Loading...

Public Policy Analysis in Turkey

Past, Present and Future

by Onur Kulaç (Volume editor) Elvettin Akman (Volume editor) Cenay Babaoğlu (Volume editor)
Edited Collection 430 Pages

Table Of Content

  • Cover
  • Title Page
  • Copyright Page
  • Dedication Page
  • Preface
  • About the editors
  • About the book
  • Citability of the eBook
  • Contents
  • List of Contributors
  • 1 An Analysis of Turkey’s Amnesty Policy: The Case of Law No. 4616 (Rahşan Amnesty)
  • 2 Employment of Disabled Persons in the Turkish Public Sector: A Sector Analysis and Policy Recommendations1
  • 3 Housing Policy: Financialization of Housing in Turkey
  • 4 Local Governments in the Presidential Governmental System: Turkish Case
  • 5 Public Policy for Renewable Energy Resources in Turkey
  • 6 Municipal Borrowing Policy in Turkey
  • 7 National and Global Perspectives on Security and Policy: Thoughts about Law Enforcement Administration
  • 8 Health Tourism Policy: Past, Present and Future Applications
  • 9 The Analysis of Contracted Public Personnel Policy of Turkey
  • 10 Social Media Policies in Determination of Public Policies
  • 11 The Analysis of Turkish Public Administration Reform Policies by Using Hofferbert’s Funnel of Causality
  • 12 International Migration Policy of Turkey
  • 13 A Policy Response to the Gendered Childcare in Turkey: Transformative Role of Egalitarian Parental Leave
  • 14 The Development of the Gender Equality Policies in Turkey
  • 15 Analysis of Turkey’s Tourism Policy in the Context of the EU Tourism Policy
  • 16 Cultural Heritage Policy in Turkey
  • 17 On-the-Job Training Policy in Turkish Vocational Schools: A Case Study for the Evaluation of Honaz Vocational School
  • 18 The Relationship between Central Bank Independence, Financial Independence and Economic Growth in Turkey
  • 19 A Public Policy Analysis: Financial Regulation Policy of Turkey
  • 20 An Analysis of the Employment Policy in Turkey
  • 21 Analyzing the Turkish Foreign Policy on Energy
  • 22 Security Policy in Turkey
  • 23 Evaluation of Developments in Public Policies Relevant with Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey
  • 24 The Past, Present and Future Situation of the Regional Development Policies in Turkey
  • 25 Decent Work and Economic Growth as a Sustainable Development Policy
  • 26 Change in Water Resources Management Policy in Turkey from Public Service to Commercial Good1
  • About the Editors
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables

List of Contributors

Onur Kulaç

Asst. Prof. Dr., Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Pamukkale University; Visiting Scholar at University of Pardubice, onurkulac@yahoo.com / okulac@pau.edu.tr

Canberk Bulut

MA Candidate, Master of Public Administration and Urban Studies, Pamukkale University, canberkbulut@hotmail.com

Cenay Babaoğlu

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Niğde Omer Halisdemir University, Department of Public Administration, cenaybabaoglu@gmail.com / cbabaoglu@ohu.edu.tr

Mete Yıldız

Prof. Dr., Hacettepe University, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, myildiz@hacettepe.edu.tr

Can Giray Özgül

Asst. Prof. Dr., University of Ankara, Faculty of Political Sciences, ozgul@politics.ankara.edu.tr

Oğuzhan Erdoğan

Asst. Prof. Dr., Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Ombudsman Institution, Consultant, oerdogan@mehmetakif.edu.tr, Burdur, TURKEY, ORCID ID:0000-0003-3809-6688

Ayşegül Saylam

Asst. Prof. Dr., Ayşegül Saylam, Faculty Member; Hacettepe University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, aysegulk@hacettepe.edu.tr

Doğan Nadi Leblebici

Prof. Dr. Doğan Nadi Leblebici, Faculty Member; Hacettepe University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, nadi@hacettepe.edu.tr

Çiğdem Akman

Asst. Prof. Dr., Political Science and Public Administration, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta/Turkey, cigdemakman@sdu.edu.tr.

Tekin Avaner

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Gendarmerie and Coast Guard Academy, Security Sciences Institute, tekinavaner@hotmail.com

Erdem Özgür

Dr., Gendarmerie and Coast Guard Academy, Security Sciences Institute, eozgur76@hotmail.com

Zülkif Dağlı

Governor of Düzce, zulkifdagli@hotmail.com

Hava Tahtalıoğlu

Asst. Prof. Dr., Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Department of Public Administration, htahtalioglu@gmail.com

Hüseyin Özgür

Prof. Dr., Pamukkale University, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, huseyinozgur1@gmail.com

H. Tuğba Eroğlu

Prof. Dr., Selçuk University, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, hteroglu@gmail.com

←13 | 14→

Tanzer Çeliktürk

Lecturer at Pamukkale University, tcelikturk@pau.edu.tr

Pınar Savaş Yavuzçehre

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Pamukkale University, pyavuzcehre@pau.edu.tr

Ahu Sumbas

Asst. Prof. Dr., Political Science and Public Administration, Hacettepe University, Ankara/Turkey, ahusumbas@yahoo.com

Mısra Ciğeroğlu Öztepe

Asst. Prof. Dr., Pamukkale University, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, mcigeroglu@pau.edu.tr

Uğur Filiz

Knowledge Manager, ComputaCenter, Budapest, filizugur@yandex.com

Nilüfer Negiz

Prof. Dr. Süleyman Demirel University, Department of Political Sciences and Public Administration, nilufernegiz@sdu.edu.tr.

Bülent Arpat

Asst. Prof. Dr., Pamukkale University, barpat@pau.edu.tr, Denizli, Turkey.

Mete Kaan Namal

Asst. Prof. Dr., Akdeniz University, namal@akdeniz.edu.tr, Antalya, Turkey.

F. Özlem Alper

Dr., Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Economics and Administrative Sciences, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7829-8551, oalper@ohu.edu.tr

Ali Eren Alper

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Economics and Administrative Sciences, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-0008-1202, aalper@ohu.edu.tr

Yaşam Demir

Asst. Prof. Dr. at Pamukkale University, yasamd@pau.edu.tr

Menekşe Şahin

Asst. Prof. Dr., Hitit University, Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, meneksesahin@hitit.edu.tr

Levent Yiğittepe

Asst. Prof. Dr., Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Department of Political Science and International Relations, lyigittepe@kmu.edu.tr

Emine Çeliksoy

Asst. Prof. Dr., Çankırı Karatekin University, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, eceliksoy@karatekin.edu.tr

Yiğit Anıl Güzelipek

Asst. Prof. Dr., Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Department of Political Science and International Relations, yanilguzelipek@kmu.edu.tr

Beyza Bertan

Lecturer, Pamukkale University, Honaz Vocational College, Department of Occupational Health and Safety, btin@pau.edu.tr

Hidayet Gizem Ünlü

Assoc. Prof. Dr., Süleyman Demirel University, Department of Economics, hidayetgizemunlu@sdu.edu.tr, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6081-096X

←14 | 15→

Onur Kulaç and Canberk Bulut

1   An Analysis of Turkey’s Amnesty Policy: The Case of Law No. 4616 (Rahşan Amnesty)

Introduction

There are numerous problems in societies all over the world that need to be addressed and sorted out by governments. To produce solutions to arising issues, official policy actors in countries mainly focus on the public policy-making process. Public policies are mostly developed by governing and administrative bodies of government (Shires, 2004: 350) and, hence, impact the lives of citizens critically. According to MacRae and Wilde (1985: 12), policy is “a chosen course of action significantly affecting a large number of people.” Whether this effect on society will be direct or indirect (Birkland, 2005: 20) depends on the decision taken by policymakers. On the other hand, public policy is defined by Kraft and Furlong (2004: 4) as a “course of government action (or inaction) taken in response to social problems.” The majority of governments choose to act or take immediate action against societal issues to live up to citizens’ expectations.

Similar to other public policies, the amnesty policy of a government is exceptionally significant for maintaining the order in the country. Over the course of ages, governments have created numerous amnesty policies. Turkey is one of the countries which have implemented multiple amnesty policies under the rule of various political parties. The amnesty policy of Turkey should be regarded as a “Meso-Level” public policy which falls between micro- and macro-level policies. Furthermore, according to certain circumstances and implementations, Turkey’s amnesty policy might be considered “Inter-Level” public policy and categorised as “Micro-Meso Level” public policy. Law No. 4616 (The Law on Conditional Release and Postponement of Court Cases and Punishments for Crimes Committed until 23 April 1999) enacted in 2000 was highly controversial because of its content, coverage, results and reflections on society. Rahşan ECEVİT, the widow of the former President Bülent ECEVİT, played a crucial role in the policy-making process which resulted in the Law No. 4616 being dubbed “Rahşan Amnesty” by the public. The foremost aim of this study is to analyse Law No. 4616 /Rahşan Amnesty by applying the “Stages Model” which is one of the most efficient, well-known, comprehensive and practical models for public policy analysis (Kulaç & Özgür, 2017).

1 The methodology of the Study

Public policy studies adhere to a methodology and have a scientific characteristic due to their contribution to current literature (Birkland, 2005: 11). Therefore, every study on public policy should follow a functional methodology to maintain a ←17 | 18→productive research process. Public policy analysis is an applied social science discipline that employs various methods to generate and transform information about policies that can be used in political settings to sort out issues concerning policies (Dunn, 1981: 35). According to DiGiammirano and Trudeau (2008), public policy analysis systematically addresses the broad links between the actors involved in the process and facilitates an easier comprehension of the complex process. In order to ease the analysis process, the “Stages Model” was preferred in this study as a public policy analysis model. The Stages Model has been applied by researchers in numerous studies on policies in Turkey (see Kayıkçı, 2005; Semiz, 2009; Çalı, 2012; Kulaç & Çalhan, 2013; Acar & Okçu, 2015; Memişoğlu, 2016; Tahtalıoğlu & Özgür, 2016; Işıkçı, 2017; Çeliktürk, 2018; Acar & Akman, 2019) as an analysis methodology to determine the successes, failures and actors of policies.

2 Analysis and Findings

This section of the study contains the analysis of “Rahşan Amnesty”. Concordantly, the analysis will be conducted by dividing the policy into stages which are Agenda Setting, Formulation, Legitimation, Implementation and Evaluation.

2.1 Agenda Setting of Rahşan Amnesty

Agenda setting is the first and also one of the most critical stages of the public policy cycle (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995: 104). According to Hill (1997: 87), agenda setting is defined as an “ideological process, translating an issue into a policy proposal.” Each societal problem competes with one other to be brought to the public agenda. However, the problems which are developed by visible official actors end up occupying a larger space on the agenda (Shafer, 2004: 15). On the other hand, each social issue has a level of significance and innovation (Gosling, 2004: 44–45) that can vary from country to country. Throughout history, in Turkey, various social issues and needs have been considered along with the impact of official, unofficial and international actors. This way, policy proposals have had opportunities to be put into effect.

The most influential actor for Rahşan Amnesty was Rahşan ECEVİT, the wife of the late former Prime Minister Bülent ECEVİT and also the vice president of Democratic Left Party. At the time, Rahşan ECEVİT was profoundly affected by the news about Aylanur a two-year-old girl. Her mother was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the murder of two of her neighbours. Aylanur was looked after in the kindergarten in the daytime but had to stay in prison with her mother at night. The dramatic condition of the little girl was frequently reported and displayed by the written and visual media. Rahşan ECEVİT, impacted by the large volume of news, offered an amnesty which became a hope for criminal offenders and the little girl Aylanur became the symbol of Rahşan Amnesty (Çavuşoğlu & Yıldırım, 1998).

