Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-8
Prime Minister,Minister,or Something Else? Determinants of Patronage Appointments and Politicization of the Bureaucracy at the Senior Level in Turkey (2002–2018)
Patronage appointments have been a frequently used a common indicator used to gauge the level of politicization of bureaucracy in different countries. Studies tend to explain politicization based on governmental, prime ministerial, or ministerial alternation. By relying upon a unique dataset consisting of 12.832 decisions of appointment to higher echelons in the Turkish bureaucracy during the Justice and Development Party’s uninterrupted one-party governments between 2002 and 2018, this study, however, suggests that the patronage appointments, and thereby politicization of the bureaucracy, might very well have been triggered by the within “power bloc” crisis linked to Turkey’s socio-political conditions.
AllisonG. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689–718.
4.
AllisonG. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little, Brown and Company.
5.
ApplebyP. H. (1947). Toward better public administration. Public Administration Review, 7(2), 93–99.
6.
AskimJ.BachT.ChristensenJ. G. (2024). Political change and administrative turnover in meritocratic systems. West European Politics, 47(2), 329–355.
7.
AydınR.DemirelliL. (2015, October15–17). Siyasal iktidar ve bürokrasi arasindaki ilişkinin görgül olarak kanitlanabilirliği üzerine bir deneme [Paper presentation]. The 15th Public Administration Forum, Konya, Turkey.
8.
BabacanE.KutunM.PinarE.YilmazZ. (2021). Regime change in Turkey: Neoliberal authoritarianism, Islamism and hegemony. Routledge.
9.
BaykanT. S. (2018). The justice and development party in Turkey: Populism, personalism, organization. Cambridge University Press.
10.
BelloirA.van den BergC. (2020). Functional politicization in the Dutch senior civil service: Evidence from longitudinal surveys and qualitative research (2007-2019). NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 13(2), 49–73.
11.
BendixR. (1945). Bureaucracy and the problem of power. Public Administration Review, 5(3), 194–209.
12.
BoranB. (1969). Bürokrasi üzerine tartışmalar. Emek Dergisi, 1(4), 4–6.
13.
BoratavK. (1990). Türkiye’de devlet, sınıflar ve bürokrasi: Çağlar Keyder’in kitabının düşündürdükleri. Marksizm ve Gelecek, 3, 61–73.
14.
BoratavK. (2016). The Turkish bourgeoisie under neoliberalism. Research and Policy on Turkey, 1(1), 1–10.
15.
Bozkurt-GüngenS. (2018). Labour and authoritarian neoliberalism: Changes and continuities under the AKP governments in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 23(2), 219–238.
16.
BrehmJ.GatesS. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage. University of Michigan.
17.
CooperC. A. (2018). Bureaucratic identity and the resistance of politicization. Administration & Society, 50(1), 30–52.
18.
CooperC. A.MarierP.HalawiA. (2020). The politics of senior bureaucratic turnover in the Westminster tradition: Trust and the choice between internal and external appointments. Public Policy and Administration, 37(2), 179–202.
DerlienH. U. (1988). Repercussions of government change on the career civil service in West Germany: The cases of 1969 and 1982. Governance, 1(1), 50–78.
25.
DinlerD. (2003). Türkiye’de güçlü devlet geleneği tezinin eleştirisi. Praksis, 9, 17–54.
26.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
27.
EsenB.GumuscuS. (2016). Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 37(9), 1581–1606.
28.
FinerH. (1945). Critics of bureaucracy. Political Science Quarterly, 60(1), 100–112.
29.
FoxJ.WeisbergS. (2018). An R companion to applied regression. Sage.
30.
GoodnowF. J. (2017). Politics and administration: A study in government. Routledge.
31.
GüngenA. R.ErtenŞ. (2005). Approaches of Şerif Mardin and Metin Heper on state and civil society in Turkey. Journal of Historical Studies, 3, 1–14.
32.
Gürdalİ. (2022). The impact of AKP’s foreign policy on the capital accumulation process in Turkey. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 24(1), 158–174.
33.
HarrisonE.PiusR. (2020). R for health data science. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
34.
HeperM. (2011). Türkiye’nin siyasal hayatı: tarihsel, kuramsal ve karşılaştırmalı açıdan. Doğan Kitap.
35.
KaufmanH. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50(4), 1057–1073.
36.
KemahlıoğluÖ. (2012). Agents or bosses? Patronage and intra-party politics in Argentina and Turkey. ECPR press.
37.
KopeckyP.Meyer-SahlingJ. H.PanizzaF.ScherlisG.SchusterC.SpirovaM. (2016). Party patronage in contemporary democracies: Results from an expert survey in 22 countries from five regions. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2), 416–431.
38.
KopeckyP.SpirovaM. (2012). Measuring party patronage through structured expert interviews. In KopeckyP.SpirovaM. (Eds.), Party patronage and party government in European democracies (pp. 17–28). Oxford University Press.
39.
KrajnákS.StaronovaK.PickeringH. (2020). Ministerial advisers in Slovakia: Profiles and career paths, 2010–2020. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 13(2), 116–140.
40.
LewisD. E. (2005). Staffing alone: Unilateral action and the politicization of the executive office of the president, 1988-2004. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(3), 496–514.
41.
MardinŞ. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?Daedalus, 102(1), 169–190.
42.
Meyer-SahlingJ. H.VeenT. (2012). Governing the post-communist state: Government alternation and senior civil service politicisation in central and eastern Europe. East European Politics, 28(1), 4–22.
43.
MoeT. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.
44.
MoeT. M. (1991). Politics and the theory of organization. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7, 106–129.
45.
MoynihanD. P.RobertsA. S. (2010). The triumph of loyalty over competence: The Bush administration and the exhaustion of the politicized presidency. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 572–581.
46.
NiskanenW. A. (2017). Bureaucracy & representative government. Routledge.
47.
OğuzŞ. (2016). Yeni Türkiye’nin siyasal rejimi. In. TörenT.KutunM. (Eds.), Yeni Türkiye? Kapitalizm, devlet, sınıflar (pp. 81–128). Sosyal Araştırmalar Vakfı.
48.
OğuzŞ. (2023). AKP’li yıllarda siyasal rejimin dönüşümü: Çelişkili bir süreç olarak yeni faşizm. Toplum ve Hekim, 38 (1), 106–125.
49.
ÖzbudunE. (2015). Turkey’s judiciary and the drift toward competitive authoritarianism. The International Spectator, 50(2), 42–55.
50.
ÖzdenB. A.Akçaİ.BekmenA. (2017). Antinomies of authoritarian neoliberalism in Turkey. In TanselC. B. (Ed.), States of discipline: Authoritarian neoliberalism and the contested reproduction of capitalist order (pp. 189–209). Rowman & Littlefield.
51.
PanizzaF. E.PetersB. G.LarraburuC. R. (2022). The issue of patronage in Latin America. In PanizzaF. E.PetersB. G.LarraburuC. R. (Eds.), The politics of patronage appointments in Latin American central administrations (pp. 3–30). University of Pittsburg Press.
52.
PanizzaF.LarraburuC. R. R.ScherlisG. (2018). Unpacking patronage: The politics of patronage appointments in Argentina’s and Uruguay’s central public administrations. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 10(3), 59–98.
53.
PanizzaF.PetersB. G.LarraburuC. R. R. (2019). Roles, trust and skills: A typology of patronage appointments. Public Administration, 97(1), 147–161.
54.
PetersB. G. (2020). The politics of bureaucracy: A continuing saga. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 13(2), 213–220.
55.
PetersB. G.DahlströmC.PierreJ. (2011). Steering from the centre: Strengthening political control in western democracies. University of Toronto Press.
56.
PetersB. G.PierreJ. (2004). Politicization of the civil service: Concepts, causes, consequences. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), The politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective (pp. 13-25). Routledge.
57.
PetersB. G.PierreJ. (2019). Populism and public administration: Confronting the administrative state. Administration & Society, 51(10), 1521–1545.
58.
PetersB. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy. Routledge.
59.
PetersB. G. (2013). Politicization: What is it and why should we care? In NeuholdC.VanhoonackerS.VerheyL. (Eds.), Civil servants and politics: A delicate balance (pp. 12–24). Palgrave Macmillan.
60.
PetersG. B.BianchiC. (2020). Patronage and the public service: A dynamic performance governance perspective. In CarmineB.Luna-ReyesL. F.RichE. (Eds.), Enabling collaborative governance through systems modeling methods (pp. 215–236). Springer Cham.
61.
PoulantzasN. (1978). Political power and social classes. Verso Books.
62.
SayarıS. (2014). Interdisciplinary approaches to political clientelism and patronage in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 15(4), 655–670.
63.
SchröterE. (2004). The politicization of the German civil service: A three-dimensional portrait of the ministerial bureaucracy. In PetersG. B.PierreJ. (Eds.), Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective: The Quest for Control (pp. 55–80). Routledge.
64.
SheatherS. (2009). A modern approach to regression with R. Springer Science & Business Media.
65.
SimonH. A. (1945). Administrative behaviour. Free Press.
66.
StaronovaK.RybárM. (2021). Personal or party roots of civil service patronage? Ministerial change effects on the appointments of top civil servants. Administration & Society, 53(5), 651–679.
67.
TenpasK. D. (2018). White house staff turnover in year one of the Trump administration: Context, consequences, and implications for governing. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 48(3), 502–516.
68.
VarelA. (2020). Güçlü devlet geleneği tezinin eleştirisine katkı: Özne-merkezcilik sorunu. Mülkiye Dergisi, 44(4), 609–642.
69.
VeitS.ScholzS. (2016). Linking administrative career patterns and politicization: Signalling effects in the careers of top civil servants in Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(3), 516–535.
70.
WaldoD. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. The Ronald Press Company.
71.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.
72.
WoodB. D.WatermanR. W. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85(3), 801–828.
73.
YalvaçF.JosephJ. (2019). Understanding populist politics in Turkey: A hegemonic depth approach. Review of International Studies, 45(5), 1–19.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
