Regional Development Agencies in Turkey: Are They Examples of Obligated Policy Transfer?



EU requires the candidate states to introduce the necessary legal arrangements and administrative reforms to harmonize with the EU’s regional policy, and the establishment of RDAs is an important element of those administrative reforms. This is an example of “obligated policy transfer,” which is a subtype of policy transfer. In this context, this article aims to analyze the establishment of RDAs in Turkey as an example of obligated policy transfer. Within this perspective, this article primarily explicates the conceptual framework of policy transfer and obligated transfer as a subtype of policy transfer. Second, the place of RDAs within the EU regional policy and Turkey’s view of regional governments and development conception will be briefly dealt with. Finally, establishment of RDAs in Turkey will be analyzed, using official documents, as an example of obligated policy transfer and the role of EU will be demonstrated.


Policy transfer Obligated policy transfer European Union Regional policy Regional development agencies Turkey 


  1. Adshead, M., & Wall, O. 2003. Policy transfer and the Irish university sector. In Adshead, M., & Miller, M. (Eds.). Public administration and public policy in Ireland: Theory and methods: 165–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Ataay, F. 2005. BKA tasarımının ‘kalkınma’ anlayışı üzerine. In Turan, M. (Ed.). Bölgesel kalkınma ajansları: Nedir? ne değildir?: 15–33. Ankara: Paragraf Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  3. Avaner, T. 2005. BKA siyasal rejim orunu yaratır mı? In Turan, M. (Ed.). Bölgesel kalkınma ajansları: Nedir? ne değildir?: 239–263. Ankara: Paragraf Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  4. Ayres, S., & Pearce, G. 2004. Central government responses to governance change in the English regions. Regional & Federal Studies, 14(2): 255–280. doi: 10.1080/1359756042000247474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balchin, P., Sykora, L., & Bull, G. 1999. Regional policy and planning in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Beer, A., & Maude, A. 2005. Governance and the performance of regional development agencies in Australia”. In Eversole, R., & Martin, J. (Eds.). Participation and governance in regional development: Global trends in an Australian context: 61–78. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, C. 1991. What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21(2): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergs, R. 2001. EU regional and cohesion policy and economic integration of the accession countries. Policy Research & Consultancy Discussion Paper. Taunus.Google Scholar
  9. Bilen, G. 2005. Novel regional policy of Turkey in line with EU standarts. Paper presented at the Regional Growth Agendas. 28–31 May, Aalborg.Google Scholar
  10. Börzel, A. T., & Risse, T. 2003. Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe. In Featherstone, K., & Radaelli, C. M. (Eds.). The politics of europenization: 57–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradley, J. 2006. Evaluating the impact of European Union cohesion policy in less-developed countries and regions. Regional Studies, 40(2): 189–200. doi: 10.1080/00343400600600512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, A. J. 2005. Regional governance and regionalism in Australia. In Eversole, R., & Martin, J. (Eds.). Participation and governance in regional development: Global trends in an Australian context: 17–42. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Bugdahn, S. 2007. Does the EU stifle voluntary policy transfer? A study of the introducion in Portugal and Ireland. Public Administration, 85(1): 123–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00637.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bulmer, S., & Padgett, S. 2004. Policy transfer in the European Union: An institutionalist pespective. British Journal of Political Science, 35: 103–126. doi: 10.1017/S0007123405000050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bulut, Y. 2002. Türkiye’de bölge yönetimi arayışları. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 35(4): 17–42.Google Scholar
  16. Burch, M., & Gomez, R. 2002. The English region and the European Union. Regional Studies, 36(7): 767–778. doi: 10.1080/0034340022000006088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Busch, P.O., & Jorgens, H. 2005. The international sources of policy convergence: Explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5): 860–884. doi: 10.1080/13501760500161514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chapman, B., & Greenaway, D. 2006. Learning to live with loans? international policy transfer and the funding of higher education. World Economy, 29(8): 1057–1075. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2006.00822.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collier, D., & Messick, R. 1975. Prerequisites versus diffusion: Testing alternative explanations of social security adoption. The American Political Science Review, 69(4): 1299–1315. doi: 10.2307/1955290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Common, R. 1998a. The new public management and policy transfer: The role of international organizations. In Minogue, M., Polidano, C., & Hulme, D. (Eds.). Beyond the new public management: Changing ideas and practices in governance: 59–75. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Common, R. 1998b. Convergence and transfer: A review of the globalisation of new public management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(6): 440–450. doi: 10.1108/09513559810244356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davies, J. 2002. The governance of urban regeneration: A critique of the ‘governing without government’ thesis. Public Administration, 80(2): 304–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. 1996. Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, XLIV: 343–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. 1998. Policy transfer: A framework for comparative analysis. In Minogue, M., Polidano, C., & Hulme, D. (Eds.). Beyond the new public management: Changing ideas and practices in governance: 38–58. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Dolowitz, D. 1998. Learning from America: Policy transfer and the development of the British workfare state. PortlandSussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dolowitz, D. 2000a. Policy transfer: A new framework of policy analysis. In Dolowitz, D., Hulme, R., Nellis, M., & O’neill, F. (Eds.). Policy transfer and British social policy: Learning from USA: 9–37. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dolowitz, D. 2000b. Introduction. Governance, 13(1): 1–4. doi: 10.1111/0952-1895.00120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Drezner, D.W. 2001. Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1): 53–78. doi: 10.1111/1521-9488.00225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dyson, K. 2002. Introduction: EMU as integration, europenization and convergence. In Dyson, K. (Ed.). European state and euro: Europenization variation and convergence: 1–27. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. European Commission 2001. 2001 regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession. (Brussels SEC(2001) 1756).Google Scholar
  31. European Commission 2006. Turkey 2006 progress report {COM(2006)649 Final}. (Brussels, SEC(2006) 1390).Google Scholar
  32. European Commission 2000. 2000 regular report from the Commission on Turkey’s progress toward accession. (Brussels).Google Scholar
  33. European Commission 2002. 2002 regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession {COM(2002)700 Final}. (Brussels, SEC(2002) 1412).Google Scholar
  34. European Commission 2004. 2004 regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession {COM(2004)656 Final}. (Brussels, SEC(2004) 1201).Google Scholar
  35. European Commisison 2005. Turkey 2005 progress report {COM(2005)561 Final}. (Brussels SEC(2005)1426).Google Scholar
  36. European Council 2003. Council decision of 19 May 2003 on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the accession partnership with Turkey. Official Journal of European Union, L145/40, 12.06.2003.Google Scholar
  37. European Council 2001. Council decision of 8 March 2001 on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the accession partnership with the Republic of Turkey. Official Journal of European Communities, L85/13, 24.03.2001.Google Scholar
  38. Evans, M., & Davies, J. 1999. Understanding policy transfer: A multi-level, multi disciplinary perspective. Public Administration, 77(2): 361–385. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eyestone, R. 1977. Confusion, diffusion and innovation. The American Political Science Review, 71(2): 441–447. doi: 10.2307/1978339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Faina, A., & Rodriguez, J. L. 2004. The regional policy of European Union and the enlargement process to central and eastern European countries. Exerter University Working Paper.Google Scholar
  41. Furlong, P. 2000. Constitutional change as policy transfer; policy transfer as constitutional change. Retrieved December, 23, 2006 from htpp://
  42. Goldfinch, S. 2006. Rituals of reform, policy transfer and the national university corporation reforms of Japan. Governance, 19(4): 585–604. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00341.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gray, V. 1973. Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. The American Political Science Review, 67(4): 1174–1185. doi: 10.2307/1956539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haas, E.B. 1980. Why coolaborate?: Issue linking and international regimes. World Politics, 32(3): 357–405. doi: 10.2307/2010109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hasanoğlu, M., & Aliyev, Z. 2006. Avrupa Birliği ile bütünleşme sürecinde Türkiye’de kalkınma ajansları. Sayıştay Dergisi, 60: 81–103.Google Scholar
  46. Held, D., & McGrew, A. 1993. Globalization and liberal democratic state. Government and Opposition, 28(2): 261–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.1993.tb01281.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoberg, G. 2001. Globalization and policy convergence: Symposium overview. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 3(2): 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hulme, R. 2006. The role of policy transfer in assessing the impact of American ideas on British social policy. Global Social Policy, 6(2): 173–195. doi: 10.1177/1468018106065365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. HPC 2002. 2002 Pre-accession economic programme. Ankara.Google Scholar
  50. HPC 2003a. Preliminary national development plan. Ankara.Google Scholar
  51. HPC 2003b. 2003 Pre-accession economic programme. Ankara.Google Scholar
  52. James, O., & Lodge, M. 2003. The limitations of policy transfer and lesson drawing for public policy research. Political Studies Review, 1: 179–193. doi: 10.1111/1478-9299.t01-1-00003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jeffery, C., & Mawson, J. 2002. Introduction: Beyond the white paper on the English regions. Regional Studies, 36(7): 715–720. doi: 10.1080/0034340022000006033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jones, T., & Newburn, T. 2002. Learning from uncle Sam? exploring U.S. influences on British crime control policy. Governance, 15(1): 97–119. doi: 10.1111/1468-0491.00181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., Zito, A., & Bruckner, L. 2003. European governance and the transfer of “new” environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union. Public Administration, 81(3): 555–574. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Karadağ, M., Önder, A.Ö., & Deliktaş, E. 2005. Growth of factor productivity in the Turkish manufacturing industry at provincial level. Regional Studies, 39(2): 213–223. doi: 10.1080/003434005200060007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Keleş, R. 1994. Yerinden yönetim ve siyaset. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  58. Knill, C. 2005. Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5): 764–774. doi: 10.1080/13501760500161332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ladi, S. 2000. Globalization, think thanks and policy transfer. In Stone, D. (Ed.). Banking on knowledge: The genesis of the global development network: 205–222. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Leichter, H. 1977. Comparative public policy: Problems and prospects. Policy Studies Journal: the Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 5(1): 583–596. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1977.tb01116.x.Google Scholar
