Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Building a clean government in Turkey: pillars, perils, and prospects

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Corruption is a serious and enduring problem in Turkey. As such, a series of sustained and synchronized actions are needed to promote integrity, and to prevent and punish corrupt practices in public life. In most recent years, subsequent cabinets have promulgated a set of laws, regulations, and measures in the name of fighting against corruption. Yet, building a clean government remains as a daunting, if not insurmountable, task for policy makers and the public at large in Turkey. The current paper begins with a brief introduction, summarizing the need for new, more effective anti-corruption policies and practices in the country. Then, it succinctly describes and assesses the main ‘pillars’ of the ‘national integrity system.’ The paper moves on to identify and evaluate the chief ‘perils,’ challenges and risks associated with efforts aiming to contribute to integrity, transparency and accountability in Turkish society. Finally, the paper discusses the ‘prospects’ for building a clean government in Turkey in the near future. Among the issues brought to the present debate are: the need for a credible commitment by the ruling elites for establishing a well-functioning integrity regime; effective coordination and collaboration among a wide range of institutional actors; developing a set of coherent principles and policies; and creating capacity to prevent, prosecute, and punish corrupt behaviors. It is also argued that building a clean government in Turkey requires a strong and sustainable coalition among the clean, the competent, and the competitive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, for instance, Transparency International Corruption Perception Indexes, International Institute for Management Development Competitiveness Yearbooks, and European Commission’s Regular Progress Reports for Turkey.

  2. See, for example, 8th and 9th Five Year Development Plans, Council of Ministers Decree on Increasing Transparency in Turkey and Enhancing Good Governance in Public Sector – Action Plan (2002/3 – Jan 12, 2002), and TGNA [47].

  3. See, for instance, Adaman et al. [3]; Arslan, and Hellman [6]; Kaufmann et al. [25].

  4. International Institute for Management Development located in Switzerland conducts annual “bribing and corruption” surveys to gather input for its competitiveness index since 1989. A joint study prepared by World Bank Institute and Research Department of World Bank every other year since 1994 has a perception index on control of corruption as part of its governance indicators measuring quality of governance. The findings from these studies related to corruption perception in Turkey are, by and large, similar to CPIs prepared by TI.

  5. See, ibid., for appropriately crediting the original source.

  6. For a detailed discussion of structural reforms, see, Emek [13]. Also see, Yaşamış [48].

  7. We must state clearly at the outset that space constraints preclude an exhaustive discussion in this article of the literature on both corruption and anti-corruption in general, and in Turkey in specific. For the interested reader, a growing number of on-line and in-print sources are available to consult with. In addition to the those cited in the current paper, also see, for instance, Aidt [4], Arvind [5], Bağdigen and Beşkaya [7], Global Integrity [21], and TI [43, 44]; and the books reviewed and recommended by Quah [32], and Baimyrzaeva [8]. Furthermore, we are aware of the fact that building a clear government entails more than efforts aiming to investigate and punish corruption (For more on this, see, Kaufmann [24], especially his treatment of myth no. 6, ‘fight corruption by fighting corruption’ on p. 88). Nevertheless, it is neither feasible nor desirable to claim covering each and every dimension of the issue in a single article, not to mention the challenges stemming from the diversity of meanings behind such general terms as ‘clean government’ and ‘corruption.’ Only after having said this that we can turn to key elements of public integrity system in Turkey, focusing especially on the most recent developments in legal-institutional framework available in the country for fighting against corruption.

  8. See, for example, Sampford et al. [36], where the network metaphor is used to visualize and analyze the system as more complex and interconnected. More to the point, Sampford [35] provides useful information on “the different terms used for essentially the same idea,” including ‘ethics regime,’ ‘ethics infrastructure,’ ‘integrity system,’ ‘national integrity system,’ and ‘integrity regime.’

  9. For a list of Turkish anti-corruption legislation, see Tarhan [41]. For a detailed evaluation of anti-corruption legislation in Turkey, see, Ömurgönülşen and Öktem [31], SIGMA [38, 39].

  10. Prime Ministry Press Center’s News: “Prime Minister: if all immunities will be lifted, we are ready” Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.bbm.gov.tr/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1405.

