Europeanization: Analyzing the Domestic Change in Turkey

Europeanization has been a valuable tool to examine the EU-induced change in its member states (Duina 1997; Heritier et al. 2001; Börzel 2003; Börzel/Risse 2003; Falkner et al. 2005; Zürn/Joerges 2005). Yet, the transformative power of Europe has reached well beyond its boundaries with the implementation of its theoretical models to examine the domestic change in the recently acceding states, candidate, and non-members countries (Lavenex 2004; Schimmelfennig/Sedelmeier 2005; Sedelmeier 2011; Börzel/Risse 2012; Elbasani 2012). Mostly inspired by this thriving research agenda, an increasing number of scholars have become interested in analyzing the transformative power of Europe on domestic change in Turkey.

Europeanization and Domestic Change: Theoretical Approaches

There is a lively debate in the literature over the concrete definition of Europeanization (Ladrech 1994; Cowles et al 2001; Radaelli 2000; Olsen 2002; Börzel/Risse 2003). Yet, within the framework of this article, the term is understood as ‘the domestic impact of the EU’ (Sedelmeier 2006: 4). With the enlargement of the EU to the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) this transformative impact has become more evident on the domestic structures since we witnessed a comprehensive political and economic transformation in the CEE countries after the collapse of the Communist regimes. In this regard, accession Europeanization has emerged as a separate research area (Kubicek 2003; Kelley 2004; Schimmelfennig/ Sedelmeier 2005; Pridham 2005; Vachudova 2005; Jakoby 2006; Grabbe 2006).

As in the case of member state Europeanization, two institutionalist approaches, rationalist and sociological institutionalism, provide explanations for domestic change in the accession countries (Börzel/Risse 2003, 2007). Yet, the literature on accession Europeanization largely relies on the rationalist mechanisms of ‘reinforcement by reward’ for making candidate countries adopt and implement the acquis communautaire (Schimmelfennig/ Sedelmeier 2005; Schimmelfennig/Sedelmeier 2004). Coupled with the misfit between the EU and domestic institutions, policies and political processes, the accession conditionality has been, to a large extent, effective to empower reformist coalitions bringing about domestic change in the CEE countries (Börzel/Risse 2003, 2007; Schimmelfennig/Sedelmeier 2005; Vachudova 2005). However, it has been highly challenged in Western Balkans (WB) mostly due to the limited state capacities and ethnic conflicts in these countries (Börzel 2011; Elbasani 2012). The studies examining the theoretical premises of Europeanization literature for the case of Turkey by comparing it with the CEE countries (Kubicek 2003; Schimmelfennig et al. 2003; Dimitrova 2011) and with the other candidates in the WB (Noutcheva/Düzgit 2012) demonstrate that approaches to accession Europeanization largely count for the Turkish case as well (see Börzel 2012; Börzel/Soyaltin 2012).

Europeanization Hits Turkey

In 1999, Turkey obtained an accession perspective with the decision of the Helsinki European Council. Since then, the concept of ‘Europeanization’ has become a buzzword in most of the studies dealing with the EU-Turkey relations (Bölükbasi et al. 2010:468). While the Europeanization has been mostly conceptualized as a normative or legal framework (Bölükbasi et al. 2010:465), scholars mostly use the term to examine the democratic change in the political regime as a result of political reforms in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria (Ugur 1999; Aydin/Keyman 2004; Bac 2005; Keyman/Önis 2007; Faucompret/Konings 2008; Bardakci 2008; Grigoriadis 2009). Yet, recently there are emerging empirical studies on the domestic impact of EU accession process on specific policies, political institutions, and political processes in Turkey using the well-equipped analytical toolbox of the Europeanization research (Nas/Özer 2012, Noutcheva/Düzgit 2012).

The scholars analyzing the domestic change in Turkey have, most of the time, relied on the conditional incentives exerted by the EU (Schimmelfennig et al. 2003). There is, to a large extent, a consensus in the literature on the fact that EU incentives created pressure for the adaptation of the EU rules, and resulted in comprehensive reforms, especially between 1999 and 2004 when the credibility of EU conditionality towards Turkey was high (Aydin/Keyman 2004: Baç 2005; Tocci 2005; Önis 2009; Noutcheva/Düzgit 2012). Between 1999 and 2004, Turkey introduced several constitutional reform packages in order to meet the political aspects of the Copenhagen criteria, which were virtually of a revolutionary character in that they required fundamental changes in the political structure, and were perceived as a direct challenge to Kemalism [1] (Glyptis, 2005; Önis 2006; Grigoriadis 2009).

