Public Administration Reforms in Turkey from Past to Present: A General Assessment

Turkish public opinion has been shaken in recent years by debates oscillating between development, good governance, new public management, and public administration reforms. In fact, development and public administration reforms are among the most important topics of discussion in Turkish public opinion, not just in the last few years, but in the last two centuries. Despite this, can we say that we have been successful in the field of development or that the public sector has been able to provide services effectively? From my perspective, the answer to both of these questions is quite clear. In Turkey, neither development efforts have been successfully completed, nor have the goals aimed at by public administration reforms been achieved. While public administration reform debates are part of development activities, they remain an important issue on Turkey's agenda as they fall within the relevant fields of different disciplines such as political science, economics, management science, sociology, and history. Knowing the history of public administration reform debates, being familiar with the theories put forward regarding the public administration reform process, and its applications in the bureaucracy will help us understand Turkey's development attempts.

In fact, reform movements in Turkish public administration have a very long history. I believe the first attempt at a change in both mindset and practice was significant, beginning with the reign of Mahmud II in the Ottoman Empire. Mahmud II was the first statesman to design and address public administration reform as a whole. He wanted to change the administrative and civil organization of the Ottoman Empire based on the French system, realizing that this change could only be achieved through a complete, total transformation. Therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the reforms of the Mahmud II era as a kind of revolution. In the public administration reform that began with Mahmud II and continued through the Tanzimat period, many elements that form the basis of our current public administration system, from legal authorities to the public personnel regime, from provincial organization to the adoption of a ministerial-type organization, were adopted during his reign.

My intention is not to overwhelm the reader with the technical processes of public administration reform. My main aim is to show that the first public administration reform in Turkish history went hand in hand with the modernization process, and to underline the multitude of meanings attributed to this reform process. Because in Turkish modernization, military or civilian bureaucrats were generally envisioned as the pioneers of this transformation. Although a holistic understanding was sought in the reform process that began with Mahmud II and continued with the Tanzimat, the belief that reforms would provide short-term solutions to the various emerging needs led to deep disappointment. In other words, the belief that public administration reform would instantly halt the collapse of the Ottoman Empire actually caused the necessity of considering modernization and development as the results of a long-term transformation to be set aside. However, both public administration reform and the need to train prudent military and civilian officials and officers paved the way for the emergence of educated bureaucrats who would establish the Republic.

I believe that the reform efforts in Kemal Atatürk's Turkey should also be evaluated within the framework mentioned above. However, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his colleagues' approach to the issue was much more holistic. It was known that public administration reform was actually a tool to be used to achieve the goals of modernization and development. While the revolutions continued at full speed, legal regulations capable of carrying out the transformation in public administration were also initiated. The primary goal of the young Republic was to achieve economic self-sufficiency, reach a certain stage of industrialization, and accelerate activities, particularly in education. In fact, as a result of these elements and ongoing reforms, new regulations were introduced in public administration. These include the Constitution (1924), the Civil Administration Law (1926), the Provincial Administration Law (1929), the Municipal Law (1930), the Village Law (1924), etc. This list could be extended. In short, the foundations of the administrative organization that would remain valid until the 2000s were laid during the Atatürk era.

In the period between the proclamation of the Republic and the 1961 Constitution, discussions on public administration reform were largely evaluated and attempted within the framework of reports by foreign experts. In reality, these reports are useful texts that address the strengths and weaknesses of Turkish public administration. The main foreign expert reports are: Hilts Commission Report (1948), Neumark Report (1949), Roy Blough Report (1950), Barker Report (1951), W. Martin Frank – C. E. Cush Report (1951), Maurice Chailloux-Dantel Report (1959), Leimgruber Report (1951-52), Thornburg Report (1949), Van Mook Report (1962), Hanson Report (1954), Baade Report (1959), Podol Report (1963) and Fisher Report (1962).[1] A significant portion of these reports included Turkish

 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and may not reflect the institutional stance, editorial perspective, and/or policy orientation of KAPDEM. While KAPDEM encourages the articulation of diverse perspectives through its published content, it bears no responsibility for the information and intellectual output presented therein; all responsibility lies with the respective authors.

[1] Burhan Aykaç, Hatice Altunok, “Türk Yönetim Sistemini Etkileyen Yabancı Uzman Raporları Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Mook ve Podol Raporlarında Yöneticilik”, İGÜSBD Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1 Haziran / June 2014, s. 4-5.

[2] Fevzi Kaya, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nde Yapılan İdari Reform Çalışmalarının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, S. 48, 2016, s. 176.

[3] Özlem Kara Yıldırım, Türkiye’de İyi Yönetişim, Uluslararası Afro-Avrasya Araştırmaları Dergisi, S. 6, 2018, s. 279.

[4] https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/erdogandan-belediye-baskanlarina-tum-ihaleleri-canli-yayinlayin-41838435 (Erişim Tarihi: 22/08/2021)

[5] Barış Övgün, Türkiye’de Kamu Yönetiminin Dönüşümü, Nika Yayınevi, 1. Baskı, Ankara, 2013, s. 43.

[6]Ümit Sönmez, Piyasanın İdaresi, İletişim Yayınları, 1. Baskı, Ankara, 2011, s. 28.

[7] Birgül Ayman Güler, İkinci Dalga: Siyasal ve Yönetsel Liberalizasyon (Kamu Yönetimi Temel Kanunu), Kamu Yönetimi Reformu İncelemeleri: Mülkiye’den Perspektifler,  No 59, 2003, Ankara, s. 8.

[8] Uğur Çelebi, Biyoyakıtlara Yönelik Mali Teşvikler: Türkiye Açısından Bir Değerlendirme, Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 33, Sayı 2, 2015, s. 38-39.

[9] https://www.emo.org.tr/ekler/6204ac6fec932a7_ek.pdf?dergi=463 (Erişimi Tarihi: 23/08/2021).