![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This study applies the theoretical framework of Social Identity Theory (SIT) and its three main strategies, social mobility, social competition and social creativity to Turkey as an emerging middle power in the G20. In doing so, it uses Role Theory’s toolkit in order to assess the impact of Turkey’s middle power role conception, role expectations, and role performance on identity management strategies pursued by Turkey vis-à-vis its middle power peers in the G20 (namely Canada, Australia, Korea, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa). The findings of this study acknowledge that Turkey’s status-seeking policies as an emerging middle power are more prone to pursuing social mobility and social creativity rather than social competition. It concludes that Turkey’s weakness in enacting its G20 middle power role and its failure in bridging this middle power role to its middle power status in turns it to an underperforming middle ranked country in the G20.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank two peer reviewers and the editor for their fruitful comments on the earlier versions of this article. The author also thanks Dr. Hakan Mehmetçik for his technical help.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Emel Parlar Dal is associate professor at Marmara University's Department of International Relations. She previously conducted research, respectively at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies/Geneva, at St. Anthony's College Middle East Centre, Oxford University. Her recent publications have appeared in Third World Quarterly Global Policy, International Politics, Turkish Studies and International Journal. Her most recent work is Middle powers in global governance: The rise of Turkey (ed., Palgrave, 2018)
Notes
1 Since the G20 leaders first summit in 2008 in Washington, the G20 Research Group at the University of Toronto and the Center for International Institutions Research of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), formerly with the International Organizations Research Institute at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), in Moscow have published reports on their progress in the implementation of the priority commitments made by each G20 member state at each summit. The methodology uses a scale from −1 to +1, where +1 indicates full compliance with the stated commitment, −1 indicates a failure to comply or action taken that is directly opposite to the stated instruments or goal of the commitment, and 0 indicates partial compliance or work in progress, such as initiatives that have been launched but are not yet near completion and whose full results can therefore not be assessed. For further information http://www.g20.utoronto.ca.
2 The G20 Compliance Data set contains the compliance scores for all G20 members with the 130 summit commitments assessed for compliance from 2008 to 2013. This data set represents the most comprehensive, systematic, publicly available data set on country-specific compliance with G20 compliance. For further information http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/compliance/dataset.html.