International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Turkey’s Public Administration Today: An Overview

and Appraisal

Yılmaz Üstüner & Nilay Yavuz

To cite this article: Yılmaz Üstüner & Nilay Yavuz (2018) Turkey’s Public Administration Today:
An Overview and Appraisal, International Journal of Public Administration, 41:10, 820-831, DOI:
10.1080/01900692.2017.1387147

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1387147

Published online: 25 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 343

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2018, VOL. 41, NO. 10, 820–831
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1387147

Turkey’s Public Administration Today: An Overview and Appraisal

Yılmaz Üstüner and Nilay Yavuz
Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study overviews and appraises Turkey’s contemporary public administration system. Its Public administration;
prominent characterizing features are discussed, with an emphasis on both the achievements Turkey; bureaucracy;
and problem areas. Turkey has a long history of strong traditional bureaucratic practices and administrative reform
culture, from which its contemporary public administration system has emerged since the
Republic was established almost a century ago. Despite its many achievements, public adminis-
tration has its problems, generally the product of conflicts between tradition and modernity. Due
emphasis should, however, be given to addressing the challenges of its over-politicization,
strengthening governance practices, enhancing the human factor, and instituting further modern
administrative reforms.

Introduction Modern Turkey is a democratic and secular

“In transition” is perhaps the most appropriate expression
to describe Turkey and Turkish society. One of the
expected outcomes of any transition is the co-existence
—usually, the clash—of old and new social factors. This
creates highly dynamic social setting. The state and public
administration system as a whole is no exception.
This study overviews and appraises Turkey’s con-
temporary public administration system. It begins by
setting out the Turkish socioeconomic context. It then
describes and discusses prominent characteristics of
Turkish public administration, focusing on both its
achievements and its problem areas. In so doing, it
explores the conflicts between tradition and modernity.
The article concludes by identifying the challenges
facing Turkish public administration: its over-politici-
zation, its incomplete governance practices, its neglect
of the human factor, and its need for further modern
administrative, fiscal, and service delivery reforms.
National background
Located on two continents—Asia and Europe
(Balkans)—Turkey has an area of 783.562 square kilo-
meters including the surrounding seas, 97% of which
is in Asia (Anatolia). So, Turkey has long held a
strategically important geographical position, being a
gateway, crossroads, and passage from West to East
and vice versa.
Republic, proclaimed in 1923. This followed, first, the
defeat of Ottoman Empire, which existed for approxi-
mately 600 years, and then its “war of independence”
(1919–1923) against allies (including Greece, Armenia,
France, UK, and Italy). Proclamation of the Republic
was immediately followed by reforms based on Western
ways of life, with structural models imported from
many continental European countries. However,
Turkey never totally abandoning the traditional socio-
cultural characteristics inherited from the Middle East
and Ottoman Empire. As a result, Turkey today is “a
member of almost every Western European interna-
tional organization” (Kapucu & Palabıyık, 2008: 47)
and has a long history to become a member state of
European Union, officially applied for in 1987.
Socio-economic context
Turkey has a population of 78.74 million (Turkish
Statistical Institute, 2016b). This makes it the third
populous country in Europe, following Russia and
Germany. The annual growth figure for 2015 was
13.4% and the projection made by Turkish Statistical
Institute (TSI) for the year 2025 is approximately 87
million (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2016a). Population
density is estimated as 102 persons per square kilo-
meters but distribution is not even; 92.1% reside in
provinces and sub-provinces whereas only 7.9% live in
towns and villages. Also, 18.6% live in Istanbul, having

CONTACT Yılmaz Üstüner ustuner@metu.edu.tr Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Political Science and Pubic Administration,
Middle East Technical University, Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No:1, 06800 Çankaya Ankara, Turkey; Nilay Yavuz nyavuz@metu.edu.tr.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 821

