This article problematizes the political economic drivers of policy (non-)design, instrument choice, and how prolonged non-design could trigger policy accumulation with serious implications for policy capacity. Focusing on the currency crisis-induced economic crisis in Turkey and relying on elite interviews and secondary resources, it argues that the design space, which is defined by the interactions between the credit-led growth model and the growth regime that prioritizes loose monetary and bank regulatory policies for higher economic growth rates, led to haphazard crisis response. Prolonged non-design in response to the crisis triggered policy accumulation and decay in systemic and organizational policy capacity.
AkçayÜ.GüngenA. R. (2022). Dependent financialisation and its crisis: The case of Turkey. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 46(2), 293–316.
4.
AlbrightE. A.CrowD. A. (2021). Capacity building toward resilience: How communities recover, learn, and change in the aftermath of extreme events. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 89–122.
5.
ApaydinF.CobanM. K. (2022a). Growth models, growth regimes and bureaucratic autonomy: The case of Turkey [Paper presentation]. Political Studies Association Annual International Conference 2022. York: United Kingdom
6.
ApaydinF.CobanM. K. (2022b). The political consequences of dependent financialization: Capital flows crisis and the authoritarian turn in Turkeyy. Review of International Political Economy. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2022.2083658
7.
AydinM.ÇelikpalaM.YeldanE.GüvençM.ZaimO. Z.HawksB. B.SokulluE. C.YıldırımK.AyhanB.ÇobanM. K.KayaS. (2022). Turkey trends – 2021 quantitative research report. Kadir Has University.
8.
BaccaroL.PontussonJ. (2016). Rethinking comparative political economy: The growth model perspective. Politics and Society, 44(2), 175–207.
9.
BaccaroL.PontussonJ. (2022). The politics of growth models. Review of Keynesian Economics, 10(2), 204–221.
10.
BaliA. S.RameshM. (2019). Assessing health reform: Studying tool appropriateness & critical capacities. Policy and Society, 38(1), 148–166.
11.
BauerM. W.JordanA.Green-PedersenC.HéritierA. (2012). Dismantling public policy: Preferences, strategies, an effects. Oxford University Press.
12.
BoinA.LodgeM. (2021). Responding to the covid-19 crisis: A principled or pragmatist approach?Journal of European Public Policy, 28(8), 1131–1152.
13.
BoinA.McConnellA.T HartP. (2008). Governing after crisis: The politics of investigation, accountability and learning. Cambridge University Press.
14.
BoinA.T HartP.McConnellA. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106.
15.
BoinA.T HartP.SternE. K.SundeliusB. (2005). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge University Press.
16.
BoratavK.OrhangaziO. (2022). Neoliberal framework and external dependency versus political priorities, 2009-2020. In OzcelikE.OzdemirY. (Eds.), Political economy of development in Turkey: 1838-present (pp. 287–314). Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
BortzP. G.KaltenbrunnerA. (2018). The international dimension of financialization in developing and emerging economies. Development and Change, 49(2), 375–393.
BugraA.SavaskanO. (2014). New capitalism in Turkey: The relationship between politics, religion, and business. Edward Elgar.
20.
CapanoG. (2018). Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: The dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands. Higher Education, 75(4), 675–694.
21.
CapanoG.HowlettM. (2020). The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: Policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. Sage Open, 10(1), 1071–1085.
22.
CapanoG.HowlettM.JarvisD. S. L.RameshM.GoyalN. (2020). Mobilizing policy (in)capacity to fight Covid-19: Understanding variations in state responses. Policy and Society, 39(3), 285–308.
23.
CapanoG.LippiA. (2017). How policy instruments are chosen: Patterns of decision makers’ choices. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 269–293.
24.
ChengR.RajanR. S. (2020). Monetary trilemma, dilemma, or something in between?International Finance, 23(2), 257–276.
25.
CobanM. K. (2020). Compliance forces, domestic policy process, and international regulatory standards: Compliance with Basel III. Business and Politics, 22(1), 161–195.
26.
CobanM. K. (2022). Coordinating monetary policy and macroprudential policy: Bureaucratic politics, regulatory intermediary, and bank lobbying. Public Administration, 100, 859–875.
27.
CurleyC.FeiockR.XuK. (2020). Policy analysis of instrument design: How policy design affects policy constituency. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 22(6), 536–557.
28.
de MesquitaB. B.SmithA.SiversonandR. M.MorrowJ. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. The MIT Press.
29.
DesaiR. M.OlofsgårdA.YousefT. M. (2009). The logic of authoritarian bargains. Economics and Politics, 21(1), 93–125.
30.
ErcanF.OguzS. (2006). Rescaling as a class relationship and process: The case of public procurement law in Turkey. Political Geography, 25(6), 641–656.
31.
ErtugalE. (2022). Does policy style shift when the political regime changes? Insights from Turkey. Contemporary Politics, 28(2), 144–166.
32.
FeiockR. C.KimS. (2021). The political market and sustainability policy. Sustainability, 13(6), 3344.
33.
FeiockR. C.TavaresA. F.LubellM. (2008). Policy instrument choices for growth management and land use regulation. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 461–480.
34.
FeiockR. C.YiH. (2018). Politics and policy instrument choice. In FaureM. (Ed.), Elgar encyclopedia of environmental law (pp. 101–113). Edward Elgar.
35.
Fernández-I-MarínX.KnillC.SteinebachY. (2021). Studying policy design quality in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 931–947.
36.
GuidiM.GuardiancichI.Levi-FaurD. (2020). Modes of regulatory governance: A political economy perspective. Governance, 33(1), 5–19.
37.
GungenA. R. (2020). Turkey’s public banks amid the Covid-19 pandemic. In McDonaldD. A.MaroisT.BarrowcloughD. (Eds.), Public banks and Covid-19: Combatting the pandemic with public finance (pp. 333–352). UNCTAD.
38.
GurakarE. (2016). Politics of favoritism in public procurement in Turkey: Reconfigurations of dependency networks in the AKP era. Palgrave Macmillan.
HaelgL.SewerinS.SchmidtT. S. (2020). The role of actors in the policy design process: Introducing design coalitions to explain policy output. Policy Sciences, 53(2), 309–347.
41.
HallP. A.SoskiceD. (Eds.). (2001) Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press.
42.
HasselA.PalierB. (Eds.). (2021). Growth and welfare in advanced capitalist economies. Oxford University Press.
43.
HowlettM. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.
44.
HowlettM. (2019). Designing public policies (2nd ed.). Routledge.
45.
HowlettM. (2020). Dealing with the dark side of policy-making: Managing behavioural risk and volatility in policy designs. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 22(6), 612–625.
46.
HowlettM.LeongC. (2022). The “inherent vices” of policy design: Uncertainty, maliciousness, and noncompliance. Risk Analysis, 42(5), 920–930.
47.
HowlettM.MukherjeeI. (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71.
48.
HowlettM.MukherjeeI. (2018). The contribution of comparative policy analysis to policy design: Articulating principles of effectiveness and clarifying design spaces. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 20(1), 72–87.
49.
HowlettM.MukherjeeI.WooJ. J. (2015). From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: The new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy and Politics, 43(2), 291–311.
50.
HowlettM.RameshM. (1993). Patterns of policy instrument choice: Policy styles, policy learning and the privatization experience. Review of Policy Research, 12(1–2), 3–24.
51.
HowlettM.RameshM.CapanoG. (2020). Policy-makers, policy-takers and policy tools: Dealing with behaviourial issues in policy design. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 22(6), 487–497.
52.
HowlettM.RameshM.PerlA. (2020). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
53.
HowlettM.TosunJ. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of policy styles. Routledge.
54.
JohnP. (2018). Theories of policy change and variation reconsidered: A prospectus for the political economy of public policy. Policy Sciences, 51(1), 1–16.
KnillC.SchulzeK.TosunJ. (2012). Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship. Regulation & Governance, 6(4), 427–444.
57.
KnillC.SteinebachY. (2022). Crises as driver of policy accumulation: Regulatory change and ratcheting in German asylum policies between 1975 and 2019. Regulation & Governance, 16(2), 603–617.
58.
KrauseR. M.HawkinsC. V.ParkA. Y. S.FeiockR. C. (2019). Drivers of policy instrument selection for environmental management by local governments. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 477–487.
59.
LinderS. H.PetersB. G. (1988). The analysis of design or the design of analysis?Review of Policy Research, 7(4), 738–750.
60.
LinderS. H.PetersB. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35–58.
61.
LinderS. H.Guy PetersB. G. (1990). An institutional approach to the theory of policy-making: The role of guidance mechanisms in policy formulation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(1), 59–83.
62.
LodgeM.WegrichK. (Eds.). (2014). The problem-solving capacity of the modern state. Oxford University Press.
63.
MayP. J. (1991). Reconsidering policy design: Policies and publics. Journal of Public Policy, 11(2), 187–206.
64.
MayP. J.JochimA. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.
65.
MayntzR. (1987). The changing conditions of effective public policy. Policy and Politics, 11(2), 123–143.
66.
McConnellA. (2018). Hidden agendas: Shining a light on the dark side of public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(12), 1739–1758.
67.
MeltsnerA. J. (1972). Political feasibility and policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 32(6), 859–867.
68.
MilhoranceC. (2022). Policy dismantling and democratic regression in Brazil under Bolsonaro: Coalition politics, ideas, and underlying discourses. Review of Policy Research, 39, 752–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12502
69.
MukherjeeI.HowlettM. (2015). Who is a stream? Epistemic communities, instrument constituencies and advocacy coalitions in public policy-making. Politics and Governance, 3(2), 65–75.
70.
MukherjeeI.CobanM. K.BaliA. S. (2021). Policy capacities and effective policy design: A review. Policy Sciences, 54(2), 243–268.
71.
NairS.HowlettM. (2016). Meaning and power in the design and development of policy experiments. Futures, 76, 67–74.
72.
ÖbergP.LundinM.ThelanderJ. (2015). Political power and policy design: Why are policy alternatives constrained?Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 93–114.
73.
OrhangaziÖ.YeldanA. E. (2021). The re-making of the Turkish crisis. Development and Change, 52(3), 460–503.
74.
PattynV.BransM. (2015). Organisational analytical capacity: Policy evaluation in Belgium. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 183–196.
75.
PepinskyT. (2009). Economic crises and the breakdown of authoritarian regimes: Indonesia and Malaysia in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press.
76.
PetersB. G. (2002). The politics of tool choice. In SalamonL. (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 552–564). Oxford University Press.
77.
PetersB. G. (2018). Policy problem and policy design. Edward Elgar.
78.
PetersB. G. (2021). Administrative traditions: Understanding the roots of contemporary administrative behavior. Oxford University Press.
79.
PetersB.G.CapanoG.HowlettM.MukherjeeI. (2018). Designing for policy effectiveness: Defining and understanding a concept. Cambridge University Press.
80.
ReyH. (2015). Dilemma not trilemma: The global financial cycle and monetary policy independence (NBER Working Paper Series No. 21162). National Bureau of Economic Research.
81.
ŞensesF. (2022). The long and bitter fall: An account of events that shook the Turkish economy during September– December 2021. New Perspectives on Turkey, 66, 180–190.
ShubhamS.ShiL.WuX. (2021). The policy capacity of bureaucracy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
84.
StockhammerE. (2022). Post-Keynesian macroeconomic foundations for comparative political economy. Politics and Society, 50(1), 156–187.
85.
StockhammerE.KohlerK. (2022). Learning from distant cousins? Post-Keynesian economics, comparative political economy and the growth models approach (Post-Keynesian Economics Society Working Paper 2210).
86.
TuğalC. (2022). Politicized megaprojects and public sector interventions: Mass consent under neoliberal statism. Critical Sociology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205221086284
87.
TummersL.BekkersV.SteijnB. (2009). Policy alienation of public professionals. Public Management Review, 11(5), 685–706.
88.
van EngenN.SteijnB.TummersL. (2019). Do consistent government policies lead to greater meaningfulness and legitimacy on the front line?Public Administration, 97(1), 97–115.
89.
WegrichK. (2021). Policy instruments and administrative capacities. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
90.
WuX.RameshM.HowlettM. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171.
91.
WuX.RameshM.HowlettM. (2018). Policy capacity: Conceptual framework and essential components. In WuX.HowlettM.RameshM. (Eds.), Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice (pp. 1–25). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
92.
YagciM. (2021). The Turkish variety of state-permeated capitalism and mutually dependent state-business relations. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 51(5), 759–781.