  11. 9th Five Year Development Plan informs that the size of the informal economy in Turkey is quite high compared to those of developed economies and its increasing size results in harming the social values (pp. 30–31).

  12. A recent report on ‘Enhancing Transparency & Good Governance in Turkey’s Public Sector’ prepared for PMIB with the support from WB identifies major problems of inspection system as follows: lack of independence of inspectors; differences in responsibilities; lack of priority setting; formalistic approach to control; incapability to follow recent developments in the fraud and corruption detecting (See for details, SIGMA [38]: 27–28).

  13. Freund, 1972, cited in Heald ([22]: 725). In addition to the source just mentioned, see, Florini [18] for a comprehensive discussion of the issues surrounding the role of transparency in building a well-functioning market economy.

  14. The judgment of the Court is still pending at the time of writing of this paper.

  15. For more on the topic, see for example Ömurgönülşen and Öktem [31], SIGMA [38].

  16. Another consequence of such publicity that usually goes unnoticed is that it creates a climate in which the focus is frequently on the persons involved in those cases, rather than policies or procedures that might have contributed to vulnerability of the situation for corruption. This, in turn, creates a sense of ‘the culprits are in the hands of enforcement agencies,’ and thus ‘the problem is solved and the justice is served’ type of feeling that eventually hinders a thorough investigation and analysis of the cases involved.

  17. At this point we would like to share with the readers a story attributed to Nasreddin Hodja, a populist philosopher and satirical Sufi visionary who lived during the thirteenth century in Turkey. A neighbor found Nasreddin Hodja down on his knees looking for something on the ground outside his house.“What are you looking for?” asked the neighbor.“I'm looking for my key,” said Nasreddin.The neighbor got down on his knees and began searching with him. After a while, he asked Hodja”Where exactly did you drop it?”“In my house,” said Hodja.“Then, why are you looking for it here?” the man asked.“There is more light here,” replied Hodja.The moral of the story is such that the key to issues associated with building a clean government in Turkey lies within it, “at home.” Frequently, we look for solutions where “there is more light,” in the outside, instead of looking inside. Yet, if we are to find solutions to the problems confronting us, we must also look to the area from which they have sprung – our perspectives, perceptions, policies, and practices (cf. [34]: 30).

  18. The criticisms range from ‘they don’t know the peculiarities of the context’ to ‘they are trying to undermine the power and legitimacy of the Turkish central government’. It is in such a climate that ‘hidden intentions and agendas’ of the reformers, as well as of international and domestic actors supporting them are also be subjected to a permanent questioning. For discussions regarding the role of internal versus external dynamics of anti-corruption activities in Turkey, see, Michael [28], SIGMA [38].

  19. According to Emek ([13]: 111), governments in Turkey have endlessly changed the laws and rules, or re-interpreted them in ways that were most favorable to, and in agreement with, their own policies and pursuits. Examples of this ‘tradition of uncertainty’ include the following: The National Protection Law was amended 12 times during its lifetime of 17 years. Over the same period, 1,135 coordination decisions were made concerning the implementation of this law. The law was used on average 84 times a year before 1980 but subsequently the figure rose to 2,233 per annum. A total of 16 tax legislations were amended 69 times between the years 1984 and 1989. The result has been the increased uncertainty for the actors involved, which has inevitably come to mean an increased vulnerability for corruption surrounding the government decisions and decrees.

  20. It can be argued that any one of those three groups might have the ambition to be clean, competent, and competitive at the same time, and they have the reason to do so. However, our argument is based on the notion that it is relatively easier to associate each group with an overarching quality, as described here. As long as collusion between three groups is costless, they seek ways to improperly collude for private gains via public resources. However, if collusion between these agents are difficult and the cost of corruption outweighs its benefits, due to improved transparency, and increasing voices of citizens, efficient detection and effective punishment etc. they will cooperate and form a coalition for a clean government, not for corruption.

References

  1. ABGS (2006). Screening chapter 23 judiciary and fundamental rights – Agenda item II: Anti corruption policy. Retrieved on June 8, 2007 from http://www.abgs.gov.tr/tarama/tarama_files/23/SC23DET_Anticorruption.pdf.

  2. ACN (2005). Meeting report. In: The Anti-corruption Network for Transition Economics 6th. General Meeting, 30–31 May 2005, OECD Centre for Private Sector Development, Istanbul, Turkey.