a population of 14.657.414 (January 2016) (Turkish Constitutional context

Statistical Institute, 2016b). Uneven geographical and
Turkey has a democratic parliamentary system and
settlement distribution of people beings forth certain
its fundamental political structure is in accord with
difficulties in organizing the provision of public ser-
its 1982 Constitution. This clearly states that “the
vices especially in respect to material and human
Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and
resources allocation.
social state governed by rule of law” (Article 2)
The labor force in Turkey is 30,778,000 (June 2016),
and that it is “an indivisible entity” (Article 3).
of whom 10.3% are unemployed (Turkish Statistical
Based on the principle of the separation of powers:
Institute, 2016c). Unemployment of the younger gen-
the legislative power is vested in the Turkish Grand
eration (15–24 years old) is even higher at 19.4%. This
National Assembly; the executive power in the
rises to 30%, if the many young people who are in
President of the Republic and the Council of
education and training are omitted, which is the highest
Ministers; and the judicial power rests in indepen-
rate among OECD countries (OECD, 2016a). General
dent courts. However, strong central administration
unemployment issue and unemployment of the
tradition and supremacy of politics over bureaucracy
younger generation look to the public sector for new
pose some threats to the exercise of this principle.
jobs, despite the prevailing neoliberal public adminis-
There is overlapping of powers, and the public
tration practices in the last 15 years having the objective
bureaucracy is under very strict scrutiny and control
of downsizing the public sector.
of the political authority.
The relatively higher rate of unemployment is not
The 1982 Constitution defines various principles
consistent with the economic growth in Turkey.
governing the Turkish state and public administration.
Turkish free-market economy has a GDP (in purchas-
These are the principles of integral unity and the public
ing power parity) of $US 1.589 trillion, which makes it
legal personality of the administration, centralization
the 18th big economy in the world (CIA, 2016). It is
and decentralization and dispersed (wider) powers
also the sixth largest economy in Europe, after Spain
(Kapucu & Palabıyık, 2008). The Constitution states,
(Turkish Under-secretariat of Treasury, 2016). The
“the administration forms a whole, with regard to its
World Bank indicates that Turkey’s average real
constitution and functions, and shall be regulated by
income has increased five-fold since the 1950s and its
law” (Article 123). The administrative system is bifur-
real GDP has increased at never less than 4% a year, a
cated into central and local administration.
growth rate that is considered to be “solid” rather than
On April 16, 2017, a referendum was made for 18
“spectacular” (Turkish Under-secretariat of Treasury,
constitutional amendments proposed by governing
2016). Since the 1980s, Turkey’s growth has been either
Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Yes” votes
in par or exceeded its peer group (i.e. new member
were counted as 51.41% against 48.59% “no” votes.
states, and accession candidates of EU, BRICKS, growth
Except one, all of the amendments will be put into
markets, and MENA countries (The World Bank,
effect 2 years later, by the end of 2019. The most
2015).
important amendment will be about the position of
Despite the economic wealth and growth, relatively
the President, transforming the political system into a
uneven distribution of income constitutes one of the
“presidential system,” where there will be no Prime
most important socio-economic problems. The Gini
Minister and much more Presidential authority and
coefficient by household disposable income figure is
powers. This would likely increase the centralization
0.397 (OECD Stat, 2016). This figure is well above the
of the state and public bureaucracy.
generally accepted ideal value of 0.21. As the result, the
In Turkey, central administration consisted of both
highest 20% income-level group in Turkey receives
central administrative institutions, such as the Prime
46.5% of the total income in 2015, which rises to 68%
Ministry, Ministries, and other agencies located in
when the highest 40% income group is considered. The
Ankara (the capital city) and provincial administration
lowest 20% income group receives only 6.1% of total
(81 provinces and 919 sub-provinces). These are
income, and, as the result, 15.8% of the population
formed according to the prevailing geographical situa-
remain below the poverty line between 2012 and 2015
tion, economic conditions, and the public services.
(Turkish Statistical Institute, 2016d). The reducing of
Provincial administration is based on the principle of
income inequality and the poverty, without threatening
the de-centralization of powers, but, in a sense, it can
the pace of economic growth, is another challenge for
be considered as the extensions of central administra-
the state.
tion down to these localities.
822 Y. ÜSTÜNER AND N. YAVUZ
Local administration consists of municipal, village,
and special provincial administration. Local adminis-
tration units operate under administrative tutelage of
the central government. Their electorate elects their
senior administrators and council members every 5
years. Currently, 30 of 1,397 municipalities are metro-
politan and there are 18,332 villages. However; “the
distribution of tasks between central, provincial and
local administrations in terms of effectiveness, effi-
ciency and democracy in services has not been success-
ful to date. The result is a bulky structure and red tape
bureaucracy” (Kapucu & Palabıyık, 2008, p. 109).
Past administrative reform
Turkish public administration system has been subject
to many reform initiatives since the Proclamation of
the Republic. Major reform campaigns took place in
1963, 1971, 1980, 1989, and 2000. Those campaigns
were sporadic and aimed at specific aspects and levels
of the system. Most were made with the objectives of
increasing the effectiveness and efficiency and resulted
in highly similar diagnosis and recipes about the pro-
blems of the system as a whole. These reforms have
been basically limited with the structural elements of
the system, especially on the re-organization of institu-
tional-organizational dimensions.
Starting in the early 1980s—parallel to global cur-
rents—Turkish public administration system was sub-
jected to new reform discourse based upon agendas
aligned with neoliberal public sector reform and New
Public Management practices. These included privati-
zation, downsizing, de-regulation, and the adoption of
business management practices. The traditional char-
acteristics of public administration—such as centralism,
political control, and interference, resistance to change
—imposed many constraints on the full and fast imple-
mentation of reform. Also the direct application of
reforms grounded in foreign practices, without adjust-
ing them to local conditions, demands, and culture, is
the source of many reform implementation problems.
From the mid 1990s—again following again global
trends—the Turkish state began to make structural re-
arrangements for the implementation of “regulatory
state” phase of neoliberalism. The tenets of the New
Public Management guide thinking, together with
establishment of a number of independent regulatory
authorities or higher councils based upon the neoliberal
understanding of governance. Most of these are opera-
tional today and are in charge of regulating many areas
of market and social life (ranging from mass media to
competition in the markets, energy sector, public pro-
curements, and finance sector and banking). However,
the prevailing politic-administrative culture of strong
political control validated these regulatory institutions
and ensured their successful operation.
The state and civil society
In recent years, there has been an increase in the
influence and importance of civil society; interestingly,
this is despite the tradition of having a strong centra-
lized government. According to Kapucu (2015), civil
society in Turkey has emerged from religious or poli-
tical roots and has gone through three stages of devel-
opment: the Ottoman era (until 1923); the first part of
the Republic era (1923–1980); and the second part of
the Republic era (1980 to present). These stages also
marked the country’s progress toward secularization,
and adoption of some policies to enhance gender equal-
ity, civil rights, and democracy (Toprak, 1996).
Particularly, Turkey’s acceleration into market econ-
omy in the 1980s contributed to the engagement of
different social groups in policymaking and public ser-
vice provision (Caha & Karaman, 2004; Gül & Kiriş,
2015). This impetus has been further supported by the
administrative reforms introduced in 2000s, especially
at the local government level. Currently, many volun-
tary organizations and business organizations in
Turkey continue to partner with the government to
develop projects and provide particular public services.
One of the major reasons behind this development has
been before mentioned Turkey’s European Union
accession process, which requires reforms demanding
more governmental transparency and democratic gov-
ernance in Turkey (Diez, Agnantopoulos, & Kaliber,
2005). One of these reforms that aimed to improve
civic engagement in Turkey at the local level was the
introduction of Municipal City Councils, with the
Municipality Law (Law 5,393 of 2005). Later in 2006,
a by-law was issued by the Ministry of Interior, which
required municipalities to establish city councils com-
posed of representatives of professional organizations,
unions, universities, civil society organizations, political
parties, public agencies and institutions, and heads of
neighborhoods (mukhtars),
According to this by-law, city councils are described
as the governance mechanisms by which “city’s devel-
opment priorities, problems and visions are determined
and discussed on the basis of the principles of sustain-
able development, and where solutions are developed
through common sense and compromise” (Turkey,
City Council By-Laws, 2016). As such, city councils
are expected to function as mechanisms that enable
public participation in the local government policy-
making and contribute to an effective local governance

