl and Treib 2007: 101).

4  Policy Implementation in Turkey With regard to the stage of policy implementation, Turkey has made important changes with the presidential system of government. With the Presidential Decree on Appointment Procedures for Top Level Administrators and Public Institutions and Organizations, senior managers have been determined, and the appointment procedure by the president has been arranged. In addition, the position of undersecretary has been abolished and the position of the deputy minister has been strengthened. This means that the executive body, meaning the president, will be able to shape the bureaucracy as he/she wishes. This can be described as a step toward overcoming the bureaucratic obstacle in the policies the president wants to implement.

4  Policy Implementation in Turkey

167

There is an opinion in the literature that the implementation of public programs (especially basic social services such as education, health, housing, social security, planning, environmental protection) in Turkey often lead to unsuccessful results.3 Although the outcomes of public programs in Turkey are not measured and explained much in a national context, it is important to explain why public administration in general has failed. The issue of what are the main reasons why public institutions and their policies generally fail or are considered as such has not attracted much attention of scientists working on public administration. There is scarcely any literature dealing with this subject. The current literature has mostly focused on the reasons for failure in the public administration of developed countries. In this context, it would be beneficial to evaluate the failure of public institutions and policies in Turkey in general context with reference to the state, society, bureaucracy, and pressure groups in Turkey. There are different opinions about why public administration in general, and public institutions and public policies in particular, fail in Turkey. Çevik (2000) argued that the reasons for the failure of market economy in Turkey cannot be analyzed with theoretical explanations related to the failure of public administrations in developed countries. It can be said that the failure of public administration in Turkey cannot be explained only with an economic approach that serves to analyze the failure in the market economy, but it is also necessary to look at political and administrative factors. In a study about why the collective housing policy failed between 1984 and 1994 in Turkey, it was revealed that populist policies were the most important reason (Çevik 2000). However, an analysis of a public policy in a couple of case studies may often be misleading in explaining the failure tendency in Turkish public administration. Addressing the effects of Turkey’s political and administrative structures and their functioning will be an important clue to understanding the failure of public policies. Comprehending the effects of political and administrative parameters and some other secondary factors on the failure of public policies in Turkey is of major importance. Among these, four will be discussed below: (i) centralized political culture, (ii) conflict between politicians and bureaucrats, (iii) conflict between center and periphery, and (iv) issues related to accountability of public administration.

4.1  Centralized Political Culture In the context of modernization, the roots of the current bureaucracy in Turkey date back to the period of Mahmut II, who ruled between 1808 and 1839. In fact, the modernization process, which led to the nation-state with nationalist movements for the first time in Western European countries and to modern society as a result of 3  For such comments, see Ganapati and Ganapati (2008) on housing policies, Buğra and Candaş (2011) on social security policies, Tatoğlu et al. (2015) on environmental policies, Gür et al. (2012) on education policies, and Bener et al. (2019) on health policies.

168

4  Policy Implementation

industrialization, began to affect the Ottoman Empire. Public servants were sent to European countries for educational purposes who later became the pioneers of the first modern bureaucracy. The efforts to implement in the Ottoman Empire what they saw in Europe and to close the gap with Europe were the hallmark of this period. The first seeds of modern Turkish bureaucracy are the abolishment of the Janissaries during the reign of Mahmut II, the efforts to establish a new European-­ style army, creation of western-style ministries, and the employment of permanent officials in public service (İnalcık 1964). It can be argued that the Turkish state developed as an extremely centralist, powerful, and imperial state following the Napoleonic example (Mango 1977; Hale 1976; Heper 1985). The political and social systems in Turkey were taken over from the Ottomans together with all their problems (Heper 1989: 206). Roos and Roos (1968: 270) emphasized the same point and stated that the characteristics of the modern Turkish state mostly originated from the pre-Republican past. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, important changes began to be witnessed in the Ottoman Empire. As the Ottoman Empire was in collapse, all bureaucratic elites, including the Sultan, believed that the Ottoman Empire needed reorganization and restructuring in order not to fall behind Europe in scientific and military areas. Mahmut II realized one of these efforts by bringing a centralized system to the administration (Eryılmaz 1992). The bureaucratization process in the Ottoman Empire, which started with Mustafa Reşit Pasha,4 began quietly, especially in the form of opposing the personal and arbitrary actions of the Ottoman Sultans (Ahmad 1993). As stated above, the new bureaucracy was directly affected by the developments in the West. The first reaction of this new generation of bureaucrats was in the form of protecting and glorifying the state and raising it to the European level. In this context, by opposing the arbitrary actions of the Sultans, the separation and conflict started to be experienced between the Sultans and the bureaucrats who were educated in Europe. The abdication of Abdulhamid II in 1908 was the result of such a conflict, which marks a turning point representing the bureaucracy gaining power and influence in the administration of the country. In less than two decades, the Republic of Turkey was founded by this bureaucratic staff inherited from the Ottoman Empire after the War of Independence. After the proclamation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the founder of the state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and the six principles (secularism, nationalism, populism, statism, republicanism, and revolutionism) he declared to guide political, cultural, and social changes, dominated the political and social realm. The basic principles put forward by Atatürk have been the principles that the Turkish state and society have been based on in the process that extends until today. The Republic of Turkey is one of the first examples of a newly established political system that sees and adopts rapid modernization as its main target (Turan 1984: 99). The Turkish bureaucracy has historically suffered from a dilemma in the context of a struggle between the state elite and the elected elite. The ruling elites have

4  Mustafa Reşit Pasha (1800–1858) was the leading political figure of modernization period in the Otoman Empire marked by the declaration of Edict of Gulhane (Tanzimat Fermanı) in 1839.

4  Policy Implementation in Turkey

169

always believed that they know and do things for society and the country better than the people themselves.5 Therefore, public administration and public policies were created and implemented from the perspective of the ruling elite. Bureaucrats have intervened at every stage of the policy process, especially the implementation stage, and tended to keep things under control (Rondinelli et  al. 1983). Thus, Turkish bureaucracy can be characterized, in Weber’s perspective, as having patrimonial-­ legal characteristics despite efforts to establish legal-rational methods (Heper 1977). As a result of having an entrenched understanding of the state, bureaucratic elites have always aimed to protect and prioritize state interests. State administration and bureaucratic tradition in Turkey is a special case with its own characteristics. The Turkish state and bureaucratic structure gives the impression of a structure similar to the management approach defined by the elitist approach (Jacoby 2004). In Turkey, these are features such as a strong state, an over-­ centralized structure, an empire tradition, and an understanding of government where reforms are made top-down. The organization of Turkish society in the modern context and the emergence of pressure groups, which are the most important contemporary institutions that convey the demands of society to the state, coincides with the period after the Second World War when the system evolved into multiparty politics. In fact, this is a period when Turkey tries to develop rapidly through urbanization and industrialization. Perhaps as a natural consequence of these developments, the representation of pressure groups in the system served to improve the relations of these groups with political parties and public institutions. However, pressure groups differed from sector to sector in terms of impact, type, and size. The activities of the pluralist groups established directly by the society itself fulfill the purpose of serving as important channels (ways of relationship) for the expansion of political participation and contributing to the reformulation of party-voter politics. Corporatist groups and associations, due to their semi-formal nature and their ability to be directed by relevant ministries when necessary, served to suppress conflict of interest in order to narrow political participation, thereby acting as instruments of social control. It can be claimed that these two types of pressure groups have competed as tools to construct interest representation in Turkey. Therefore, the representation of the society through pressure groups in the formation of public policies and political participation in the system in Turkey is carried out in two ways: through private unions and semi-official (corporatist) unions (Bianchi 1986; Öniş and Türem 2001). The former is organized by independent social groups from a pluralist perspective. The latter, on the other hand, have been established and guided by the government, often with the aim of helping social groups in certain professions and fields to participate. This kind of guided pressure group organization can be regarded as a natural consequence of the understanding of state in Turkey. Successful formulation and implementation of public policies, the most important service tool of the state to society, depends on the nature of the relationship

5  There is a vast literature on bureaucratic elitism in Turkey including Heper (1976, 1977, 2001), Özcan (2015), Durgun and Yayman (2005), and Özbudun (1993) to name a few.

