State Reform in Turkey: Reasons, Needs and Strategies
Firuz D. Yasamis
Associate Professor
School of Arts and Social Sciences Sabanci University Turkey
The state structure in Turkey including all its branches of government (executive, legisla
tive and judicial) at both the national and local levels has been shown to be ineffective,
even irrelevant, to the ingrained demographic, social, economic and political exigencies
of the country. One of the main reasons behind this is the collapse of public finance.
Conventional rhetoric limiting solutions to administrative reform fails to provide a suffi
ciently broad enough context within which public sector reform in Turkey can be dis
cussed. Turkey’s determination to become a full member of the EU also necessitates a
comprehensive and radical overhaul of the Turkish public sector with respect to effi
ciency and productivity. Five main strategies are proposed to assist Turkey in overcoming
its state governance predicament: initiating and carrying out a state-wide reform by
employing modern principles of public management; understanding and solving the prob
lem of internal and external debts; enhancing the conditions of governance; reintroduc
ing and strengthening the principle of meritocracy in public sector and cooperating more
with the EU.
Given the present social, economic and political
conditions of the world, the term ‘public
administration reform’ is conceptually inade
quate to delineate the extent of the problems
faced by public sector organisations in their
attempt to meet the need for more productive,
effective and efficient utilisation of scarce
public resources. As indicated by the World
Bank Report and others (World Bank 2000,
Christensen 2001), reforming public institu
tions requires comprehensive and integrated
efforts rather than dealing with the crucial issues
on piece-meal basis. This is especially valid for
developing countries, where the task of poverty
eradication is of paramount importance, while
the sources available to do so are rather limited.
This combination thus creates an enormous
burden on the establishment of corruption-free
and merit-based governance in these societies.
A recent World Bank Report (1997) supports
this view: ‘Around the World, the state is in the
spotlight. Far-reaching developments in the
global economy have us revisiting basic ques
tions about government: what its role should
be, what it can and cannot do, and how best to
do it’. The OECD is of the same opinion (OECD
1999, 2000). Moreover, the World Bank public
finance reform programs have the same goal all
over the world.
With respect to state governance reform,
priority should be on solving public finance
problems through comprehensive and coordin
ated efforts. While perhaps more evident in
those countries in transition from a collective
economy and central planning system to a
market economy and for the developing
countries, the more prosperous northern
countries of our globe are not immune from
having to make similar considerations with
respect to the use of limited public revenue,
(Gore 1996, World Bank 1997, 2000). However,
as observed and measured by the Transparency
International (TI) governance in many societies
is not in line with this expectation. The main
reason for the discrepancy is effectively explain
ed in a World Bank Report (2000): ‘In countries
where institutions are weak, policymaking and
resource allocation typically proceed in non
transparent ways, with decisions generally
skewed in favor of those who are well connected
to centers of power’. As Caiden (1969) and the
World Bank (1997, 2000) and several OECD
Australian Journal of Public Administration • 62(4):93-107, December 2003
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing Limited
94
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
Yasamis
reports have pointed out in this context, while
the executive functions of public adminis
tration have conventionally been the main
concern of reform efforts, it is necessary to em
brace both the legislative and judicial functions
as well.
The Main Reason for State Reform in
Turkey: Shortage of Public Resources
The conditions described above also apply to
Turkey, which is a very good example of a
country where a comprehensive overhaul of
public administration is necessary. All
components of state governance, ranging from
the executive, legislative and judicial
components, to the administration of the
national economy are to be considered together.
Presently, the most serious problem Turkey has
is the critical shortages and bottlenecks
encountered in public finance. The Firgures
given below indicate the conditions of public
finance in Turkey1.
As indicated in Figure 1, in 1980 the reven
ues of the state were almost equal to those of
spending. However, 21 years later, mainly due
to the economic, financial and social policies
applied between 1984-1992, the situation is
Figure 1: Inputs-Outputs Model of Control
now very different. The ambitious develop
mental projects, expensive infrastructural
investments and social policies have created
considerable burden on the public finance.
Internal and external debts have been used to
finance the domestic consumption and public
employee salaries. As a result, both inflation
and interest rates have skyrocketed at times to
over 150 per cent. This spiral is continuing.
However, austerity measures imposed by the
IMF and World Bank aimed at setting limits for
state expenditures and increasing tax revenues
have begun to have an impact. Combined with
lowered purchasing power levels, inflation and
the interest rates have dropped below 30 per
cent. At the moment, instead of relative equality,
there is a gross discrepancy between the state’s
income and its expenditures.