process. But, there have been criticisms about the inef-
fectiveness of city councils due to the excessive dom-
inance of the municipal council members over the city
councils and lack of sufficient financial resources.
Therefore, currently, city councils are not highly opera-
tional in Turkey as civic participation tools (Çetinkaya
& Korlu, 2012).
Another development that sought to improve trans-
parency, accountability, and public participation in
Turkey has been the introduction of the Right to
Information Law (Law 4,982 of 2003). This seeks to
ensure that individuals and legal persons have the right
of access to information held by public authorities.
Accordingly, it provides a mechanism through which
civil society can obtain information about the govern-
ment plans and actions, and the consequences of these
actions, and can provide feedback to the policy makers.
In this sense, it has the potential to improve the state-
civil society relationship.
In addition, the Public Inspection Institution
(Ombudsman) was established in 2012 (Law 6,328 of
2012) to act as a mediator of disputes between the
citizens and public institutions. The institution is
required to review and investigate the actions of the
both central and local administration upon receipt of a
complaint by the citizens, and to advise the adminis-
tration accordingly.
Over the last decade, Turkey has been struggling to
overcome its centralist tradition of government by
developing administrative reforms that sought to
strengthen the civil society-state relationship, as part
of its efforts to implement the good governance prin-
ciples of transparency, accountability, and public parti-
cipation, as guided by the European Union accession
process.
The state and the marketplace
The relationship between the state and the marketplace
in Turkey has evolved as the country past through
various stages of development in its history. In the
early years of the Republic of Turkey (1923–1950),
economic development was led by the public sector,
through direct intervention of the state (Ökmen &
Parlak, 2015; Sözen, 2012). State economic enterprises
were established as the main tools of economic devel-
opment. The state-led development policy was imple-
mented in order to build a nation state, achieve top-to-
bottom modernization, Westernization, and consistent
administration across the whole country, while ensur-
ing continuous and secured economic development
(Heper, 1985; Ortaylı, 1979; Mardin, 1994; Sözen,
2012). During the 1950s, liberal policies were partly
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 823
implemented in the economy, but the real shift in the
state-market relationship occurred when the New Right
policies and the resulting managerial reforms of neoli-
beralism, especially led by the UK and the USA, became
influential in Turkey from the early 1980s. These mar-
ket-oriented reforms were also being recommended to
developing countries by the international organizations,
such as International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
These reforms sought to transfer government functions
and assets to private sector whenever it is more efficient
to do so. Accordingly, Turkey’s substantial privatization
policy targeted the state economic enterprises. These
privatization attempts accelerated, with the develop-
ment of the necessary legal framework in Turkey in
the 1990s, and with the establishment of the Directorate
of Privatization Administration under the Prime
Ministry. Local government has also adopted privatiza-
tion policies. This is the result of the outsourcing of
local public services (such as garbage collection and
street cleaning). The Turkish government has also mea-
sures to strengthen the market mechanisms and protect
them against political interferences. In that regard,
autonomous regulatory agencies were established the
1980s to regulate critical markets, such as banking,
media, tobacco products, as well as the capital market,
the energy market, and the telecommunication market.
The reforms in the economy of Turkey in the last
15 years have attempted to integrate the economy of
Turkey to the world economy, and, particularly, to meet
the economic and financial standards of European Union
accession criteria, including the requirement of a free
market economy. One of the initiatives adopted for this
purpose was the introduction of Regional Development
Agencies (RDA) in 2006. RDAs aim to balance regional
inequalities and boost regional economic development,
while increasing the efficiency, effectiveness, and produc-
tivity of government. In this European development
model, the engine of economic growth has become
regions instead of the national policies of the central
government, and local actors have been given higher
importance.
The civil service
The current 1982 Constitution of Turkey states that the
fundamental and permanent functions required by the
public services that the state and other public institu-
tions are assigned will be carried out by public servants
and other public employees who are obliged to carry
out their duties with loyalty to the Constitution and
laws (Articles 128 and 129).
The Law of Public Servants (Law 657 of 1965) still
regulates the fundamental provisions of public
824 Y. ÜSTÜNER AND N. YAVUZ
employment. It has some stipulations inherited from
the Ottoman Empire and it has been amended many
times. Indeed, the currently fragmented and highly
complex legal-structural for civil service as a whole
has emerged because different employment categories
and methods involve different laws (including many
governmental decrees). Management of this complex
system, consequently, is also a challenging task.
Public employment affairs are regulated both at the
center and local levels. Subordinated to Ministry of
Labour and Social Security, the State Personnel
Presidency is in charge of preparing personnel policies,
determining overall personnel needs of the system and
conducting research on the betterment of public per-
sonnel employment. However, the Ministry of Finance
is also powerful. It basically determines salary policy
and issues visas for appointment to certain positions.
This duality necessitates close collaboration between
these two agencies but, in practice, it is not perfect.
Almost all the other public institutions, either central
or local, have their own specific personnel departments.
There is also an ongoing reorganization plan for
these units to change their names from Personnel
Departments to Human Resources Departments and
assigning them roles and tasks in parallel with the
New Public Management perspective. However, lack
of legal-structural reform about the regulation of civil
service centrally hinders this transformation.
Public employees in Turkey are divided into four
broad categories, under the 1965 Law of Public Servants,
according to their expert and/or service areas. These are
administrative (civil servants), judiciary, academic, and
military. For each of these areas, there are specific laws
and regulations in effect together with this Law.
In general, public officials work under the principles
of carrier, merit, equality, and impartiality (Kapucu &
Palabıyık, 2008, pp. 209–210). Although these are gen-
erally observed in practice, strong political control over
bureaucracy and strong centralization of the adminis-
trative apparatus itself bring certain strains. Political
control is especially evident with respect to the appoint-
ments of senior officials. Although senior officials have
the status of civil servants, their appointment and dis-
missals are political, not based on merit system follow-
ing transparent competition. Such positions number
approximately 7,000 (OECD, 2015, p. 49).
Recruitment
In principle, recruitment of public employees is made
through central entrance examinations, which were
made mandatory 1999, augmented by local exams and
interviews carried by specific institutions to which the
candidates have applied. Once admitted, employees are
subject to compulsory training (for some positions) and
all of them work for 1 year in probation as “candi-
dates.” Those who successfully completed this proba-
tion period are fully entitled with the status of a civil
servant. Although the central exam has direct positive
effect on maintaining the merit principle, the politici-
zation of the post-central examination appointment
processes and practices (such as a converting con-
tracted personnel into permanent public servants)
threaten the sustainability of merit principle. In 2011,
the number of such personnel subject to transformation
was 200,000, falling to 100,000 in 2013 (OECD, 2015).
The provisions of the 1965 Law of Public Servants
provide a four-fold classifies public employees:
● civil servants who hold permanent positions in
any public agencies;
● contracted personnel who are hired on a fiscal
year basis to work on temporary and exceptional
jobs as required;
● temporary (seasonal) personnel, whose employment
is either less than 1 year or for a certain season and
who are not classified as laborers; and last,
● laborers who are hired for temporary or perma-
nent basis and who remain outside the above-
mentioned three categories of public personnel.
This Law stipulates that there is no other basis for
employing public officials in Turkish civil service.
As of May 2016, the number of public employees
employed in these four broad categories are as follows
(Turkish State Personnel Presidency, 2016):
● Administrative (civil servants): 2,517,513, includ-
ing central and local government agencies, public
enterprises, and the military.
● Judiciary: 15.899, including judges and prosecu-
tors working in different judicial agencies.
● Academic: 129,359, including academicians who
work in 114 public universities and other higher-
level education institutions.
● Military: 241,561, excluding soldiers undertaking
compulsory military service.
● Contracted personnel: 119,199.
● Laborers: 344,711.
So, there are 3,390,738 public employees (Turkish State
Personnel Presidency, 2016). This reflects more than 40%
increase over the last 10 years, corresponding to more
than 750 000 new positions (OECD, 2015, p. 38). Given
the total workforce is 30,453,000, then public employment
is 11.1%, which well below the OECD average of 20%