  61. Levi-Faur, D., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2004. The international transfer and management innovations: Some characteristics of a new order in the making. In Levi-Faur, D., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (Eds.). International public policy and management: Policy learning beyond regional, cultural and political boundaries: 1–24. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  62. Luedtke, A. 2005. A Europe of the regions: Rhetoric or reality? International Studies Review, 7(1): 101–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-9488.2005.00470.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maor, M., & Jones, G.W. 1999. Varieties of administrative convergence. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(1): 49–62. doi: 10.1108/09513559910262670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Martin, R. 1999. The regional dimension in european public policy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. Martin, R., & Tyler, P. 2006. Evaluating the impact of the structural funds an objective 1 regions: An exploratory discussion. Regional Studies, 40(2): 201–210. doi: 10.1080/00343400600600546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mengi, A. 2001. Avrupa Birliği’nde bölge, bölge planlaması ve Türkiye. GAP Review, 9(15): 23–25.Google Scholar
  67. Mengi, A., & Algan, N. 2003. Küreselleşme ve yerelleşme çağında bölgesel sürdürülebilir gelişme: AB ve Türkiye örneği. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.Google Scholar
  68. Mossberger, K., & Wolman, H. 2003. Policy transfer as a form of prospective policy evaluation: Challenges and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 63(4): 428–440. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nalbant, A. 1996. Bölgesel devlet: Yeni bir devlet biçimi mi? (I) kuramsal temeller. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 29(2): 39–70.Google Scholar
  70. Newburn, T. 2002. Policy transfer and crime control in the USA and Britain. Punishment and Society, 4(2): 165–194. doi: 10.1177/14624740222228536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. OECD 1993. Managing with the market-type mechanisms. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  72. O’neill, F. 2000. Health: The ‘internal market’ and reform of the national health service. In Dolowitz, D., Hulme, R., Nellis, M., & O’neill, F. (Eds.). Policy transfer and British social policy: Learning from USA: 59–76. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Ökmen, M. 2006. Uyum sürecinin idari-politiği: Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye perspektifinde küreselleşme-yerelleşme dinamikleri. In Özgür, H., & Parlak, B. (Eds.). Avrupa perspektifinde yerel yönetimler: 43–106. Bursa: Alfa Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  74. Övgün, B. 2007. Bir politika transferi örneği: Kalkınma Ajansları. Ankara SBF Dergisi, 62(3): 233–255.Google Scholar
  75. Padgett, S. 2003. Between synthesis and emulation: EU policy transfer in the power sector. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(2): 227–245. doi: 10.1080/1350176032000059017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Parlak, B., & Sobacı, Z. 2008. Kuram ve uygulamada kamu yönetimi: Ulusal ve küresel perspektifler. Bursa: Alfa Aktüel Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  77. Pose-Rodriguez, A., & Fratesi, U. 2004. Between development and social policies: The impact of European structural funds in objective 1 regions. Regional Studies, 38(1): 97–113. doi: 10.1080/00343400310001632226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Radaelli, C. M. 2000. Policy transfer in European Union: Institutional isomorphism a source of legitimacy. Governance, 13(1): 25–43. doi: 10.1111/0952-1895.00122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rose, R. 2005. Learning from comparative public policy: A practical guide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Rose, R. 1993. Lesson-drawing in public policy. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  81. Schimmelfenning, F., & Sedelmeier, U. 2004. Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of central and eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4): 661–679. doi: 10.1080/1350176042000248089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schuttpelz, A. 2004. Policy transfer and pre-accession europenisation of the employment policy. Social Science Research Center Discussion Paper SP III 2004-201.Google Scholar
  83. Seeliger, R. 1996. Conceptualizing and researching policy convergence. Policy Studies Journal: the Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 24(2): 287–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1996.tb01629.x.Google Scholar
  84. Sobacı, M. Z. 2008. Türkiye’de bölgesel yönetişimin kurumsal yansıması: Kalkınma ajansları. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 45(519): 61–74.Google Scholar
  85. Stone, D. 1999. Learning lessons and transfering policy across time, space and disciplines. Politics, 19(1): 51–59. doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.00086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Suzuki, K. 2002. Competition law reform in Britain and Japon: Comparative analysis of policy network. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Tekeli, I., & Ilkin, S. 2005. Avrupa Birliği, Türkiye ve yerellik. İstanbul: UCLG-MEWA.Google Scholar
  88. Tomaney, J. 2002. The evolution of regionalism in England. Regional Studies, 36(7): 721–731. doi: 10.1080/0034340022000006042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Türe, I. 1998. Türkiye’de bölge yönetiminin niteliği, sorunları ve çözüm arayışları. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 31(2): 63–79.Google Scholar
  90. Walker, J. 1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. The American Political Science Review, 63(3): 880–889. doi: 10.2307/1954434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Webb, D., & Collis, C. 2000. Regional development agencies and the ‘new regionalism’ in England. Regional Studies, 34(9): 857–864. doi: 10.1080/00343400020002985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Public AdministrationUniversity of UludagBursaTurkey

Personalised recommendations