Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Turkey's EU accession as a question of nation brand image

  • Special Issue Paper
  • Published:
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the significance of politics and public diplomacy for nation brands, there is little research on the topic. The study seeks to contribute to the literature by investigating Turkey's European Union (EU) accession, which seems endangered by negative public opinion in other EU member states, as a case to understand how nation brand images can influence a given course of action in international politics. Specifically, through an exploratory qualitative research, the content of Turkey's nation brand image, its antecedents, and potential consequences within the political context of the country's accession negotiation are explored. The findings suggest that Turkey, at the moment, does not appear to be a well-run nation brand. Not only do the poor results indicate room for improvement, but also the management of Turkey in all relevant nation brand dimensions does not seem promising with regard to a successful EU application process. Furthermore, the analysis point to a truly complicated positioning dilemma for Turkey's nation brand and the challenge of accomplishing an integrated nation brand management. The paper concludes by outlining policy and research implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Copenhagen Criteria are the political criteria set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, later enshrined in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union and proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including stable democracy and human rights, rule of law, functioning market economy, application of the aquis communitaire and the Union's capacity to absorb new members (Briefing, 2005: 8).

  2. The most important technicality of Turkey's EU accession is the assimilation of Turkey's national laws to the so-called acquis communitaire of the EU, which, organised in 35 chapters and containing more than 85,000 pages, represents the common set of rules, laws and directives of the community (Hagelueken, 2004: 2).

  3. Answers to QA44: ‘For each of the following countries, would you be in favour or against it becoming part of the European Union in the future? TURKEY’. Criteria: >4 per cent difference between approval and rejection: ‘Rather in favour’, between 4 and −4 per cent difference: ‘Mixed’ and >−4% difference: ‘Rather against’.

  4. Measured in number of inhabitants, above 35 Mio=‘large’, below 35 Mio=‘small’, source: EUROSTAT.

  5. In GDP per capita, according to the EUROSTAT index of EU 25=100 (>100=‘rich’ or <100=‘poor’).

  6. Since no adequate means to comparably assess the ‘intergovernmentalist vs federalist’ distinction are available, EURO membership (which was mostly the result of referenda in the EU member states) was taken as rough indicator of the general EU perspective in the nations.

  7. Differentiated in North (Scandinavia, Great Britain, Ireland and the Baltic States), Central (Continental Europe north of the Alps) and South (Mediterranean countries or countries with similar latitudes).

  8. Indicated by more than 50 per cent of the population sharing one dominant religion, source: CIA factbook.

  9. The six founding members of EU were referred to as ‘old’, successive accessions in enlargement rounds before opening to former East Block countries as ‘middle’, and ‘new’ refers to the ten member states entering in 2004.

  10. Percentage of country's population with Turkish nationality or first generation EU naturalised population with Turkish roots, with >0.5 per cent indicating large Turkish population and <0.5 per cent indicating small Turkish population, sources: EUROSTAT, ZfT (Center for Turkey Studies, Essen, Germany)

  11. Related to the country's rank in Turkey's foreign trade (imports and exports) balance, ‘high’ = Top 5; ‘middle’=6–20; ‘low’= below 20; source: DIE (Turkish Statistical Office).

  12. Expressed by the rank of the country in the number of Tourists visiting Turkey; ‘high’=Top 5; ‘middle’=6–20; ‘low’=below 20; source: DIE.

  13. Austria and France have both announced to ask their public after a successful diplomatic/political negotiation between Turkey and the EU institutions for the final decision on Turkey's EU membership. Some other countries are expected to apply similar referenda measures.

  14. Support for EU accession expressed in polls fell from 75 per cent in December 2004 to 60 per cent in October 2005 and arrived at 55 per cent in March 2006 (Burke, 2005: 1; Zaman, 2006). See also Pusch, 2004.

References

  • Anholt, S. (2002) ‘Foreword (to special issue on nation brands)’, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4–5, pp. 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anholt, S. (2005) ‘Saving Brand Turkey. Keynote Speech at Marka 2005 (December 1–2)’, Istanbul, unpublished.

  • Anholt, S. and GMI (2005a) ‘Nation Brands Index. How the world sees the world’. http://www.gmi-mr.com/gmipoll/press_room_wppk_pr.phtml (download on 06/10/2005).

  • Anholt, S. and GMI (2005b) ‘How the world sees the world. The Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index. Third Quarter 2005’. www.gmi-mr.com (download on 10/27/2005).

  • Anholt, S. and Hildreth, J. (2005) ‘Let freedom and cash registers ring: America as a brand’, Place Branding, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 164–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baloǧlu, S. and McCleary, K. W. (1999) ‘US international pleasure travelers' images of four Mediterranean destinations. A comparison of visitors and nonvisitors’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 144–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briefing (2005) ‘The row over declarations marks a new phase in Turkey-EU ties’, Briefing (1561), Vol. September 5, pp. 3–5.

