Democratic Governance Reforms in Turkey and Their Implications

The effects of social ties on innovation behavior and new product performance in emerging economies: evidence from Turkey

“…In general, the time horizon of government officials is set by elections that come in every four to five years in most democratic countries, including the Republic of Turkey. Also, the hierarchical nature of the Turkish bureaucratic system in which the central government has the authority to appoint or promote the subordinate government officials (Gül and Kiris , 2015), often shifts the government officials' focus of interest to developing their political careers through pleasing the superordinate officials from providing the managers with the intangible and tangible resources that they may require. Accordingly, in anticipation of government officials' priority of getting re-elected by pleasing subordinates, firms become less committed in their resource allocation to build long-term political relationships (Sheng et al, 2011), making political ties short-lived.…”

“…Conversely, managers with political ties may put more emphasis on exploitative innovation while pushing the firm away from exploratory innovations because they are aware that such relations will provide short-term industry-wide information that is not product and/or segment based. In addition, although political ties will ascertain tangible and intangible benefits, managers operating in emerging countries such as Turkey are aware that political officials may be replaced by superordinates (Gül and Kiris , 2015). Accordingly, managers with political ties are aware that such ties may be more suitable for a short-term oriented exploitative innovation effort rather than distant and more risky exploratory innovation (March, 1991).…”

Challenges to Decentralization of Disaster Management in Turkey: The Role of Political-Administrative Context

“…The public sector in Turkey is generally ineffective, and the provincial and municipal levels need increased authority and capacities (Freedom House, 2008;Gül & Kiriş, 2015;Kapucu & Palabıyık, 2008). The deficits are most severe in southeastern Turkey, where local administration participation is also low.…”

“…A planned comprehensive decentralization of the public administration system was initiated at the turn of the millennium but was vetoed by President Sezer on constitutional grounds in 2004 (Freedom House, 2008;Göymen, 2006). Perceived to threaten the country's unity, the decentralization debate is controversial and politically sensitive in Turkey (Göymen, 2006;Gül & Kiriş, 2015). Such fears are particularly present in Turkey's southeast, where Van and Erciş are located, due to the longstanding conflict between the Turkish government and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).…”

State and Administrative Reforms in Turkey and Their Implications

“…The multiparty parliamentarian democracy started in 1946 when the first election involving two parties was held. One-party governments in Turkey were in general at the moderate right of the political spectrum and based on a consensus between the central elites and peripheral mass in the process of elections and government formation (Gül and Kiriş 2015). Apart from former single moderate right party governments, the AKP have refused to share power with the military, the supreme courts, and the civil bureaucracy, on the one hand, and initiated a reform of these institutions, on the other hand.…”