Europeanization of turkish subnational administrations

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL RATIONALE

The research employs Europeanization as an analytical framework. It has become a fertile analytical ground to explain the domestic changes in member (and candidate) states (Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2005; Graziano & Vink, 2007). Yet theoretical development and definitional contestation in the literature has run far ahead of detailed empirical testing (Bache & George, 2006). This empirical-driven research focusing on the adaptation of one candidate state to EU regional policy is a good example for examining the direct and indirect effects of Europeanization (Grabbe, 2001; 2003; Hughes et al., 2004). This is because the adaptation to the EU’s regional policy is one of those areas where Europeanization not only affects the domestic system of intergovernmental relations (Jeffrey, 1997a; 2000; Bullmann, 1997; Börzel, 2002; Bursens, 2007); it also promotes particularly unitary states to shift towards more compound polities by promoting multi-level governance (Bache, 2008). Furthermore, as detailed in the following chapters, it does have consequences for domestic processes of societal interest formation, aggregation and representation as well as affecting SNAs in order to strive to channel their interests into the European policy-making process (Marks & McAdam, 1996).

Within the perspective sketched above, one needs to elucidate the direct and indirect aspects of the impact of EU regional policy in order to make an accurate judgment on the creation of multi-level modality in member (and candidate) states. Studies on EU-Turkish relations have so far touched upon the changing intergovernmental relations in Turkey with specific reference to its regionalization process in terms of the polity and policy dimension of Europeanization (Dulupçu, 2005; Ertugal, 2005; 2011; Okçu et al., 2006; Lagendijk et al., 2009). Given that the mobilisation of SNAs and their increasing significance within the EU polity is one of the fundamental aspects of MLG (Marks, 1993; Hooghe, 1996), the effects on the behaviour of Turkish SNAs towards the EU accession process have been largely neglected. On the other hand, a number of scholars have mostly chosen their empirical case selection from the EU-15 countries (Keating & Jones, 1995; Jeffrey, 1997b; 2000; Moore, 2008a, 2011; Tatham, 2008; 2010), and later from CEECs (Kungla & Kettunen, 2005; Scherpereel, 2007; Sapala, 2008; Moore, 2008b; Tatar, 2009; Brusis, 2010) to analyse the extent to which SNAs from these states have adapted themselves to exploit the EU opportunities or engaged with the EU politics. Yet again there is no work on the situation of SNAs from the current candidates, viz. Croatia¹ and Turkey. This empirical hiatus, particularly for the Turkish case, suggests a lack of systematic information to bring to bear on what has been changing at a subnational level as a response to the country’s Europeanization process.

A second observation drives us a little further into the research design because there is a dominance of the top-down research design in the extant literature (Bursens & Deforche, 2008). 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) 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 in this research is defined as ‘redirection and reorientation of SNAs’ activities, not only towards national institutions but also towards supranational institutions, politics, and/or the policy-making process’².

The bottom-up perspective on Europeanization provides several advantages for students of EU politics. 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 causal chains to identify the underlying triggers (McCauley, 2011). This allows one to investigate the possible causes of observed domestic change, that is, ‘causes of effects’. In other words, it may offer a chance to examine potential explanatory (independent) factors and potential intermediating variables at the domestic level, which are critical for subnational mobilisation beyond the national setting.

The research 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 dependent variable is the mobilisation of Turkish SNAs towards the EU arena. Independent variables consist of the pull factors of the opportunity structures (e.g. multiple access points and receptiveness to SNAs’ claims) and voluntary mechanisms (e.g. learning, lesson-drawing) as well as the push factors of resource capabilities (e.g. organizational capacity and leadership). Finally, there are intermediating variables at domestic, national and subnational levels through which independent variables (resource pull, resource push and learning) are shaped, obstructed or facilitated. It is because the national context and to some extent EU level developments define an opportunity structure but they do not determine the ultimate outcome.

The third point is related to the Europeanization study for the candidate states. Studies have generally focused on macro level changes in accordance with the Copenhagen Criteria, and been confined to the conditionality/compliance dichotomy under asymmetrical relations (Hughes et al., 2004). The Turkish case was not an exception as it has been usually evaluated within the context of EU conditionality and characterized in a normative and legalistic manner. The research considers this trend within the first generation Europeanization research, which has a top-down characteristic and seeks to explain domestic change from EU pressures. Some scholars on the other hand suggest that conditionality is not sufficient to conceptualize the depth of European impact on the Turkish domestic arena as this has just linked with Turkey’s democratization and modernization processes (Tocci, 2005; Ertugal, 2010; Bölükbaşı et al., 2010). Accordingly, the research finds the second generation Europeanization research valuable to account for the domestic change in a given policy domain (for further discussion about first and second generation Europeanization research see Chapter 1). Within this generation, one needs to pay considerable attention to changes in the behaviour of societal actors and ways of doing things as the asymmetric nature of the EU conditionality only helps to understand formal and normative changes, but may miss other factors, such as voluntary mechanisms and bottom-up dynamics, involved in this process. This research argues that changing territorial relations in Turkey may be a fertile ground to unveil these less formal and less observable changes in the applicant state as well as be able to reflect the changing behaviour of societal actors (SNAs for this research) through Turkey’s Europeanization process.

Related to the third point, the research also underlines the importance of temporality because it is generally overlooked in the extant literature. It is particularly important for a country like Turkey. Because of the inconsistent relations with the EU, the accession process in Turkey is always fluid and dynamic, sometimes progressive and other times regressive depending on the political atmosphere in the relations with the EU. This not only has consequences for national actors but also affects wider society in Turkey. As a result, the research offers a periodization about the impact of Europeanization on Turkey since the Helsinki Summit of 1999. These periods are Europeanization as Democratization, Proto-Europeanization and Alaturka Europeanization. Such a periodization is essential to reveal how continuity and change has developed for the subject under examination. Furthermore, it may illustrate that while the pull effect of Europeanization has gradually declined, the push factors coming from the organizational capacity and leadership have become prominent, particularly during the Alaturka Europeanization period.

The final point, yet no less important, is about the subnational mobilisation literature, which generally tends to focus on the activities beyond the national context, particularly the activities of SNAs in Brussels through their established liaison offices, to demonstrate subnational mobilisation. The research does not restrict itself to the liaison offices in Brussels to reveal whether there is subnational mobilisation or not. It conversely includes other EU-related activities, which may support the mobilisation of SNAs (e.g. applying EU fund programs, changes in organizational arrangements, transnational activities and vertical channels). Drawing insights from Peter John’s (2001) ‘Ladder Model for Europeanization of Governance’ (see Chapter 4), the four stages for subnational mobilisation are proposed. According to this, what happens in an SNA between the input of an EU stimulus and an output that encourages mobilisation may be described in four stages: growing awareness at local level; changes in organizational arrangements; engagement with transnational activities with their equivalent in the EU; and conducting EU level activities through vertical mobilization. These stages are evaluated throughout the empirical chapters in order to capture the degree of Europeanization on Turkish SNAs.

To summarise, the two main criteria for selecting our research topic and research questions are related to (1) understanding real world phenomena such as the Europeanization of territorial relations in one candidate country and the mobilisation of SNAs from that candidate country towards the EU arena; and (2) seeking to contribute to scholarly literature that deals with the aforesaid phenomena. The presentation of an initial contact with the literature and the justification of the topic selection have brought us to exposing our research interest. In the remainder of this chapter, a short overview of the research objectives and main (and sub-) questions will be given, before finishing with the description of the research plan by chapters.