Quo vadis? The local government in Turkey after public management reforms
| Author | Evrim Tan |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852317752268 |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Quo vadis? The local
Sciences
2020, Vol. 86(1) 115–133
!
government in
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Turkey after public
DOI: 10.1177/0020852317752268
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
management reforms
Evrim Tan
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
In the 2000s, Turkey has reformed its public administration system in line with New
Public Management (NPM) principles towards a more decentralized system. Although
the initial aim of the reform process is set to achieve a decentralized and more efficient
public management system, the empirical data and official statistics cast doubt on
whether this outcome will ever be achieved. Analyzing local government legislation,
the discretion of central government in local governance, and the changes in the status
of local government in public governance, the article presents the evolution of the local
government system in Turkey during the Justice and Development Party government.
Points for practitioners
The public management reform experience of Turkey resembles the NPM reform
patterns in countries with Napoleonic state tradition. Similar to these countries, the
emphasis on managerial practices over participatory elements has been prevalent in
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Yet, the findings in the
Turkish case challenge the proposition that managerial reforms alone, without improv-
ing local democratic governance, can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
public services.
Keywords
developing countries, intergovernmental relations, public sector reform, regional and
local government
Corresponding author:
Evrim Tan, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Public Governance Institute, Parkstraat 45 – bus 3609, 3000/
Leuven, Belgium.
Email: tanevrim@gmail.com
116
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(1)
Introduction
Turkey, a profoundly centralized state, has enacted various local administration
reform acts in the years 2003–05. The functions, roles, and responsibilities of local
governments have been extended with new legislation. Public services, which used
to be carried out by the central government, in health, tourism and culture, forest
and environment, agriculture and village affairs, social care and child protection,
youth and sports, industry and public works have been devolved to local govern-
ment. The administrative and financial autonomy of the local government is rec-
ognized, and local government has obtained increasing discretion in economic
activities and fiscal borrowing.
Fifteen years after the initial phase of the public management reform in Turkey,
the local government reform experience of Turkey is mostly underresearched. The
first comprehensive academic analysis of Turkey’s reform experience, New Public
Management Reform in Turkey (Demirkaya, 2016), was published in 2016 with
contributions from renowned Turkish scholars. The book touches upon various
aspects of the reform process, including the administrative and political back-
ground ( €
Ozden, 2017), its aims and underlying principles ( €
Oktem and C¸iftc¸i,
2017), and the legislative and regulative adjustments concerning local government
(Gu¨l, 2017). Yet, the question of whether the local government is empowered in
terms of public governance following the public management reform process is
largely left untouched.
This article aims to fill this gap in the literature by analyzing the changes in the
status of local government in Turkey after the public management reforms. The
article presents an overall analysis of the reform process and highlights the patterns
in local government reforms. The empirical analysis focuses on the present discre-
tion of central government on local governance and the role of local government in
public governance by evaluating the trends in public finances, employment, and
expenditure.
The public management reform process has revamped the Turkish public
administration according to New Public Management (NPM) principles (Sezen,
2011). The principal aim of the reform was to increase public service efficiency and
effectiveness through administrative and financial decentralization. Nonetheless,
the empirical findings suggest that central government still preserves its influential
position in local governance, and the findings do not suggest a significant improve-
ment in the efficiency of public services. On the contrary, the increasing current
expenditure despite the downsizing in the number of municipalities and public
employment suggests that efficiency in local governance has decreased. These
findings challenge the prospect of the NPM reforms to increase public service
efficiency. The article takes a critical view on the outcome of the reform process
in Turkey and argues that efficiency in public services does not solely rely on the
marketization of public services or the adoption of management practices, but also
needs the empowerment of the participatory processes.
Tan
117
An overview of Turkish local government
The Turkish public administration system was established on the basis of a strong
central authority that presides over local administration through a tutelage rela-
tionship. This system is usually known in public administration literature as the
‘Napoleonic’ administrative tradition (Peters, 2008). Some general features of this
administrative model are a highly centralized state structure, dependency on
deconcentrated central field agencies, and the constitutional status of local admin-
istration bodies (Hesse and Sharpe, 1991).
Turkey is a unitary state and has two tiers of administration; the central and the
local administration. In 1999, as part of the EU membership process, regional
development agencies were created based on the NUTS system. However, these
agencies do not have administrative competencies, and legislatively they are under
the jurisdiction of the central authority.
The Turkish state is divided into 81 provinces, which are headed by an
appointed governor. The governor is the highest ranked representative of the cen-
tral authority in provinces and their main function is to be a channel between the
locality and the central authority. Today, the governor has a more regulatory
position on local issues rather than being the final decision-making authority.
Provinces are subdivided into districts, which are headed by appointed district
governors (kaymakams). Local governments in provinces are governed by the
elected authorities. The principal local government is the municipality. There are
five categories under municipal administrations; metropolitan, provincial, metro-
politan district, district, and town. Other types of local government are the Special
Provincial Administrations (SPAs) and Villages.
Municipalities are the backbone of the Turkish local government, and 93.3
percent of the Turkish population lives in municipalities (Turkish Statistical
Institute, 2014). Following the municipal amalgamation in 2014, the number of
municipalities in Turkey has decreased from 2950 to 1396. Today, there are 30
metropolitan municipalities that have particular jurisdictional powers and struc-
tures different from the rest of the municipalities. Metropolitan municipalities were
established in 1984 for larger urban areas where the population exceeds 750,000
inhabitants. In contrast to other municipalities, metropolitan municipalities have
two tiers of administration in which the metropolitan administration (second tier)
is vested with responsibility for coordinating the district municipalities (first tier).
Nonetheless, all municipalities share the same responsibilities in public ser-
vice provision.
The second type of local government, SPAs, are responsible for the provision of
services in rural areas outside the jurisdiction of municipalities. SPAs are estab-
lished following the French example of the de´partement system. The main legisla-
tive body of the SPA is an elected provincial council, but the governor is the official
head of the SPA. Therefore, for many years, the status of SPAs has been contested
as a local government due to the central government’s direct involvement in the
decision-making process. Following the legislative changes in 2003–05, the status
118
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(1)
of the governor has evolved from an administrative to a regulatory status. Villages
are another form of local government established in small communities in rural
areas. An elected alderman’s council and an elected muhtar govern them. Although
villages are recognized as public organizations subject to the Law on Villages
(issued in 1924), they do not have allocated financial resources to carry out their
own services. Therefore, all public services in villages are delivered by SPAs. The
legal framework for each respective body is defined by separate laws and deter-
mined by the general principles on local administrations in the constitution.
In the Turkish constitution, two functional principles are defined to regulate the
local administration system. The first principle, ‘integral unity in administration’,
establishes a strong tutelage relationship between the central authority and local
government. The second principle, ‘decentralization’, refers to the allocation of
power to public bodies on functional and territorial bases (TODAIE, 2007: 13).
The territorial public authorities are called ‘local administrations’ and they are
established to meet the needs...
To continue reading
Request your trial