SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 19

Geciktirme gücü: Sürreç yönelimli bir yaklaşım bağlamında Türkiye'nin AB'ye katılım süreci

Power to delay: Turkey's EU accession process within the context of a process-driven approach

Hasan Engin ŞENER
Pages
215–231
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition to this basic assumption, in this study it will also be put forth that incremental policies may cause major policy changes and that technical issues can hardly be separated from politics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this article, European enlargement will be analyzed with specific reference to the Turkish case.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Instead of goal-oriented and rational-comprehensive approaches, incrementalism and process-driven approaches will be employed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition to this basic assumption, in this study it will also be put forth that incremental policies may cause major policy changes and that technical issues can hardly be separated from politics.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this article, European enlargement will be analyzed with specific reference to the Turkish case. Instead of goal-oriented and rational-comprehensive approaches, incrementalism and process-driven approaches will be employed. Based on these analytical tools, it will be argued that delay is not a problem but an opportunity for any solution based on democratic negotiation. In addition to this basic assumption, in this study it will also be put forth that incremental policies may cause major policy changes and that technical issues can hardly be separated from politics.

Özet

Bu makalede, Avrupa genişlemesi özellikle Türkiye örnek olayına atıfla çözümlenecektir. Amaç yönelimli ve ussal-kapsayıcı yaklaşımlar yerine, artımcılık ve süreç yönelimli yaklaşımlar kullanılacaktır. Bu çözümleme araçlarına dayanarak, gecikmenin bir sorun olmadığı, demokratik müzakereye dayalı herhangi bir çözüm için bir fırsat olduğu savunulacaktır. Bu temel varsayıma ek olarak, bu çalışmada ayrıca artımcı politikaların temel politika değişikliklerine yol açabileceği ve teknik meselelerin siyasetten ayrılmasının zor olduğu ortaya konacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENER, H. E. (2022). Geciktirme gücü: Sürreç yönelimli bir yaklaşım bağlamında Türkiye'nin AB'ye katılım süreci. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 19, 215–231. https://ajindex.com/articles/433170

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. AVCI, G. (2006). Turkey’s EU Politics: Consolidating Democracy through Enlargement? In Helene Sjursen (Ed.) Questioning EU Enlargement: Europe in search of Identity, Routledge, London, 62-78.
  2. BAĞIŞ, E. (2009). Bagis on BBC’s HardTalk. Retrieved 20.01.2010 from http://www.egemenbagis.com/index.cfm?action=index&page=newsdetails&news=577
  3. BELGENET (2002). AB Uyum Yasaları. Retrieved 20.01.2010 from http://www.belgenet.com/yasa/ab_uyum-1.html
  4. BENHABİB, S. (1999). Müzakereci Bir Demokratik Meşruiyet Modeline Doğru. In S. Benhabib (Ed.) Demokrasi ve Farklılık, WALD, Istanbul. DAHL, R. (1995). With the consent of all. In S. Theodoulou and M. Cahn (Eds.) Public policy: The Essential reading, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 38-45. DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO TURKEY (2006). Türkiye için AB üyelik müzakereleri süreci. Retrieved 20.01.2010 from http://www.avrupa.info.tr/Files/File/Publications-2006/brochures/AccessionBooklet.pdf
  5. DIMITRAKOPULOS, D. (2001). Incrementalism and Path-Dependence: European Integration and Institutional Change in National Parliaments. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(3), 405-422.
  6. DIMITROVA, A. (2002).
  7. Enlargement, Institution-Building and the EU’s Administrative Capacity Requirement. West European Politics, 25(4), 171-190.
  8. DIMITROVA, A. and STEUNENBERG, B. (2004). Conclusions: the ‘end of history’ of enlargement or the beginning of a new research agenda? In A. Dimitrova (Ed.) Driven to Change: The European Union’s Enlargement Viewed from the East, Manchester University Press,
  9. Manchester. DROR, Y. (1989).
  10. Public Policy Making, Third Printing, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (USA) and Oxford (UK), 12-17.
  11. DÜNDAR, C. (2006). Neden? Retrieved 20.01.2010 from http://www.candundar.com.tr/index.php?Did=3729
  12. GORDON, I; LEWIS, J. and YOUNG, K. (1993). Introduction: Perspectives on Policy Analysis. In Michael Hill (Ed.) The Policy Process: A Reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York. HIX, S. (2003). The End of Democracy in Europe? How the European Union (As Currently Designed) Restricts Political Competition. Retrieved 20.01.2010 from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/HIX/Working_Papers/Hix-End_of_Democracy_in_Europe.pdf
  13. HEISKELA, R. (2001). Theorizing power: Weber, Parsons, Foucault and neostructuralism. Social Science Information, 40(2), 241-264.
  14. LINDBLOM, C. E. (1995) The Science of Muddling Through. In Daniel McCool (Ed.) Public Policy Theories, Models, and Concepts: An Anthology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 143-157.
  15. LUKES, S. (1993). Three Distinct