170

4  Policy Implementation

between the state and society. In developed democratic countries, the state is considered as an organization that should serve society and strive to meet social needs. The main reason behind this is that in a democratic liberal country, the state is seen as an institution that provides basic services to society. In this context, people try to put pressure on governments to tailor public policies and programs to their expectations and needs. Thus, in democratically developed countries, public expectations and public pressure play an important role in the public policy process. Governments of such countries feel obligated to adapt policies that meet these public expectations. In Turkey, where a strong state tradition prevails, it can be claimed that public policies and practices are formulated and implemented by governments in a top-­ down fashion without much consideration of public opinion and social influences (Sarker 2006). Pressure groups have never been able to express their demands easily (Grant 1989). This is inherent in Turkish political culture, where too many pressure groups are established on corporatist foundations.6 The pressure groups prefer to work in harmony with the government rather than putting strong pressure on the government (Molins and Casademunt 1998). Thus, in terms of public programs and policies, Turkish governments do not face too much pressure from the society to shape and implement public policies according to the demands and expectations of the people. In the context of the public policy process, public programs and policies are often planned, formulated, and implemented from top to bottom (Meyers et al. 2007: 155). These factors can be shown among reasons for the failure of public policies in Turkey as policies that are not formulated and implemented according to the needs and demands of the society are more likely to fail.

4.2  Conflict Between Politicians and Bureaucrats Another aspect that Turkish political structure has led public administration to failure is the dilemma and conflict between appointed bureaucracy and elected political elites. This separation and conflict reached its peak, especially during the period of the Democrat Party between 1950 and 1960. The main reason for this is that the Republican People’s Party, which ruled Turkey for a long time before the Democrat Party came to power, formed an appointed bureaucracy compatible with the government in this period. In the change of power in 1950, this appointed bureaucracy had difficulty in accepting newly elected politicians. In principle, this separation has partially continued until today. However, in the early 1970s, administrative bureaucrats gradually became politicized and moved closer to political parties. In the 1970s and later, both left and right parties had the chance to work with sympathizer bureaucrats within the administration. When there was a change of government, the 6  Leading examples of such pressure groups are MÜSİAD (İndependent Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association), TEGEV (Turkish Youth Foundation), TÜRGEV (Turkish Foundation for Youth and Service for Education), TOBB (Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges), and HAK-İŞ (Confederation of Turkish Real Trade Unions).

4  Policy Implementation in Turkey

171

parties that came to power appointed their bureaucrats to key administrative positions. Probably the only area outside of this trend was military bureaucracy as the promotion and appointment procedures of the military were based on an independent system. The bureaucracy is always somewhat dependent on the political elite in the formulation and implementation of public policies. In fact, in a country with a democratic rule, it is canonical for the elected to be superior to the appointed. However, this dependency has resulted in a strong control of the political ruling elite over bureaucrats in Turkey after 1970s. As long as the political masters are satisfied with the bureaucrats, they can remain in office. Even if bureaucrats do their best in implementing public policies, if the political elites view these efforts as damaging the future of the government and the ruling party, these bureaucrats will either be dismissed or transferred to another, mostly less active position. This may cause a lack of interest among bureaucrats toward public policy formulation and implementation. This means that successful public policy implementation can have a negative impact. On the other hand, the centralized and powerful state may not allow majority of society’s demands, needs, and expectations to be channeled to the government. Even if these demands reach the government, not much can be done if these demands or needs do not conform to the governments’ own agenda. In Turkey, what is perceived as state interests comes before the interests of society (Katz 1997; Mardin and Türköne 1990), which may lead to the failure of public administration as public policies are generally not formulated and implemented according to the needs of the society.

4.3  Conflict Between Center and Periphery In Turkey, the problems in the political structure play a significant role in the failure of the public administration in structural terms or the public services in functional terms. In addition, administrative structuring also has an essential part in the poorly provision of public services. Two factors related to the administrative structure can be examined: the extremely centralized administrative structure, and the responsibility and accountability of the Turkish bureaucracy to the public. The Turkish administrative system has two levels of administration: central and local. The central administration is organized throughout the country in two tiers, the central ministries and agencies, and their peripheral extensions in provinces and districts. This extremely centralist structure is a reflection of the strong centralist state tradition in Turkey. The central administration is organized in the center, represented by the president, the council of ministers, ministries, and sub-units of the ministries. In the provinces, it is structured so that each ministry has a representative both in the province and in the districts. Governors are appointed to administer provinces and kaymakams are appointed to administer districts, who have to report to their respective governors. Each Ministry has a representative in provinces. In addition, all

172

4  Policy Implementation

g­ eneral policies, personnel transactions, and income-expenditure transactions of these provincial units are managed by the center. However, governors have been given the authority to take all kinds of transactions and administrative actions within their own provincial borders, supported by the constitutional regulations. With this application, called the decentralized public service provision, it is aimed to deliver services rapidly. The central administration performs the most basic public services in Turkey. Even if we leave aside the justice, defense and security services, all other social services are provided by the central and provincial organizations of the central government. Education, health, housing, social security, social services, public works, and similar basic services are provided by the central government. In this aspect, it can be argued that the central administration dominates social life in Turkey (Mardin 1973). Compared to central government, local governments are rather weak in Turkey. Local governments have little influence, both as a field of duty and in the role they play in the Turkish administrative system. It can be argued that the main reason for this is that the centralist structure and strong state tradition in Turkey have deeply spread and penetrated into social, political, economic, and administrative fields. The most important local governments are municipalities. Considering the areas of services that municipalities have to provide, it is seen that these mostly cover services such as the building the infrastructure of the cities, cleaning activities, construction of parks and gardens, urban transportation, and water distribution. However, as mentioned above, the central administration offers much more important and comprehensive services. Local governments provide services that are more related to infrastructure and of secondary importance. This shows that the central construction is also reflected in the service delivery. The central government has assumed full responsibility in Turkey in terms of formulation and implementation of public policies, which are the most important public programs in the hands of public administrations. One consequence of such an administrative structure, which can increase the risk of failure, is the problem of scale in the provision of services as most social public services require to be delivered at the local level. A sensitive management may require that general policies be implemented by local authorities at the local level, even if they are decided by the central government, because local governments can better understand local needs and are more aware of details. For example, in most developed countries such as the USA, England, and Germany, while general policies regarding education, housing, and police services are determined by the central government, implementation is the responsibility of local governments (Bulkeley and Kern 2006; Schedler and Proeller 2000). However, almost all public policies in Turkey are determined, made and implemented by the central government and its sub-branches. In this large central government structure, it becomes a challenge for the central government and its assigned agents at provincial level to deliver a service, taking into account local conditions and needs. Since such a bulky and large structure will have little mobility, it seems impossible to both dynamically consider local needs and make changes when necessary. This alone has the potential to reveal the failure of public administration. Local needs can be better identified by local elected officials than by central

4  Policy Implementation in Turkey

173

government representatives as the appointed representatives of the central government in the provinces feel more accountable to their superiors in the capital than to the people. This leads us to question and reflect on the accountability of public officials in the context of implementing policies for the delivery of services.

4.4  Accountability of Public Administration In Turkey, public officials at all levels are subject to a special trial process in terms of the performance of their duties and of legal supervision. The permission for trial of civil servants has to be given by their civilian supervisors. This process is regulated by Article 129 of the 1982 Constitution. The details are designed by the Law on the Trial of the Civil Servants. This means that the Turkish State bureaucracy is protected by law while on duty. This is again nothing more than a reflection of the strong state tradition. Article 129 of the 1982 Constitution states the following: Civil servants and other public officials are obliged to act in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. Lawsuits for damages arising from faults committed by civil servants and other public officials in exercising their authority are to be recoursed to them in accordance with the form and conditions prescribed by the law. Subject to the exceptions determined by law, criminal prosecution for alleged crimes against civil servants and other public officials is subject to the permission of the administrative authority indicated by the law.

