Europeanization of turkish subnational administrations

6.2. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

Turkey has participated in three different fund programmes since 1996⁹². The actual instruments are related to cohesion policy which began to operate under the Pre-accession Financial Assistance to Turkey in 2001. By covering the period of 2001 and 2006, the main goal of the EU financial assistance is to enhance the institutional capacity, the quality of legislation and implementation of the legislation. By doing that, it is expected from Turkey to integrate easily into common policies (like social policies, development and rural policies) and to promote economic and social cohesion before the full membership of the EU takes place. During the period 2002 to 2006, the total amount of funds that Turkey received was € 126 million in 2002, € 144 million in 2003, €235.6 million in 2004, €277 million in 2005 and € 441.2 million in 2006⁹³.

The implementation of these funds was carried out in the framework of PHARE rules (pNDP, 2003). Accordingly, the EU required from Turkey a ‘Decentralized Implementation System’ (DIS) to manage the Community assistance in the pre-accession phase. Circular No. 2001/41 of the Prime Ministry issued on 18 July 2001, established the main components of the DIS in Turkey, i.e. the National Aid Co-ordinator (NAC), the National Authorising Officer (NAO), the National Fund (NF), the Central Financing and Contracting Unit (CFCU)⁹⁴, the Financial Co-operation Committee (FCC) and the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC). Programming has been carried out in compliance with the DIS since 2002; following the achievement of the self-assessment phase, European Commission accreditation was received in October 2003. It was stated in the pNDP document that this is the first step towards supporting economic and social cohesion in a structural funds framework with a strong emphasis on capacity building to enable implementation in a decentralised way. The responsibilities are to be shared between different institutions at central and regional level (pNDP, 2003).

The EU-funded regional programmes were established under the pre-accession scheme to harmonize regional development policy and practices with the EU and activate regional development potential and initiatives at identified priority regions; especially those regions with a GDP per capita income below 75% of Turkey’s average. In the period 2004-2006, the EU-funded regional development programmes for the first time began to be implemented in 12 regions, which were designated by the Preliminary National Development Programme (pNDP 2003)⁹⁵ (see Map 6.1).


Case 2

Case 1

Case 3
Map 6.1 the EU-funded regional development and cross-regional partnership programmes (2004-2006) (White areas were outside the fund programmes).

Source: (Ministry of Development, 2007)

The key partners for the implementation of regional programmes under pre-accession financial assistance largely came from the national institutions. Amongst others, the CFCU is founded as the agency responsible for the overall budgeting, tendering, contracting, payments, accounting and financial reporting aspects of all procurement in the context of the EU funded programmes in Turkey. This includes the regional development programmes. Along with the CFCU, the Ministry of Development established a specific department to deal with EU pre-accession regional development in late 2002 (CEC, 2004). The establishment of national institutions dealing with EU-funded projects continued with the creation of Service Unions, the forerunners of the regional development agencies— in some regions between the provinces that form a provisional NUTS II (CEC, 2004). Additionally, Plan and Implementation Units (PIUs) operated under ‘Service Unions’, which were composed of (centrally appointed) provincial governors and (locally elected) provincial assemblies with (locally elected) municipalities participating on a voluntary basis (Ertugal, 2011:261). Overall, the main actors who were involved in this process were in turn; the Ministry of Development as a managing authority; the CFCU as contracting authority, and the PIUs as co-partners with the Ministry of Development for monitoring.

By the launch of the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA), the EU had shifted from its earlier focus on the partnership principle and so instead of supporting regionalization, it promoted central institutions in candidate states to distribute financial programmes on a sectoral basis (see Chapter 4). The IPA currently consists of five components: Transition Assistance and Institution Building, Cross Border Cooperation, Regional Development, Human Resources Development and Rural Development. For all components, the IPA has provided a total of € 497.2 million for 2007, € 538.7 for 2008, € 566.4 million for 2009, € 653.7 million for 2010, 781.9 for 2011, 899.4 for 2012, and 935.4 for 2013 (CEC 2007). Among others, Component III (regional development) is crucial to the aim of this thesis. It generally aims to develop the country’s internal economic and social cohesion as well as convergence with the EU. To achieve this overarching objective, Component III is divided into three sub-components: Environment (35-40%); Transport (30-35%); and Regional Competitiveness (25-35%). The allocation of total funds among five components naturally decreases the amount of money spent by the SNAs for regional development purposes⁹⁶.

Operational Programmes are formed according to the Multi Indicative Programming Document (MIPD). The importance of the MIPD is three-fold: designating the geographical areas benefitting from financial aid; assigning the sector(s) within this geographical coverage; and describing the budget for the operational programmes. Therefore, EU funds in the IPA context have been implemented through calls for proposals and/or procurement contracts, whose geographical coverage is limited to 12 NUTS regions (encompassing 43 NUTS III provinces) with a GDP (per capita) income below 75% of Turkey’s average (see Map 6.2).

Map 6.2 Regions Supported by the Regional Competitiveness Operational Programmes (RCOP)


Case 1



Case 3




Case 2




Regions with a GDP per capita income above 75% of Turkey’s average



Regions with a GDP per capita income below 75% of Turkey’s average


Source (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2007)

With regard to key partners in the implementation of IPA funds, the Ministry of Industry at the national level acts as an operating structure for the Regional Competitiveness Operational Programme (RCOP). The said ministry is responsible for the preparation and implementation of RCOP and for deciding individual project applications under the relevant OP call for project proposals. The Ministry of Development as a strategic coordinator between OPs devises a Strategic Coherence Framework document. The Sectoral Monitoring Committee (SMC) of each OP includes representatives from social and economic partners. As for the regional competitiveness of OPs, the SMC also includes provincial governors, chambers of industry/commerce and universities on a rotating basis. Ministers and SMCs jointly determine the criteria for project selection for the relevant OP call for project proposals. Table 6.1 compares the implementation structures of regional programmes (2004-2006 and IPA programmes) under the EU.

Table 6.1 the Distribution of EU funds in 12 NUTS II Regions

Table 6.1 evidently illustrates that the institutional structure of the EU funds did not bring a radical change to the Turkish context with regard to the vertical dimension of MLG. In the monitoring stage, whereas the focus of the periods of 2004 and 2006 was based on the regional dimension, this has been changed by the launch of the IPA to a sectoral focus. By taking the limited role of SNAs during the implementation of EU funds, one may claim that the creation of opportunity structures does not enhance the power of SNAs, while undermining that of the national institutions. Furthermore, the re-centralization of the financial incentives with the IPA has reinforced the gatekeeping role of national governments on the implementation of structural funds and regional policies. It has impeded the direct relations of SNAs with the EU institutions or their ability to influence policy outcomes (discussed below).

Summing up, from the rationalist perspective, a misfit between the EU and Turkey has created an opportunity structure for a Europeanization effect via structural funds. This opportunity structure has not only provided spaces for SNAs to participate in the management of funds, but it has also provided a valuable experience for state bureaucrats in the Ministry of Development during the creation and operation of RDAs in Turkey. As seen below, RDAs have engaged in spreading national funds through the logic of EU principles. The section below outlines the changing dynamics of territorial relations after the Helsinki Summit of 1999 with special reference to the creation of RDAs and administrative reforms.