International versus domestic explanations of administrative reforms: the case of Turkey

This article examines administrative reforms in Turkey, highlighting its domestic and international explanations and outcomes. First, it briefly reviews the fundamental administrative reforms implemented in the early republican and following periods. Thereafter, some proponents of reforms and their outcomes are analysed with influencing actors. Then, the national or international actors that influenced current reforms and their relative impacts are discussed. The article argues that administrative reforms in Turkey are an appropriate example of policy transfer because reform policies are mainly encouraged by external actors such as the EU, the IMF, and the World Bank. However, the role of internal actors such as governments, business circles and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should not be ignored. Moreover, it can be asserted that the reform process is significantly affected by conflicts of interest among internal actors. Although the Turkish case could be considered an appropriate transfer practice of new public management (NPM) in terms of formal regulations, a thorough examination of their outcomes and challenges reveals that it is time to substitute the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach with ‘different sizes for everyone’. Points for practitioners Because every reform attempt derives mainly from political motives, administrative reform cannot be considered a solely technical or operational process. Hence, it not only directly or indirectly has an impact on all aspects of social life, but it is also affected by the historical, political, economic and cultural past of the relevant country. Practitioners should be aware of this and should take into consideration a set of societal factors apart from the purely administrative techniques, if they want to avoid failure, and to achieve efficiency.