In terms of both civil servants’ responsibilities to the public and their accountability, these legal regulations can be evaluated as a reflection of the following opinion: Civil servants are representatives of the Turkish State and have to fulfill their duties according to the interests of the state. Thus, when these officials exercise state authority, they have to be loyal to the state and therefore public officials are protected by the law. This inevitably raises the problem of the accountability of public officials in the implementation of public policies and the provision of services. Ideally, public administration and its programs are expected to serve the society and meet the demands and needs of the society. However, the current system allows civil servants to work in relative comfort without effective public supervision while performing their duties. The absence of this necessary mutual interaction between service providers (civil servants) and recipients (people) prevents civil servants from being responsible and accountable to the public. Because public officials will only feel responsibility toward their political and bureaucratic masters due to their hierarchical commitment. So, as long as government officials keep their superiors happy, there will be no problem in performing their duties well or poorly. This view is supported by a study of Özen (1996). While reviewing the literature on the behavior of Turkish bureaucrats, Özen identified some of the key attitudes of the Turkish bureaucracy: having centralized tendencies, not delegating authority or consulting subordinates, and preventing or excluding subordinates’ involvement in the formulation of public policies. Özen argues that bureaucrats are reluctant to encourage their subordinates to do their jobs better. Instead, subordinates are expected to seek and find ways to be in harmony with their superiors in the

174

4  Policy Implementation

p­ olicy-­making and management processes. Senior–subordinate relations have a patronizing character. On the one hand, superiors exhibit a protective attitude toward subordinates; on the other hand, subordinates display loyalty, respect, and dependence on their superiors. The result is sometimes preferring to do what superior wants instead of what service requires. This can directly negatively affect successful service delivery. To conclude this chapter, it can be argued that two basic features of the administrative structure in Turkey affect the way public policies are formulated and implemented. These features may also explain the failure of public administration. First, the excessively centralized and massively cumbersome administrative structure is responsible for implementing most public services at the national level. This structure does not encourage the public and local bodies to participate in the formulation or implementation of policies. In fact, most of the time, it appears as a structure that does not listen to the public and goes its own way. This large structure makes the implementation of public programs less effective and increases the risk of failure. The other factor is that, in the presence of a central and powerful state, the accountability of public officials becomes a problem as these bureaucrats feel responsibility only to their superiors and political masters. In such an environment, accountability to the public becomes blurred and at times even unwelcome by the bureaucratic structure.

References Ahmad, F. (1993). The making of modern Turkey (Vol. 264). London: Routledge. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bener, A., Alayoglu, N., Çatan, F., Torun, P., & Yilmaz, E. S. (2019). Health services management in Turkey: Failure or success? International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 30. Bianchi, R. (1986). Interest group politics in the third world. Third World Quarterly, 8(2), 507–539. Buğra, A., & Candaş, A. (2011). Change and continuity under an eclectic social security regime: The case of Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 47(3), 515–528. Bulkeley, H., & Kern, K. (2006). Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Studies, 43(12), 2237–2259. Çevik, H. H. (2000). A public policy failure analysis: The case of mass housing policy in Turkey 1984–1994 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham). Coleman, W.  D., & Skogstad, G. (1995). Neo-liberalism, policy networks, and policy change: Agricultural policy reform in Australia and Canada. Australian Journal of Political Science, 30(2), 242–263. Compston, H. (2009). Policy networks and policy change: Putting policy network theory to the test. Cham: Springer. DeLeon, P. (2001). A democratic approach to policy implementation. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 31, San Francisco. Derthick, M. (1972). New towns in town. Why a federal program failed? Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Durgun, Ş., & Yayman, H. (2005). The Turkish Bureaucracy as a Guardian of the statist tradition. Turkish-US Relations: Perspectives from Ankara: 93.

References

175

Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and backward mapping. In K. Hanf & T. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems (pp. 33–70). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Eryılmaz, B. (1992). Osmanlı Devleti’nde millet sistemi (Vol. 28). Ağaç Yayıncılık. Ganapati, N.  E., & Ganapati, S. (2008). Enabling participatory planning after disasters: A case study of the World Bank’s housing reconstruction in Turkey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 41–59. Goggin, M.  L., Bowman, A.  O. M., Lester, J.  P., & O’Toole, L.  J., Jr. (1990). Implementation theory and practice. In Toward a third generation. New York: Harper Collins. Grant, W. (1989). Pressure groups, politics and democracy in Britain (pp. 90–112). London: Philip Allan. Gür, B. S., Çelik, Z., & Özoğlu, M. (2012). Policy options for Turkey: A critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 1–21. Hale, W.  M. (1976). Aspects of modern Turkey (Vol. 1). London/New York: Bowker [for] the Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies of the University of Durham. Hargrove, E.  C. (1975). The missing link. The study of the implementation of social policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Heinelt, H. (2007). Do policies determine politics? In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp.  109–119). London/ New York: CRC Press. Heper, M. (1976). Political modernization as reflected in bureaucratic change: The Turkish Bureaucracy and a historical bureaucratic empire tradition. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 7, 507–521. Heper, M. (1977). Negative bureaucratic politics in a modernizing context: The Turkish case. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 1(1), 65. Heper, M. (1985). The state and public bureaucracies. Comparative Study in Society and History, 27(1), 86–110. Heper, M. (1989). Local government in Turkey: Governing greater Istanbul. London: Taylor & Francis. Heper, M. (2001). The state and bureaucracy: The Turkish case in historical perspective. In A.  Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of comparative and development public administration (pp. 677–686). New York: Marcel & Dekker. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy. Governance in theory and in practice. London: Sage. Hjern, B. (1982). Implementation research. The link gone missing. Journal of Public Policy, 2, 301–308. İnalcık, H. (1964). Sened-i İttifak ve Gülhane Hatt-ı Hümayunu. Belleten, 28(112), 603–622. Jacoby, T. (2004). Social power and the Turkish state. London: Routledge. Katz, R. S. (1997). Democracy and elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand. Kenis, P., & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy networks and policy analysis: Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations (pp. 25–59). Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucrats. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298–310. Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. (1978). Implementation as evolution. In H. Freeman (Ed.), Policy studies review annual (pp. 103–117). Beverly Hills: Sage. Mango, A. (1977). The state of Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 13(2), 261–274. Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics? Daedalus, 102(1), 169–190. Mardin, Ş., & Türköne, M. E. (1990). Türkiye’de toplum ve siyaset (Vol. 1). İletişim Yayınları. Mayntz, R. (1983). The conditions of effective public policy: A new challenge for policy analysis. Policy and Politics, 11(2), 123–143. Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview: Scott.

