Building a clean government in Turkey: pillars, perils, and prospects

Asking the right questions? Addressing corruption and EU accession

“…It is interesting to note that this final dimension also emerges in a number of articles on the influence of the state over perceptions of the value and intentions of external influences (Johnson, 2008), the tensions over the EU accession process (Patterson, 2008; Acar and Emek, 2008), and the levels (or absence of) pluralist and democratic development (Onen, 2008). This concern is summarised in the UNDESA (n.d., p. 17) report, which argues that:[…] the centralist nature of public administration is not only a tradition which has been inherited from the Ottoman period, it has also been developed and enhanced by Republican administrations during the consolidation of the nation state.…”

“…Other assessments also look to this dimension. Acar and Emek (2008) note there appeared to be:a lack of clear and comprehensive understanding and strategizing on the part of governments regarding the issues, actors, and policies involved in building a clean government in Turkey … more importantly, relying exclusively or heavily on “reactive” policies and actions, without paying due attention to developing “proactive” policies and programs, would diminish the effectiveness of anti‐corruption drives in the long‐run;an interaction between the state and powerful interest groups, such as business lobbies and media conglomerates have not been high on the governments' anti‐corruption agenda; andthe existence of an overly polarized electorate and overly politicized public bureaucracies do not help building and sustaining a united front against corruption in the country.This paper also raises the second dimension, suggesting, where the need for a single lead agency is not considered, that it was important to address what they term “connectedness” in its broadest sense so as to include the links between the issues and problems (e.g. a comprehensive approach needed to adequately grasp the root causes of corruption), as well as “bridges between the main players and parties.” A similar point was made by the EC, which noted that “stronger coordination between the relevant government institutions is of key importance.” This point about the joined‐up nature of institutional landscape is also made by both other academic and by practitioner commentators.…”

“…Conversely, questions about the dimensions discussed above would not only produce different answers but also allow the questioner to then frame the original questions in a way that may achieve a more complete and effective answer. Indeed, to keep pushing for answers to the wrong questions (or questions asked in the wrong order or for the wrong reasons) then the consequences may also have unintended countervailing influences that will further delay achieving the right answers, as Acar and Emek (2008, pp. 195‐6) note:What we are trying to point out is that those who want to contribute to the efforts aiming at building clean government in Turkey must take into account the many facets of the issue as well as many faces of the opposing sentiments, and must develop and implement effective communication strategies and appropriate tools to deal with them properly.…”

Simulakra Konsep Makna Opini Audit Pada Pemerintah Kota Tidore Kepulauan

“…Opini audit yang diterima, misalnya WTP, tidak sekedar menggambarkan betapa pemerintah telah berhasil dalam mengelola keuangan secara transparan dan akuntabel berdasarkan prinsip dan regulasi yang berlaku, tetapi juga menjadi signal bahwa pemerintah memang telah bersih dari segala potensi dan tindakan korupsi sebab mereka telah secara jujur mengungkapkan informasi dalam laporan keuangan. Ma & Ni (2008) dan Acar & Emek (2008), mengungkapkan bahwa clean government merupakan kondisi di mana tidak adanya tindak korupsi yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah. Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) mengasumsikan bahwa clean government pada akhirnya akan meningkatkan tata kelola yang baik (good governance).…”

Heritage management at the local level: rhetoric and results in the case of Gaziantep, Turkey

“…This is particularly true in countries such as Turkey where -given the presence of important ethnic minorities -decentralization could lead to the emergence of greater conflicts, especially in the field of heritage where the identity issue is particularly sensitive. Similarly, given the high level of corruption of the country (Acar and Emek, 2008, Memişoğlu and Durgun, 2008, Okuyucu Ergün, 2007, decentralization could be particularly dangerous for cultural heritage, in terms of infrastructure investments and the illicit antiquities trade. There are some conditions for successful decentralization that should be met.…”