Zooming into the ‘Domestic’ in Europeanization: Promotion of Fight against Corruption and Minority Rights in Turkey

Abstract

Since the credibility of the European Union (EU) conditionality for Turkey has significantly weakened after 2005, compliance with the EU requirements has become less likely. However, we observe continuing reforms in the fight against corruption and minority rights, which is rather puzzling. Given the limited impact of the EU incentives, this paper brings back the ‘domestic’ into the analysis by exploring the role of various domestic actors, such as Turkish state elites, civil society and the media. Yet, as the empirical evidence suggests, policy change in the fight against corruption and minority rights has been driven by the domestic agenda of the governing party, the Justice and Development Party, and its political preferences based on strategic calculations.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Thomas Diez, Tanja Börzel and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

^[1] Frank Schimmelfenning and Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds), The Europeanisation of Central and Eastern Europe, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2005; Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, ‘Conceptualising the domestic impact of Europe’, in Kevin Featherstone and Claudio M. Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, pp. 57–80.

^[2] Börzel and Risse, op. cit.; Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, op. cit.

^[3] Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, op. cit.

^[4] Beken Saatçioğlu, ‘Unpacking the compliance puzzle: the case of Turkey's AKP under EU conditionality’, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) ‘The Transformative Power of Europe’ Working Paper 14, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, 2010; Senem Aydın Düzgit and Gergana Noutcheva, ‘Lost in Europeanisation: the Western Balkans and Turkey’, West European Politics, 35(1), 2012, pp. 59–79; Gözde Yılmaz, ‘Exploring the implementation of minority protection rules in the “worlds of compliance”: the case of Turkey’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13(4), 2012, pp. 408–424.

^[5] See Tanja A. Börzel and Diğdem Soyaltın, ‘Europeanisation in Turkey. Stretching a concept to its limits?’, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) ‘The Transformative Power of Europe’ Working Paper 36, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, February 2012.

^[6] Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, op. cit.

^[7] The deviant case method selects cases by reference to some general understanding of a topic (either a specific theory or common sense) that demonstrate a surprising value. See Jason Seawright and John Gerring, ‘Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options’, Political Research Quarterly, 61, 2008, p. 248.

^[8] Because the AKP ruled from 2002 to 2010 as a single party government with the ability to bypass the opposition in the parliament, the analysis focuses on AKP's domestic choice of change.

^[9] Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, op. cit.

^[10] Ibid.; Ulrich Sedelmeier, ‘Europeanisation in new and candidate states’, Living Reviews in European Governance, 6(1), 2011.

^[11] Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, op. cit.; Milada A. Vachudova, Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage and Integration after Communism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005; Börzel and Risse, op. cit.

^[12] Marcie J. Patton, ‘AKP reform fatigue in Turkey: what has happened to the EU reform process?’, Mediterranean Politics, 12(3), 2007, pp. 339–358; Frank Schimmelfennig, Heiko Knobel and Stefan Engert, ‘Costs, commitment and compliance: the impact of EU democratic conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(3), 2003, pp. 495–518.

^[13] Saatçioğlu, op. cit.; Meltem Müftüler Baç, ‘Turkey's political reforms and the impact of the European Union’, South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 2005, pp. 16–30.

^[14] Nathalie Tocci, ‘Europeanisation in Turkey: trigger or anchor for reforms?’, South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 2005, p. 78.

^[15] Saatçioğlu, op. cit.; Aydın Düzgit and Noutcheva, op. cit.; Yılmaz, ‘Exploring the Implementation’, op. cit.

^[16] Börzel and Soyaltın, op. cit.; Aydın Düzgit and Noutcheva, op. cit.; Gözde Yılmaz, ‘Is there a puzzle? Compliance with minority rights in Turkey’, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) ‘The Transformative Power of Europe’ Working Paper 23, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, January 2011.

^[17] Tanja A. Börzel, ‘Why there is no “southern problem” on environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 2000, pp. 141–162; Börzel and Soyaltın, op. cit., pp. 11–12; Gözde Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push that matters for external Europeanization! Explaining minority policy change in Turkey,’ Mediterranean Politics, 2013, doi: 10.1080/13629395.2013.838443.

^[18] Börzel, op. cit.; Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[19] Börzel and Soyaltın, op. cit.; Esther Ademmer, ‘You make us do what we want! The usage of external actors and policy conditionality in the European neighbourhood’, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) ‘The Transformative Power of Europe’ Working Paper 32, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, November 2011; Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.; Ellen Mastenbroeck and Mendeltje van Keulen, ‘Beyond the goodness of fit: a preference-based account of Europeanisation’, in Roland Holzhacker and Markus Haverland (eds), European Research Reloaded: Cooperation and Integration among Europeanized States, Springer, Dordrecht, 2006, pp. 19–42.

^[20] Mastenbroeck and van Keulen, op. cit.; Ademmer, op. cit.; Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[21] Börzel and Soyaltın, op. cit., p. 12; Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[22] Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[23] Fikret Adaman, Ali Çarkoğlu and Burhan Şenatalar (eds), Household View on the Causes of Corruption in Turkey and Suggested Preventive Measures, Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), Istanbul, 2001; Fikret Adaman, Ali Çarkoğlu and Burhan Senatalar (eds), ‘Business’ View on the Causes of Corruption in Turkey and Suggested Preventive Measures, TESEV, Istanbul, 2003.

^[24] See, for instance, Transparency International Corruption Perception Indexes, International Institute for Management Development Competitiveness Yearbooks, World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators and European Commission's Regular Progress Reports for Turkey.

^[25] Ayşe Güneş-Ayata, ‘Roots and trends of clientelism in Turkey’, in Luis Roniger and Ayşe Güneş-Ayata (eds), Democracy, Clientelism, and Civil Society, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 1994, pp. 49–63; Zeynep Baran, ‘Corruption: the Turkish challenge’, Journal of International Affairs, 54(1), 2000, pp. 127–146.

^[26] Uğur Ömürgönülşen and M. Kemal Öktem, ‘Is there any change in the public service values of different generations of public administrators? The case of Turkish governors and district governors’, Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 2009, pp. 144–145.

^[27] Uğur Ömürgönülşen and Alain Doig, ‘Why the gap? Turkey, EU accession, corruption and culture’, Turkish Studies, 13(1), 2010, pp. 7–25; Demet Yalçın Mousseau, ‘Is Turkey democratizing with EU reforms?: an assessment of human rights, corruption and socio-economic conditions’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 12(1), 2012, pp. 63–80.

^[28] Uğur Ömürgönülşen, Ethics for the Prevention of Corruption in Turkey (TYEC), System Studies Report, Council of Europe, June 2009, p. 37.

^[29] Ömürgönülşen and Doig, op. cit., p. 13.

^[30] Senem Aydin Düzgit and Ali Çarkoğlu, ‘Turkey: reforms for consolidated democracy’, in Amichai Magen and Leonardo Morlino (eds), International Actors, Democratisation and the Rule of Law Anchoring Democracy, Routledge, London, 2009, p. 136.

^[31] Fikret Adaman, ‘Is corruption a drawback to Turkey's accession to the European Union?’, South European Society and Politics, 16(2), 2011, p. 310.

^[32] Ibid.

^[33] Alan Doig, ‘Asking the right questions? Addressing corruption and EU accession: the case study of Turkey’, Journal of Financial Crime, 17(1), 2010, pp. 13–14.

^[34] TEPAV, ‘Türkiye Reform Yorgunu … [Turkey is tired of the reforms …]’, Ankara, 19 January 2011, < http://www.tepav.org.tr/tr/haberler/s/1871>(last accessed 18 August 2012).

^[35] European Commission, Turkey 2008 Progress Report, SEC (2008) 2699, Brussels, 2008, p. 11; European Commission, Turkey 2009 Progress Report, SEC (2009) 1334, Brussels, 2009, p. 12.

^[36] Ömürgönülşen and Doig, op. cit., p. 14.

^[37] European Commission, Turkey 2010 Progress Report, SEC (2010) 1327, Brussels, 2010, pp. 77–80; GRECO, Compliance Report on Turkey, Joint First and Second Round Evaluation, Greco RC-I/II (2008) 2E, Strasbourg, 4 April 2008, pp. 14–15.

^[38] Adaman, op. cit., p. 317; Ömürgönülşen and Doig, op. cit., p. 7; Freedom House, ‘Countries at crossroads—Turkey’, 2011, p. 12.

^[39] Michael Bryane, ‘Anti-corruption in the Turkey's EU accession’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 3(4), 2004, p. 6; GRECO, Compliance Report on Turkey, Third Evaluation Report: Transparency of Party Funding, Greco RC-III (2012) 4E Rev, Strasbourg, 23 March 2012, p. 17; European Commission, 2011, op. cit., p. 20; Freedom House, ‘Turkey in transit’, 2008, p. 22.

^[40] Diğdem Soyaltın, ‘Europeanization decoupled? Fighting corruption in Turkey’, Research/Policy Paper, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (Research Turkey), London, 29 May 2012 < http://researchturkey.org/wp/wordpress/?p=1205>.

^[41] Baskın Oran, Türkiye'de Azınlıklar Kavramlar, Teori, Lozan, İç Mevzuat, İçtihat, Uygulama, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004, p. 64.

^[42] Ibid., pp. 72–73.

^[43] Yılmaz, ‘Is there a puzzle?’, op. cit.

^[44]Official Gazette, No. 24841, 9 August 2002.

^[45]Official Gazette, No. 24990, 11 January 2003.

^[46]Official Gazette, No. 25173, 19 July 2003.

^[47] Secretariat General of the Turkish Republic for EU Affairs, Political Reforms in Turkey, Ankara, 2007, p. 19.

^[48] The problem of IDPs is caused by the displacement of people in the south-east of Turkey due to the conflict during the 1990s between Turkish Armed Forces and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a militant organization established in the 1970s.

^[49] European Commission, Turkey 2005 Progress Report, SEC (2005) 1426, Brussels, 2005, p. 39.

^[50] Secretariat General of the Turkish Republic for EU Affairs, op. cit., p. 22.

^[51] European Commission, Turkey 2007 Progress Report, SEC (2007) 1436, Brussels, 2007, p. 21.

^[52] Secretariat General of the Turkish Republic for EU Affairs, op. cit., p. 23.

^[53] Thomas Hammarberg, Review Report on Human Rights of Minorities, Council of Europe, CommDH (2009)30, Strasbourg, 2009, p. 11.

^[54] Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the world—Turkey’, Reports on Freedom in World, 2010.

^[55] Ibid.

^[56] Ibid.

^[57]Official Gazette, No. 27580, 13 May 2010.

^[58] CNN Turk, ‘Anayasa Değişikliği Teklifi Kabul Edildi’, 7 May 2010.

^[59] European Commission, 2009, op. cit., p. 28.

^[60] Schimmelfenning and Sedelmeier, op. cit.

^[61] Fuat Keyman and Ziya Öniş, Turkish Politics in a Changing World: Global Dynamics and Domestic Transformations, Istanbul Bilgi University Press, Istanbul, 2007, p. 63.

^[62] Füsun Türkmen, ‘The European Union and democratisation in Turkey: the role of the elites’, Human Rights Quarterly, 30(1), 2008, p. 162.

^[63] Menderes Çınar, ‘Turkey's present ancien régime and the Justice and Development Party’, in Marlies Casier and Joost Jongerden (eds), Nationalisms and Politics in Turkey: Political Islam, Kemalism and the Kurdish Issue, Routledge, Abingdon, 2011, p. 13; Arda C. Kumbaracıbaşı, Turkish Politics and the Rise of the AKP, Routledge, Abingdon, 2009, p. 76.

^[64] Through time, Kemalism as the state ideology of Turkey has been challenged by the whole reform process. See Patton, op. cit., p. 349.

^[65] Patton, op. cit., p. 345.

^[66] Ibid., p. 345.

^[67] Kumbaracıbaşı, op. cit., p. 59; Şule Toktaş and Ümit Kurt, ‘The Turkish military's autonomy, JDP rule and the EU reform process in the 2000s: an assessment of the Turkish version of democratic control of armed forces (DECAF)’, Turkish Studies, 11(3), 2010, p. 394.

^[68] Ömer F. Gençkaya and Ergun Özbudun, Democratisation and the Politics of Constitution-Making in Turkey, Central European University Press, Budapest, 2009, p. 107.

^[69] Kumbaracıbaşı, op. cit., p. 59; Toktaş and Kurt, op. cit., p. 394.

^[70] Ahmet İçduygu, ‘The anatomy of civil society in Turkey: toward a transformation’, in Fuat Keyman (ed.), Remaking Turkey: Globalization, Alternative Modernities and Democracy, Lexington, Oxford, 2008, pp. 179–197.

^[71] Gülistan Gürbey, ‘Türkiye'de Sivil Toplumun Oluşumunun Önündeki Siyasi ve Hukuki Engeller’, in Heidi Wedel (ed.), Ortadoğu'da Sivil Toplum Sorunları, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 1997, pp. 117–135.

^[72] M. L. Karaman and Bülent Aras, ‘The crisis of civil society in Turkey’, Journal of Economic and Social Research, 2(2), 2000, p. 49.

^[73] Fuat Keyman and Ahmet İçduygu, ‘Globalization, civil society and citizenship in actors, boundaries and discourses’, Citizenship Studies, 7(2), 2003, p. 223.

^[74] Sefa Şimşek, ‘The transformation of civil society in Turkey: from quantity to quality’, Turkish Studies, 5(3), 2004, pp. 68–70.

^[75] Thomas Diez, Apostolos Agnantopoulos and Alper Kaliber, ‘Turkey, Europeanisation and civil society’, South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 2005, pp. 1–15; Ahmet İçduygu, ‘Interacting actors: the EU and civil society in Turkey’, South European Society and Politics, 16(3), 2011, pp. 381–394.

^[76] Keyman and Öniş, op. cit., pp. 64–65.

^[77] Paul Kubicek, ‘Political conditionality and European Union's cultivation of democracy in Turkey’, Democratisation, 18(4), 2011, pp. 916–917.

^[78] Mehmet Uğur and Dilek Yankaya, ‘Policy entrepreneurship, policy opportunism, and EU conditionality: the AKP and TÜSIAD experience in Turkey’, Governance, 21(4), 2008, pp. 588–590.

^[79] İçduygu, ‘The anatomy’, op. cit.; CIVICUS, ‘Civil society in Turkey: at a turning point’, Civil Society Index Project Country Report for Turkey II, No. 51, TUSEV, Istanbul, 2010.

^[80] Levent Gönenç, ‘Towards a participatory constitution making process in Turkey’, Policy Note, Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV), Ankara, January 2011.

^[81] Marie Chêne, ‘Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Turkey’, Anti-Corruption Research Centre, U4 Expert Answer, No. 313, Transparency International (TI), Norway, 27 January 2012, p. 12.

^[82] İçduygu, ‘Interacting actors’, op. cit., p. 391.

^[83] While at the end of 2001 the support level exceeded 70 per cent, by 2009 it had declined to just below 50 er cent. See Ali Çarkoğlu and Çiğdem Kentmen, ‘Diagnosing trends and determinants in public support for Turkey's EU membership’, South European Society and Politics, 16(3), 2011, p. 375.

^[84] Raşit Kaya and Barış Çakmur, ‘Politics and the mass media in Turkey’, Turkish Studies, 11(4), 2010, p. 533.

^[85] Ibid., pp. 523–524.

^[86] Esra Elmas and Dilek Kurban, ‘Communicating democracy—democratizing communication media in Turkey: legislation, policies, actors’, Democratisation Program, Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), İstanbul, 2011, p. 23.

^[87] Ibid., p. 24.

^[88] Kaya and Çakmur, op. cit., p. 533; Elmas and Kurban, op. cit., p. 9.

^[89] Ali Çarkoğlu and Gözde Yavuz, ‘Press–party parallelism in Turkey: an individual level interpretation’, Turkish Studies, 11(4), 2010, p. 618.

^[90] Murat Somer, ‘Media values and democratisation: what unites and what divides religious-conservative and pro-secular elites?’, Turkish Studies, 11(4), 2010, p. 560.

^[91] Çarkoğlu and Yavuz, op. cit., p. 618; Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the world—Turkey’, Reports on Freedom in World, 2009.

^[92] Begüm Burak, ‘Turkish political culture and civil society: an unsettling coupling?’, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 10(1), 2011, pp. 59–71.

^[93] Ergun Özbudun, ‘From political Islam to conservative democracy: the case of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey’, South European Society and Politics, 11(3), 2006, pp. 543–557; M. Hakan Yavuz (ed.), The Emergence of a New Turkey: Democracy and the AK Parti, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2006.

^[94] Yavuz, op. cit., p. 18.

^[95] İhsan D. Dağı, ‘The Justice and Development Party: identity, politics, and human rights discourse in the search for security and legitimacy’, in M. Hakan Yavuz (ed.), The Emergence of a New Turkey: Democracy and the AK Parti, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2006; Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[96] Dağı, op. cit., p. 96; Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[97] Dağı, op. cit., p. 96; Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[98] Kumbaracıbaşı, op. cit., p. 92; Çınar, op. cit., p. 471; Patton, op. cit., p. 343; Erhan Doğan, ‘The historical and discursive roots of the Justice and Development Party's EU stance’, Turkish Studies, 6(3), 2005, p. 429; Öniş, op. cit., p. 25.

^[99] Kumbaracıbaşı, op. cit., p. 78.

^[100] Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to his political group, Ankara, 22 October 2010.

^[101] Mehmet Bardakçı, Political Reforms in Turkey and the Impact of the European Union Post-Helsinki Era, VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken, 2008, p. 90.

^[102] The 60th Government Program presented to TBMM by Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdoğan, 31 August 2007, p. 11, < http://www.basbakanlik.gov.tr/docs/hukumetprg.doc>(last accessed 12 March 2012).

^[103] Tozun Bahcheli and Sid Noel, ‘The Justice and Development Party and the Kurdish question’, in Marlies Casier and Joost Jongerden (eds), Nationalisms and Politics in Turkey: Political Islam, Kemalism and the Kurdish Issue, Routledge, London, 2011, p. 104.

^[104] Sabri Sayarı, ‘Towards a new Turkish party system?’, Turkish Studies, 8(2), 2007, p. 199; Bryane, op. cit., p. 10.

^[105] Ahmet İnsel, Düzen ve Kalkınma Kıskacında Türkiye, Ayrıntı Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1996.

^[106] Ziya Öniş and İsmail Emre Bayram, ‘Temporary star or emerging tiger? Turkey's recent economic performance in a global setting’, Koç University–TÜSİAD Economic Research Forum, Working Paper 805, İstanbul, 2008.

^[107] Ziya Öniş, ‘Conservative globalists versus defensive nationalists: political parties and paradoxes of Europeanisation in Turkey’, in Susannah Verney and Kostas Ifantis (eds), Turkey's Road to EU Membership: National Identity and Political Change, Routledge, London, 2009, p. 24; Zeynep Şarlak and Besim Bülent Bali, ‘Corruption in Turkey: why cannot an urgent problem be a main concern?’, Crime and Culture, 14, 2008, p. 21.

^[108] Bekir Ağırdır, ‘Elections ’07: what determined the contents of the ballot box?', Election Analysis, KONDA Research and Consultancy, Radikal, 25–28 July 2007.

^[109] Ibid.

^[110] Ibid.

^[111] Ibid.

^[112] Rabia K. Polat, ‘The 2007 Parliamentary elections in Turkey: between securitisation and desecuritisation’, Parliamentary Affairs, 62(1), 2009, p. 137.

^[113] Doğan, op. cit., p. 431.

^[114] The 60th Government Program presented to TBMM by Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdoğan, 31 August 2007, p. 11, < http://www.basbakanlik.gov.tr/docs/hukumetprg.doc>(last accessed 12 March 2012).

^[115] For instance, see Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speeches to his political group, Ankara, 25 November 2007, 1 April 2008, 27 January 2009 and 28 December 2010.

^[116] Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to the nation, Ankara, February 2007.

^[117] AKP Election Manifesto, 2007, p. 119.

^[118] Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to his political group, Ankara, 19 February 2008.

^[119] Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to his political group, Ankara, 22 January 2008.

^[120] Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to his political group, Ankara, 21 January 2003 and 4 March 2003.

^[121] For instance, Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to his political group, Ankara, 26 September 2006, 16 June 2009 and 12 January 2010.

^[122] Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to his political group, Ankara, 29 June 2010.

^[123] Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech to his political group, Ankara, 4 April 2006 and 29 June 2010.

^[124] Freedom House, 2010, op. cit.

^[125] Ibid.

^[126] For instance, Prime Minister and Chairman of the AKP Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speeches to his political group, Ankara, 12 February 2008, 16 June 2009 and 22 June 2010.

^[127] European Commission, 2009, op. cit., p. 22.

^[128]Armenian Weekly, ‘Erdoğan “apologizes” for Dersim killings, insults diaspora’, 23 November 2011.

^[129] Yılmaz, ‘It is pull-and-push’, op. cit.

^[130] Cornelia Woll and Sophie Jacquot, ‘Using Europe: strategic action in multi-level politics’, Comparative European Politics, 8(1), 2010, pp. 110–126.

^[131] Tanja A. Börzel and Yasemin Pamuk, ‘Pathologies of Europeanisation: fighting corruption in the Southern Caucasus’, West European Politics, 35(1), 2012, pp. 79–97; Aneta Spendzharova and Milada Anna Vachudova, ‘Catching-up? Consolidating liberal democracy in Bulgaria and Romania’, West European Politics, 35(1), 2012, pp. 39–58.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gözde Yılmaz

Gözde Yılmaz is an Assistant Professor and as Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Atılım University. She recently completed her PhD in Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies, Freie Universität Berlin. Her research interests are external Europeanization and its theories, EU enlargement policy, European neighbourhood policy, EU–Turkey relations, Turkish politics and minority rights.

Address for correspondence: Department of International Relations, Faculty of Management, Atılım University, Kızılcaşar Köyü, 06836 İncek, Ankara, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

Diğdem Soyaltın

Diğdem Soyaltın is a PhD candidate at Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies, Freie Universität Berlin and a research fellow at the Research College on Transformative Power of Europe (KFG). She studied International Relations, European Affairs and Political Science previously at different universities in Europe. In her PhD project, she examines to what extent and under which conditions Europeanization matters for the differential decoupling of public sector reforms to fight against corruption in Turkey.

Address for correspondence: Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies, Free University Berlin, Ihnestr 26, 14195 Berlin, Germany. Email: [email protected]