  • Burke, J. (2005) ‘A proud Turkey hesitates at the EU crossroads’. www.observer.co.uk (download on 10/6/2005).

  • Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996) ‘Making Sense of Qualitative Data. Complimentary Research Strategies’, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

  • Dombey, D. (2005) ‘Time to talk: but EU voters are uneasy as Turkey begins its quest for membership’, Financial Times, (09/28/2005), Vol. 8.

  • European Commission (2006) ‘Eurobarometer 64. Public opinion in the European Union’. http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/index_en.htm (download on 3/11/2006).

  • Fesenmaier, D. and MacKay, K. (1996) ‘Deconstructing destination image construction’, Revue de Tourisme, Vol. 2, pp. 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ger, G. (1991) ‘Country image: Perceptions, attitudes and associations, and their relationship to context’, in Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Marketing and Development, International Society of Marketing and Development, New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • German Marshall Funds of the United States. (ed) (2005) ‘Transatlantic trends — Topline data 2005’. www.transatlantictrends.org (download on 08/09/2005).

  • Giannakopoulos, A. and Maras, K., (eds) (2005) ‘Die Tuerkei-Debatte in Europa. Ein Vergleich’, VS Verlag fuer Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany.

  • Hagelueken, A. (2004) ‘Groß, arm, muslimisch.' Der Tuerkei-Beitritt wird teuer’, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Vol. 294, December 18–19, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Independent Commission on Turkey (2004) ‘Turkey in Europe: “More than a promise?”’ The British Council Brussels: Brussels.

  • Jaffe, E. D. and Nebenzahl, I. D. (2001) ‘National Image and Competitive Advantage. The Theory and Practice of Country-of-Origin Effect’, Copenhagen Business School,Copenhagen, Denmark.

  • Jaworski, S. P. and Fosher, D. (2003) ‘National brand identity & its effect on corporate brands: The nation brand effect (NBE)’, The Multinational Business Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaycioǧlu, E. (2005) ‘Turkey will resist reactions during negotiations with the EU. Interview with Prof. Ersin Kalaycioǧlu’. www.tdn.com.tr (download on 10/20/2005).

  • Kyriacou, S. and Cromwell, T. (2005a) ‘The concepts and benefits of nation branding’. www.eastwestcoms.com (download on 01/06/2005).

  • Kyriacou, S. and Cromwell, T. (2005b) ‘Corporate strategies for a nation's success’. www.eastwestcoms.com (download on 01/06/2005).

  • Martin, I. M. and Eroǧlu, S. (1993) ‘Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: Country image’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28, pp. 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olins, W. (2002) ‘Branding the nation — The historical context’, Opinion piece. Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4–5, pp. 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omura, G. S. and Talarzyk, W. W. (1985) ‘Shaping public opinion: Personal sources of information on a major political issue’, in Newman, Bruce I. and Sheth, Jagdish N. (eds) ‘Political Marketing: Readings and annotated bibliography’, American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, pp. 95–100.

  • Pantzalis, J. and Rodrigues, C. A. (2005) ‘Country names as brands. Symbolic meaning and capital flows’. www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/1999/pantzajo.pdf (download on 01/26/2005).

  • Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (2002) ‘Country equity and country branding: Problems and prospects’, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4–5, pp. 294–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passow, T., Rolf, F. and Grahlow, H. (2005) ‘Country reputation — From measurement to management: The case of Liechtenstein’, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pusch, B. (2004) ‘EU-Wahrnehmungen in der Tuerkei — Ergebnisse der Meinungsforschung’, Zeitschrift fuer Tuerkeistudien (ZfTS)/Journal for Studies on Turkey, Vol. 17, No. 1+2, pp. 113–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaknin, S. (2005) ‘Nation branding and place marketing’. www.diplomatictraffic.com/nation_branding.asp (download on 11/09/2005).

  • Wallendorf, M. and Belk, R. (1989) ‘Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer research’, in Hirschman, Elisabeth C. (ed)‘ Interpretive Consumer Research’, ACR: Provo, UT, pp. 69–84.

  • Wang, J. (2006) ‘Localising public diplomacy: The role of sub-national actors in nation branding’, Place Branding, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaman, A. (2006) ‘Public support for EU membership falls’. www.zaman.com (downloaded on 20/3/2006).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bilkent University, Faculty of Business Administration, Ankara, 06800, Turkey

    Jan Dirk Kemming & Özlem Sandikci

Authors
  1. Jan Dirk Kemming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Özlem Sandikci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

1works as Creative Planner for Weber Shandwick in Germany. He recently finished his MSc in Marketing at Bilkent University, Turkey, and is currently engaged with his PhD dissertation on Turkey's nation brand image in political contexts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kemming, J., Sandikci, Ö. Turkey's EU accession as a question of nation brand image. Place Brand Public Dipl 3, 31–41 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000046

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000046

Keywords

Search

Navigation