Europeanization of turkish subnational administrations
THE LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
Yüklə 1,23 Mb.
|
THE LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS#1: Hasan Soygüzel, Expert for Local Administrations, the Municipality of Yalova, the director of Local Agenda 21, Yalova (phone interview on 02.04. 2010). #2: Gaye Doğanoğlu, Vice-President of Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, Muratpaşa District Municipality, Antalya, (30.03.2011). #3: Prof Murat Ali Dulupçu, EU Team Players in Turkey, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, (31.03. 2011). #4: Gülhan Bilen, Senior Specialist on Regional Development, Development Bank of Turkey, Loan Evaluation Department, Ankara, (07.04. 2011). #5: Bahar Özden, Expert, the Union of Municipalities of Turkey, the Department of International Relations Ankara, (11.04. 2011). #6: Celil Yaman, Senior Planing Expert in General Directorate of Regional Development and Structural Adjustment, Ministry of Development, Ankara, (12.04.2011). #7: Füsun Çiçekoğlu, Sector Manager in Regional Development and Cross Border Cooperation, Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Ankara, (13.04.2011). #8: Dr. Deniz Akkahve, City and Regional Planner, Ministry of Development, the then Head of Department in General Directorate of Regional Development and Structural Adjustment, Ankara, (13.04.2011). #9: Murat Zorluoğlu, Head of Department, Ministry of Interior, General Directorate of Local Authorities, Ankara, (13.04.2011). #10: Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), Interviews in Governance Studies, Emin Dedeoğlu, (Coordinator), Emre Koyuncu, (Policy Analysts), Tunga Köröğlu, (Policy Analysts), Ankara, (14.04.2011). #11: A. Deren Doğan Yavuz, Head of Department, Ministry of European Union, Directorate for Social, Regional and Innovative Policies Director, Ankara, (14.04.2011). #12: Burcu M. Dıraor, Expert in General Directorate of Regional Development and Structural Adjustment, Ministry of Development, , Ankara, (15.04.2011). #13: Bülent Özcan, Head of Department in the Implementation of Projects, Ministry of European Union, Ankara, (15.04.2011). #14: Mesut Kamiloğlu, Head of Department in General Directorate of Regional Development and Structural Adjustment, Ministry of Development, Ankara, (19.04. 2011). #15: Nilgün Arısan Eralp, Coordinator in EU Studies, Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), Ankara, (20.04.2011). #16: Hayrettin Güngör, Secretary General, The Union of Municipalities of Turkey, Ankara, (26.04.2012). #17: Fulya Evren, Expert in General Directorate of Regional Development and Structural Adjustment, Ministry of Development, Ankara, (26.04.2011). #18: Serkan Valandova, Head of Department in General Directorate of Regional Competitiveness, Ministry of Development, Ankara, (26.04.2011). #19: Prof Korel Göymen, EU team players in Turkey, Department of Political Science and Public Administration Sabancı University, İstanbul, (16.11.2011). #20: Cevdet Karaca, Coordinator in EU and External Relation Coordination Centre, Coordinator, Samsun Governorship, Samsun, (01.11.2011). #21: Mevlüt Özen, Secretary General, Middle Black Sea Development Agency, Samsun, (21.11.2011). #22: Gökhan Yalçın, City and Regional Planner, Middle Black Sea Development Agency, Samsun, (21.11.2011). #23: Aslan Karanfil, Secretary General, Samsun Special Provincial Administration, Samsun, (21.11.2011). #24: Eyüp Elmas, R&D Coordinator, Samsun Special Provincial Administration, Samsun, (21.11.2011). #25: Ramazan Aydın, Foreign Affairs Coordinator, Samsun Metropolitan Municipality, Samsun, (22.11.2011). #26: Samsun Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Okan Gümüş (Deputy Secretary General), Müberra Genç (Coordinator in EU Coordination Centre), Samsun, (22.11.2011). #27: Mustafa Karakurt, Chairman (elected), Samsun Provincial Assembly, Samsun, (22.11.2011). #28: Dr. İlhan Karakoyun, Secretary General, Karacadağ Development Agency, Diyarbakır, (29.03.2011) (28.11.2011). #29: Mehmet Yiğit, Deputy Governor, Diyarbakır Governorship, Diyarbakır, (28.11. 2011). #30: Hamit Ercengiz, Coordinator in EU Coordination Centre, Diyarbakır Governorship, Diyarbakır, (28.11. 