  3. Adaman, F., Çarkoğlu, A., & Şenatalar, B. (2001). Hanehalkı gözünden Türkiye’de yolsuzluk, [Corruption in Turkey: Results of diagnostic household survey]. Istanbul: TESEV.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aidt, T. S. (2003). Economic analysis of corruption: A survey. Economic Journal, 113, 632–652 November.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arvind, K. J. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(1), 72–121.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arslan, I., & Hellman, J. S. (2001). Corruption in Turkey: Evidence from a firm level survey. Paper presented at the Anti-Corruption Conference in Turkey, organized by The Undersecretary of Treasury of Turkey and World Bank.

  7. Bağdigen, M., & Beşkaya, A. (2005). The impact of corruption on government revenues: The Turkish case. Yapı Kredi Economic Review, 16 (2), 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baimyrzaeva, M. (2007). Corruption and legitimacy problems in postcommunist states. Public Administration Review, 67, 594–596 (May–June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beyerle, S., & Zunes, S. (2006). Mobilizing civic action to end corruption. Paper prepared for the 12th. IACC, Guatemala, November 15–18, 2000. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from http://www.12iacc.org/archivos/WS_8.1_SHAASKA_BEYERLE.PDF.

  10. Çağlar, A. (1999). Evrensel bir virus: Yolsuzluk [A universal virus: Corruption]. Strateji, 10, 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cingi, S., Tosun, M. U., & Güran, M. C. (2002). Yolsuzluk ve etkin devlet [Corruption and efficient state]. Ankara: ATO.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Council of Ministers (2002). Decree on increasing transparency in Turkey and enhancing good governance in public sector – Action plan. No. 2002/3 – Jan 12, 2002.

  13. Emek, U. (2004). Understanding structural reforms in Turkey. In R. T. Griffiths, & D. Özdemir (Eds.) Turkey and EU enlargement: Processes of incorporation (pp. 103–128). Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. EurActiv.com (2003). Dealing with corruption in central and eastern Europe. Retrieved June 7, 2007 from http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement7dealing-corruption-central-eastern-europe/article-111470?_print.

  15. European Commission – EC (2004). 2004 Regular progress report for Turkey. Brussels: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  16. European Commission – EC (2005). 2005 Regular progress report for Turkey. Brussels: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  17. European Commission – EC (2006). 2006 Regular progress report for Turkey. Brussels: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Florini, A. M. (1999). Does the invisible hand need a transparent glove? The politics of transparency. Paper presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, Washington, DC, April 28–30.

  19. Goksel, D. N. (2001). A civil society initiative in the fight against corruption in Turkey. (Electronic Version) South-East Europe Review, 2, 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Global Integrity – GI (2006). 2006 global integrity report: Key findings. Retrieved June 11, 2007 from http://www.globalintegrity.org/data/2006findings.cfm.

  21. Global Integrity – GI (2004). An investigating report tracking corruption, openennes, and accountability in 25 countries: Turkey. Retrieved May 31, 2007, from http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2004/docs/2004/2004Turkey.pdf.

  22. Heald, D. (2003). Fiscal transparency: Concepts, measurement and UK practice. Public Administration, 81(4), 723–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heller, N. (2006). European anti-corruption agencies in a global context: Similarities, differences, and policy insights. Paper presented at the ISCTE Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 17–19 May.

  24. Kaufmann, D. (2005). Myths and realities of governance and corruption. Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/pdf/2-1_GCR_Kaufmann.pdf.

  25. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2006). Governance matters V: Aggregate and individual governance indicators for 1996–2005. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 4012. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/21_Governance_and_Corruption_Kaufmann.pdf.

  26. Kurtulus, E. (2004). Turkey, transparency international country report. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from www.transparency.org/content/download/5465/31888/file/political_corruption_party_financing_turkey.pdf – 31 May, 2007.

  27. Landell-Mills, P. (2006). Goals, themes and outcomes. Paper presented at 12th Anti-Corruption Conference, Towards a fairer world: Why is corruption still blocking the way?, 15–18 November, 2006, Guatemala City and Antigua, Guatemala. Retrieved June, 14, 2007 from http://www.12iacc.org/archivos/12IACC-GoalsThemesAndOutcomes.pdf.