176

4  Policy Implementation

Meyers, M. K., Vorsanger, S., Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2007). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The handbook of public administration (pp. 153–163). Los Angles: Sage. Molins, J. M., & Casademunt, A. (1998). Pressure groups and the articulation of interests. West European Politics, 21(4), 124–146. Öniş, Z., & Türem, U. (2001). Business, globalization and democracy: A comparative analysis of Turkish business associations. Turkish Studies, 2(2), 94–120. Özbudun, E. (1993). State elites and democratic political culture in Turkey. In L. Diamond (Ed.), Political culture and democracy in developing countries (pp.  189–210). London: Lynne Rienner Publications. Özcan, Y. (2015). The European transformation of Turkish bureaucratic elites. Journal of The Academic Elegance, 2(3), 147–189. Özen, Ş. (1996). Bürokratik Kültür 1: Yönetsel Değerlerin Toplumsal Temelleri. Ankara: TODAIE Yayınları. Palumbo, D. J., & Calista, D. J. (1990). Opening up the black box. Implementation and the policy process. In D. J. Palumbo & D. J. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the policy process. Opening up the black box (pp. 3–18). New York: Greenwood Press. Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy. An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. London: Edward Elgar. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why It's amazing that Federal Programs work at all, This being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2007). Implementing public policy. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 89–107). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press. Ripley, R.  B., & Franklin, G.  A. (1982). Bureaucracy and policy implementation. Homewood: Dorsey Press. Rondinelli, D. A., Nellis, J. R., & Cheema, G. S. (1983). Decentralization in developing countries. World Bank staff working paper, 581. Roos, L. L., Roos, N. P., & Field, G. R. (1968). Students and politics in Turkey. Daedalus, 184–203. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research. A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48. Sarker, A. E. (2006). New public management in developing countries. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(2), 180–203. Scharpf, F.  W. (1978). Interorganizational policy studies. Issues, concepts and perspectives. In K. I. Hanf & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Interorganizational policy making. Limits to coordination and central control (pp. 345–370). London: Sage. Schedler, K. & Proeller, I. (2000) New Public Management, Stuttgart: UTB. Schofield, J., & Sausman, C. (2004). Symposium on implementing public policy: Learning from theory and practice introduction. Public Administration, 82, 235–248. Tatoğlu, E., Bayraktar, E., & Arda, O. A. (2015). Adoption of corporate environmental policies in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, 313–326. Turan, İ. (1984). The evolution of political culture in Turkey. In Modern Turkey: Continuity and change (pp. 84–112). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration and Society, 6(4), 445–488. Windhoff-Héritier, A. (1980). Politikimplementation. Ziel und Wirklichkeit politischer Entscheidungen. Königstein/Ts: Anton Hain.

Chapter 5

Policy Evaluation

Abstract  Evaluation of public policies is not easy both technically and institutionally. There are several technical challenges for the evaluator to overcome: the correlation between a policy and its results is not always causal, and the evaluator needs to take into account factors such as reverse causality and policy interactions with many other actors. Evaluation is also difficult from an institutional point of view, because reliable evaluation is possible only through a carefully prepared procedure before public policy is put into effect. Evaluation of a public policy involves the use of a number of criteria to develop that policy and inform decision-makers. The purpose of the assessment is to compare the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of the goals set, the results achieved, and the tools used within the institutional framework. Regulatory impact assessment is one of the most debated instruments of evaluation of public policies in Turkey. Although efforts on the widespread implementation of regulatory impact analysis in Turkey have started, it is seen that they are not realized at a satisfactory level. A variety of social and political obstacles such as administrative barriers, methodological barriers, and lack of knowledge of the required methods and techniques are encountered in the principles and practices regarding the evaluation of public policies in Turkey. Keywords  Policy evaluation · Impact assessment

Evaluation of public policies is not easy both technically and institutionally. There are several technical challenges for the evaluator to overcome: the correlation between a policy and its results is not always causal, and the evaluator needs to take into account factors such as reverse causality1 and policy interactions with many other actors. He/she also has to consider issues such as whether the benefit generated by a public policy instrument is the intended one or whether it has had some effects outside the area targeted in the beginning. 1  Reverse causality is a concept that states that there is a relationship between the two concepts, but this relationship is not in the direction that the researcher expects. The researcher thinks that A leads to B, but in reality it is B that leads to A. See Katz (1999).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Demir, Public Policy Making in Turkey, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68715-1_5

177

178

5  Policy Evaluation

Evaluation is also difficult from an institutional point of view, because reliable evaluation is possible only through a carefully prepared procedure before public policy is put into effect. This procedure should ensure the independence of the evaluators and their access to the data they will need for evaluation. It should also enable discussion of hypotheses and results within an interdisciplinary framework. Finally, evaluators should be able to freely publish their results and discuss them with other experts. In practice, the evaluation of a public policy should not be conducted by the public agency responsible for implementing that policy. Administrative expertise is an indispensable component that complements technical expertise, especially in terms of understanding the implementation of the policy and its interaction with other policies. External evaluators should be selected in a transparent process, and the institution to be evaluated in this process should not have any involvement. Care should be taken that the evaluation is not financed by a single sponsor and that different approaches are included in the process with a pluralistic approach. Evaluators should take care not to violate the confidentiality of the data, and they should be transparent about possible conflicts of interest. Evaluation of a public policy involves the use of a number of criteria to develop that policy and inform decision-makers. The purpose of the assessment is to compare the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of the goals set, the results achieved and the tools used within the institutional framework. In this respect, evaluation differs from legality review in that it does not only examine compliance with the legal framework. It is also different from audit where financial aspect and risk-­ control mentality are dominant. Evaluation is a more comprehensive activity than both legality review and financial audit. There are several guiding principles on the evaluation of public policies. One of them is to support decision-making processes. Action-oriented assessments are designed to be used as tools in policy-making processes. Based on the key issues identified in the diagnostic phase, evaluation aims at translating public policy into action and improving the public action in question. Another principle of evaluation is participation and transparency. During the evaluation process, users and beneficiaries are constantly consulted regarding their expectations from the policy in question. The relevant major public actors (managers of public institutions, local governments, social organizations, etc.) are included in the evaluation process to build a collective vision of the problems, objectives, implementation in the field, and the results achieved by public policy. One of the most important features of evaluation is that it is not technocratic in nature, unlike other public management methods. Evaluation processes allow a dialogue between the administrative mechanism and the public. The interactive and open nature of evaluation is a prerequisite for higher quality and more democratic and effective public services. Evaluation can be performed by the administrative mechanism or by other social partners such as the media, universities, unions, professional groups, and consumer unions. In essence, evaluation can only really work

1  Public Policy Evaluation Methods

179

in an open society2 where everyone can freely express their opinions on government actions and public policies. The main concepts to consider when evaluating public policies are interest, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and consistency (Provan and Milward 2001; Abelson and Gauvin 2006). Interest evaluation involves determining whether a policy responds correctly to identified or actual needs. This criterion is the first step to understand whether the measures taken for the problem that the public policy claims to solve are sufficient. Efficiency evaluation measures the relationship between operations performed while policy is implemented, resources used, and results achieved. The main purpose here is to determine whether the measure taken is an optimal measure in the context of existing limitations. The effectiveness evaluation is aimed at determining whether the target that was determined at the beginning was achieved. Here, both the previously announced goals and possible undesirable (positive or negative) effects are evaluated. Impact evaluation is used to determine the overall impact of the measures taken, including those that are not explicitly covered by the public policy in question. Impact assessment can be medium or long term; it can also focus on expected or unexpected issues. Finally, consistency evaluation takes into account the harmony between the goals of a policy, the instruments it employs, and the context in which it is applied. For example, it is evaluated whether the legal, humanitarian, and financial instruments put into practice are compatible with the objectives. These are concepts common to all types of public policy assessments, which will be discussed below.

1  Public Policy Evaluation Methods Evaluation in public policy can be defined in its broadest sense as an analytical and procedural instrument, which is used for two purposes. First, evaluation research as an analytical tool involves the research of a policy program to obtain all information regarding the evaluation of a policy as both a process and a result. Second, evaluation as a phase of the policy cycle implies the feedback of this information into the policy-making process (Wollmann 2007: 393). Different policy evaluators and different political groups will evaluate public policies in different ways. A conservative would argue that free competition and protection of private property should be at the center of economic policies; on the other hand, a socialist will regard as a priority the fair distribution of what the society produces. As in most issues, normative perspectives come into play both in the evaluation of the goals of the policy and in analyzing how far the policy has reached the desired goals. However, normative evaluations are not sufficient; empirical dimension must also be taken into account before making a decision about the impact and consequences of a policy. A policy evaluation that does not include

 Here the concept of open society is used in the Popperian sense. See Popper (1966).