Figures 2 and 3 analyse the revenue
structure of the state. The revenues have
increased during the last 20 years. However,
Figure 3 is most strikingly indicative of this
structure. As of 1990s, the share of the indirect
taxes in the total tax revenues has exceeded the
income obtained from the direct taxes. This
basically means that there is no further room
for increasing the direct taxes on wealth, profit
and income and only way to increase the tax
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
1980 1985 1990 1995 2001
YEARS
US DOLLARS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
TOTAL REVENUES
State Reform in Turkey: Reasons, Needs and Strategies
45,000,000
40,000,000
95
35,000,000
30,000,000
US DOLLARS
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
1980
1985
1990
YEARS
TOTAL REVENUE 1980-2001 TAX REVENUES
NON TAX REVENUES
1995
2001
Figure 2: Analysis of Revenues
revenues is to get more taxes from consumption.
This also means that the state has reached the
upper limits of its extractive ability. Figures 4,
5, 6 and 7 are reflective of the conditions of
state expenditures.
Figure 4 reflects the structure of state
expenses. Total expenses have increased four
fold during the last two decades while invest
ments have remained constant. Current expenses
have increased almost two-fold. Conspicuously,
transfer payments, which consist of interest
payments on domestic and external debts and
transfers to the State Economic Enterprises
(SEEs) and other transfers, have increased
almost ten times. No increase in investments
and a limited increase in current expenses
indicate that public spending has been severely
curtailed, thus causing serious bottlenecks and
quality problems in public services and public
infrastructures.
Figure 5 illustrates the situation on current
expenditures. The increase in current expenses
is mainly due to the increase in personnel
expenditures especially in the period of 1985
1990. In the mean time, the number of public
employees has increased so as to alleviate the
pressures on politicians and public administra
tors for more job opportunities. Since the quality
and the quantity of public services is deter
mined by the low financial resources, this result
basically indicates the mismanagement of
scarce financial resources thus requiring a
reform initiative for public personnel policy.
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
Transfer payments indicated in Figure 6
illustrates the most important features of the
public finance in Turkey. Transfers to the SEEs
are negligible and other transfer payments have
slightly increased. However, the most salient
development is related to interest payments,
which have increased enormously during the
last 20 years. Therefore, the main increase in
public expenditures is basically due to the
interest payments on public debts. Figure 7
shows the composition of the interest payments.
The share of the foreign debt interest payments
is bearable although increasing while the share
of the domestic debt interest makes up the lion’s
share of the composition of debt. This means
that the state is relying mainly on borrowing
from the domestic financial markets to cover
domestic debt services – a trend that is upwardly
spiraling.
In Figure 8, three main parameters are
compared: total revenues of the state, the share
of transfer expenditures including interest
payments and the share of interest payments. In
1980, revenues exceeded transfer payments
even as interest payments were negligible.
However, in 2001, the volume of transfer
payments was greater than the state revenues, a
situation essentially caused by interest
payments on domestic debts. At the moment,
even the share of the interest payments is more
than the total state revenues. Therefore, in
Turkey, all the state revenues are basically spent
for interest payments, thus leaving no
Yasamis
96
opportunity for financing any other public
spending except through further borrowing
from domestic and external sources. According
to the latest budget performance data for 2002,
state revenues were insufficient to finance the
debt service of domestic and foreign debts, let
alone providing for the financing of other
public needs. The amount of interest paid for
the debts reached 110 per cent of budget
revenues. In the period of January-March 2002,
budget revenue increased 42.3 per cent
compared to the same period in 2001. This is in
contrast to an increase of 159.7 per cent in
budget expenditures. The main increase in the
expenditures was caused by the increase in the
interest payments. Interest payments increased
243.9 per cent from 2001 to 2002.
is approaching insolvency. State revenues are
inadequate to meet state expenditures. State debt
has reached such a critical level that nearly all
state revenues go to financing debt services. As
a result, state governance needs to take
appropriate austerity measures. Possible
measures may include a drastic reduction in
public expenditures by diminishing the number
of civil servants, cutting the services and
lowering the quality of services. Moreover, due
to an enormous decline in income-generating
capacity, public financing is experiencing great
difficulties just at a time when the cost of debt
service is rapidly increasing as a consequence
of the growth in public debt.
These results lead to two very important
questions: ‘How will the needs of the people
and the state be met?’ and ‘What does all said
above mean for the Turkish economy, public
finance and state governance?’
Other Significant Contributing
Factors
The Administration
The conditions and parameters described above
could create significant adverse impacts on the
state governance in Turkey. The present
situation indicates that public finance in Turkey
35,000,000
30,000,000
The factors contributing to the situation
described above are numerous. First, the state
has experienced a decline in internal and
external borrowing capacity, just as domestic
debts have soared, making management of
domestic debt increasingly more difficult.
While international borrowing is still available,
it is a very expensive option. The IMF and the
World Bank have launched in Turkey an
intervention program that is the most ambitious
of its kind in the history of these institutions.