2011). #31: Ahmet Akyol, Secretary General, Diyarbakır Special Provincial Administration, Diyarbakır, (28.11.2011). #32: Fatma Sümbül, Vice Chairman (elected), Diyarbakır Provincial Assembly, Diyarbakır, 29.11.2011. #33: Zerrin Türk, Foreign Affairs Expert, The Union of Southeast Municipalities, Diyarbakır, (29.11.2011). #34: Abbas Büyüktaş, Expert, Diyarbakır Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Diyarbakır, (29.11.2011). #35: Rıfat Nalbantoglu, Republican People’s Party Izmir Provincial President (previous), Coordinator for the House of Izmir in the EU project, İzmir, (07.12.2011). #36: Dilara Sülün, Coordinator in EU relations, İzmir Chamber of Commerce, İzmir, (08.12.2011). #37: Başak Somuncu, EU Expert, İzmir Metropolitan Municipality, Izmir, (08.12.2011). #38: Prof Zerrin Toprak, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Dokuz Eylul University, Member of Izmir Development Committee, İzmir, (08.11.2011). #39: Ahmet Önal, Konak District Governor, EU and Foreign Relations Coordinator, İzmir Governorship, İzmir, (09.12.2011). #40: EU Team in İzmir Governorship, Güldan Kalem (Senior Expert), Zehra Kibar (Expert), İzmir, (09.12.2011). #41: İrfan İçöz, Secretary General, İzmir Special Provincial Administration, İzmir, (09.12.2011). #42: Devrim Çukur, European Regional Assebly- Member of Turkish Committee, İzmir Provincial Assembly, İzmir, (09.11.2011). #43: Göksel Uçak, Expert in EU Info Centre, Association of Aegean Industrialists and Businessmen, İzmir, (09.12.2011). #44: Begüm Tatari, Expert in City Marketing and Foreign Relations Unit, İzmir Development Agency, İzmir, (09.12.2011). #45: Bursa Eskişehir Bilecik Development Agency (BEBKA), Eskişehir Investment Support Unit, Ahmet Kalkan, (Coordinator), Gülsen Kaya (Expert), Eskişehir, (13.12.2011). #46: Murat Daoudov, (Former) Director of International Cooperation, Union of Municipalities of Marmara, İstanbul, (15.12.2011). #47: İnan İzci, EU Coordinator, Municipality of Sarıyer, İstanbul, (15.12.2011). #48: DG Regio, Kristian Gavel (IPA Programme Managers), Anna Burylo (Turkey Desk Officers), Brussels, (18.06.2012). #49: Fornea Aliona, Policy Advisor in PES Group Secretariat, the Committee of Regions, Brussels, (18.06.2012). #50: Victor Tilea, Desk Officer, the CoR, Brussels, (18.06.2012). #51: Bahadır Kaleağası, International Coordinator, Representation fo the European Union and Business Europe, Turkish Industry and Business Association (TUSIAD), Brussels, (18.06.2012). #52: Permanent Delegation of Turkey to the EU, Dr. Nurşen Numanoğlu (Deputy Permanent Delegate), Fatma Can Sağlık (EU Consellor), Brussels (18.06.2012). #53: Eurocities, Tara Schineider and Sorayo Zanardo (Experts), Brussels, (19.06.2012). #54: Regine Kramer, Policy Coordinator in Standing Committee for Institutional Affairs, Assembly of European Regions, Brussels, (19.06.2012). #55: Egle Puodziukaite, Programme Assistant-EU Policies Turkey, DG Enlargement, Brussels, (19.06.2012). #56: Carol Thomas, Senior Policy Officer, Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR), Brussels, (19.06.2012). #57: Kader Sevinç, Representative to the EU, Member of Socialist International, Republician People’s Party (CHP, Turkish Acronym), Brussels, (19.06.2012). #58: Nicola Aimi, Deputy Head of Unit, IPA/ISPA, Accession Negotiations Team, DG Regio, Brussels (21.06.2012). #59: Murat Demir Seyrek, Free Lancer Lobbysist, Glocal, Brussels, (21.06.2012). #60:Yaşar Tümbaş, Honorary Representative EU-Belgium for the Metropolitan Municipality of Gaziantep, Brussels, (21.06.2012). #61: Dr. Thomas Grunert, Head of Unit, Enlargement and European Economic Area, European Parliament, Brussels (21.06.2012). #62: Prof Michel Huysseune, Head of Department, International Relations, Vesalius College, Brussels, (22.06.2012). #63: Amanda Paul, Policy Analyst and Programme Executive, European Policy Centre, Brussels, (22.06.2012). #64: Onur Eryüce, Secretary General, Association of Social Democrat Municipalities, Brussels (Phone interview, 12.07.2012). #65: Hande Özhan Bozatlı, President of Committee 3 (Culture, Education, Youth, and International Cooperation), President of EU and International Relations Committee of Istanbul Provincial Council, Istanbul, (Email Interview, 17.07.2012). #66: Christian Saublens, Secretary General, the European Association of Development Agencies, Brussels, (Email Interview, 17.07.2012). #67: İbrahim Evrim, Deputy Secretary General, Metropolitan Municipality of Gaziantep, Gaziantep (Phone interview, 17.07.2012). 