  28. Michael, B. (2004). Anti-corruption in the Turkey’s EU accession. The Turkish Political Quarterly, 3 (4). Retrieved from http://www.turkishpolicy.com.

  29. Mulgan, R. (2001). Auditors-general: Cuckoos in the managerialist nest? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60 (2), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. OECD and ADB (2005). Conference conclusions and recommendations. Paper presented at 5th Regional Anti-corruption Conference of the ABD/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific, 28–30 September, Beijing, People’s Republic of China. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/knowledge-commitment-action/chap1.pdf.

  31. Ömurgönülşen, U., & Öktem, K. (2005). The feasibility of an ethical administration in Turkey: Legal–institutional and cultural pillars of public service ethics. Paper presented at Ethics and Integrity of Governance: The First Transatlantic Dialogue, 2–5 June 2005, Leuven, Belgium.

  32. Quah, J. S. T. (2006). Curbing corruption: The elusive search for a cure. Public Administration Review, 66, 939–943 (November–December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2007). From elections to democracy in Central Europe: Public participation and the role of civil society. East European Politics and Societies, 21(1), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Russell, P., & Evans, R. (1992). The creative manager – Finding inner vision and wisdom in un certain times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sampford, C. (2006). From greek temple to bird’s nest: Mapping, assessing, and understanding national integrity systems. Paper presented at 12th Anti-Corruption Conference, Towards a fairer world: Why is corruption still blocking the way?, 15–18 November, Guatemala City and Antigua, Guatemala. Retrieved on June, 14, 2007 from http://www.12iacc.org/archivos/PD_OVERCOMING_SYSTEMIC_CORRUPTION_CHARLES_SAMPFORD.PDF.

  36. Sampford, C., Smith, R., & Brown, A. J. (2005). From greek temple to bird’s nest: Towards a theory of coherence and mutual accountability for national integrity systems. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(2), 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shuxian, H. (2005). Punishing and preventing corruption to guarantee a comprehensive socio-economic development. Paper presented at 5th Regional Anti-corruption conference of the ABD/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific, 28–30 September, Beijing, People’s Republic of China).

  38. SIGMA (2005). Turkey: Elements of the public integrity system assessment. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://www.sigmaweb.org/dataoecd/2/21/35848369.pdf (June).

  39. SIGMA (2006). Turkey: Elements of the public integrity system assessment. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://www.sigmaweb.org/dataoecd/5/50/38151355.pdf (August).

  40. State Planning Organization – SPO (2006). Ninth development plan (2007–2003). Ankara: SPO.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tarhan, B. (2006). Yolsuzlukla mücadele mevzuatı, [Anti-corruption law]. Ankara: TEPAV.

    Google Scholar 

  42. TEPAV (2006). Yolsuzlukla mücadele [Fighting corruption]. In: Proceedings of Anti-Corruption Conference, July. Ankara: TEPAV.

  43. Transparency International – TI (2006a). Global corruption barometer. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2006.

  44. Transparency International – TI (2006b). Transparency International country study report – China 2006.

  45. Transparency International – TI (2007a). National integrity system. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/nis/about_nis.

  46. Transparency International – TI (2007b). Global Corruption Report. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.transparency.org/publications/gcr/download_gcr#toc.

  47. Turkish Grand National Assembly – TGNA (2003). Corruption investigation report by Special Parliamentary Investigation Commission, Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/yolsuzluk_arastirma/index.htm.

  48. Yaşamış, F. D. (2003). State reform in Turkey: Reasons, needs and strategies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62 (4), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yeldan, E. (2005). Assessing the privatization experience in Turkey: Implementation, politics and performance results. Report Prepared for the Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~yeldane/EPI_Report2005_Yeldan.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Hacettepe University, 06800, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey

    Muhittin Acar

  2. State Planning Organization, Necatibey Cad. no. 108, Yucetepe, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    Uğur Emek

Authors
  1. Muhittin Acar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uğur Emek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhittin Acar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Acar, M., Emek, U. Building a clean government in Turkey: pillars, perils, and prospects. Crime Law Soc Change 49, 185–203 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9094-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9094-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation