Cited by 14International Relations and Foreign PolicyTurkey's Politics and SocietyHistorical Turkish Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Turf Wars in Foreign Policy Bureaucracy: Rivalry between the Government and the Bureaucracy in Turkish Foreign Policy

Gülen, Berkay·2022·Foreign Policy Analysis

Abstract

This paper, using examples from Turkish foreign policy between 2002 and 2014, argues that the fragmentation in foreign policymaking due to adopting different foreign policy ideas, that is, ideas of the elected leadership and the bureaucracy, is likely to generate competition between the state agencies that constitute the foreign policy bureaucracy. If there is backlash in the bureaucracy to realize the government's revisionist foreign policy goals, then the government aims to transform the bureaucracy by empowering certain small bureaucratic units, that is, missionary agencies. Once the degree of conflict between the government and the bureaucracy becomes severe, then the elected officials opt to work with the established bureaucratic agencies to speed up the decision-making processes. The analysis based on a series of interviews conducted with sixty-one Turkish foreign policymakers shows that the turf war in the foreign policy bureaucracy is a conceptual framework for comprehending how elected officials use bureaucratic tactics to undermine the involvement of bureaucrats in decision-making processes. Finally, the study contributes to current debates on populism and the presidentialization of foreign policy by showing that the foreign policy bureaucracy is not immune from the anti-elite, anti-establishment rhetoric of governments.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fpa/orac021

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Akıllı, 2019, TIKA's Soft Power: Nation Branding in Turkish Foreign Policy, 10.25253/99.2018EV.05 · DOI
  2. Akkoyunlu, 2021, The Five Phases of Turkey's Foreign Policy under the AKP, Social Research: An International Quarterly, 88, 243, 10.1353/sor.2021.0014 · DOI
  3. Allison, 1971, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
  4. Allison, 1972, Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications, World Politics, 24, 40, 10.2307/2010559 · DOI
  5. Alpan, 2016, From AKP's ‘Conservative Democracy’ to ‘Advanced Democracy’: Shifts and Challenges in the Debate on ‘Europe’, South European Society and Politics, 21, 15, 10.1080/13608746.2016.1155283 · DOI
  6. Aras, 2014, Davutoğlu Era in Turkish Foreign Policy Revisited, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16, 404, 10.1080/19448953.2014.938451 · DOI
  7. Aras, 2015, Reform and Capacity Building in the Turkish Foreign Ministry: Bridging the Gap between Ideas and Institutions, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 17, 269, 10.1080/19448953.2015.1063271 · DOI
  8. Aslan, 2021, Public Tears: Populism and the Politics of Emotion in AKP's Turkey, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 53, 1, 10.1017/S0020743820000859 · DOI
  9. Aydinli, 2021, Elite Change and the Inception, Duration, and Demise of the Turkish–Israeli Alliance, Foreign Policy Analysis, 17, 1, 10.1093/fpa/oraa021 · DOI
  10. Aydın-Düzgit, 2016, Encounters with Europe in an Era of Domestic and International Turmoil: Is Turkey a De-Europeanising Candidate Country?, South European Society and Politics, 21, 1, 10.1080/13608746.2016.1155282 · DOI
  11. Başer, 2015, Shift-of-Axis in Turkish Foreign Policy: Turkish National Role Conceptions before and during AKP Rule, Turkish Studies, 16, 291, 10.1080/14683849.2015.1050958 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bauer, 2020, Democratic Backsliding, Populism, and Public Administration, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3, 19, 10.1093/ppmgov/gvz026 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Bennett, 2015, Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Strategies for Social Inquiry
  14. Brummer, 2013, The Reluctant Peacekeeper: Governmental Politics and Germany's Participation in EUFOR RD Congo: The Reluctant Peacekeeper, Foreign Policy Analysis, 9, 1, 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00174.x · DOI
  15. Cason, 2009, Presidentialization, Pluralization, and the Rollback of Itamaraty: Explaining Change in Brazilian Foreign Policy Making in the Cardoso–Lula Era, International Political Science Review, 30, 117, 10.1177/0192512109102432 · DOI
  16. Cohen, 2016, Ahmet Davutoğlu's Academic and Professional Articles: Understanding the World View of Turkey's Former Prime Minister, Turkish Studies, 17, 527, 10.1080/14683849.2016.1220838 · DOI
  17. Çuhadar, 2020, Turkish Leaders and Their Foreign Policy Decision-Making Style: A Comparative and Multi-Method Perspective, Turkish Studies, 22, 1, 10.1080/14683849.2020.1724511 · DOI
  18. Çuhadar, 2017, Personality or Role? Comparisons of Turkish Leaders across Different Institutional Positions, Political Psychology, 38, 39, 10.1111/pops.12333 · DOI
  19. De Faria, 2013, Itamaraty on the Move: Institutional and Political Change in Brazilian Foreign Service under Lula Da Silva's Presidency (2003–2010): Itamaraty on the Move, 468
  20. Demir, 2020, From Military Tutelage to Civilian Control: An Analysis of the Evolution of Turkish Civil–Military Relations, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 47, 172, 10.1080/13530194.2018.1491291 · DOI
  21. Desrosiers, 2009, Canada and the Bureaucratic Politics of State Fragility, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20, 659, 10.1080/09592290903455774 · DOI
  22. Drezner, 2000, Ideas, Bureaucratic Politics, and the Crafting of Foreign Policy, American Journal of Political Science, 44, 733, 10.2307/2669278 · DOI
  23. Drezner, 2009, Avoiding Trivia: The Role of Strategic Planning in American Foreign Policy
  24. Esen, 2016, Rising Competitive Authoritarianism in Turkey, Third World Quarterly, 37, 1581, 10.1080/01436597.2015.1135732 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Esen, 2019, Killing Competitive Authoritarianism Softly: The 2019 Local Elections in Turkey, South European Society and Politics, 24, 317, 10.1080/13608746.2019.1691318 · DOI
  26. Fidan, 2013, A Work in Progress: The New Turkish Foreign Policy, Middle East Policy, 20, 91, 10.1111/mepo.12006 · DOI
  27. Fidan, 2008, Turkey's Role in the Global Development Assistance Community: The Case of TIKA (Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency), Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 10, 93, 10.1080/14613190801895888 · DOI
  28. Goldstein, 1993, Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, 10.7591/9781501724992 · DOI
  29. Gulmez, 2013, Rising Euroscepticism in Turkish Politics: The Cases of the AKP and the CHP, Acta Politica, 48, 326, 10.1057/ap.2013.2 · DOI
  30. Ilgit, 2014, Turkey at the United Nations Security Council: ‘Rhythmic Diplomacy’ and a Quest for Global Influence, Mediterranean Politics, 19, 183, 10.1080/13629395.2013.829329 · DOI
  31. Ipek, 2015, Ideas and Change in Foreign Policy Instruments: Soft Power and the Case of the Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency, Foreign Policy Analysis, 11, 173, 10.1111/fpa.12031 · DOI
  32. Jenne, 2021, Populism, Nationalism and Revisionist Foreign Policy, International Affairs, 97, 323, 10.1093/ia/iiaa230 · DOI
  33. Jones, 2010, Bureaucratic Politics and Organizational Process Models, 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.2 · DOI
  34. Jones, 2011, Bureaucratic Politics
  35. Kaarbo, 1998, Power Politics in Foreign Policy: The Influence of Bureaucratic Minorities, European Journal of International Relations, 4, 67, 10.1177/1354066198004001003 · DOI
  36. Kaarbo, 1998, The Social Psychology of Inter- and Intragroup Conflict in Governmental Politics, Mershon International Studies Review, 42, 226, 10.2307/254414 · DOI
  37. Kardaş, 2012, Charting the New Turkish Foreign Policy, International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 67, 1
  38. Kavakli, 2018, Domestic Politics and the Motives of Emerging Donors: Evidence from Turkish Foreign Aid, Political Research Quarterly, 71, 614, 10.1177/1065912917750783 · DOI
  39. Kesgin, 2013, Leadership Traits of Turkey's Islamist and Secular Prime Ministers, Turkish Studies, 14, 136, 10.1080/14683849.2013.766988 · DOI
  40. Kesgin, 2019, Turkey's Erdoğan: Leadership Style and Foreign Policy Audiences, Turkish Studies, 21, 56, 10.1080/14683849.2019.1575735 · DOI
  41. Kirdiş, 2015, The Role of Foreign Policy in Constructing the Party Identity of the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkish Studies, 16, 178, 10.1080/14683849.2015.1044444 · DOI
  42. Kutlay, 2021, Turkish Foreign Policy in a Post-Western Order: Strategic Autonomy or New Forms of Dependence?, International Affairs, 97, 1085, 10.1093/ia/iiab094 · DOI
  43. Kutlay, 2021, Understanding Oscillations in Turkish Foreign Policy: Pathways to Unusual Middle Power Activism, Third World Quarterly, 42, 3051, 10.1080/01436597.2021.1985449 · DOI
  44. Kuus, 2013, Foreign Policy and Ethnography: A Sceptical Intervention, Geopolitics, 18, 115, 10.1080/14650045.2012.706759 · DOI
  45. Lequesne, 2019, Why Studying State Foreign Services Remains a Research Priority, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 30, 780, 10.1080/09592296.2019.1673553 · DOI
  46. Marsh, 2014, Obama's Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War, Foreign Policy Analysis, 10, 265, 10.1111/fpa.12000 · DOI
  47. McCormick, 2018, The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence
  48. Müftüler-Baç, 2016, Turkey's Ambivalent Relationship with the European Union: To Accede or Not to Accede, UluslararasІ Ilişkiler Dergisi, 13, 89, 10.33458/uidergisi.463085 · DOI
  49. Neumann, 2012, At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry, 10.7591/cornell/9780801449932.001.0001 · DOI
  50. Öniş, 2012, Turkey and the Arab Spring: Between Ethics and Self-Interest, 10.2139/ssrn.2017639 · DOI
  51. Öniş, 2014, Turkey and the Arab Revolutions: Boundaries of Regional Power Influence in a Turbulent Middle East, Mediterranean Politics, 19, 203, 10.1080/13629395.2013.868392 · DOI
  52. Öniş, 2017, The Dynamics of Emerging Middle-Power Influence in Regional and Global Governance: The Paradoxical Case of Turkey, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71, 164, 10.1080/10357718.2016.1183586 · DOI
  53. Özcan, 2011, Understanding the ‘New’ Turkish Foreign Policy: Changes within Continuity, Is Turkey Departing from the West?, USAK Yearbook, 4, 159
  54. Özcoşkun, 2018, Cumhurıyet'in Kuruluşundan Bugüne Dışişleri Bakanlığı Teşkilat Yapısı (1923–2018) [From the Republican Era to Today: Organizational Structure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1923–2018)]
  55. Özkan, 2015, Information and Communication Technologies and Organizational Culture in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 20, 37
  56. Ozkececi-Taner, 2005, The Impact of Institutionalized Ideas in Coalition Foreign Policy Making: Turkey as an Example, 1991–2002, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1, 249, 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2005.00012.x · DOI
  57. Plagemann, 2019, Populism and Foreign Policy: The Case of India, Foreign Policy Analysis, 15, 283, 10.1093/fpa/ory010 · DOI
  58. Rathbun, 2009, Interviewing and Qualitative Field Methods: Pragmatism and Practicalities, 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.0029 · DOI
  59. Sarigil, 2011, Civil–Military Relations Beyond Dichotomy: With Special Reference to Turkey, Turkish Studies, 12, 265, 10.1080/14683849.2011.572633 · DOI
  60. Selcen, 2019, Gözden Irakta: Hariciyeci Gözüyle [Far Away from Eyes: Through the Eyes of a Diplomat]
  61. Selçuk, 2016, Strong Presidents and Weak Institutions: Populism in Turkey, Venezuela and Ecuador, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16, 571, 10.1080/14683857.2016.1242893 · DOI
  62. Sever, 2015, Abdullah Gül İle 12 Yıl: Yaşadım, Gördüm, Yazdım [12 Years with Abdullah Gül: Lived, Saw, Wrote]
  63. Sevin, 2017, Public Diplomacy and the Implementation of Foreign Policy in the US, Sweden and Turkey, 10.1007/978-3-319-49334-3 · DOI
  64. Snyder, 1954, Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics
  65. Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, 2021, The Sociology of Diplomats and Foreign Policy Sector: The Role of Cliques on the Policy-Making Process, Political Studies Review, 19, 558, 10.1177/1478929920901954 · DOI
  66. Tansel, 2018, Authoritarian Neoliberalism and Democratic Backsliding in Turkey: Beyond the Narratives of Progress, South European Society and Politics, 23, 197, 10.1080/13608746.2018.1479945 · DOI
  67. Tayfur, 2002, Decision Making in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Caspian Oil Pipeline Issue, Middle Eastern Studies, 38, 101, 10.1080/714004456 · DOI
  68. Tekin, 2015, The Europeanization of Turkey: Polity and Politics, 10.4324/9781315733128 · DOI
  69. Yilmaz, 2016, From Europeanization to De-Europeanization: The Europeanization Process of Turkey in 1999–2014, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 24, 86, 10.1080/14782804.2015.1038226 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Gülen, B.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Gülen, Berkay
Venue
Foreign Policy Analysis
Published
2022-10
Volume
18
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1743-8586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-8594
OpenAlex
W4303646914
Cited by
14
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5
FWCI
8.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Foreign Policy Analysis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Turkey's Politics and Society
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Historical Turkish Studies
Keywords
foreign policy bureaucracy, turf wars, Turkish foreign policy, bureaucratic fragmentation, decision-making, populism, anti-establishment rhetoric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review