(OECD, 2016). In terms of public service provision, there
is one public employee (including permanent and tem-
porary officials) for every 23.2 persons in Turkey. This is
acceptable, given Turkey’s geographic size and variegated
conditions.
Gender discrimination
Uneven distribution of public employees in respect to
gender is another characteristic of, and problem for, the
Turkish civil service. Female employees constitute
37.1% of public employees. Further, higher administra-
tive positions are rarely filled with women (OECD,
2016). According to data provided by Turkish
Statistical Institute, the ratio of higher-level female
administrators was only 9% in 2014, which has not
changes significantly in previous years (Turkish
Statistical Institute, 2016e). Just to illustrate this point,
it should be noted that the first women as a governor
for a province was appointed in 1991 and currently
there are only three women governors out of 81. This
means since the proclamation of Turkish Republic in
1923, only four women governors have ever been
appointed. The situation is similar for undersecretary
positions. Currently, there is only one female under-
secretary and only two have ever been appointed since
the Turkish Republic was proclaimed. This all reveals
that a gender gap exists in Turkish civil service, espe-
cially at higher hierarchical levels.
The challenges
There is a broad consensus on the basic problems confront-
ing Turkish public administration. Addressing these, how-
ever, has proved to be very challenging, not least because of
a clear tension between tradition and modernity in govern-
ance and administration. Some reform initiatives have been
successful. Despite this, the public service as a whole still
needs substantial reform for its betterment. In general, civil
service reform consists of two main dimensions:
● structural-procedural reforms (related to legisla-
tion, civil service policy and strategy, managerial
procedures, and measures for organizational effi-
ciency and effective) and
● human resource management (related to speciali-
zation, training, betterment of work conditions,
public sector culture, and ethics).
The first reform dimension necessitates a top-down
perspective—from management to employees—while the
second requires bottom-up perspective. In the Turkish
bureaucracy, the perspective that guides administrative
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 825
reform had always been top-down, neglecting the bot-
tom-up perspective. Future reforms should also include
improving working conditions, developing a supportive
organizational culture; building superior-subordinate rela-
tionships; fighting mobbing, politics and ideology-based
rivalry among the employees; broadening participation in
governance processes; building a desire to serve citizens on
an equitable and just basis, bringing the public interests to
foreground, and similar, building a commitment to creat-
ing better civil service. This is especially important in the
face of adopted neoliberal and managerialist practices,
which have the potential to escalate the problems asso-
ciated with employee motivation and behavior. In other
words, job satisfaction must become an important motiva-
tional factor for civil servants and, at least, be of equal
importance to legal-structural and managerial reforms.
Public budgeting and financial management
Public budgeting reform
The current budgeting and public finance practices in
Turkey take place within the legal framework defined by
the latest Public Finance and Control Law (Law 5,018 of
2003, effective from 2006) (Turkey, Public Finance and
Control Law, 2016) . This law was developed as part of the
government’s New Public Management reform agenda,
which aimed to improve governmental efficiency, effec-
tiveness, and accountability. According to Kapucu and
Palabıyık (2008, pp. 241–242), it sought to realize the
following public finance reform goals:
● balanced budgets, whereby expenditure does not
exceed the upper limits of expected revenue;
● expenditure allocations in accord with strategic
policy priorities and the efficient and effective
delivery of public services; and
● fiscal transparency and accountability.
The 2003 Public Finance and Control Law provided
a guideline for the classification, preparation, and
implementation of government budgets, for the orga-
nization and administration of public finance, and for
improving financial performance of public agencies.
Under this Law, the public sector, for budgeting pur-
poses, has been divided into two main groups: public
administrations and state economic enterprises.
Under the rubric of public administrations there are
● government organizations with general budgets
(including the budgets of organizations in the
legislative, executive and judiciary branches of
the government);
826 Y. ÜSTÜNER AND N. YAVUZ
● government organizations with special budgets
(including functional local governments such as
universities, General Directorate of Forestry,
Turkish Standards Institution);
● regulatory and supervisory authorities;
● social security agencies; and
● local administrative agencies.
There have been some other important changes
brought with the 2003 Public Finance and Control
Law. Public agencies within the general administration
have to prepare multi-year budgets; performance-based
budgeting has been implemented; all public institutions
have to shift from cash-based to accrual-based account-
ing system and to analytical budget codification system;
all social security institutions, which were previously
separate, have to be amalgamated into the single
Social Security Agency (Kapucu & Palabıyık, 2008, p.
243). In addition, to achieve a more efficient and effec-
tive use of public resources, public agencies at all levels
have to prepare 5-year strategic plans, which gives
details of organizational mission, vision, goals, and
objectives (Kapucu & Palabıyık, 2008, p. 244).
In short, the 2003 Public Finance and Control Law
introduced important changes to the way that the pub-
lic budgeting, with public agencies now organized and
administered in accordance with the values of transpar-
ency, accountability, and performance.
Financial and performance management reform
The 2003 Public Finance and Control Law basically
aimed to implement measures to improve the perfor-
mance of the public agencies. One of the main tenets of
the performance management is performance-based
budgeting, which provides its implementation frame-
work. This requires agencies to the prepare medium-
term and long-term strategic plans, and annual perfor-
mance plans, so as to permit performance measure-
ment against specified goals; and to prepare annual
activity reports, so as to evaluate performance in com-
parison with the strategic plans (OECD, 2011).
The Municipality Law (Law 5,393 of 2005), as a
complement to the 2003 Public Finance and Control
Law, required municipalities to determine performance
criteria and monitor their administrative performance.
Ministry of Finance has been authorized to ensure that
the performance criteria that are specified in the stra-
tegic plans of the public agencies are in line with their
budgets.
Besides the strategic plans and performance-based
budgeting, 2003 Public Finance and Control Law also
sought to improve public agencies’ performance
through the establishment of internal auditing units
within the public authorities and improvements on
external auditing (Sözen, 2012). This was also an action
put into effect to comply with the international stan-
dards and practices within the EU. The internal control
system that was envisaged has included not only com-
pliance but also risk management and monitoring of
administrative processes (Kapucu & Palabıyık, 2008, p.
244). Under this law, responsibility for external finan-
cial audits of public agencies by the Court of Audit has
also been expanded to include central government
administrations, social security agencies, and local
administrations.
Rooted in 2003 Public Finance and Control Law,
with its emphasis on enhancing public performance,
performance enhancement measures in the public sec-
tor has become a compelling issue. The health-sector
reforms, for example, have recently introduced some
measures to improve performance, including pay-for-
performance initiatives. However, it is argued that these
have resulted in several negative consequences in
Turkey. These include a lowering of the quality public
health services, an increase in corrupt behavior, the loss
of the confidence between patients and health practi-
tioners, the “overuse” of available treatment methods,
competition among the health practitioners, and other
ethical violations (Üstüner & İdrisoğlu, 2014).
Therefore, these and similar kinds of unintended effects
need to be taken into account by the policymakers and
administrators when considering performance
enhancement measures to be adopted in order to
implement the 2003 Law.
Ethics
Ethics in public administration has been on the agenda
of many countries in the last decade, no less in Turkey.
In this context, ethics regulation of the public sector
has been an integrated component of public manage-
ment reforms. Especially, global concerns to reduce
corruption and improve service provisioning to citizens
have forced many states to either establish or renovate
their legal-structural framework of public sector ethics;
Turkey is no exception.
Road to ethics regulation in Turkey started with
ratification of a series of international agreements and
conventions between 2000 and 2004, as part of its
structural public management reforms, including the
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign
Public Officials in International Business Transactions
and Related Instruments, the Council of Europe Civil
Law Convention on Corruption, the United Nations
Convention against Corruption, the Council of Europe

Criminal Law Convention on Corruption. In 2004,
Turkish Parliament enacted the Board of Ethics Law
(Law 5,176 of 2004). This provides the legal foundation
for regulation of ethics in public administration. It
created the Board of Ethics for Public Officials. This
body has nine members and is subordinate to Prime
Ministry. The board has three major tasks:
●
to prepare regulations embedding a code of ethics
and a set of ethical values for public employees;
● to monitor the implementation of these regula-
tions; and
● to train public officials about public sector ethics.
In this context, the Board issued a regulation in 2005
set out mandatory set of codes of ethics to be adopted
and implemented by all public officials together with
other structural (regulatory) provisions. These codes
included the requirement that public officials always
act in the public interest; act with impartiality, integrity,
accountability, transparency, consistency when deliver-
ing public service; respect subsidiarity; trust declara-
tions by citizens; are loyalty to the objectives and
mission of public service; are obedience to standards
of service; provide guidance to citizens; and be effective
and efficient in the use of public resources.
This Board is also authorized to conduct investiga-
tions into claims of the violation of ethic codes made by
either citizens or public officials. However, this func-
tion has, however, been constrained so far. The Board
is authorized only to investigate claims against general
directors and other senior officials, not for lower level
civil servants. Also, certain public bodies are outside the
Board’s jurisdiction, including Parliament, the military
services, and universities. Since its establishment in
2004, investigations by the Board have been very lim-
ited, and most claims have been rejected due to non-
compliance with procedures. Between 2004 and 2015,
1,821 claims were investigated, of which 1,238 (68%)
were rejected (Board of Ethics, 2015, p. 16).
This Board is authorized only to conduct investiga-
tions; it has no judicial authority. So, it has only limited
sanctions in the event of ethical code violations. Until
2010, the Board had been able to publish its violation
decisions in full in the Official Gazette of Turkish State.
A Constitutional Court decision, however, terminated
this practice. Currently, the only sanctions are to pre-
sent a suspected ethics violation case to a courts for
adjudication, to notify the accused official and his/her
superiors, and to publish details of suspected violation
cases on its website without disclosing the identities of
officials involved.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 827
Agency ethics committees also undertake the regula-
tion of ethics in public agencies. These had to be
established, regardless of whether an agency was within
or outside the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics. A
senior administrator and other officials within each
agency constitute the membership of these committees.
They are in charge of dispersing the ethic codes and
value statements among their agency’s employees, pre-
paring their agency’s strategy on ethics training, and
developing recommendations about ethics-related
issues. These committees are not fully functional yet
but are expected in the near future to become promi-
nent component ways of developing and inculcating
bureaucratic ethics at the institutional level and so of
combatting corruption. Necessary legislative arrange-
ments have to be made to assign these committees to
work as counseling or support units for the members of
their organizations on ethical issues or dilemmas they
face during their daily work.
Transparency International (2016) Corruption
Perceptions Index for the year 2015 ranked Turkey at
66th out of 168 countries having the score 42. Although
the score has, more or less, been constant between 2010
and 2015, Turkey’s ranking is getting worse (from 51st
in 2010 to 66th in 2015). This means that the combat
against corruption in Turkey needs to be intensified
and new strategies and measures need to be put into
effect. In fact, governments and the bureaucracy are
highly sensitive for this issue, evidenced by the devel-
opment of the 2010–2014 National Anti-Corruption
Strategy and Action Plan. Other anti-corruption legal-
administrative infrastructures and measures are avail-
able, such as disciplinary sanctions and well-structured
internal and external audit systems, and the use of
qualified auditors. Criminal Law and Law of Public
Servants clearly define and ban almost all forms of
corruption, including active and passive bribery and
abuse of office and public goods. Between 2004 and
2014, total number of cases subjected to inspection by
auditors was 194,814 (OECD, 2015, p. 52).
In general, compliance with ethical codes and values
by public officials is one of the prerequisites to fight
against corruption. However, ethics in public adminis-
tration should mean more than that. Corruption is,
above all, a violation of all laws related to public sector.
As such, it is a crime and should be monitored and
then punished by the judiciary. For many countries,
including Turkey, ethics regulation, unfortunately has
been equated with legal framework and measures thus
assigning a new meaning, both to the ethical conduct
and legal control. Obedience to ethical conduct is so
difficult to sustain only by legal-juristic provisions and
measures. In fact, this is the domain of law. Best
828 Y. ÜSTÜNER AND N. YAVUZ
structural-legal arrangements and sanctions, even if
these are well-established and implemented, become
insufficient to combat corruption, as can also be seen
in the Turkish case. Conscience, being the prominent
component of ethical conduct and other values (such as
being just, altruistic, compassionate, and acting with
integrity) must be assimilated by the public officials
not by the enforcement of laws and structural arrange-
ments but making them sensitive to these, persuading
and rationally showing them the adverse consequences
of ethics violation upon the society and themselves.
This means, above all, a well-designed training program
of ethics for the civil servants. This needs to be com-
pulsory for all and include aspects beyond judicial
regulation. Under the 2004 Board of Ethics Law, the
task of ethics training is assigned to that Board. In
recent years, the Board gave due emphasis to this task
and many programs have been arranged. This should
turn into a better-planned and coordinated project that
will function together with judicial regulation.
E-governance and e-government
Along with the developments in information and com-
munication technologies and related applications,
e-government projects have increasingly been intro-
duced in Turkey in the recent years. Similar to the
other reform areas in Turkey, these initiatives have
been largely motivated by meeting the criteria to
become an EU member, along with increasing effi-
ciency and citizen satisfaction with the public services.
After the Internet was introduced in Turkey in 1993,
the first e-government initiative was developed as early
as 1998—the Tax Office Automation Project (VEDOP)
—which sought to decrease workload, to increase effi-
ciency and effectiveness, and to create a management
information system (Şakar, 2011). This initiative was
followed by the Central Civil Registration System
(MERNIS) project, which was initiated in 1998 and
completed in 2000.
Implementation of e-government in Turkey was
speeded up in the 2000s, when the country, as a candi-
date EU membership, was invited to comply with
e-Europe Action Plan issued by European Commission
in 2001 to realize its goal of “becoming the World’s
most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based eco-
nomic area” (Şahin & Örselli, 2003).
Following this initiative came the e-Transformation
Turkey Project in 2003. Its objectives were to re-exam-
ine and revise the policies, laws, and regulations regard-
ing ICT in the light of the EU admission requirements.
This involved developing ICT mechanisms to facilitate
public participation in policymaking; to enhance
transparency and accountability in public administra-
tion; to avoid duplicating or overlapping investments in
public ITC projects; and to guide the private sector
accordingly. One of the results of this project was the
establishment of an e-government gateway in Turkey.
Under the responsibility of the then State Planning
Organization (now the Ministry of Development), the
e-government portal project was implemented in
December 2008, in partnership of TURKSAT—an
international cable and satellite operator. The Ministry
of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communication, on
behalf of the Prime Ministry, established this portal,
which is now operating and managing. The national
e-portal—www.turkey.gov.tr—has been a platform
where government services are provided electronically
to citizens, business organizations, and all other gov-
ernmental organizations. Using this website, citizens
can get information on and access to the main public
services, such as citizenship, education, military obliga-
tion, social security, health, job and career, traffic, tour-
ism, travel, culture art and sport, foreign citizens, and
law and regulations.
There are several e-government applications that are
currently in use in Turkey. The major e-services and
applications are as follows: MERNIS (central census
management system including identity and address
record system), POLNET (police network and informa-
tion system), UYAP (national judiciary informatics sys-
tem), as well as the Internet tax offices, the accounting
office automation project, the e-budget, the customs
modernization project, the e-document in foreign
trade, and social security e-declaration project, the
Turkish foreign investment portal, KOBİnet for Small
and Medium Enterprises, the tourism portal, the electro-
nic signature, and certification authority, and the mobile
electronic signature (Aydın, 2010). The developments in
e-government services over the past few years have
shown a steady increase in e-services, which have
increased from 139 in 2010 to 246 in 2011, and then to
514 in 2012 (Gökçeoğlu & Yavuz, 2013).
Currently, there are about 30 million users of the
e-government portal in Turkey. Despite this, the use of
e-government services in Turkey is still not at the desired
levels. The main problems relate to be the incompetence
in implementation, the lack of expertise, the reluctance of
senior administration to advance e-government, intero-
perability and inadequate technical standards, a shortage
of basic incentives and appropriate organizational struc-
tures, a lack of financial sources, privacy issues, and both
staff and public resistance (Gökmen, 2010, p. 3). In addi-
tion, the digital divide may also be the reason that hinder
widespread adoption of e-government in Turkey, as only
51.04% of the households have Internet access at home,

with only 11.69% having broadband internet access (UN
E-Government Knowledge Database, 2016)
These problems have limited ranking of Turkey in
e-government and e-participation indexes published by
the United Nations (UN E-Government Knowledge
Database, 2016). In 2016 data, Turkey ranks 68th out
of 193 countries in e-government development index,
whereas in terms of e-participation, it ranks 65th out of
193 countries. This is not very promising, although it
should be noted Turkey’s e-government index ranking
in 2016 is three places higher compared to its ranking
in 2014. Similarly, e-participation ranking is also five
places higher than it was in 2014. It might, then, be said
that Turkey has made some progress both in e-govern-
ment and e-participation over the past 2 years. In
addition, Turkey is above the world average and region
average in all the components of E-Government
Development Index—the Online Service Index (OSI),
the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) and
the Human Capital Index (HCI).
Turkey has been progressively, over the past 10 years,
embraced information and communication technologies
to deliver public services and to engage citizens in deci-
sion-making processes. It needs, however, to develop
better policies to address problems related to relatively
lower levels of e-government adoption, the digital divide,
the inadequacy of the ICT infrastructure, and the lack of
coordination among the public agencies.
Conclusion: The challenges ahead
The foregoing analysis reveals that there are mainly
four broad categories of challenges facing the Turkish
public administration system: politicization, govern-
ance, human resource management, and administrative
reform.
The over-politicization of public administration
Control by the political party in power over the public
administration system is one of the most important
threats facing public administration in Turkey. Due to
the requirements of the separation of power principles
and of democracy, it is natural for government to want
to eliminate potential resistance to political authority
over the bureaucracy. However, elimination of such
resistance should not mean the adoption by the politi-
cal authority of very strict hierarchical controls over the
bureaucracy. Such direct control and intervention
threatens the expertise of the bureaucracy and the sur-
vival of the merit system, which would compromise
and hinder the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of
public services, and so threating the vibrancy of the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 829
Turkish state. This control and intervention are espe-
cially problematic with respect to appointments to
higher-level positions, because it eliminates both the
distinctions between political and administrative lea-
dership and the competitive process for such appoint-
ments that makes them merit-based. Moreover, the
politicization of the Turkish national bureaucracy
means the politicization of all levels of public adminis-
tration. Currently, Turkey is debating a new
Constitution and its transformation into a presidency
system. If this is realized, then, in the future, there is
the probability that this issue would become even more
problematic.
Governance and the broadening of participation in
public policy and administration
Participation, transparency, and accountability are three
interrelated pillars of a good governance process. Turkey
has done a lot to enhance its governance arrangements,
especially in the last decade, as a consequence of pressures
from outside (such as from EU and other international
organizations) and/or demands from inside. These have
always been matters of consideration with priority in gov-
ernment programs, plans, and strategies. Accordingly,
many legal-procedural arrangements have been made to
establish and sustain these principles as common practices
of bureaucracy and more can be expected in the future.
However, the key issue is their implementation. Turkey still
has problems of participation in governance processes,
both from outside (civil society) and inside (members of
bureaucracy). The willingness of the public administration
system to be open and to facilitate broader participation in
policymaking and implementation processes is necessary
but not adequate. Stakeholders should also demand a
greater governance role, and, more importantly, should
evidence their zeal and willingness to participate in govern-
ance processes. Despite high politicization being a tradi-
tional characteristic of Turkish society, there is a doubt
about the willingness of stakeholders to participate in gov-
ernance processes. In this respect, local governments are
important means of participation, but the over-exercised
administrative tutelage of the center and their strict mon-
itoring and control from above is another problem and a
challenge to be addressed.
The neglected human element in public
administration
Bureaucratic culture and cultural conflict is another chal-
lenge for Turkish bureaucracy. Clearly, Turkey has a strong
étatiste bureaucratic culture, one inherited from Ottoman
Empire and reinforced by the legacy of the political
830 Y. ÜSTÜNER AND N. YAVUZ
movement and personalities that were influential in the
proclamation of Republic and the state-initiated reforms
that followed, which affected almost every aspect of social
life. The successful introduction of neoliberal market-based
policies and practices to the public administration system is
contingent on less state control and intervention and the
fostering of a new managerialist bureaucratic culture. This
gives rise to a clear conflict of traditional and modernity. In
the past, the public administration system has been success-
ful—up to a degree—in dissipating this conflict, but this is
still a challenge to be addressed. In fact, this is not a problem
unique to Turkey. The implementation of the universal and
globalized character of neoliberal public sector reform
agenda is likely to face difficulties especially in countries
where traditions are important and where there is resistive
social environment. Local adaptations and synthesis are
necessary, otherwise conflicts are inevitable, making pro-
blematic the successful implementation of the neoliberal
reform agenda.
Administrative reform resistance
For Turkish public administration to be reformed
requires both political and bureaucratic acceptance of
the need for any reform and a clear understanding—
consensus even acceptance—of what constitutes a
desirable reform agenda, particularly if a proposed
reform agenda has its origins in foreign experiences
and alien values. Unlike the experience to date, sys-
temic reform must be planned, coordinated, and
implemented considering the system as a whole, not
designed and implemented sporadically in “patches”
or “fixes” applied to particular areas and issues. This is
possible only if there is a political will, good institu-
tionalization, and a politico-administrative consensus.
There must be a very clear central reform vision and
strategy and the necessary implementation plan. The
reform process must be continuous, coordinated and
monitored by a central coordinating agency.
Administrative reform should mean just making
structural and organizational changes and should not
be only be managerialist in scope. It should embrace
all elements of the public administration system.
Above all, it must change the behavior of public ser-
vants, best-achieved by rising their consciousness—
thereby embedding in their professional self-identity
—the importance of their obligation to be altruistically
willingness to serve society and so refrain from seek-
ing only personal gains from any forms of corruption.
This is, perhaps, the supreme challenge to be
addressed to achieve effective and lasting reform of
public administration in Turkey.
ORCID
Yılmaz Üstüner http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4092-1440
References
Aydın, E. (2010). E-Transformation Turkey Project:
Information society strategy and E-Government in Turkey.
Ankara, TR: State Planning Organization, Information
Society Department.
Board of Ethics. (2015). Ten years activity report. Ankara, TR:
Author.
Caha, O., & Karaman, M. (2004). Civil society in the ottoman
empire. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 8(2), 53–81.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2016). World Factbook.
Washington, DC: CIA. Retrieved from https://www.cia.
gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html
Çetinkaya, Ö., & Korlu, R. (2012). Yerel Demokrasinin
Sağlanmasında Katılımcılık Süreci ve Kent Konseylerinin
Rolü [in Turkish]. Maliye Dergisi, 163, 95–117.
Diez, T., Agnantopoulos, A., & Kaliber, A. (2005). File:
Turkey, Europeanization and civil society: Introduction.
South European Society and Politics, 10(1), 1–15.
doi:10.1080/13608740500037890
Gökçeoğlu, E., & Yavuz, N. (2013) Evaluating e-government
initiatives in Turkey: From the perspective of public
employees: A case study and preliminary findings. A
paper presented at ICIEET 2013: 2nd International
Conference on Internet, E-Learning and Education
Technology, October 21–22, Istanbul, Turkey.
Gökmen, A. (2010). Developments and prospects in e-gov-
ernment implementations in Turkey. International Journal
of E-Business and E-Government Studies, 2(2), 27–39.
Gül, H., & Kiriş, H. (2015). Democratic governance reforms
in Turkey and their implications. In A. R. Dawoody (Ed.),
Public administration and policy in the middle east (pp.
25–29). New York, NY: Springer.
Heper, M. (1985). State tradition in Turkey. Northgate, WA:
Eothen Press.
Kapucu, N. (2015). Civil society and democratic governance
in Turkey: Prospects and challenges. In A. R. Dawoody
(Ed.), Public administration and policy in the middle east
(pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Springer.
Kapucu, N., & Palabıyık, H. (2008). Turkish public adminis-
tration: From tradition to the modern age. Ankara, Turkey:
USAK Publications.
Mardin, Ş. (1994). Türk Modernleşmesi. Istanbul, Turkey:
İletişim Yayınları.
Ökmen, M., & Parlak, B. (2015). Yerel Yönetimlerde Yeni
Vizyonlar. Izmir, TR: Ekin Yayıları.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD Stat). (2016). OECD stat, income distribution and
poverty. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?quer
yid=66670.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (2011). The call for innovative and open govern-
ment: An overview of country initiatives. Sigma baseline
report: Principles of public administration (Turkey)
OECD. Paris, France: OECD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (2015). Sigma baseline measurement report:
Principles of public administration (Turkey). Paris, France:

OECD. Retrieved from http://www.sigmaweb.org/publica
tions/Baseline-Measurement-2015-Turkey.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (2016). Human resources management country
profiles: Turkey. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/gov/pem/OECD%20HRM%20Profile
%20-%20Turkey.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (2016a). How does Turkey Compare (Society at a
Glance). Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from https://
www.oecd.org/turkey/sag2016-turkey.pdf
Ortaylı, İ. (1979). Türkiye İdare Tarihi. Ankara, TR: TODAIE
Publications.
Şahin, A., & Örselli, E. (2003). E-devlet anlayışı sürecinde
Türkiye. In Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Dergisi (pp. 343–356). Konya, Turkey: Selçuk
Üniversitesi.
Şakar, A. (2011). Türkiye’de E-Devlet Uygulamalarının
Vergi Hukuku Alanına Yansımaları: E-haciz
uygulaması ve Karşılaşılan Sorunlar. Mali Çözüm
Degisi, 73(6), 69–87.
Sözen, S. (2012). Recent administrative reforms in Turkey: A
preliminary assessment. International Journal of Business
and Social Science, 3(9), 168–173.
Toprak, B. (1996). Civil society in Turkey. In A. R. Norton
(Ed.), Civil society in the middle east (pp. 74–86). New
York, NY: Brill.
Transparency International. (2016). Corruptions Perceptions
Index 2016. Berlin, DE: Author. Retrieved from https://
www.transparency.org/country/#LBN
Turkey, City Council By-Law. (2016). Resmi Gazete,
Yönetmelik. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.
tr/eskiler/2006/10/20061008-5.htm
Turkey, Public Finance and Control Law. (2016). Resmi Gazete,
Yönetmelik. Retrieved from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/
MevzuatMetin/1.5.5018.pdf.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 831
Turkish State Personnel Presidency. (2016). T.C. Devlet Peronel
Başkanlığı, İstatistikler. Retrieved from www.dpb.gov.tr/tr-tr/
istatistikler/kamu-personeli-istatistikleri
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016a). TUIK, Statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?
metod=temelist
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016b). TUIK, Haber Bülteni.
Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.
do?id=21507
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016c). TUIK, Haber Bülteni.
Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.
do?id=21567
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016d). TUIK, Haber Bülteni.
Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.
do?id=21584
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016e). TUIK, Haber Bülteni.
Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.
do?id=18619
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2016f). TUIK, Haber Bülteni.
Retrieved from http://www.dpb.gov.tr/tr-tr/istatistikler/
kamu-personeli-istatistikleri
Turkish Under-secretariat of Treasury. (2016). Hazine
Müsteşarlığı, Gösterge Seti. Retrieved from https://www.
hazine.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%
2FSayfalar%2FEkonomi_Sunumu.pdf
United Nations, E-Government Knowledge Database. (2016).
UN e-government database. Retrieved October 3, 2016,
from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/
Data/Country-Information/id/176-Turkey/dataYear/2016
Üstüner, Y., & İdrisoğlu, F. (2014). Kamu Çalışma Etiği ve
neo-taylorist uygulamalar: Türk kamu sağlık hizmetinde
performansa dayalı ücretlendirme örneği. METU Studies
in Development, 41(2), 172–199.
World Bank. (2015). World Bank documents and reports.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/507871468306558336/Main-report