1 During the writing-up stage of the thesis, Croatia was a candidate state but it is now a member of the EU. 2 The definition of Europeanization for SNAs was adapted from McCauley (2011). 3 For the alternative view on this, Koçak (2007:22-24) discusses that because of Turkey’s unique geographical position, there may be two-way interaction. This includes bottom-up Europeanization. 4 In analysing the impact of Europeanization on British politics, Bulmer and Burch (1998: 603) similarly observe that while change has been substantial, it has been more or less wholly in keeping with British traditions. 5 The most common categorization, particularly with regard to the downloading perspective of Europeanization, comprises four variants that embody different degrees and directions of change (Radaelli, 2003:37; Börzel, 1999; 2005; Cowles et al., 2001; Heritier & Knill, 2001). These are ‘inertia’, ‘absorption’, ‘transformation’ and ‘retrenchment’. Inertia is a situation suggesting a lack of change. Absorption indicates change but the degree of change is low. Transformation is the paradigmatic change which occurs when the fundamental logic of political behaviour changes (Radaelli, 2003: 37). Retrenchment implies that national policy becomes less European than it was (ibid). Börzel and Risse (2003) also present three different outcomes: absorption, accommodation and transformation. 6 For instance, see Hix & Goetz, 2000; Cowles et al., 2001; Olsen, 2002; 2007; Knill & Lehmkul, 2002; Börzel 2002; Börzel & Risse, 2003; Radaelli, 2003; Bulmer & Lequesne, 2005; Graziano & Vink, 2007. 7 What Richard Rose (1993:4) suggests is that time and space are important components for lesson-drawing. 8 The State Planning Organization (SPO) was named as the Ministry of Development in 2011. Both refer to the same institutions. However, for consistency, the Ministry of Development is used throughout the research. 9 Inter alia, Bulmer, 1993; 1998; Jupille & Caporaso, 1999; Thielemann, 1999; 2000; Schneider & Aspinwall, 2001; Checkel, 2001. 10 Five usages see Olsen 2002; Buller & Gamble, 2002; and six usages see Bache & Jordan, 2006. 11 There is generally an accepted differentiation between European integration as the process of creating a polity at the EU level and Europeanization as the effects of the EU on its member and accession states (Bache, 2008: 1). This definition fits to the former (EU integration) and it is opposed to an analytically distinct process to which European integration gives rise (Bomberg & Peterson, 2000). 12 For the rich account on this see, inter alia Grabbe, 2001; Hughes et al., 2004; Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier, 2005; Börzel, 2010; Sedelmeier, 2011; Bache et al., 2011. 13 Some scholars evaluated Europeanization in applicant states as changes in external boundaries by enlargement (Olsen, 2002) or a particular form of Europeanization ‘abroad’ (Pitschell & Bauer, 2009:335). 14 For a similar discussion and comparative analysis of cohesion countries and some CEE countries see, Paraskevopoulos & Leonardi, 2004: 316. 15 The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) is a geo-code standard for referencing the subdivisions of countries for statistical purposes. The standard is developed and regulated by the European Union, and thus only covers the member states of the EU in detail. The NUTS is instrumental in European Union's Structural Fund delivery mechanisms. 16 For discussion about the horizontal feature of the MLG, see Ertugal, 2010; Lagendijk et al., 2009. 17 Alaturka is an adjective in Turkish and refers to ‘compatible with the old Turkish tradition and life-style’. It is also used synonymously with ‘Alafranga’ which means westernized (source: Turkish Language Institute, www.tdk.gov.tr). In this respect, the usage of Alaturka of Europeanization refers to the changes in line with the Turkish tradition. 18 The Turkish Grand National Assembly approved 34 constitutional amendments in this period, most of them in the areas of human rights, laws regarding Penal Code, and the anti-terror law. 19 The Cyprus issue stands in the heart of Turkey’s accession process with the EU, for the rich account on this issue, see (Christou, 2003; 2013). 20 In the latest survey conducted by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK), public support for EU membership has decreased around 25 % between 2004 and 2012. While 70.2% of people supported the EU membership in 2004, this has decreased to the level of 45.4% in 2012. For more detail see ‘Life-Satisfaction Survey of 2012’, www.tuik.gov.tr. 21 Only one chapter, Science and Technology, has been so far closed. Twelve Chapters are open but still under observation. Two Chapters were invited to be presented and Turkey has presented its negotiation position. Eight chapters are reserved as the additional protocol with Cyprus the opening criterion for these chapters. 10 chapters are still being discussed in the Council. 22For the summary of PM Erdoğan’s speech, see the Journal of Turkish Weekly, http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/14088/erdogan-copenhagen-criteria-would-become (accessed on 1st March, 2013). 23 For the rich historical summary see Marks et al., 1995; Hooghe, 1995; Bache, 1998 24 For further discussion about what undermines both state-centric and supranational accounts for grasping the role of SNAs in the EU policy-making process, see (Marks et al., 1995). 25 For an overview see Diez & Winer, 2005; Graziano & Vink, 2007 26 For the extensive analysis on the MLG approach see Marks et al., 1996; Hooghe & Marks, 2001; Bache & Flinders, 2004. 27 Layering refers to the emergence of change on the margins, implying local rule transformation within a basically unchanged institution that does not challenge the dominant characteristics of the mode of governance (Bruzst, 2008:620). Ertugal also argued that the creation of RDAs in Turkey also fits the concept of layering (see Ertugal, 2011). 28 Those scholars are, inter alia, Hooghe, 1996; Marks et al., 1996; Hooghe & Marks, 2001; Jeffrey,1997a; 2000; Bullmann; 1997; Tatham, 2008; 2010. 29 For the extensive empirical findings of the EU activities of Turkish SNAs in Brussels see Chapter 8. 30 For exceptions see Anderson, 2003; Saurugger, 2005. 32 Although territorial interests are seen as one division of interest representation, there are a number of convergences between functional and territorial interest representation at the EU level. For further analysis for the distinction between functional and territorial interests see Knodt et al., 2012. 33 The selection of RDAs as an example of NUTS II level does not have any problem because in that territorial unit, RDAs have a single, continuous and non-intersecting boundary. Yet when one defines what NUTS III levels in Turkey consist of, the problem arises. The Turkish administrative system at this level is governed through a dual structure: on the one hand, there are provincial administrations headed by centrally appointed governors who at the same time chair the provincial assemblies, whose members are directly elected. On the other hand, there are directly elected (metropolitan) municipalities, whose numbers and size vary from province to province depending on population size. 34 As Marsh and Furlong (2002:37) put it, most MLG theorists are realist in epistemological terms, emphasizing how the continuity of rules, norms and operation procedures, and sometimes of deep, non-observable structures can and do determine the outcomes of decision-making in the long term. As such their logic is inductive rather than deductive. 35 There is not enough research conducted based on descriptive survey analysis in the literature for analysing the behaviour of SNAs on the issue of mobilisation. The majority of studies implementing survey analysis are mainly explanatory in nature and designed to test theories or hypotheses (inter alia, Marks et al., 1996; 2002; Tatham, 2010). Yet there are some studies, inter alia Goldsmith and Klausen (1997) and Eising (2009), from which this author drew insight to prepare the questionnaire. 36 For this, the formal administrative structure of the given organizations was checked to find relevant personnel working in the foreign relations department and/or EU office if the organization has one. If not, assistance from the human resources unit and/or operator over the phone was required to find out staff who at least knows about the internal structure of organizations as well as its EU activities. It is crucial to give one detail about this phone call which I conducted with operators in those institutions where there is not any special post for the EU affairs. During the phone calls, as soon as I spelled out about my project and why I am doing this survey, almost all the operators tended to direct me to the project office in which staff are mainly concerned about the EU-funded project. This nuance may show that the EU echoes in the logic of those organizations as financial or in an instrumental way. 37 There was one misunderstanding derived from the translation. In fact, it was not a translation error but two institutions, the Council of Europe and the European Union Council are often confused with one another in Turkey. This is because the Turkish name for both institutions is often translated as ‘Avrupa Konseyi’. After realizing that some SNAs chose the answer of EU Council to show who they have a relation with, the author phoned up again to make sure whether they mean the EU Council or the Council of Europe. After that call, they realized that they made a mistake as they in fact meant to say the Council of Europe. Except for that, no problems occurred regarding the translation. The cover letter clearly explained why this survey was conducted and why their participation was important. Even so, during the distribution of the survey, each participant was instructed on the phone to choose the most appropriate answer(s). If they are not able to answer a question, they were reminded to ask for help from their colleagues — as there are some questions which may necessitate a certain level of expertise and knowledge. 38 The interview in DG Regio was carried out on 18 June 2012; the visit of the mayor of Antalya Municipality was on 25th June 2012. 39 The interview took place in Samsun on 21st November 2011; the general secretary of the Middle Black Sea Development Agency, Mevlüt Özen, was elected as a member of EURADA executive board on 17th November 2011. 40 The Ministry for EU affairs used to be named the General Secretary for the EU Affairs under the Prime Ministry. However, by 2011, it was created as a separate ministry. For consistency, the Ministry for EU Affairs is used throughout the research. 41 The author also carried out many valuable interviews with individuals (in Istanbul, Isparta, Antalya and Eskisehir), who have specific knowledge or publications regarding the research interest. 42 The representatives from regional development agencies, municipalities, governorships, special provincial administrations and chambers of trade and industry were interviewed in the selected sample cities. 43 Devine (2002: 205) suggests that the snowball sampling model is worth utilizing, though this model may ‘nominate a set of interconnected people’. 44 However, three interviews were not analysed because of several reasons such as irrelevancy, shortness and insignificancy. In some cases, the interview participant only answered the questions by saying yes or no. 45 Nvivo is one of the recent programmes for analysing qualitative data. It helps to carry out coding; organize and evaluate the qualitative data in an efficient way. By using it, annotations, memos, links, free and tree nodes are easily created (for further information, see Richards, 2005). 46 Categorization is a major component of qualitative data analysis by which investigators attempt to group patterns observed in the data into meaningful units or categories (Given 2008). 47 As Given (2008: 72) argues, the process of categorization continues in a research project until saturation (i.e., no further categories are discovered or constructed based on examination of new generated data) or exhaustion (i.e., the existing system of categories accounts for all meaningful or significant aspects of the phenomenon in question). 48 The concepts of mono-centric and polycentric were borrowed from Herrschel and Newman (2002). Mono-centric regions suggest a greater emphasis on the local dimension through the influence of the dominant core city. Polycentric regions, by contrast, suggest more of a regional emphasis, because of the rivalry between the smaller cities across the region. 49 The socio-economic development index was prepared for NUTS II and NUTS III regions in Turkey by using different indicators. The index was derived from demography, employment, education, health, industry, agriculture, construction, fiscal, infrastructure and some welfare indicators (for further details, see Dinçer Yüklə 1,23 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|