Europeanization of turkish subnational administrations

6.5. CONCLUSION

This chapter focused specifically on the interplay between the EU and Turkey with regard to regional policy and financial incentives. A link between the EU’s active (formal sphere of conditionality) and passive leverage and their impact on the Turkish domestic reform process may be captured by first generation Europeanization. It is largely true that a process of change in territorial relations in Turkey is fundamentally driven by endogenous factors, whose precise form and timing are intricately linked with the launch of Turkey’s accession process. While the adoption of the NUTS system in 2002 and the gradual creation of RDAs corresponding to 26 NUTS II regions after 2006 may be seen as clear examples of legal and institutional changes affecting traditional Turkish polity, national dynamics in terms of party politics and dissatisfaction for the existing policies, on the other hand, were significantly affected by the degree and outcome of this process. Particularly, during the Alaturka Europeanization period, although changes in the dynamics of traditional territorial relations as well as the transformation of national incentive mechanism for regional policy fit the traditional Turkish administrative system, changes remain a good example of thick learning mirroring the EU practices.

Much attention has been paid to the creation of formal structural fund partnerships but the emergence of regional arrangements should not be neglected. These arrangements now exist in 26 NUTS II regions in Turkey, despite their top-down and bureaucratic designs. The opportunity structures for SNAs changed after the creation of the RDAs and with the local reform process compliant to the EU’s regional policy. The creation of RDAs has predominantly provided an opportunity for formerly fragmented interests to combine with regionally based developments goals under a single organization. In a sense, it helps in creating new regional ownership on each NUTS II level (region as arena or MLG Type II). Their success in articulating regional interests towards the EU arena, however, remain to be seen.

RDAs are currently at the formative stage of institutionalization and need time to learn how to engage with EU politics. Furthermore, national actors have been to date playing the central role at the interface between subnational level in Turkey and the European level. In terms of the distribution of EU monies, state officials at both national and regional level are at the very heart of the process of formulating and implementing the structural funds. This proves the importance of the gatekeeping role exerted by the national authorities. During the period of Alaturka Europeanization, re-centralization of the financial incentives with the IPA has also reinforced the gatekeeping role of national governments on the implementation of structural funds and regional policies. Hence, taking into account the limited role of SNAs during the implementation of EU funds, the creation of opportunity structures does not enhance the power of SNAs, instead underpinning that of the national institutions. Such a re-centralization of power narratives gives much more credit to intergovernmentalists rather than MLG scholars.

It is also still premature to maintain that the change in the Turkish traditional governance may lead to a fully-fledged regionalization, and that the outcomes of this radical restructuring within the Turkish administrative system may instigate SNAs’ interests in the European arena. Because of certain restrictions derived from the national context and caveats dependent on the EU context, one may hardly speak of any genuine shift from a centralized/hierarchical structure to a multi-level modality. In the current situation, there is no institutionalized channel for subnational mobilisation in Brussels. This correspondingly reduces the pull factors of the EU’s opportunity structures, whilst it requires the push factor of organizational capacity and leadership. It has also impeded the direct relations of SNAs with the EU institutions or their ability to influence policy outcomes. In this respect, while one is able to reach conclusions about the impact of EU regional policy on the territorial relations in Turkey thus far, one also enters the caveat that the changes are recent and thus their long-term significance remains uncertain.

The constraints and opportunities identified in this chapter form a context within which actors at three different administrative levels are likely to transform their mode of action and their outlook. Therefore, the remainder of the thesis seeks to find out whether the changes affect the behaviour of Turkish SNAs on EU matters. Based on a survey analysis as well as reflecting on findings from interviews obtained at three administrative levels, the next chapter turns its attention to the organizational response of SNAs to the EU accession process after the Helsinki Summit of 1999. In so doing, it aims to show the extent to which SNAs, in the sense of municipalities and RDAs, adapted themselves to the multi-level governance structure of EU politics, particularly to the first two stages of subnational mobilisation: growing awareness and changes in organizational arrangements.

CHAPTER 7 SUBNATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE EU ACCESSION PROCESS

7.1. INTRODUCTION

The formal implication of Europeanization in regards to a change in territorial relations in Turkey was discussed in the previous chapter. It concluded that there appears to be a modest but erratic shift towards a multi-level modality in the course of the accession process. However, what can be the stimuli for subnational mobilisation in economic laggard countries like Turkey with no history of regionalization, a long history of centralization, lack of social capacity and the fear of separatism? Do the EU funds boost the growing awareness at subnational level in regard to engaging with EU matters? Can the organizational capacity of SNAs create the necessary conditions to provide a bottom-up push for subnational mobilisation? By narrowing the focus to the first two stages of subnational mobilisation, growing awareness and organizational arrangement, the chapter demonstrates SNAs’ response to the Europeanization process.

The main aim here is to examine the extent to which SNAs have responded to the challenges and opportunities which have arisen from the EU accession process since 1999. SNAs’ response is crucial to this research for two main reasons. Firstly, an important feature of subnational mobilisation is that it appears in a bottom-up manner emanating from the initiative of subnational actors or institutions and local/regional leaders. It is neither imposed by higher levels of administration in Turkey nor promoted by any part of EU conditionality (see Chapter 2). In the absence of adaptational pressure, the push factors depending on organizational capacity in terms of finance, human resources, information and leadership can be a source of subnational mobilisation in Brussels. Secondly, the important role that SNAs play in the EU integration process has not yet been explored since they are relatively new to the European arena. Addressing this gap in the literature and employing a bottom-up perspective, the present chapter turns its focus to the subnational level to explore what has been done, planned or considered by SNAs, with respect to the policies of the EU and their effects at subnational level.

To examine what has changed at the subnational level, a survey covering eighty-five SNAs in Turkey was conducted during the period of February to April 2011, which generated a sufficient and satisfactory (79.4%) response rate (see Chapter 3). The survey did not seek to assess whether SNAs are capable of exerting influence over European policy-making or the extent to which they may participate in the regional policy making process. Rather, the scope of the survey was restricted to examining their interest in the EU by observing inter-organizational arrangements. The survey data has also been supplemented with insights obtained from interviews by the author, during the field work in Turkey and Brussels in the periods of April 2011 and July 2012. The chapter is organized into three main parts. The first part analyzes the perception of the EU impact on Turkish SNAs and illustrates the diversification of information channels concerning EU matters and the increase in project management capacity. The second part demonstrates the organizational arrangements in terms of staff and the creation of EU units. It then examines the importance of leadership and shows the types of leadership in SNAs. The final part concludes and presents the general state of affairs for Turkish SNAs.