Advertisement

Political Institutions and Policymaking in Turkish Politics

  • Alper T. BulutEmail author
  • T. Murat Yildirim
Chapter
Part of the Comparative Studies of Political Agendas book series (CSPA)

Abstract

This chapter gives a detailed account of the emergence and evolution of political parties, periods of democratization, rising authoritarianism and military interventions, and the rise of the governing AKP. In this chapter, we also introduce the Turkish Policy Agendas Project and the data collected and coded within this framework which consists of parliamentary bills and speeches, oral questions, front-page coverage of a national newspaper, budgetary expenditure, public opinion, and party manifestoes from the past few decades. The chapter also provides detailed information about the coding procedure.

Keywords

Turkish Policy Agendas AKP Clientelism 

References

  1. Bäck, Hanna, and Marc Debus. 2016. Political Parties, Parliaments and Legislative Speechmaking. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevan, Shaun, and Will Jennings. 2014. Representation, Agendas and Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 53 (1): 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulut, Alper T. 2017. Representation and Responsiveness in a Highly Clientelistic Polity: The Case of Turkey. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2944145.
  4. Bulut, Alper T., and Emel İlter. 2019. Understanding Legislative Speech in the Turkish Parliament: Reconsidering the Electoral Connection Under Proportional Representation. Parliamentary Affairs, gsy041.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsy041.
  5. Bulut, Alper T., and Tevfik M. Yildirim. 2019. The Turkish Policy Agendas Project. In Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data, ed. Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, Emiliano Grossman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corke, Susan, Andrew Finkel, David J. Kramer, Carla Anne Robbins, and Nate Schenkkan. 2014. Democracy in Crisis: Corruption, Media, and Power in Turkey. Special Report. Freedom House.Google Scholar
  7. Däubler, Thomas, Kenneth Benoit, Slava Mikhaylov, and Michael Laver. 2012. Natural Sentences as Valid Units for Coded Political Texts. British Journal of Political Science 42: 937–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erus, Burcay, and Nazli Aktakke. 2012. Impact of Healthcare Reforms on Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditures in Turkey for Public Insures. The European Journal of Health Economics 13 (3): 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gumuscu, Sebnem. 2012. The Emerging Predominant Party System in Turkey. Government and Opposition 48 (2): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jennings, Will, and Christopher Wlezien. 2011. Distinguishing Between Most Important Problems and Issues? Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (3): 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jennings, Will, and Peter John. 2009. The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 838–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jennings, Will, and Christopher Wlezien. 2015. Preferences, Problems and Representation. Political Science Research and Methods 3 (3): 659–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2004. Representation and Agenda Setting. Policy Studies Journal 32: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, Bryan D., Heather Larsen-Price, and John Wilkerson. 2009. Representation in American Governing Institutions. Journal of Politics 71: 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kitschelt, Herbert. 2011. Do Institutions Matter for Parties’ Electoral Linkage Strategies? Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Seattle.Google Scholar
  17. MacDonald, Elaine, Ola Listhaug, and George Rabinowitz. 1991. Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems. The American Journal of Political Science 85 (4): 472–488.Google Scholar
  18. Martin, Shane. 2011. Using Parliamentary Questions to Measure Constituency Focus: An Application to the Irish Case. Political Studies 59 (2): 472–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Özbudun, Ergun. 1981. The Turkish Party System: Institutionalization, Polarization, and Fragmentation. Middle Eastern Studies 17 (2): 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Özbudun, Ergun. 2006a. From Political Islam to Conservative Democracy: The Case of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. South European Society and Politics 11 (3–4): 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Özbudun, Ergun. 2006b. Changes and Continuities in the Turkish Party System. Representation 42 (2): 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pennings, Paul. 2005. Parties, Voters and Policy Priorities in the Netherlands, 1971–2002. Party Politics 11 (1): 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rustow, Dankwart. 1996. The Military Legacy. In Imperial Legacy: The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, ed. Carl Brown. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sayari, Sabri. 2007. Towards a New Turkish Party System? Turkish Studies 8 (2): 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sayari, Sabri. 2008. Non-electoral Sources of Party System Change in Turkey. In Essays in Honor of Ergun Özbudun, ed. Serap Yazıcı, Kemal Gözler, Fuat Keyman, Ece Göztepe, Ergun Özbudun, and Istanbul Yetkin Yayınları, 399–417. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sayarı, Sabri. 2011. Clientelism and Patronage in Turkish Politics and Society. In The Post Modern Abyss and the New Politics of Islam: Assabiyah, Revisited Essays in Honor of Şerif Mardin, ed. Binnaz Toprak and Faruk Birtek, 355. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schüler, Harald. 1999. Türkiye’de Sosyal Demokrasi: Particilik, Hemşehrilik, Alevilik. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar
  28. Strøm, Kaare, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman. 2003.Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, Bräuninger, and Marc Debus. 2009. Legislative Agenda-Setting in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 48: 804–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vliegenthart, Rens, and Stefaan Walgrave. 2011. Content Matters: The Dynamics of Parliamentary Questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies 44 (8): 1031–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with Most Important Problem. Electoral Studies 24 (4): 555–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karadeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.University of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations