Decision Making in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Caspian Oil Pipeline Issue

Tayfur, Muhıttın; Göymen, Korel

doi:10.1080/714004456

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The bureaucratic politics model has engendered numerous case study analyses testing its descriptive accuracy and explanatory power. Jones (2012) lists several examples of these case studies, including (Halperin 1972(Halperin , 1974Valenta 1979;Smith 1985;Hicks 1990;Spear 1993;Jones 1994Jones , 1999Jones 2001;Holland 1999;Tayfur and Goymen 2002;Zhang 2006). These studies find evidence for bureaucratic politics as an important determinant of the foreign policy decisionmaking process.…”

Section: The Bureaucratic Politics Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obama's Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War

Marsh

2013

Foreign Policy Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the decision‐making process leading to President Barack Obama's decision to order a troop surge in Afghanistan in December 2009. I analyze the decision‐making process according to the precepts of the bureaucratic politics model and conclude that the bureaucratic politics model provides a compelling and descriptively accurate account of the Afghanistan surge decision‐making process. Actors' policy preferences were influenced by consideration of bureaucratic role and position within government, significant examples of political activity occurred throughout the strategy review, and the ultimate decision was a political compromise.

show abstract

Section: The Bureaucratic Politics Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obama's Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War

Marsh

2013

Foreign Policy Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 For more information about the actors involved in foreign policy making, see Ç uhadar-Gürkaynak andÖzkeçeci-Taner (2004), Tayfur and Göymen (2002), Kardaş (2006), and Makovsky and Sayari (2000). ministers, first Ecevit and then Gül, were heads of the government and responsible for formulating foreign policy, neither qualified as a predominant leader; they did not have the authority to commit government resources and their decisions were not irreversible by another entity within the political system.…”

Section: Determining the Authoritative Decision Unitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For more information about the actors involved in foreign policy making, see Çuhadar‐Gürkaynak and Özkeçeci‐Taner (), Tayfur and Göymen (), Kardaş (), and Makovsky and Sayari ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Divided Government, an Ideological Parliament, and an Insecure Leader: Turkey's Indecision about Joining the Iraq War*

Taydaş

Özdamar

2012

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives On March 1, 2003, the Turkish parliament rejected a government motion that would involve Turkey in the Iraq war and allow U.S. forces to use Turkish territory in an offensive against Iraq. This decision has been considered as a significant departure from traditional Western‐oriented Turkish foreign policy. We investigate the reasons behind this rather unexpected foreign policy decision. Method To systematically examine the decision‐making process and the outcome, we utilize the “decision‐units framework.” We present primary and secondary evidence from government and media sources and utilize interviews conducted with some of the high‐level decisionmakers that were involved in decision making at the time. This article combines traditional methodological tools, such as elite interviews and process tracing, with novel approaches in foreign policy analysis studies. Results The nature of the decision‐unit, decision‐making rules, the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the AKP (Adalet and Kalkinma Partisi—Justice and Development Party) leadership, and the absence of a strong and decisive leader shaped the outcome. Conclusion The Turkish parliament's decision on its role in the Iraq war is an interesting and informative case for foreign policy studies. It challenges the conventional wisdom on parliamentary influence in foreign policy making in parliamentary regimes. Under certain circumstances—even when a single‐party enjoys parliamentary majority—parliaments can be major players in foreign policy decision making.

show abstract

“…Scholarship has shown that bureaucracies substantially impact foreign policy decision-making processes and implementation (Allison 1969(Allison , 1971Halperin 1971;Allison and Halperin 1972;Halperin 1972aHalperin ,b, 1974Valenta 1975Valenta , 1991Smith 1984;Hicks 1990;Spear 1993;Jones 1994Jones , 1999Jones , 2001Jones , 2010Jones , 2012Holland 1999; Tayfur and Goymen 2002;Halperin and Clapp 2006;Zhang 2006;Marsh 2014). Although leaders usually outline policy goals and guidelines, they rarely have manuals at their disposal on how to achieve their desired ends.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Sellout” Ministries and Jingoes: China’s Bureaucratic Institutions and the Evolution of Contested National Role Conceptions in the South China Sea

Jones

2017

foreign policy anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article extends the role theory literature on domestic role contestation process by specifically examining bureaucracies as potential advocates of competing national role conceptions. While recent scholarship on domestic role contestation affirms the influence of party politics and cabinet dynamics on role enactment, bureaucracies remain underexplored as key actors despite the presence of a robust literature that supports their relevance in the foreign policymaking process. This article draws on expectations from both the role theory and bureaucratic politics literatures to explain how bureaucracies contest national roles and how such contestation may be resolved. The article tests these propositions through the study of China's inter-bureaucratic contestation over its appropriate role in the South China Sea territorial disputes between 1979 and 1992. The article concurrently advances role studies on China by integrating them with more recent arguments about domestic role contestation. Traditionally, role theorists interested in China have either black-boxed the state or only focused on elite-mass role contestation, while this article explores intra-elite role contestation. Evan Jones received his BA in International Relations from Oakland University's Honors College. He also studied Mandarin at Nanjing University. Some of his research interests include China's foreign policy, the South China Sea territorial disputes, leadership and decision-making, bureaucratic politics, and role theory. Author's Note: I would like to thank Cristian Cantir for his invaluable comments on earlier versions of this work. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback.

show abstract

Decision Making in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Caspian Oil Pipeline Issue

Cited by 9 publications

References 1 publication

Obama's Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War

Obama's Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War

A Divided Government, an Ideological Parliament, and an Insecure Leader: Turkey's Indecision about Joining the Iraq War*

“Sellout” Ministries and Jingoes: China’s Bureaucratic Institutions and the Evolution of Contested National Role Conceptions in the South China Sea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About