It was the strong EU incentives that promoted the democratic reforms in the country. “Without the EU incentive, those changes would have been much harder to adopt” (Bac 2005:30). Although Europeanization and democratizations are strongly linked, several authors claim that the reform process in Turkey did not occur simply through a linear relationship based on EU policies of conditionality, and underline the existing domestic agenda of the constitutional reforms (Kalacycioglu 2011) and democratization per se, which has recently coupled with the Europeanization process (Ugur 1999; Oguzlu 2004; Ulusoy 2007).  Whether Europeanization has been an anchor or a trigger for domestic transformation process in Turkey is an open question. Yet, one can confidently claim that Turkey passed through a major political reform process, between 1999 and 2004 (Aydin/Keyman 2004; Baç 2005; Tocci 2005; Griogriadis 2009). While the external incentives provided by the EU empowered the pro-reformist coalitions vis-à-vis the Kemalist and nationalist powers to push through domestic reforms they also provided opportunities to the Justice and Development Party known in Turkey by its Turkish acronym, AKP (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) to overcome the resistance of veto players in the military, judiciary and bureaucracy in general, and consolidate its power in the state structure (Noutcheva/Düzgit 2012).

The picture, however, started to change after 2005 since the credibility of the EU accession perspective has dropped dramatically. First, the rhetorical changes in EU’s enlargement strategy had an extensive negative impact to the EU reform process in Turkey (Saatcioglu 2010:8-9). The change in the EU’s way of handling enlargement has become more evident with the EU’s decisions underlining the open-ended nature of the accession negotiations and the importance of Union’s capacity to absorb new members without risking governability of itself.[2] Second, the ‘privileged partnership’ debate that flourished among several EU member states (especially in France, Germany and Austria) questioning the decision of launching accession negotiations with Turkey also sent blurred signals to the policy makers in Turkey (Öniş 2009:41-2; Lavenex/Schimmelfennig 2006: 140). This downward trend was reinforced by European Council’s decision partially suspending of the negotiations in eight chapters in December 2006 in protest to Turkey’s refusal to open its ports and airports to trade with Cyprus.[3] As a result, EU conditionality lost its credibility after 2005 (Saatcioglu 2010; Noutcheva/Düzgit 2012; Yilmaz 2012). This, in return, paved the pay to the rise of anti-European sentiments in Turkey, which made it more difficult for the AKP government to mobilize support in favor of implementing EU demands for reform, and weakened its hand in its pro-EU politics (Patton 2007; Onar 2007; Çarkoğlu/Kentmen 2011).

Since then, the EU reform process in Turkey slowed down in general which triggered a debate on AKP’s limits as a reformist government (Patton 2007; Önis 2008; Schimmelfennig 2009; Saatcioglu 2010, Önis 2013). Yet, the story is not that straightforward when different policy fields are taken into account. Therefore, scholars should analyze domestic politics more thoroughly before reaching quick conclusions and claiming that the overall reform process stalled in the country. The empirical evidence suggests that there are instances of ongoing domestic reforms in several policy areas (e.g judicial and military reforms, fight against corruption reforms, minority rights, Ombudsmanship reform), which are mostly motivated by domestic priorities and motivations (Aydin/Carkoglu 2009; Buhari-Gulmez 2011; Noutcheva/Düzgit 2012; Yilmaz 2012; Yilmaz/Soyaltin 2013). Like most of the countries in south-East Europe (Spendzharova/Vachudova 2012; Börzel/Pamuk 2012; Ademmer/Börzel 2012), the political actors in Turkey selectively adopt the EU policies in a way to pursue their own political agenda, attract votes in the elections and consolidate their power in the national structure (Börzel 2012; Yilmaz 2012). In sum, the domestic impact of the EU has been differential, it varies across policies and institutions. As mentioned by Börzel (2012) “it is the domestic scope conditions, stupid!” what matters the most for the differential impact of the EU on the domestic change in Turkey.

Besides being selective, the Europeanization process also remained, to a great extent, shallow in Turkey. While Turkish authorities adopted a massive amount of legislation in many policy areas in the last decade, the practical implementation of the domestic reforms remained rather limited.  Scholars already identified such implementation pathologies in the CEE countries. In most of the CEE the adopted EU rules are still often not properly and fully applied and enforced (Börzel 2009; Falkner et al. 2008). This has given rise to “shallow Europeanization” (Goetz 2005: 262) “Potemkin harmonization” (Jacoby 1999) or “world of dead letters” (Falkner et al 2008). In the Western Balkans, the change in the formal structures is not properly followed by the practical implementation, as well (Elbasani 2012).

The empirical evidence shows the story also repeats itself in Turkey in several policy areas. For example, the deeply entrenched mechanisms of patronage and clientelisitic networks, and weak institutional capacities (Adaman 2011; Aydin/Carkoglu 2009; Baran 2000) resulted in problems with regard to the practical implementation of fight against corruption reforms in the public sector (Ömurgönülsen/Doig 2012, Soyaltin 2012). Constrained by the political culture, administrative capabilities, and centralized decision-making system, compliance with the EU’s rules and practices in the environmental policy (Unalan/Cowell 2009) or in the regional policy (Celenk/Güney 2010; Ertugal 2011) also echo the country’s wider problems with regard to the practical implementation. In this regard, the EU’s twining exercises where the Turkish officials work with their EU counterparts and capacity building activities have gained more importance for the strengthening of the state capacity and enforcement of the legal changes (Aydin/Carkoglu 2009; Bac 2005;Noutcheva/Düzgit 2012). Last but not least, the role of civil society organizations and social learning mechanisms are likely to have greater impact in increasing the acceptance of the adopted EU rules and promoting their internalization, as the process unfolds.

As the empirical evidence suggests, the reform process in Turkey is far from being completed. Time will tell whether the political actors will pursue further change in line with the European rules and practices which is very much related with the flexibility of the secular republic, and existence of the grassroots actors demanding a more democratic and liberal state. Furthermore, clear signals of Brussels concerning the accession negotiations have immense importance in strengthening the hands of the reformist actors in Turkey, especially at a time when the country is perceived as a role model for the emerging Arab democracies.

Diğdem Soyaltin is a PhD candidate at Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, and a research fellow at the Research College on Transformative Power of Europe (KFG). She studied International Relations, European Affairs and Political Science before at different universities in Europe. In her Ph.D. project, she examines to what extent and under which conditions Europeanization matters for the differential implementation of public sector reforms to fight against corruption in Turkey. She can be contacted at

[1] Kemalism, as the national state doctrine, defines the basic characteristics of the Republic of Turkey, and is based on two core principles: one, secularism, the strict separation of religion and state, and two, a nationalism reflecting a single Turkish identity. Turkey’s identification with Europe, and West in general was the product of the Kemalist ideals.

[2] European Commission 2006:  Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2006-2007. Including annexed special report on the EU‘s capacity to integrate new members, COM (2006) 649 Final, Brussels.

[3] European Council 2006: Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, 14/15 December 2006, 16879/1/06, Brussels

Adaman, F. (2011), ‘ Is Corruption a Drawback to Turkey’s Accession to the European Union?’, South European Society and Politics, 16 (2), 309-21.

Ademmer, E., and Börzel, T. A. (2012) “Migration, Energy and Good Governance in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood”, Europe Asia Studies (forthcoming)

Aydın, S., and Çarkoğlu, A. (2009) ‘Reforms for a Consolidated Democracy: Turkey’, in L. Morlino and A. Magen (eds.), 2009: International Actors, Democratization Rule of Law: Anchoring Democracy? New York: Routledge

Aydın, S., and Keyman, F. (2004) “European Integration and the Transformation of Turkish Democracy”, CEPS EU-Turkey Working Papers 2(1).

Baç, M. M. (2005) “Turkey’s Political Reforms and the Impact of the European Union”, South European Society and Politics 10(1): 17-31.

Baran, Z. (2000) “Corruption: The Turkish Challenge”, Journal of International Affairs 54(1): 127-146.