Another event that had a bearing on the agenda setting process of Rahşan Amnesty was the convicts of Bayrampaşa prison going on indefinite hunger strike. ←18 | 19→Forty-five prisoners in Bayrampaşa prison first went on a hunger strike and then a death fast to oppose “F-type” prisons whose key feature was smaller living units. Although the Medical Association sent in doctors for the treatment of the fasting prisoners on the 15th of December 2000, the prisoners refused treatment and their health conditions deteriorated further. Thereupon, the warden of the prison requested the security forces to intervene on December 18, 2000. As the incidents snowballed, on December 19, 2000, the security forces started to carry out simultaneous operations called “Back to Life” in 20 prisons, including Bayrampaşa Prison where the protests first started. During these operations, violent clashes took place between the security forces and prisoners, resulting in the deaths of 12 and injuries to more than 50 prisoners (Adalet Bakanlığı, 2015). Following the unfolding of events in prisons across the country, the Minister of Justice Hikmet Sami TÜRK’s, one of the then-official actors, insistence on the amnesty law by stating “If there was an amnesty, there would be no prison events.” spread the riots in Turkish prisons (Demirbaş, 2001: 78).

As discussed above, official and unofficial actors played vital roles in the agenda setting process of Rahşan Amnesty. In particular, the attempts of Rahşan ECEVİT and the frustrating events in various prisons brought the possibility of amnesty to the public agenda. Furthermore, the declarations of the Minister of Justice also influenced the agenda setting stage of the policy. As an unofficial public policy actor, the media identifies problems in society and attracts the attention of policymakers (Dye, 2008: 42). In this particular case, the media played a massive role in the agenda setting stage of Rahşan Amnesty by assigning significance and priority to the issues related to the prisoners and the amnesty policy. Moreover, the close attention of the public and the prisoner’s families contributed substantially to the visibility and presence of Rahşan Amnesty on the public agenda.

2.2 Policy Formulation Process

The formulation stage of policy is essential in public policy-making. In this stage, the fundamental question that is sought is about the problem at hand and the things that need to be done (Strickland, 2004: 328). According to Kraft and Furlong (2004: 84), policy formulation is “the development of proposed action to help resolve a public problem”. Hence, in the formulation process, the primary aim is to find the best solutions and alternatives to sort out the problems that occur in society. Policymakers and other relevant actors reduce policy alternatives to a minimum to make their final decisions on policy issues (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995: 123). The formulation stage can also be regarded as a kitchen where policies are made right before they are enacted. Coordination and coherence among policy actors influence the success of the policy formulation process. There are a couple of pioneering case studies that mainly focus on the formulation stage of policies (see Jones, 1982; Price, 1982; Ross, 1982). It is functional to scrutinise and review all the details about policy formulation to conduct comprehensive policy analysis.

←19 |
 20→

The formulation process for Rahşan Amnesty started with the meeting of coalition party leaders on July 25, 1998. Prior to this meeting, the amnesty proposal of Rahşan ECEVİT was accepted unanimously in the assembly/group council of Democratic Left Party (TBMM TD, 2000a: 455–460). Accordingly, the Justice Commission, which was established within the parliament, carried out the necessary work and prepared a draft law. However, since there was no detailed justification of the draft law, it has drawn a reaction from the opposition wing in this respect. The draft law drew a reaction from the opposition wing as a detailed and sufficient justification was lacking. The deputies of True Path Party criticised the formulation stage of the amnesty policy by asking a number of questions such as “What are the criteria of the amnesty?”, “Where is the reason for this amnesty?” (TBMM TD, 2000b: 163).

In the draft law, there were some articles which demonstrate the primary coverage of Rahşan Amnesty. These articles can be summarised as follows (TBMM TD, 2000a: 478–479):

This Law is for conditional release and postponement of court cases and punishments for crimes committed until 23 April 1999.

The death penalty imposed is not fulfilled.

The law consists of the regulations about the prisoners. Those who are sentenced to life imprisonment and freedom-binding punishment shall be entitled to a 10-year reduction in the total period of conviction.

The detainees of the accused persons whose detention does not exceed ten years shall be terminated. However, the accused whose punishment exceeds ten years can benefit from the other articles of the amnesty after the verdict is given.

If the case for crimes not exceeding ten years has not been opened or the verdict has not been finalised, the cases are postponed.

Sancar (2001: 48) states that the most significant debates from the agenda setting to implementation of the amnesty law are predominantly based on crimes that will be excluded from the coverage of the amnesty. Due to the articles that were included in the draft law and later enacted by the Parliament, many offences were excluded from the scope of amnesty. These offences can be listed briefly as follows (TBMM TD, 2000a: 479–480):

Offences in 40 different articles of the Turkish Penal Code and the offences in 21 different articles of the Military Penal Code.

