Europeanization of turkish subnational administrations

3.2. METHODS IN THE FIELD OF EUROPEANIZATION STUDIES

The Europeanization literature has been expanding its reach in terms of theoretical and empirical implications. Yet a limited amount of research has addressed methodological considerations. The major challenge is how to isolate the net effect of Europeanization and to disentangle it from other sources of domestic change, not only in terms of the influence of globalization (Anderson 2003; Hay & Rosamond, 2002) but also other sources of change at domestic levels (Hix & Goetz, 2000; Radaelli, 2003; Anderson, 2003). Bache (2008: 25) suggests, ‘focusing on a single state is important in facilitating in-depth investigation of the effects of domestic processes as well as EU and other international processes over a significant period of time’.

Saurugger (2005: 292) alternatively suggests two methodological strategies, long-term comparison and testing variables, to disentangle the domestic change induced by the EU from other international and domestic factors. For the former case, Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier (2007:100) argue that a comparative design is paramount in studying the relevance of conditionality and accession for Europeanization. Although such a comparative design can be organized in different ways, for them, one may compare candidates from the different enlargement rounds. In doing so, one may learn more about how domestic and/or region-specific conditions account for variation in accession Europeanization.

The latter case, that is to say testing variables, is more closely associated with counterfactual analysis, which either conjectures what would happen without the EU³¹, or compares states within and outside the EU (Haverland, 2006). Although it is nearly impossible to address the counterfactual question of the degree to which territorial relations in Turkey would have changed in the absence of the EU’s impact, one may claim that there is a considerable impact on the timing and tempo of the reform process. Europeanization has not only provided the material benefits for national and subnational actors, but has also provided the source of legitimacy in which the governmental actors, for instance, could use this vis-à-vis the powerful veto players in Turkey, i.e. the President, main opposition parties and the constitutional courts (see Chapter 6). In this regard, it is worth remarking here that instead of asking to what extent or why Europeanization is important in the changing territorial politics in Turkey, the research seeks to question how it plays a role in that issue, which leads to subnational mobilisation across the EU arena. Overall, given the importance of alternative methods, the research prefers to utilize a bottom-up perspective on Europeanization and a historical analysis in one single country with different selected cities as the main focus in order to answer its main (and sub-) questions laid out in the introductory part of the thesis.

A Bottom-Up Research Design

There is a dominance of the top-down research design in the extant literature (Bursens & Deforche, 2008). It is a tradition in which scholars attribute observed outcomes to the effect of the EU and tend not to engage in a systematic search for identifying cause(s) of domestic change, which may or may not involve the EU (Exadaktylos & Radaelli, 2009). By way of contrast, a bottom-up perspective on Europeanization has recently gained more credit from scholars (Exadaktylos & Radaelli, 2009; 2010; McCauley, 2011). What Radaelli (2004; 2006) proposes is that Europeanization should not be constructed as ‘something that explains (explanans) but rather something to be explained (explanandum) by mainstream social science’. The approach taken here puts more emphasis on the latter, which conceives Europeanization as an action framework, a confining and influencing context, rather than a phenomenon that may be singled out, operationalized and explained (Bolgherini, 2007). By utilizing such an approach, Europeanization of territorial organizations is defined as ‘redirection and reorientation of SNAs’ activities, not only towards national institutions but also towards supranational institutions, politics, and/or policy-making process’ (McCauley, 2011:1020). Europeanization here refers to a collection of processes which progress from greater awareness of European legislation, growing willingness to search for European finance, networking with other European local authorities and experts, direct lobbying of Brussels institutions, and the influence of EU ideas on subnational policy making (John, 2000). This will be described as the four stages of subnational mobilisation in the next chapter.

The bottom-up perspective on Europeanization provides several advantages. Primarily, instead of analysing ‘effects of causes’, and attributing them to EU level developments, one may examine ‘causes of effects’, which lead, facilitate or obscure subnational mobilisation. This is because the bottom-up research design reverses the process, and therefore researchers are able to start with domestic changes and trace back casual chains to identify the underlying triggers (McCauley, 2011). This allows one to investigate the possible causes of observed domestic change and offers a chance to investigate potential explanatory factors (i.e. resource pull, resource push and learning) (see Chapter 1) and potential intermediating variables at the domestic level, which are critical for subnational mobilisation beyond the national setting (see Chapter 2).

The bottom-up research design does seem intuitive to examine the process at the subnational level while seeking to explain why subnational mobilisation occurs. Otherwise it may be formidable to observe variation between different SNAs without considering the developments within each of them. Nonetheless, it has been prevailing in the study of subnational level politics for the focus to be placed elsewhere, whether on the European or on the national level. One possible way, albeit not the widespread one, for detecting whether subnational mobilisation occurs or not is to put the spotlight on the process taking place within the subnational level itself in order to elucidate the behaviour or attitudes of SNAs (McCauley, 2010). Furthermore, in focusing on subnational level developments, the bottom-up perspective also helps one to understand the following points: why some SNAs are more active in their engagement with Europe; why variations occur across different SNAs within Turkey; which factors one may ascertain to analyse the degree of subnational mobilisation or the euro-engagement of SNAs; which channels SNAs follow (national or direct contact with the EU institutions) to fulfil their territorial interests.