2

180

5  Policy Evaluation

empirical analysis of the content, outcomes, and effects of a particular policy is incomplete (Cochran et al. 1993: 6). Policy evaluation can take place at different stages of the policy. For example, ex-ante evaluation is carried out before making a decision and aims to anticipate and predict the effects and consequences of the planned or defined policies and actions; so it can provide feedback to the future or ongoing policy-making processes. If it concerns alternative policies and actions, ex-ante evaluation is a tool for selecting the more analytically, more transparent, more predictable, and politically more justified policy choices among alternatives. Ex-ante evaluation uses fixed (a priori) parameters during the design phase of the policy. It aims to improve and strengthen the final quality of a plan or program under development. It addresses the context at the first point of public intervention, analyzes the content of the intervention, examines the conditions and possible performance of the implementation, and sets out the expected results and effects. In this process, cost–benefit analysis appears as an important component. The ongoing evaluation is concerned with identifying interim effects and outcomes of policy programs and measures whether implementation continues in the policy cycle process. The main function of the ongoing evaluation is to ensure that relevant information is entered into the system in “appropriate places” where adjustment, correction, and redirection activities can be carried out during the application process of this information. One aspect of this form of evaluation is that it is intrusive: policy analysts are expected to actively intervene in the process to correct deficiencies and imperfections that prevent achieving predetermined targets (Wollmann 2007: 393). This type of assessment aims to verify whether the targeted results and impacts have been achieved during implementation and try to determine their consistency and relevance rather than the effectiveness of the policy. As a result, it may seem necessary to make adjustments to the program or strategy. Third, ex-post evaluation involves determining the extent to which the results of a government’s policy coincide with the objectives set at the outset. It is an effort to find answers to questions such as whether the policy works, whether it has some beneficial effects on the society, what is the relationship between the cost of the program and the benefit it creates, or whether it is possible to implement a less costly and more effective alternative program instead. To assess the effectiveness of a policy, it needs to produce measurable results. In this process, the strengths and weaknesses of the policy or programs are evaluated. The evaluation parameters are “a posteriori” in accordance with the final stage of the project: it is engaged after the completion of public action and deals with effects in the medium or long term. It aims to determine whether the originally set goals have been achieved and whether the results achieved are the expected ones. When evaluating a policy, it is necessary to distinguish between desired and undesired outcomes. The desired outcomes are the announced objectives of the policy. During the policy evaluation process, the level of achieving these goals is questioned. The mortgage policy in the USA can be given as an example. The purpose of this policy is to promote house ownership; consequently, the USA is the first in the world in terms of the rate of house-owners, which is a desired outcome of the

2  Policy Evaluation Tools of the Government

181

mortgage policy. The undesirable consequence of this policy is that the middle and upper-middle classes moved to suburbs outside the city and the city center became a collapse area inhabited by people with lower income levels and high crime rates (Cochran et al. 1993: 6). Policy evaluation studies should also distinguish between direct and indirect policy effects. The desired and undesired consequences of a policy on the target audience are the direct impact of that policy. Public policy also has indirect effects on third parties. For example, the target audience of a policy involving the expansion of highways is the transport sector and automobile drivers. However, if ­highways are developed, at least in the short term, the railway sector will be negatively affected; this is an indirect effect. In this regard, direct and indirect costs are also elements of policy evaluation. The direct cost of a policy is the spending on the policy field itself in terms of time, energy, power, and money. Indirect costs are the costs incurred in the area affected by the policy—for example, the opportunity cost of resources devoted to the policy in question. Another issue to consider during policy evaluation is the short and long-term effects of policies. It may take many years until the long-term effects of a policy are fully seen; until then, it is not possible to fully evaluate any policy. For example, the long-term effects of the military operations of NATO in Afghanistan as part of the global war on terrorism are still not fully visible. On the other hand, programs with short-term goals may turn into long-term goals later due to the establishment of bureaucratic institutions and an incremental approach to implement that program even if short-term goals are already achieved. Finally, policy evaluation process includes “symbolic” and “material” effects. In addition to the material effects of many policies, there are some symbolic effects as well. These can be desired or undesirable effects (Cochran et al. 1993: 7). Turkey’s military intervention in Cyprus in 1974 created symbolic effects showing that Turkey is sensitive about the protection of its relative nationals abroad and proving its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. However, its material effects include Turkey’s EU accession process being blocked due to Cyprus problem. A similar situation applies to the Syrian immigrant policy implemented by the Turkish government during the Syrian civil war, which was discussed above.

2  Policy Evaluation Tools of the Government There are various tools a government can use to evaluate the policies it has implemented. Among them are oral and written reports, on-site visits, program measurements, comparisons with professional standards, and evaluation of citizen complaints. Oral and Written Reports  Bureaucrats responsible for conducting the programs occasionally give oral or written reports to their superiors about the success of the programs. These are usually in the form of written annual reports. However, these

182

5  Policy Evaluation

verbal and written reports may not provide realistic information because mostly the costs of the program are understated and the benefits are exaggerated. On-Site Visits  From time to time, senior bureaucrats, expert advisors, and/or members of parliament may decide to visit the institutions responsible for running the programs, or to conduct on-site inspections. These teams collect data about how the programs are run, whether they are acting in accordance with certain principles, whether they are staffed properly, and whether the target group is satisfied with the services. Program Measurements  Data developed by government agencies generally include policy output measurements: these are data such as the number of people receiving service in various welfare programs, number of people participated in labor force training programs, the number of available beds, the volume of garbage collected, and the number of students enrolled in primary schools. However, these measurements do not allow us to accurately measure the impact of these numbers on society. For example, this data may not be sufficient to understand how poor the living conditions of the have-nots have improved, the success in finding permanent jobs of those who participated in vocational education, how clean the cities are, or the level of graduates’ skills such as reading and writing. Comparison with Professional Standards  In some public service areas, professional organizations have developed standards of excellence. These standards are often expressed as the desired output level.3 The output produced by government agencies can be compared to the ideal output level. While such exercise can be beneficial, it is still not sufficient by itself, as it focuses on outputs, rather than the effects of government agencies on targeted groups and others. Evaluation of Citizen Complaints  The fifth method of program evaluation is the analysis of citizen complaints. The importance of citizen inputs has increased in the new public management approach, especially as participation is prioritized. The problem with collecting data on citizen complaints is that they only test the public opinion for the program and cannot measure the true impact of the participants on their lives. Based on the above assessments, it can be said that policy evaluation is not a one-­ way but a complex issue. Generally, governments focus on numerical data when evaluating public policies; for example, cost–benefit analysis is performed by comparing the per capita expenditure made from the budget for a certain policy. However, policy evaluation requires a wide variety of skills in addition to statistical data, as well as an in-depth insight and high level of knowledge.4

3  For example, data such as the number of students per teacher, the number of beds per 1000 people, the number of patients per doctor, and the number of cases that each social worker deals with are important standards. 4  “We cannot be satisfied with measuring how many times a bird flaps its wings; we must know how far the bird has flown” (Dye 2002: 64).

3  Impact Assessment

183

3  Impact Assessment All types of evaluation discussed above analyze different aspects of public policy. All of these are necessary, but they differ from the mechanism defined in academic terms as “impact assessment.” In impact assessment, the aim is to measure the impact of a policy or policy instrument within the context of the objectives associated with it using a wide range of criteria. The purpose of this assessment is, above all, scientific: it is aimed to increase our knowledge of how existing public policy instruments may achieve the goals originally set. In addition to measuring the impact of a policy, impact assessment is also carried out in order to develop different public policy instruments that will enable the original goal to be achieved more directly and easily. Impact assessments are carried out to examine whether the government should take action on any issue and to analyze the possible effects of existing solutions. Impact assessment is done at the preparation stage of a public policy and presents evidence to provide information and support to the decision-making process. In this sense, it falls within the scope of the “ex-ante evaluation” mentioned above. Impact assessments are made for initiatives that are expected to have social, economic, and environmental impacts. Different types of government decisions such as proposals, financing programs, international agreements, and enforcement activities may be subject to impact assessment. Among the questions for which the impact assessment is seeking answers, the following can be listed: • • • •

What benefit will the government activity create for the interested parties? Will the government action have different effects on different groups? Has the government action made any change? What would happen if this action was not taken by the government?

In the impact assessment process, the findings obtained in response to these and similar questions are reported. These reports contain several data such as the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the activity in question, the segments of the society that will be affected by this initiative and how they will be affected, the consultation strategy, and the results achieved. These reports are supposed to be published by the government. Measuring the impact of a public policy instrument requires dealing with a number of uncertain concepts. The concept of “impact” refers to the causal effect of the public policy instrument on the relevant factors; however, it also includes the effects that the policy originally targeted and all the factors that the policy affects without purpose. In order to measure the causal effect of a policy, it is necessary to compare the situation that would be experienced with and without the policy in question. In econometrics, this is called the “fundamental assessment problem.”5 In order to 5  This phenomenon implies the impossibility of observing the same conditions for the same individuals at the same time. See Phillips et al. (2002).

184

5  Policy Evaluation

overcome this problem, all assessment methods provide statistical solutions that will compare the impact of a policy instrument with a “reconstructed” world without that policy instrument. Evaluation has several difficulties. The biggest challenge is the reverse causality mentioned above. For example, if a correlation has been established between health expenditures and health status, there may be a negative correlation that people with poor health status spend more on health. It would be an obvious mistake to conclude that health spending has a negative impact on health. Public policies, on the other hand, choose the target audience based on the indicator that needs improvement: employment policies target long-term unemployment and education policies target students who have difficulties in school achievement. Basing the target audience selection on other criteria will invalidate the evaluation process. Another challenge is impact. Those who benefit from a policy are not necessarily the target audience of that policy. Situations where a market price is at stake and this price is affected by policy are concrete examples. For example, renting assistance schemes are created for low-income citizens, but it would be wrong to assume that rental prices will not respond to the introduction of these benefits. As a result, rents may rise; thus, while the policy is being developed, the landlords who are not in the target group will benefit from some of the rental assistance. Such results can occur in almost all tax, social security, and even public expenditure programs. If a public policy changes the supply and demand in the market, the result will probably be negative. Returning to the example of housing assistance, if the demand elasticity of the housing market is weak, that is, if the possibility of introducing new housing to the market is low, government support will increase demand, but as housing supply will not increase in the same way, housing prices will rise and demand will drop again. A third challenge with evaluation is the diversity of the effects of the same public policy. Many impacts can occur both in the same public policy area and in different public policy areas. For example, in case of an increase in corporate tax, companies can lower their wages. If the effects of a public policy arise outside of the evaluator’s research area, discipline, or variables observed in their work, the evaluator will tend to ignore them. It is therefore important that evaluation is pluralistic, both in terms of discipline and sensitivities. Thus, it is possible to prevent the public policy from being evaluated only in a limited way with the objectives set at the beginning and to have a multidimensional evaluation. According to Dye, political science also includes the study of public policy; in this sense, the reasons and consequences of government activity are defined and explained. When this issue is considered, it is necessary to describe the content of public policy; this means analyzing the impact of public policy on social, economic and political forces. From an institutionalist point of view, political science also includes exploring the impact of various institutional arrangements and political processes on public policy. In addition, the desired and undesired consequences of public policies on society are evaluated. This definition of political science provided by Dye refers to impact assessment (Dye 2002: 6).

3  Impact Assessment

185

Regarding impact assessment, there are questions such as who will carry out a certain practice and how to ensure that these efforts are truly high-quality. Various methods can be mentioned that different countries use to address these questions. For example, impact assessment is mandatory for all new public policy programs in the USA and 1% of the program’s budget should be allocated for this effort. Both executive and legislative bodies can follow the implementation of assessment. Different ministries and the Office of Management and Budget have their own impact assessment units. Congress plays an important role in some evaluations and in determining methods and quality standards through the General Accounting Office. In addition, many nongovernmental organizations carry out their own evaluations independently from public authorities. These evaluations are conducted by researchers working in universities as well as public and private research centers (Burdge et al. 2003). In the UK, the Central Policy Review Bureau operates under the Prime Minister and carries out impact assessments that are mandatory for all public policies (Sanderson 2002). In Canada, the chief auditor reports to the parliament on situations where the government does not use satisfactory evaluation mechanisms (Boyle and Willms 2002). In Denmark, the government and parliament apply to the Social Research Institute, an independent institution, for the evaluation of public policies (Kronvang et al. 1995). The bodies of the European Union, especially the European Commission, which is in charge of preparing the laws, use impact assessment extensively. The European Union encourages the use of these processes in the member countries as well.6 Impact assessments are carried out in many different areas within the EU, the most common being environment, financing, and health. However, it is also important to develop an integrated approach to impact assessment. The integrated impact assessment method proposed by the EU brings together all the sectoral evaluations that concern both the direct and indirect effects of an action on the government’s agenda, thereby trying to eliminate the risk of partial and sectoral assessments. This approach envisages a common format of basic questions, minimum analysis standards, and a common reporting format. In addition, this method should be flexible enough to take into account the specific circumstances of each policy area (European Commission 2002: 2). In fact, the Commission is well-versed in impact assessments involving a single sector. There are several impact assessments on subjects such as businesses, commerce, environment, health, gender, and employment. However, these reflect a partial perspective on certain types of effects. This partial perspective makes it difficult for policy-makers to evaluate opportunity costs and compare between different scenarios when making decisions about a particular activity. Impact assessment is crucial to improving the culture and practice of evaluating

6  Among the EU member states, the country that uses impact assessment the most is the United Kingdom, where it is imperative to make an impact assessment for all bills, regardless of the financial value of the estimated impact.

186

5  Policy Evaluation

public policy.7 All these different applications arise from the unique corporate systems of each country. However, the common point in all of them is that the e­ valuation is made based on multiple sources, and it is perceived as a prerequisite for the quality of public services. The participatory dimension of impact assessment is very important. Participation cannot be considered independent from the concept of “governance” introduced by the new public administration approach. Governance, which expresses a more horizontal instead of hierarchical form of management, is based on networks instead of formal and institutionalized practices and the cooperation of self-organizing actors instead of the state. In fact, in the case of Europe, it can be argued that one of the sources of governance is the pressure created by actors, especially social movements, which have traditionally been excluded from decision-making. Another source is the nation-state functions becoming shallower as a result of the integration process in Europe (Giorgi and Pohoryles 2005: 409). For example, in Turkey environmental impact assessment (EIA), legislation requires the participation of the public. The first regulation on EIA was passed in 1992. EIA includes analyzing the potential impacts of projects on the environment, reporting them, giving opinions about the report in accordance with the principle of participation of the public, taking these views into consideration, and informing the public about the decision. Beginning in 1995, public participation meetings have been held for all projects. However, after the amendments made in 2003, these meetings are being held only for projects in Annex-I list.8 In this context, in a study conducted in Uşak province of Turkey, the following results were determined: Public participation meetings were held in 63 projects in Uşak until 2003 and 6 projects after 2003. After 2003, the number of projects with the report “EIA not required” was 142. Accordingly, the projects in Annex II that do not require a public participation meeting constituted 96% of the total projects (Akyıldız and Demir 2011). To conclude, impact assessment is a policy assessment instrument designed to assist decision-making processes. However, impact assessment cannot replace political reasoning. Political reasoning involves complex considerations that exceed the estimated effects of the envisaged government activity. In addition, not every impact assessment may necessarily produce definitive results or recommendations. However, it has the capacity to provide important input to decision-makers on the results of policy choices (European Commission 2002: 3). 7  In the European Commission’s 2002 Communication on Impact Assessment, it is emphasized that budgetary preliminary assessment differs from impact assessment in terms of both function and objectives. Accordingly, the preliminary assessment is primarily aimed at determining whether the proposed spending programs and activities are cost-effective for the EU budget. In contrast, impact assessment is a “policy-based” activity that focuses on examining whether major policy proposals are sustainable and follow Better Regulation Principles. 8  These projects include major investments with projected remarkable environmental impact such as refineries, thermal power plants, nuclear plants, metal industry facilities, iron foundries, asbestos processing plants, chemical plants, highways, airports, and ports. See Annex-I to the Environmental Impact Assessment By-Law published on 17 July 2008 in the Official Gazette no. 26939.

4  Policy Evaluation in Turkey

187

4  Policy Evaluation in Turkey In the process that led to reform in Turkey in the context of the new public administration, the main expectation from the state is to always be at the forefront with its regulatory aspect and direct other actors in accordance with liberal economic policies (Sözen 2012; Gül and Kiriş 2015). This new position and duty is conceptualized as the regulatory state, and studies in this direction can be examined in the context of regulatory impact analysis. Regulatory impact analysis is an analytical tool that is conceptualized by the OECD and based on measuring the environmental impact of a legal act or a decision taken (Francesco 2012). It is clear that in today’s Turkey, assessment institutions and their knowledge cannot be established either at the level of philosophy or on the basis of administrative practices. It is observed that some developments have been made only in legal regulations. The former State Planning Organization, which is Ministry of Development today, conducted some work in the form of translation on strategic planning, which enables evaluation activities. In order to achieve a development in any field, necessary studies should be carried out first at the level of thought, then on the legal basis, and then at the implementation level. It is seen that there are not enough scientific studies in this field in Turkey. However, it is clear that necessary evaluations are needed regarding education, health, transportation, and justice services.

4.1  Impact Assessment Regulatory impact analysis was introduced in Turkey within the scope of regulatory reforms promoted by OECD.  The Council of Ministers of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), of which Turkey is also a member, declared the “Recommendation on Improving Quality in Government Regulations” in 1995 and adopted the “Regulatory Reform OECD Report” in 1997, which formed the basis of reform efforts. In this framework, “Reform Program in Regulations Voluntary Country Reviews” was initiated in 1998. Regulatory impact analysis was first introduced in Turkey in the report titled “Regulatory Reforms in Turkey: Significant Support for Economic Recovery” prepared by the OECD in 2001. It is stated in this report that the lack of integration of regulatory impact analysis into the legislative process is seen as an important deficiency of the regulatory reform program. It was also stated in the report that there is no legal obligation to implement regulatory impact analysis in Turkey; therefore, it is not possible to base policy-makers’ decisions on a healthy cost–benefit analysis and to process quality control processes in a healthy way. It has been clearly emphasized that the regulatory impact analysis is a method that enables it to increase both the quality and consistency of government services to a considerable level (Kaymak 2004: 109–110).

188

5  Policy Evaluation

In fact, it is possible to identify a provision on regulatory impact analysis in the Public Financial Management and Control Law enacted in 2003. In Article 5 of the Law, it is stated that all public administrations need to make cost–benefit analysis and refers to the regulatory impact analysis (Bilgin 2015). In this sense, regulatory impact analysis can be viewed as an evaluation study. However, the first legal regulation exclusively on regulatory impact analysis in Turkey was issued in 2006 with the title “Regulation on Legislation Preparation Procedures and Principles.” The first regulation for RIA in Turkey is the Regulation on Legislation Preparation Procedures and Principles, prepared by the Council of Ministers in 2005 and published in the Official Gazette in 2006. RIA is defined as follows in Article 3 of the relevant regulation: “Preliminary evaluation prepared to show what the impacts of the draft will have on the budget, legislation, social, economic and commercial life, environment and related segments.” It is stated that non-governmental organizations will examine the drafts in terms of their fields of duty and will be evaluated in terms of whether the issues stated in the regulatory impact analysis are in place. In the Article 7 of the Regulation titled “reporting of opinions,” it is stated that the relevant sectors and non-governmental organizations will examine the drafts in terms of their own fields of duty and they will be evaluated in terms of whether the issues stated in the regulatory impact analysis are appropriate. In addition, the following points regarding the drafts are underlined: (i) Besides the title of the draft, the clauses, and the general justification, a regulatory impact analysis should also be included. (ii) Regulatory impact analysis is mandatory for draft laws and decree laws, whose impact is estimated to exceed ten million TL if enacted. (iii) For laws and bylaws whose impact is estimated to be below ten million TLs, and for other regulatory actions regardless of their estimated impact, regulatory impact assessment may be requested by the Prime Ministry. In any case, the regulatory impact analysis must be prepared by the proposing ministry or public agency and institution. However, policies for national security and budget and final account law drafts were exempted from RIA (Ekici and Çelik 2007: 153). The last regulation regarding RIA is the Prime Ministry Circular No. 2007/6 on regulatory impact analysis published in the Official Gazette in 2007. With the aforementioned circular, it was stipulated to identify a specific unit in charge in every public institution and organization in order to ensure coordination with the Better Regulation Working Group established within the Prime Ministry and to carry out regulatory impact analysis. Again, within the framework of this circular, “Regulatory Impact Analysis Guide” was prepared and presented to the use of practitioners in order to solve the problems to be encountered in the implementation and to guide the practitioners (Aykın 2010: 238). It is seen that the cost–benefit and cost-­ effectiveness analyses envisaged to be carried out within the RIA are regulated by the Public Financial Management and Control Law No. 5018. The following is stated in the paragraph g of Article 5 of the relevant law: “It is essential to make cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness and other economic and social analyzes deemed necessary in accordance with economic or social efficiency principles in meeting the needs of public administrations with the production of goods and services.” Thus, RIA has become mandatory in the regulations to be made by public administrations (Ekici and Çelik 2007: 152).

4  Policy Evaluation in Turkey

189

Although efforts on the widespread implementation of regulatory impact analysis in Turkey have started, it is seen that they are not realized at a satisfactory level. It can be argued that there are two important reasons for this. First, RIA is managed by a regulation, not a law, which considerably reduces the effectiveness and functionality of RIA. Secondly, and more importantly, it can be stated that the necessary institutional structure has not been established for the healthy implementation of RIA in Turkey and decision-makers have not been able to show a decisive will at this point. Articles 5 and 6 of the Regulation on Procedures and Principles of Legislation, published in 2006, give an idea about how a consultation process should be conducted. Article 6 of the regulation on “receiving opinions” of the regulation process states that, prior to presenting to the Prime Ministry, opinions of relevant ministries, and public bodies are to be consulted. These ministries and bodies include State Planning Organization (now Ministry of Development), State Personnel Office, Ministry of Finance and Treasury, Ministry of Justice, Court of Accounts, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of European Union, relevant universities, local governments, trade unions, and even the public through internet, press, or broadcasting. In Article 7 of the aforementioned regulation, it is stated that ministries and public institutions and organizations will submit their opinions on the drafts within 30 days at the latest, without prejudice to the special provisions in the relevant laws. The Regulation on Legislation Preparation Procedures and Principles clarifies under what circumstances RIA will be made in Article 24. Accordingly, it is compulsory to conduct a regulatory impact analysis for drafts of laws and decree laws, whose impact is estimated to exceed ten million TL if put into effect. This amount can be re-determined by the Prime Ministry when deemed necessary. However, it is not always necessary to exceed this monetary limit in order to conduct RIA. The Prime Ministry, if deemed necessary, may request the preparation of a regulatory impact analysis for other regulatory actions, regardless of the amount of impact. Regulatory impact analysis cannot be prepared for issues related to national security and draft budget and final account law. In the fourth paragraph of the relevant article, the bidder ministry or public institution and organization are shown as the unit to prepare the regulatory impact analysis. In the regulation, regulatory impact analysis is defined as a preliminary assessment prepared to show the impacts of a draft to be prepared on the budget, legislation, social, economic and commercial life, environment, and related segments. A guide issued in 2007 aimed to provide a concrete structure on how these regulations will be implemented. In this guide, issues such as determining the problem and the parties, determining the goals, searching alternative solutions, determining the impact analysis, consulting, auditing, and implementation are included (Bilgin 2015). The intensity of the regulations made in Turkey immediately draws attention. For this reason, it is stated that there is a regulation inflation in Turkey (Kibritçioğlu 2005). So much so that even the existence of many conflicting legislations can be mentioned. Because the regulations and policies are of poor quality and ineffective, the problems cannot be solved, which brings new regulations and policies to the agenda. In this respect, it is necessary to choose the right regulation tool for an effective regulation and policy. The use of RIA in the policy-making process can, on

190

5  Policy Evaluation

the one hand, allow the regulatory process to be operated properly, and on the other hand, it may prevent the making of contradictory regulations since it can reveal the possible consequences of the arrangements created in advance. Because it is possible to say that RIA improves the policy-making process and transforms it into a better quality by providing information and evaluating different policy options. Because RIA ensures that decision-makers and policy-makers think systematically before taking action and thus contributes to the formation of correct and effective policies (Ekici and Çelik 2007: 142–143, 154; Elvan 2018: 5). Consultation is one of the basic elements and an integral part of RIA that makes RIA important for political participation. Consultation, as stated above, refers to consulting citizens, nongovernmental organizations, private sector representatives, and relevant parties on policies to be established. Mutual exchange of information is the core of consultation (Baker and Westman 2018: 150). In other words, it is the realization of mutual communication and interaction between policy-makers and groups that are likely to be affected by the policy. Thus, it has to be ensured that the available data and information are increased and analyzed in a healthy manner (Ekici and Çelik 2007: 144; Ekici 2006: 15; Prime Ministry of Turkey Regulatory Reform Group 2009: 2). Moreover, through consultation, it can be ensured that the assumptions made with RIA are proven, the views and opinions of the segments that are likely to be affected by the policy are formed, different perspectives on the subject are found out, and the policy drafts are announced to the public (State Planning Organization 2007: 9). For example, in Article 6 of the Regulation on Legislation Preparation Procedures and Principles, which constitutes the legal framework of RIA in Turkey, it is stated that the opinions of relevant ministries and public institutions and organizations will be received before the drafts are submitted to the Prime Ministry. In addition, it is stated that the opinions of local administrations, universities, trade unions, professional organizations that qualify as public institutions, and nongovernmental organizations should be used in preparation of the drafts. The same article also states that drafts of public interest may be made available to the public by the proposing ministry via the internet, press, or broadcast before they are forwarded to the Prime Ministry. In this context, it is seen that RIA is not only an analytical evaluation and measurement tool, but also a coordination device that brings together various interests. With the use of RIA, integration and harmony between various conflicting policy objectives can be achieved. In addition, it is possible to create a compromise ground between different policy expectations of the relevant segments of the society regarding social problems (Aykın 2010: 231). As a result, various social and political obstacles are encountered in the principles and practices regarding the evaluation of public policies in Turkey. Such barriers are important because they are imposed by institutional traditions and corporate culture. The inadequacy of the Turkish parliament and the Turkish judiciary in controlling the executive power, the failure to establish necessary commissions to carry out successful control by the parliament, the inadequacy of the media as the fourth power, and the over-centralized political structure can be considered as obstacles to evaluation activities. In short, assessment obstacles can be caused by administrative

References

191

barriers, methodological barriers, and lack of knowledge of the required methods and techniques. Due to the existence of these obstacles, it seems very unlikely that public policy evaluation studies can be carried out successfully in Turkey in the short term (Telli et al. 2008; Aras and Mencütek 2018). Therefore, studies such as public policy analysis and evaluation of public policies are newly discussed issues in Turkey. In order to popularize such new applications, it is necessary to have well-­ equipped human resources, financial resources, and adequate legal and other instruments. In this sense, it can be argued that there are not enough personnel in Turkey who have knowledge in their field and can carry out the necessary scientific research and investigations. The evaluation of public policies is a kind of scientific analysis, and it is necessary to have sound knowledge of research methods, theories, statistical, and mathematical analyses. In addition, the establishment of a legal infrastructure in this regard and the adoption of a democratic participatory understanding are indispensable conditions of evaluation studies. Undoubtedly, when all these conditions are adopted primarily at the level of thought, when legal bases are established, and when sufficient human, financial, and physical resources are ensured, there are few reasons to fail.

References Abelson, J., & Gauvin, F. P. (2006). Assessing the impacts of public participation: Concepts, evidence and policy implications. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Akyıldız, F., & Demir, F. (2011). Beşinci Yılında Bilgi Edinme Hakkı: Uşak İli Örneği. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 588–612. Aras, N. E. G., & Mencütek, Z. Ş. (2018). Evaluation of irregular migration governance in Turkey from a foreign policy perspective. New Perspectives on Turkey, 59, 63–88. Aykın, S. M. (2010). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne Sürdürülebilir Katılımı İçin Düzenleyici Etki Analizinin Gerekliliği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 227–242. Baker, J.  M., & Westman, C.  N. (2018). Extracting knowledge: Social science, environmental impact assessment, and Indigenous consultation in the oil sands of Alberta, Canada. The Extractive Industries and Society, 5(1), 144–153. Bilgin, A. (2015). Analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the EIA decision in Turkey. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 53, 40–51. Boyle, M. H., & Willms, J. D. (2002). Impact evaluation of a national, community-based program for at-risk children in Canada. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 28(3), 461–481. Burdge, R. J., Chamley, S., Downs, M., Finsterbusch, K., Freudenburg, B., Fricke, P., & Thompson, J.  G. (2003). Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(3), 231–250. Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., & Cayer, N. J. (1993). American Public Policy: An introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Ekici, B. (2006). Düzenleyici etki analizi: kanun, kanun hükmünde kararname, tüzük, yönetmelik ve diğer düzenlemelerde uygulanması. Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı. Ekici, B., & Çelik, M. (2007). Düzenleyici Etki Analizi: Analiz Süreci ve Uygulama. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 40(1), 135–158.

192

5  Policy Evaluation

Elvan, O.  D. (2018). Analysis of environmental impact assessment practices and legislation in Turkey. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 1–6. European Commission. (2002). Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment, COM(2002) 276 final. Brussels. Francesco, F. D. (2012). Diffusion of regulatory impact analysis among OECD and EU member states. Comparative Political Studies, 45(10), 1277–1305. 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. Gül, H., & Kiriş, H. M. (2015). Democratic governance reforms in Turkey and their implications. In Public administration and policy in the Middle East (pp. 25–59). New York: Springer. Katz, M. H. (1999). Multivariable analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaymak, H. (2004). Düzenleyici Etki Analizi. Maliye Dergisi, 8(3), 107–131. Kibritçioğlu, A. (2005). Banking sector crises and related new regulations in Turkey. Economia Exterior, 32. Kronvang, B., Grant, R., Larsen, S.  E., Svendsen, L.  M., & Kristensen, P. (1995). Non-point-­ source nutrient losses to the aquatic environment in Denmark: Impact of agriculture. Marine and Freshwater Research, 46(1), 167–177. Phillips, P. J., Sarkar, S., Robledo, I., Grother, P., & Bowyer, K. (2002). The gait identification challenge problem: Data sets and baseline algorithm. In Pattern recognition, 2002. In Proceedings. 16th international conference (Vol. 1, pp. 385–388). IEEE. Popper, K. (1966). Open society and its enemies. complete: Volumes I and II (5th ed.). https:// monoskop.org/images/5/5f/Popper_Karl_The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies_Vols_1-­ 2_5th_ed.pdf. Last accessed: 19 July 2018. Prime Ministry of Turkey Regulatory Reform Group. (2009). Introducing regulatory impact analysis into the Turkish Legal system. Ankara. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22. Sözen, S. (2012). Recent administrative reforms in Turkey: A preliminary assessment. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(9), 168–173. State Planning Organization. (2007). 9th Development Plan. Ankara. Telli, Ç., Voyvoda, E., & Yeldan, E. (2008). Economics of environmental policy in Turkey: A general equilibrium investigation of the economic evaluation of sectoral emission reduction policies for climate change. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(2), 321–340. Wollmann, H. (2007). Policy evaluation and evaluation research. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 393– 404). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press.