Offences in the relevant articles of the Law on the Prohibition and Follow-up of Smuggling.

Offences in the Law on Crimes against Atatürk.

Offences in the Law on Firearms and Knives and Other Appliances.

Offences in the relevant articles of the Forest Law.

Offences in the Law on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets

Those who commit crimes stated in the Declaration of Goods, Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Law and the Banking Law cannot be included in the scope of amnesty.

←20 |
 21→

In addition to the offences given above, there are also several situations that limit the coverage of Rahşan Amnesty. For example, those who were previously freed under an amnesty law but were subsequently re-offended cannot benefit from the provisions of this amnesty. Moreover, those who were arrested, detained or convicted will not benefit from the provisions of this article unless they surrender to the authorities within one month of this law’s entry into force. In addition to this, those who received disciplinary action after the publication of the Law for their disruptive behaviour in prison discipline cannot benefit from the provisions of this amnesty (TBMM TD, 2000: 480a).

Considering the formulation of the amnesty policy and the examination of the draft and the limitations imposed on the Amnesty Law, it becomes manifest that Rahşan Amnesty was mostly shaped according to the incremental model of decision-making. With this model, a small number of alternatives are compared and additional steps are taken using past experiences (Lindblom, 1959: 79) in order to provide fast and short term solutions to social problems or needs. By doing so, existing policies are maintained by making small changes in comparison to previous governments (Anderson, 1979: 11). Hence, it is easier to reach consensus using the incremental model since there are no significant changes, disagreements and discussions on the issue (Stewart, 2009: 41). Rahşan Amnesty has plenty of similarities to the amnesty laws that were passed before it. In the policy-making process of Rahşan Amnesty, official policy actors avoided taking risks and took minor additional steps by referring to past experiences. The conscious act of not breaching the general structure of the amnesty laws previously adopted can be considered as an attempt to facilitate consensus among political parties.

2.3 Legitimation of Rahşan Amnesty

Legitimation is the most critical process and the stage for public policy proposals. In the legitimation stage, legal status is given to the policy proposals by the official actors within Parliament. Even though the process of policy formulation has technical and political features, the policy legitimation process remains mostly political (Kraft & Furlong, 2004: 87). Political support, which is one of the most fundamental policy sources (Knoepfel et al., 2007: 65), profoundly influences the outcome of the legitimation process. Therefore, every public policy requires a legal basis provided by the majority of parliamentarians (Knoepfel et al., 2007: 81).

The draft law on amnesty, which was followed up by the public during the agenda and formulation process, came to the Parliamentary General Assembly on 8 December 2000. Some deputies from the opposing political parties criticised the policy draft for its title, scope, its contradiction to the Constitution and possible negative consequences. On the contrary, representatives of the political parties in favour of amnesty emphasised the necessity of amnesty (TBMM TD, 2000a: 442–452). Following the readings of the draft law and the discussions, the voting was started, and the five political parties represented in Parliament made their decisions. While the Democratic Left Party, the Nationalist Movement Party and ←21 | 22→the Motherland Party supported the amnesty draft, the True Path Party and the Virtue Party voted against it. Following the open voting of 388 deputies, the Draft Law No. 567 was adopted with the Law No. 4610 with 302 votes, 74 rejections, 7 abstentions and 5 repeated votes (TBMM TD, 2000a: 541). The policy draft was sent to President Ahmet Necdet SEZER as a requirement of the constitutional order following the acceptance of the policy draft in parliament. However, President SEZER, an official actor, vetoed the policy draft which was sent to the Çankaya Presidential Palace for approval by using the authority defined in Article 104 of the Constitution. In this context, President SEZER sent back the revised Presidential decision dated 15 December 2000 to the Parliament for the policy draft to be renegotiated (TBMM TD, 2000c: 4–8). The presidential memorandum, which was read at Parliament on 16 December 2000, stated that “The acceptance of such a law would destroy the belief that the state is the foundation of justice, disrupt the social order and reduce the citizens’ trust in justice”. The rationale for the veto presented by the President declared that the distinction between prisoners under the same conditions and the equal duration of execution will lead to disturbances in the conscience of the affected persons and the public. The amnesty proposal was also criticised for its violation of the constitution. In this regard, the essence of said rationale was explained as “The accepted policy proposal is not compatible with the Constitution’s principles of equality, law, justice and the preservation of peace within society”. Furthermore, it was mentioned in the rationale that “The use of amnesty authority with ideas devoid of legal value, such as the reduction of the number of prisons, will reduce trust in justice and the law in society” (TBMM TD, 2000c: 4–8).

Following the veto by the President, the amnesty draft was kept on the agenda by the media. Thereafter, on 20 December 2000, the policy draft returned to be a part of Parliament’s agenda, since no changes were made in the draft’s contents and the disagreements between the political parties continued. İYİMAYA, who spoke on behalf of the True Path Party, stated that “Regulations are made on an arbitrary basis, not on the criteria of law in terms of offences that are excluded and included in amnesty” (TBMM TD, 2000a: 443). YILMAZ YILDIZ, one of the deputies who opposed the draft amnesty policy, declared that this policy draft is unfair (TBMM TD, 2000a: 488). ARINÇ, who spoke on behalf of the Virtue Party, stated that “In the examined articles, many crimes that the public conscience would not accept were included in the scope and some of them were taken out. We see that many of the acts that were excluded from previous amnesties were benefited by today’s conditional release and that the opposite holds true. If the previous amnesties were made correctly, why such differences existed in this draft; they need to be explained” (TBMM TD, 2000a: 486).

During the negotiations, numerous official actors from the Democratic Left Party, Motherland Party and the Nationalist Movement Party supported the policy draft as before. As a result of the negotiations, voting started on 20 December 2000, and the draft was accepted with the result of 283 votes, 85 rejections and 2 abstentions, given by 370 deputies who participated in the voting (TBMM TD, ←22 | 23→2000b: 224). Since Article 89 of the Constitution does not allow the President to veto a law voted for the second time, SEZER has had to ratify the law and has also declared that he will not apply to the Constitutional Court for annulment (Sancar, 2001: 150). Rahşan Amnesty, which was first adopted as 4610, was enacted after being discussed and passed again, numbered 4616 and published in the Official Gazette on 22 December 2000 (Resmi Gazete, 2000).

2.4 Implementation Phase of Rahşan Amnesty

Implementation is a long and tough process for policies. During this process, numerous elements, actors and even policy sources have a massive impact on the success of the implementation phase. MacRae and Wilde (1985: 224) state that the implementation stages of policies consist of several or countless decisions or actions. In this regard, the qualifications of policy actors, especially street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980), require a wide breadth of experience and knowledge to ensure a smooth implementation process (Peters, 1996: 197). During the implementation phase, the designed policy programs are activated to produce results and impacts that resolve a particular problem of the public (Gasco, 2004: 329). According to Anderson (1982: ix), there are several noteworthy questions that need to be addressed in the implementation stage. These questions can be listed as:

Biographical notes

Onur Kulaç (Volume editor) Elvettin Akman (Volume editor) Cenay Babaoğlu (Volume editor)

Onur Kulaç is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at Pamukkale University. He received his MPA degree from the University of York (UK) and PhD in Political Science and Public Administration from the Pamukkale University. He has published on the Education Policy, Ethical Decision-Making in Public Policy, Climate Change Policy of Turkey and Sustainable Development Policy of Turkey in the Web of Science Indexed Journals. Dr. Kulaç is currently working at the University of Pardubice (Czech Republic) as a visiting scholar. Elvettin Akman works at the Süleyman Demirel University as Assistant Professor. He received his undergraduate and doctorate degrees from Süleyman Demirel University and his master's degree from Sakarya University. He has been working as an academic staff at Süleyman Demirel University since 2010. With over a dozen journal and conference publications, his research interests focus on Turkish public administration, public policy, public administration education and local governments. Cenay Babaoğlu works at the Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University as Associate Professor. He completed undergraduate studies and received his PhD at Hacettepe University, where he worked until 2016 as faculty member. He worked at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey until 2018. With over a dozen journal and conference publications, his research interests focus on Turkish administrative history, public policy, ICT use in public administration and public administration education.

Previous

Title: Public Policy Analysis in Turkey