Summing up, the research takes the Europeanization literature as a main explanatory framework on the creation of multi-level modality in general and subnational mobilisation in particular. In so doing, it identifies three sets of variables, i.e. dependent, independent and intermediating, in order to appreciate fully how Europeanization takes place as well as to model the bottom-up perspective on subnational mobilisation towards the EU arena. The remainder of the chapter first elucidates the conceptual precision and unit of analysis and then explains the methods of the research.

Conceptual Clarifications and Unit of Analysis

Conceptual clarifications and determination of units of analysis not only define the boundaries of the research but also construct a crucial step towards the selection of case SNAs from different subnational settings in Turkey. The research defines subnational mobilisation towards the European arena in the context of ‘functional territorial interests’³² (Brusis, 2010), viz. obtaining funds, liaising, networking, state-bypassing, territorial branding and lobbying through creating regional offices, participating in inter-regional organizations, being an active member for the Committee of Regions, or engaging with EU institutions (e.g. the Commission and the EU Parliament) in Brussels. The issue of political and/or cultural mobilisation of territorial interests, what some new regionalists coined ‘paradiplomatic activities’, based on ethnic identity, separatist movements and regional party politics are subjects outside the scope of this thesis, though they are important motivators for subnational mobilisation (see Chapter 4).

Secondly, when applied to the Europeanization literature in general and the MLG approach in particular, the focus should be on the three levels of political power: the supranational institutions, the national governments and subnational administrations. This fundamentally contrasts with the classical conception of the state, as it is the only relevant political actor. However, subnational mobilisation towards the EU arena and the creation of multi-level modality are closely related to the concept of state transformation. Accordingly, the proponents of the MLG approach distinguish between the state as a set of institutional rules and the state as a reference to political actors (Marks, 1997). Such a distinction underlines the importance of internal characteristics, which are also known as the black box of the state. Following this, the definition of state here encompasses all political actors and institutions within a member state or a candidate country (Bulmer & Lequesne, 2005; Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2005).

In applying the broad definition of the state, the research aims to distinguish itself from the state-centric tradition, which mainly considers the state as a unitary actor and puts no emphasis on the subnational level. Treating the state in this way also suits the theoretical institutionalist background—that defines it as a set of institutions characterised by specific formal and informal rules and principles of organisation (March & Olsen, 1996). The state is thus comprised of a series of institutional components and administrative and territorial levels (national, regional and local) depending on the internal organisation of each state and their administrative tradition.

Within the state and its institutional levels of organisation, the research pays particular attention to the action of individual actors or groups of individuals who intervene in the process of institutional change and adaptation to enlargement (Marks et al., 1995). Such compartmentalization by no means targets the role of states—whether they are winners or losers of EU integration—and the empowerment of regional level vis-à-vis national governments in the European integration process (Dobre, 2007). What is essentially of concern is to analyse the way in which the process of Europeanization shapes, affects, constrains or opens opportunities for the behaviour of SNAs and their engagement with the EU level institutions. Consequently, it puts forward that SNAs not only use national channels but are also able to interact with EU institutions on their behalf due to the multi-level character of EU governance. Acknowledging SNA in this way refers to the ‘territory as an actor’ rather than ‘as arena’ (see Chapter 2).

There is, however, no agreement on the definition of region, province, county and municipality in EU studies (Keating & Jones, 1995, Fitjar, 2010). Each member (and candidate) states of the EU have their own territorial delineation. Given that the theoretical focus is on the characteristics of territorial units that are conducive to the emergence of collective action on a given region or city (Nielsen & Salk, 1998: 242), this research takes the pragmatic approach of defining units of analysis a priori as 26 NUTS II and 81 NUTS III level regions of Turkey. In this respect, the dependent variable must be interpreted as mobilisation of a territorial unit across the EU arena, either by a representation corresponding exclusively to that unit (e.g. Regional Development Agencies for the NUTS II level), or as a part of a representation defined on a larger territorial unit including NUTS III level units (e.g. metropolitan municipalities)³³.

The research makes general use of the acronym of SNAs to describe the unit of analysis in order to be coherent in a subsequent part of the thesis. However, when it is necessary, there may be an explicit usage for the type of SNA to illustrate whether it refers to regional development agencies (RDAs), city municipalities (CMs) or metropolitan municipalities (MMs). The significant point here is that while city municipalities have been operating since the establishment of the Republic (in 1923) and so have the metropolitan municipalities since 1984, the RDAs are novel types of subnational administrations. Twenty-six RDAs were established in the period between 2006 and 2010. This highlights that the degree of institutional culture for each subnational administration is different and so is their response to the EU accession process.