As a result, Turkey has become the world leader
in terms of money borrowed from international
sources. It is not certain yet just how long the
IMF and the World Bank will continue to assist
Turkey in alleviating the economic predicament
brought about by a shortage of hard currency.
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
1980
1985
1990
YEARS
1995
2001
TAX REVENUES INDIRECT TAXES DIRECT TAXES
Figure 3: Analysis of Tax Structure
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
State Reform in Turkey: Reasons, Needs and Strategies
70,000,000
60,000,000
97
50,000,000
US DOLLARS
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
1980
1985
1990
YEARS
1995
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
CURRENT EXPENSES
2001
INVESTMENTS
TRANSFERS
Figure 4: Analysis of Expenditure
Therefore, at the moment, additional foreign or
domestic borrowing potential of the country
appears to be rather limited. What are more
positive in the recent developments are the
decreased rates of inflation and interests. These
encouraging developments may alleviate the
burden on the public service but for anytime in
the foreseeable future, the paramount problem
of eradicating the stock of domestic and
international debts promises to remain. It also
needs to be pointed out that the state cannot
readily increase tax revenues as a means to
solve the problem.
This set of circumstances requires that the
Turkish State make critical decisions with
respect to effective and efficient governance.
And it cannot simply expect that tinkering with
certain aspects of public administration will be
adequate, given the seriousness of the problems
it faces. Trends require an overhaul of the entire
structure of the state apparatus. Its internal
organisation, including interdepartmental and
intersectoral relations, must be revised. All of
this demands a new understanding of what
constitutes management and its procedures and
principles. In other words, comprehensive
public sector reform in Turkey is a must.
Wide-scale corruption is the second factor
contributing to poor public sector governance
in Turkey. Corruption goes against the very
principles of bureaucratic ethics. One of the
pillars of the bureaucratic ethics is the notion
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
of meritocracy, which includes the principles
of eligibility, competency, career and seniority.
Recent researches by Okcesiz (1999) and
‘Turkish Foundation on Economic and Social
Studies’ (TESEV 2001) conducted in this area
emphasise the extent to which corruption and
bribery have become a wide-scale social,
administrative and political problem in all
branches of the state machinery. Moreover, the
semi-autonomous Council on Banking Affairs
has revealed that the cost to the state of the
recently bankrupted private banks is almost
43.6 billion US dollars by September 2003,
which is nearly one-fifth of total debts of the
Country. (BDDK 2003:12)
TESEV’s abovementioned Report
indicates that the Turkish people’s satisfaction
with services provided by various public
administrations throughout the country, and the
faith of people in both the bureaucracy and
bureaucrats is low. Furthermore, the dimensions
of bribery and corruption have reached wide
spread proportions, with the number of citizens
who think that they are treated equally by
public officials and who believe that the
principle of meritocracy is applied in the case
of public hiring is low. The National Security
Council believes that corruption poses a serious
threat for national security. On 1 October 2003,
the President Sezer also voiced similar concerns:
‘One of the most basic problems of the Country
which has to be emphasised strongly and has to
Yasamis
98
be struggled against collectively by all sections
is the corruption which results in a wasting of
scarce resources of the nation while favouring
private interests of some circles.’ Similarly, the
OECD has also indicated in various reports that
when there is a scarcity of public funds,
corruptive forces are likely to play an important
role in the distribution of the national income.
(OECD 1994)
High levels of unemployment and a rapidly
increasing population makes employment in the
public sector rather attractive despite the very
low salaries vis-à-vis the cost of living in the
country. Likewise, contracting companies,
which are dependent on public work projects,
are under great financial pressures due to the
diminishing ability of the state to make
infrastructure investments. These social and
economic dynamics have paved the way for an
emerging intermediary class consisting of local
and national politicians who work on the basis
of commission taking the form of either
financial or political rewards. (Yasamis 2001)
Differing forms of corruption (ranging from
bribery to nepotism and basic fraud to
tampering with official documents and wire
tapping) can be observed in public transactions,
including any kind of governmental compli
ance management activity.
for example, is not the main factor considered
when making appointments to public posts.
Rather, it is political fidelity that determines
who gets appointed to well-paid senior-level
positions, (Tutum 1994). Similarly, competency,
even where it is a necessary aspect of a post, is
not the sole consideration. On the contrary, the
criteria for selection and promotion are the
desire to divide and share the ‘public pie’ with
‘friends’. As was seen in the notorious
‘Susurluk’3 scandal, public officials can set up
ties with illicit forces and attempt to use the
public power of their official duties to get their
share of ‘profits’ made on the ‘black market’.
What remains consistent in this nexus are some
politicians who have considerable superiority
in establishing and maintaining contacts
between bureaucrats, entrepreneurs and ‘mafia
like’ illegal organisations.
A natural consequence of this is that the
principles of meritocracy have failed to become
embedded in the state machinery. Eligibility,
18,000,000
16,000,000
Another indication of the corruption in the
public sector is the newly established
decentralised (‘distributed public governance’
as termed by the OECD) bodies. (OECD 2002)
These ‘supreme committees’ are relatively
autonomous vis-à-vis the central government
and therefore the political pressure held over
these bodies is intended to be limited. The
plethora of recently explored autonomous
‘supreme councils’ in the public administration
is basically due to the attempts to break the
controlling power of some politicians over
public resources and interests.
14,000,000
12,000,000
US DOLLARS
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
1980
1985
1990
YEARS
1995
2001
CURRENT EXPENSES PERSONNEL EXPENSES
OTHERS
Figure 5: Analysis of Current Expenses
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
State Reform in Turkey: Reasons, Needs and Strategies
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
US DOLLARS
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
1980
1985
99
1990
YEARS
1995
TRANSFERS
INTEREST PAYMENTS
2001
TRANSFERS TO SEEs
OTHER TRANSFERS
Figure 6: Analysis of Transfers
The economic dimension or economics of
the corruption apparently is rather considerable,
so much so that it has reached a point where it
has begun to adversely affect the national
economy. There is, however, no extant report
on the economic dimension of the corruption
published within Turkey. However, the works
of UN ECOSOC and other UN bodies (UN
ODCCP 2001), IMF good governance activities,
anticorruption works of the World Bank, OECD
and TI (2003) provide some insights on the
issue. All agree that it is rather difficult to assess
the economic parameters of a secret transaction
and therefore an exact description is compli
cated, if not impossible. However, again all agree
that corruption hits hardest the poor but the rich
least and also that there is a strong correlation
between levels of corruption and lowered
economic performance.
The third primary factor contributing to
poor public sector governance in Turkey and
that therefore demands state reform is insti
tutional. The organisational structure of public
administration was essentially shaped during
the second half of the 19th century under the
Ottoman Empire. These structures are now
outmoded, inefficient, ineffective and heavily
centralized. Two important studies of TODAIE2
indicate that since the advent of the Republic,
the structure of the central government has
evolved and matured only incrementally
(TODAIE 1963, 1991). Since the establishment
of the Republic, excessive centralisation in
public service provision has been re-explored
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
and re-institutionalised. The need to utilise
scarce public resources in a more productive
manner, to establish essential infrastructure and
industries, and for capital to make an efficacious
contribution to national economic development
are the main roots of excessive centralisation in
Turkey. While excessive centralisation remains
a problem in Turkey, the original assumptions
underlying the need for such centralisation are
no longer valid or relevant given the contem
porary social, political and economic realities
of the country. Compared to 80 years ago, the
economy has changed dramatically, the standard
of living has improved considerably, and well
entrenched social and political transformations
have occurred. Hence, the classic concept of
‘Provider and Protector State’ has changed into
the concept of ‘Enabler State’. The conven
tional and classic role of the state and the
considerably large share of it in the public
economy are now being questioned. Within this
context, there has arisen a perceived need for
devolution of public services and authority out
of the hands of politicians in the capital toward
more control over those services and authority
being vested in local governments. The first
dynamic is the product of requests made by new
democratic elements of society for more public
participation. The second, on the other hand, is
being made at the behest of circles opposed to
the nepotism flourishing in the capital that
skews the distribution of scarce public resources
to their own political cohorts.
Yasamis
100
As indicated by Michalski (OECD 2001:7
28) and by Tarschys (OECD 2001:30), public
administrators are eager to retain maximum
power and authority in their own hands and are
reluctant to delegate to lower echelons, even
within the same state institution. Consequently,
the center becomes burdened with an excessive
workload, which produces delays, confusion,
ambiguity and frustration among the decision
makers as in the case of Turkey. It is being
observed that red tape, ‘non-transparent’ work
ing conditions and the general lack of trust in
the ethical and moral integrity of public
administrators create conditions whereby
recipients and providers of public services alike
suffer from excessive centralisation. According
ly, these kinds of trends require a fundamental
restructuring of overall public machinery,
including the powers, authorities, responsi
bilities, the legal statutes, and the relations
among the public bodies in every country
regardless the level of development.
development can be seen in the way individual
public bodies are organised. They tend to be
set up in a random manner and do not reflect
any scientific theory of organisation. Manage
ment practices are far from the modern, and
contemporary understandings of management.
Rather than being even incremental, decision
making is coincidental and biased towards
political and economic interest sharing. Daily
operational planning of work based upon the
concept of resource planning is minimal at best
in public organisations. An exceptional
development in this regard is the computer
isation occurring in public bodies. The rapidly
enlarging computer-aided projects in the public
arena do not intimidate managers and
employees. Yet, the audit function is merely
based upon legitimacy-controlling concerns
and such audit concepts as ‘performance
auditing’ or ‘value-for-money’ controlling have
not yet found its way into the public sector
(TODAIE 1991).
The fourth factor that makes overall public
sector reform a necessity, as indicated by a report
published by the Turkish Association of
Industrialists and Businessmen, (TUSIAD
1995), is that ineffective, inefficient and
nonproductive management practices have
given rise to expensive and low quality service
production in the public sector. The notion that
public administration can actually have a
scientific basis is generally not well developed
in the Turkish public sector. This lack of
40,000,000
35,000,000
The fifth essential factor why reform of the
public sector is imperative is the absence of
effective financial management, planning and
analysis ability in the public sector. It is clear
from examining existing budgeting and
accounting systems that they are unable to
incorporate such essential ingredients of any
modern management accounting system and
cost/revenue centers. As indicated by the SPO
(DPT 2000: 31), the cost (total or unit) of the
public service provided usually is not a concern
30,000,000
25,000,000
US DOLLARS
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
1980
1985
1990
YEARS
INTEREST PAYMENTS
1995
FOREIGN DEBT INTEREST
2001
DOMESTIC DEBTS INTEREST
Figure 7: Analysis of Interest Payments
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
State Reform in Turkey: Reasons, Needs and Strategies
101
Figure 8: Analysis of Interest Payments
for the public administrators in Turkey.
Moreover, revenue-generating activities are
mostly disdained.
The last but not the least factor contri
buting to the need for reform concerns the
relations between Turkey and the EU. As a
candidate country for full membership, Turkey
is working hard to meet the Copenhagen criteria
for accession and the adoption of the EU’s acquis
communautaire. One of the Copenhagen criteria
for accession is the improvement of public
administration and public service delivery
capacity of the candidate country (EU 2000).
The Parliament
Similar to the conditions for administration
stated above, it is widely accepted that the
legislative assembly in Turkey is less effective
and efficient vis-à-vis the felt needs of the
Country (Yasamis 2001, Turan 2000). The
Parliament in Turkey has two main tasks: to
enact legislation and to supervise the activities
of the administration. While such legislation
seems to be very effective under the present
single-party majority government at the
moment, it has in the past undergone a series of
crises under coalition governments. Inappro
priate working procedures and the lack of faith
between the parties in power and opposition
result in lengthy and time-consuming
legislative activities. Controlling the executive,
the Parliament’s second task, has mostly been
ineffective in the past also. Governing parties
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
generally have the majority in the Parliament,
which leads to ineffectiveness in legislative
control due to strict party disciplines. Moreover,
in the past it has been the case that positions
taken by certain politicians before their entering
Parliament had had a deleterious impact on
legislative activities once they became
parliamentarians.
The Judiciary
The judiciary also is not immune from the
liabilities mentioned earlier. The principal
criticism over the judiciary basically is concen
trated on the lower level of effectiveness in
distributing the justice in the society. Full
establishment of the rule of law principle in the
Country and the contribution of the judiciary
in this regard is also causing popular discontent.
Additionally, the existence of the principle of
independence of the judges is being questioned.
Inefficiencies in the management of judicial
services, inappropriate institutional setup,
complex judicial bureaucracy and excessive red
tape, insufficiency of salaries and wide-scale
corruption are the other areas which cause
concern over the effectiveness of the judiciary
(Yasamis 2001, Okcesiz 1999, TESEV 2001).
The Needs to Be Satisfied by State Reform
The factors laid out above create several
political and administrative needs that have to
be met. These are needs that are perceived by
the public to be the main obstacles to effective,
102
efficient and productive state governance in
Turkey.
The first and the most important need is for
more rational and effective utilisation of scarce
public resources (TODAIE 1963, 1972, 1991).
There are several other factors that make the
situation more complex. These factors are called
the ‘holes’ in the central government budget.
The first big hole is the compensation provided
by the central budget for the losses of the SEEs.
Almost all of them are operating in the red, with
negative balance sheets, with their losses being
met by the central government.
The second ‘hole’ is related to the local
governments. In Turkey, local revenue base of
the local governments is virtually low and the
local governments are mainly dependent on the
income to be derived from the central govern
ment in terms of having a share from the
nationally collected taxes, grants-in-aids and
compulsory payments of the local governments’
centrally insured international debts from the
national budget (TODAIE 1992, TUSIAD
1995).
The third ‘hole’ in the national budget has
been created by the social security system of
white and blue-collar workers and the self
employed. Since the system is not self-sufficing,
or self-financing, all social security institutions
in Turkey are substantially financed by the
central government, which, of course, is another
financial burden and source of ‘leakage’ of state
revenue.
The collective and cumulative impact of
the unfavorable conditions of the public
finance and the above described ‘holes’
basically means that resources are extremely
limited vis-à-vis the social and economic needs
of the people.
The second need to be satisfied is related
to public management. The dysfunctional
principles, values and assumptions of the ‘old
guard’ must be replaced with modern ones that
emphasise efficiency, productivity, efficacy as
well as accountability and transparency.
Peoples’ right of getting information and
participation in public decision-making are
somehow not satisfactory. Because public
policy decisions are not made openly, the public
interest may not always be the sole criterion in
decision-making. This makes it difficult for
public officials to be held accountable to the
people who are to be affected by policy
decisions. Limiting this access and participation,
the public stands to remain isolated from the
very institutions of governance whose function
it is to serve it (OECD 1995).
Thirdly, public sector reform also
necessitates the inculcation of meritocracy in
bureaucracy. Accordingly, there needs, for
example, to be a comprehensive and unquest
ionable re-institutionalisation of the principles
of eligibility, competency and seniority within
the civil service career system.
The fourth need is related to the quality of
policymaking, policy implementation and even
the ‘politicians’ themselves. (Yasamis, 1997b)
Because of the cynicism and contempt the
general public has of what they view as self
serving politicians, even the merits of
democracy are questioned by the ordinary man
on the street. IMF seems to be having a closer
outlook on the issue and therefore trying to
insolate the politicians from the day-to-day
operations of public administration in their
negotiations for the new credit schemes.
The fifth need for public administration
reform concerns relations with the EU. The EU’s
main principle regarding the overall structuring
of services and functions is that of ‘subsidiarity’.
This principle, when translated into the internal
public organisation of member states, means
that public services should be provided at the
closest point to the end-users or beneficiaries
of these services. Simply, this principle means
maximum deconcentration of public responsi
bilities ordinarily concentrated in the Capital,
with maximum decentralisation of public
services from the central government to the
local governments.
Strategies of State Reform
Why reform of the public sector in Turkey is
imperative and what promises to be satisfied as
a result of a better and more effective
functioning of that sector has been laid out
above. What is more difficult is determining
the strategy to be followed for realising a
meaningful state reform in the country. The
strategy, or strategies, to be developed and
implemented will also be rather complicated
and cumbersome (OECD 1999, Jenkins 1995).
One possible way to approach public sector
reform is decentralisation, which aims at
devolving many of the public services
Yasamis
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
State Reform in Turkey: Reasons, Needs and Strategies
conventionally provided by the central
government to local governments (TUSIAD
1995). In practice, what this means is providing
local municipalities with the necessary
discretionary powers, as well as financial
authority and capability to be able to efficiently
use available resources and seek additional
ones in order to make and carry out efficacious
policies having a positive and meaningful
impact at the local level. Reforming local
governments and the ‘intergovernmental’
relations within the Turkish state apparatus is
an enormous task that will require concerted
effort on the part of both local governments and
the central government in the capital. In order
for such reform to be carried out, local govern
ments first have to be strengthened and
empowered in a number of areas. Strengthening
the effectiveness of the financial, organisational,
managerial and resource planning capabilities
of local government is yet another direction
towards which reform of the Turkish state sector
can take. Similarly, diminishing the supervisory
tutelage of the central government over local
governments (Yasamis, 1997c) can contribute
to the rise of more confident and robust local
administration.
Likewise, delegating such administrative
powers and services generally concentrated in
the capital as planning available resources,
making budget proposals, procurement, hiring
new personnel, human resources management
and auditing to the field units of the central
government can have a positive impact on
deconcentrating the public sector and making
it more administratively responsive to local
needs.
Strategy 1: Reforming State Governance
Carrying out state reform is never easy and not
always successful (OECD 1995) since the task
requires strong political will and the processes
involved are complicated. In Turkey, for
instance, such reform can only be attained if it
is all encompassing, including all branches of
the state simultaneously since all these branches
are adversely affected by the same factors. This
is especially valid for parliamentarian systems
in which the same political parties in power
control the executive and the legislative
branches of the state. In the case of Turkish
judiciary there is a widespread consensus on
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
103
the necessity of radical shake up in all related
circles as confessed by the Ministers of Justice,
the presidents of the high courts and non
governmental organisations like the Associ
ation of Bars and the TUSIAD.
Therefore, reforming state governance
requires the adoption of new concepts and
understandings in three important areas. First,
reducing the share of the public sector in the
overall economy is an option that can be
considered. This has the potential of increasing
market competitiveness. Companies in the
private sector can be encouraged to provide
services ordinarily provided by the state in its
monopolistic capacity of provider of public
services. What could change using this strategy
are the areas in which the state would continue
to provide services. These areas mainly include
what are considered ‘essential’ public services
(TUSIAD 1995, Yasamis 1997a).
Second, a redefinition of the role and status
of the central government can be promoted as a
consequence of the reduction of its share in the
economy and as monopoly provider of public
services. Since the establishment of the Turkish
Republic in 1923, the central government has
assumed the role of promoter of social change
and economic development in Turkey. Econom
ically, this mission has included the construction
of essential industries and fundamental
infrastructure. Socio-politically, it has taken the
form of promoting the creation and development
of a modern western society. Since then, the
private sector has developed, sufficient capital
has accumulated, and the technical capabilities
of the country have expanded. Therefore, the
importance of the role played by the central
government as a promoter of social and
economic development has diminished.
Turning over public sector activities to the
private sector is important strategy to be
considered over the coming years in Turkey
(TUSIAD 1995, Yasamis 2001). More power,
authority and responsibility can be devolved
and/or delegated to provincial and district
representatives of the central government.
Ultimately, much of the power, authority and
responsibility currently exercised by the central
government can be transferred to local
municipalities in the periphery in line with the
principle of subsidiarity of the EU (TODAIE
1992, OECD 1995).
Yasamis
104
Furthermore, the large-scale influx since
the early 50s into urban areas has created
unmanageable conditions there (Yasamis
2001). The urban population has increased
threefold while the ratio of municipal incomes
to GNP has only doubled during the last 50
years. As a result, municipalities in Turkey have
begun to succumb to the pressures caused by
urbanisation (Yasamis 1993). Municipalities
have suffered the most in such areas as municipal
finance, municipal organisation, manpower,
urban economics, urban engineering, urban
planning and urban management. The situation
is even more severe in big cities, metropolitan
areas and in the Megalopolis of Istanbul
(Yasamis 1997d). Therefore, there is evidence
to support the claim that municipal reform must
make it possible for municipalities and other
forms of local administration to become the
primary provider of public services throughout
the country (TODAIE 1992). However, without
the necessary conditions for full discretion of
local self-governance attempts at decentralis
ation may not be successful. In this regard, the
future of Turkey lies in the merits and potential
of strong municipalities rather than strong
‘provincial special administrations’.
equivalent to the expenditures incurred.
However, the case of the former East Germany
seems to be a good example in this regard where
the outmoded state enterprises were sold
cheaply and even some kind of financial helps
were provided to the purchasers to prevent the
future unavoidable subsidies (Engerer 2001).
Another form of privatisation in the public
sector could be a push towards commercial
isation and corporatisation of state-owned and
operated enterprises. This would entail their
transformation into companies working within
the framework of private commercial law. As a
result, instead of operation on a not-for-profit
basis, they could be free to seek profits and
distribute profit shares to shareholder or
stockholders. Such a strategy would mean to
employ more market-based management tools
by the public administration.
Strategy 3: Enhancing the Conditions of Public
Management
Strategy 2: Solving the Problem of Internal and
External Debt
It is obvious that this strategy requires radical
changes in the management of the national
economy. Therefore, this strategy also includes
economic reform activities that are beyond the
scope of this analysis to discuss. However, there
are several possible administrative strategies to
be followed in this regard as explained below.
One effective approach in this regard seems to
lie in the sphere of increasing private sector
involvement in the provision of public services.
Existing SEEs have become unproductive and
costly to run. Therefore, one way of increasing
their productivity (through curbing down
unnecessary work-force and current expenses
and adopting realistic pricing systems) thus
reducing financial burden upon the national
budget would be to privatise them by selling
them outright or by transferring the right of
operation to private companies when there is
no any other way to make these institutions self
sufficing. Privatisation attempts in Turkey have
been futile and the income derived is nearly
The experiences of Finland, Australia and New
Zealand had shown that modern concepts of
public management, when adopted, offer
several strategies and techniques that can
enhance the performance of the governance
function of the state (OECD 1999, Finland 1994,
Marsden 1998, Wood 1993). These concepts
mainly include ‘accountable management’,
‘management-by-objectives’, ‘end-manage
ment’, ‘result management’ and ‘performance
management’ (OECD 1994, 1995; Frederick
son, 1999). Ultimately, what is needed is a
revamping of the structure and practices of
public administration in the direction of
‘sustainable (or, continuous) development’
(Kettl 2000; Pollitt 2000). This requires a multi
level revision of the way in which public
services are provided. Instead of creating new
large-scale public bodies, priority ought to be
given to constructing process-oriented
organisational development techniques.
Organisational assessment, feasibility studies,
and legislative impact analyses need to be
performed prior to the launching of important
reform projects and the seeking of legislative
reform in the public sector. Furthermore, the
promulgation and implementation of public
service standards is an important part of state
reform. This could include, for example, a
‘charter for citizens’ that indicates the basic
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
State Reform in Turkey: Reasons, Needs and Strategies
rights of the people vis-à-vis public adminis
trators, and the basic responsibilities of civil
servants have respect to those seeking public
services. Another might be an ‘administrative
procedures law’ that lays down the main
principles and procedures of state governance
and public administration (OECD 1996a). The
auditing concept in the public sector could also
be enhanced. The prevailing approach of
controlling the legitimacy in public activities
should also be strengthened with performance
auditing approach thus insuring the reappraisal
of the public resources used (OECD 1995).
Strategy 4: Reintroducing Meritocracy in
Public Sector
‘Bureau-pathologies’ existing in public
administration in Turkey have reached such
levels that not only is the provision of essential
public services in jeopardy, but also the security
and interests of the Country. While Turkey is
signatory to a number of international accords
whose aims are to prevent corruption and bribery
(OECD 1996b) in economic transactions, the
necessary internal legislative preparations have
not yet been completed for full compliance. An
integral component of such legislation is the
re-introduction of the principle of merit in
hiring, appointment and promotion within the
public bureaucracy. This includes as well, such
principles as competency, eligibility, career and
seniority. Accompanying the principle of merit
must be the re-institutionalisation of ethics in
the public sector.
Strategy 5: Cooperating and Coordinating
With the EU
A final strategy might be the acceleration of
cooperation and coordination with the EU to
reform and upgrade the service delivery capacity
of the public administration. As a candidate for
full membership in the EU, Turkey is obliged to
upgrade its public administration within the
framework of the Copenhagen criteria for
enlargement. There currently exists a discord
between the EU’s understanding of what
constitutes contemporary European public
administration and what is currently present in
Turkey. The major points of disagreement need
to be identified, addressed and reconciled so as
© National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2003
105
to ensure that Turkey makes effective progress
towards reaching the standards set by the EU.
Conclusion
Reform of the public sector Turkey is needed to
insure a proper management of scarce resources
and to prevent a decline in the quality of state
governance. Effective resource management
demands public finance that is based on proven
principles. In Turkey, the financial resources
available to the state are indeed limited and the
future is not anymore promising. Therefore, the
ultimate objective for the public administrators
should be the maximisation of economical,
efficient and effective utilisation of scarce
public resources. Nevertheless, without ridding
the system of corruption and reintroducing
meritocracy, not only will the provision of
public services continue to suffer but also public
administration reform will remain futile.
Overhauling public administration must be
confronted on a number of fronts, including the
legislative and judicial branches. State reform
in Turkey requires nothing less than a full-scale
reformation of its state apparatus.
Notes
1. The data used in the Figures is obtained from the
Turkish Treasury.
2. ‘TODAIE’ stands for the Public Administration
Institute for Turkey and the Middle East.
3. ‘Susurluk’ is an important symbol of corruption
in Turkey. A court in Istanbul issued a verdict that
some public officials had set up an illegal crime
organisation to realise their own personal interests
by misusing the public power.
References
BDDK 2003 (Council on Banking Affairs) Progress
Report, Ankara (Turkish).
Caiden, GE 1969 Administrative Reform, Aldine,
Chicago.
Christensen, T, P Logreid 2001 ‘Administrative Reform
Policy: the Challenges of Turning Symbols into
Practice’, Paper presented at the Sixth National
Public Management Research Conference, School
of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
DPT 2000 (State Planning Organisation) Report of
the ad hoc Experts Commission on Restructuring
Public Fiscal Management and Fiscal
Transparency in Turkey, Ankara (Turkish).
106
Engerer, H Privitization and Its Limits in Central and
Eastern Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, England.
European Union Commission 2000 Regular Report
From the Commission on Turkey’s Progress
Towards Accession, Brussels.
Finland Ministry of Finance Public Management
Department 1994 Public Management Reform
Policies, Helsinki.
Frederickson, GH 1999 ‘Introduction’, in Frederickson
George H, JM Johnston eds 1999 Public
Management Reform and Innovation: Research,
Theory and Application, University of Alabama
Press, Alabama.
Gore, A 1996 The Best Kept Secrets in Government,
Random House, New York.
Jenkins, K, W Plowden 1995 Keeping Control: The
Management of Public Sector Reform
Programmes, The British Council, London.
Kettl, DF 2000 The Global Public Management
Reform: A Report on the Transformation of
Governance, Brookings Institute Press,
Washington DC.
Marsden J, J Marsden eds 1998 Reforming Public
Enterprises - Case Studies: Australia, OECD,
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder