A centralized decentralization: outsourcing in the Turkish cultural heritage sector

Abstract

Recently Turkey has experimented with reforming its highly centralized cultural heritage sector by outsourcing commercial activities at museums and archeological sites. We examine three outsourcing contracts executed in 2009–2010 and their implications for understanding New Public Management in Turkey’s cultural sector. The initial project at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum was soon superseded by a ‘monopoly’ model that outsourced gift shop and ticket collection services at over 50 museums and sites to single companies. All three projects have significantly increased visitor numbers and revenues for the revolving fund that controls commercial operations within the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Yet unlike countries such as Italy, where outsourcing has led to decentralization, increased private sector involvement in Turkey has increased the control of the central government. This ‘centralized decentralization’ is a distinctly Turkish approach that allows for modernization without disturbing a highly centralized administrative tradition.

Keywords:

• cultural heritage
• outsourcing
• New Public Management

Notes

1. Turkish official statistics use the English term ‘ruins’ (Turkish ören yerleri) to refer to archeological sites that are open to the public.

2. Türsab has been involved in marketing and retail of the Museum Card for Turkish citizens, the 72 h Istanbul Card for international visitors, sale of discounted museum tickets to travel agencies, financial support for new electronic ticket turnstiles, and the sponsorship of specific sites. See http://tursab.org.tr/en/Türsab/departmental-activities/support-to-conservation_1074.html.

3. Both documents are inseparable part of the contract and, as confidential documents, they were not provided to the researchers.

4. While we are aware of the ambiguity of the term ‘sponsorship’, we use it here in the meaning given to it by the Project Director during our interviews (Interview with Köyüm Özyüksel, 20 May 2011 and following), which suggested that Türsab’s financial investment is mainly aimed at supporting Museum development and not at profit-making for Türsab itself.

5. Interview with Köyüm Özyüksel, 20 May 2011.

6. Interview with Köyüm Özyüksel, 20 May 2011

7. Interview with Köyüm Özyüksel, 21 November 2011.

8. Interview with Köyüm Özyüksel, 20 May 2011.

9. Interview with anonymous source, 3 May 2011.

10. Türsab staff say that they would indeed like to develop the Darphane (mint) building, but as additional depot and exhibit space for the IAM itself within the scope of the contract.

11. Interview with Murat Usta, 25 May 2011, Dösim, Ankara.

12. Note that the tender was published one month before the signing of the IAM Development Project contract.

13. The final contract is considered a trade secret and is not available to the public; here, we discuss the draft contract document, kindly provided to us by Dösim.

14. Interview with Murat Usta, 25 May 2011, Dösim, Ankara.

15. Interview with Barış Üstünkaya, 17 May 2011, BKG office, Istanbul.

16. Interview with Barış Üstünkaya, 17 May 2011, BKG office, Istanbul.

17. Interview with Barış Üstünkaya, 17 May 2011, BKG office, Istanbul.

18. The Turkish source of these numbers is ambiguous; however, an alternative interpretation could be that the revenue share should steadily increase after the start-up phase, with 169 million TL of fixed contribution, plus a forecast of 75 million TL for revenue sharing.

19. In conversation with ticketing staff at several ruins before 2009, one of the authors (Shoup) found that they often allowed groups of local visitors to enter without tickets, since paying museum tickets for visiting guests can be a serious financial hardship, especially in rural area where a cash economy is underdeveloped. The Museum Card program was partly introduced to address the relatively higher expense of museum visits for Turkish citizens.

20. Several museums and ruins have supplementary tickets within the same site, as at the Topkapı Palace Harem or the Ephesus Terrace houses.

21. Available data covered operating periods of between 46 and 147 days, varying by the date of installation of the new equipment at different sites.

22. Interview with Murat Usta, 25 May 2011, Dösim, Ankara.

23. Köyüm Özyüksel, personal communicaiton.