Bardakçı, M. (2008) Political Reforms in Turkey and the Impact of the European Union Post-Helsinki Era, VDM Verlag

Bölükbaşı, T., Ertugal, E., and Özçürümez, S. (2010). “The Impact of the EU on Turkey: Toward Streamlining Europeanisation as a Research Programme”, European Political Science 9: 464-480.

Börzel, T. (2012) ‘Europeanization Meets Turkey. A Case Sui Generis?’ in Ç. Nas and Y. Özer (eds), 2012: Turkey and the EU: Processes of Europeanisation, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Börzel, T.A. (2003) Environmental Leaders and Laggards in Europe: Why There is (not) a ‘Southern Problem’, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Börzel, T. A. (2011) ‘When Europe Hits Limited Statehood. Europeanization and Domestic Change in the Western Balkans’, KFG Working Papers. Research College “The Transformative Power of Europe”. Freie Universität Berlin, 30.

Börzel, T. A., and Pamuk, Y. (2012) ‘Pathologies of Europeanization. Fighting Corruption in the Southern Caucasus’, West European Politics 35, 1.

Börzel, T. A., and Risse, T. (2003) ‘Conceptualising the Domestic Impact of Europe’, in K Featherstone and C Radaelli (eds), 2003: The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Börzel, T. A., and Risse, T. (2007) ‘Europeanization: The Domestic Impact of EU Politics’, in KE Jorgensen, MA Pollack and B Rosamond (eds), 2007: Handbook of European Union Politics, London: Sage.

Börzel, T. A., and Risse, T. (2012) ‘From Europeanization to Diffusion: Introduction’, West European Politics 35, 1.

Börzel, T. A. and Soyaltin, D. (2012) “Europeanization in Turkey. Stretching a Concept to its Limits?” KFG Working Paper Series, No. 36, February 2012, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) “The Transformative Power of Europe“ Freie Universität Berlin.

Buhari-Gulmez, D. (2011) “Ombudsmanship and Turkey’s Europeanization in World Society”, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19:4, 475-487

Carkoğlu, A. and Kentmen, Ç. (2011) “Diagnosing Trends and Determinants in Public Support for Turkey’s EU Membership”, South European Society and Politics 16/3, 365-379.

Cowles, M. G., Caporaso, J. A., and Risse, T., eds. (2001) Transforming Europe. Europeanization and Domestic Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Celenk, A. A., and Guney, A. (2010) “Europeanization and the dilemma of decentralization: centre-local relations in Turkey”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern studies 12(3): 241-257.

Dimitrova, A. L. (2011) “Speeding up or slowing down? Lessons from the Last Enlargement on the Dynamics of Enlargement-Driven Reform”, South European Society and Politics 16(2): 221-233.

Duina, F. (1997) ‘Explaining legal implementation in the European Union’, International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25: 155 – 79.

Düzgit, Senem Aydin  and   Noutchheva, G. (2012) “Lost in Europeanisation:  The Western Balkans and Turkey” West European Politics 35(1): 59-78.

Elbasani, A., (ed.) (2013) European Integration and Transformation in the Western Balkans: Europeanization or Business as Usual?, London: Routledge.

Ertugal, E. (2011) “Institutional Change and Europeanisation: Explaining regional policy reform in Turkey”, Policy & Politics 39(2): 257-273.

Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., and Leiber, S. (2005), Complying with Europe: EU Harmonization and Soft law in Member States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Falkner, G., Treib, O., and Holzleitner, E. (2008) Compliance in the European Union. Living Rights or Dead Letters? Aldershot: Ashgate.

Faucompret, E., and Konings, J. (eds.) (2008) Turkish Accession to the EU: Satisfying the Copenhagen Criteria. London: Routledge

Glyptis, Leda-Agapi  (2005)  “The Cost of Rapprochement: Turkey’s Erratic EU Dream as a Clash of Systematic Values”. Turkish Studies, 6(3).

Goetz, Klaus H. (2005), The New Member States and the EU: Responding to Europe, in Simon Bulmer and Christian Lequesne (eds.), The Member States of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 254-80.

Grabbe, H. (2006) The EU’s Transformative Power – Europeanization through Conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe, Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillian

Grigoriadis, I. N. (2009) Trials of Europeanization: Turkish Political Culture and the EU. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heritier, A., K., D., Knill, C., Lehmkuhl, D., Teutsch, M. and Douillet, A. (2001) Differential Europe: New Opportunities and Restrictions for Policymaking in the Member States, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jacoby, W. (2006) “Inspiration, Coalition and Substitution. External Influences on Postcommunist Transformations”, World Politics 58, 623–51.

Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2011). “The Turkish–EU Odyssey and Political Regime Change in Turkey”, South European Society and Politics, 16:02, 265-278

Kelley, J. G. (2004) “International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions”, International Organization 58, 3: 425-457.

Keyman, F. and Öniş, Z. (2007) Turkish Politics in a Changing World: Global Dynamics and Domestic Transformation, Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.

Kubicek, P. (ed.) (2003) The European Union and Democratization, London: Routledge.

Ladrech, R. (1994) “Europeanization of domestic politics and institutions: the

case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies 32(1): 69-88

Lavenex, S. (2004) “EU External Governance in Wider Europe”‘, Journal of European Public Policy 11(4): 680-700.

Lavenex, S. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2006) “Relations with the Wider Europe”, Journal of Common Market Studies 44 :137‐154.

Noutcheva, G., and Düzgit, S. A. (2012) “Lost in Europeanization? The Western Balkans and Turkey”, West European Politics 35, 1.

Oguzlu, T. (2004) “The impact of ‘democratization in the context of the EU accession process’ on Turkish foreign policy”, Mediterranean Politics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 94-113

Olsen, J. P. (2002), “The Many Faces of Europenisation”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.40, No.5, pp. 921-952.

Ömürgönülsen, U. and Doig, A. (2012), “Why the Gap? Turkey, EU Accession, Corruption and Culture”, Turkish Studies, 13 (1), 7-25.

Onar, N. (2007) “Kemalists, Islamists, and Liberals: Shifting Patterns of Confrontation and Consensus, 2002-06”, Turkish Studies, 8/2, .273-288.

Öniş, Z. (2013)”Sharing Power: Turkey’s Democratization Challenge in the Age of the AKP Hegemony”, Insight Turkey, 15(2): pp. 103-122

Öniş, Z. (2009) ‘Conservative Globalists versus Defensive Nationalists: Political parties and Paradoxes of Europeanization in Turkey’, in S. Verney and K. Ifantis  (eds.) Turkey’s Road to EU Membership: National Identity and Political Change. London, Routledge.

Öniş, Z (2008). “Turkey-EU Relations: Beyond the Current Stalemate.” Insight Turkey 10(4): 35-50.

Öniş, Z. (2006) “Turkey’s Encounters with the New Europe: Multiple Transformations, Inherent Dilemmas and the Challenges Ahead”. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 8(3).

Patton, M. J. (2007) “AKP Reform Fatigue in Turkey: What has happened to the EU reform Process?’ Mediterranean Politics, 12/3, 339-358.

Pridham, G. (2005) Designing Democracy: EU Enlargement and Regime Change in Post Communist Europe, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Radaelli, C. (2000). Whither Europeanization?: Concept stretching and substantive change. European Integration online Papers, 4 (8).

Saatçioğlu, B. (2010) “Unpacking the Compliance Puzzle: The Case of Turkey‘s AKP under EU Conditionality”, KFG Working Paper Series 14.

Schimmelfennig, F.,, Engert, S., and Knobel, H. (2003) “Costs, Commitment and Compliance. The Impact of EU Democratic Conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey”, Journal of Common Market Studies 41(3): 495-518.

Schimmelfennig, F.,, Engert, S., and Knobel, H. (2005) ‘The Impact of EU Political Conditionality’, in F Schimmelfennig and U Sedelmeier (eds), 2005: The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Schimmelfennig, F. and 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.

Schimmelfennig, Frank, and Sedelmeier, Ulrich (2005) The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Schimmelfennig, F.  (2009) “Entrapped Again: The Way to EU Membership Negotiations with

Turkey.” International Politics 46(4): 413-431.

Sedelmeier, U. (2006)  “Europeanization in new member and candidate states”, Living Review of European Governance, 1(3).

Sedelmeier, U. (2011) “Europeanisation in new member and candidate states”,  Living Reviews in European Governance, Vol. 6, (2011), No. 1:

Soyaltin, D. (2012) “Europeanization Decoupled? Fight Against Corruption in Turkey” Centre for Policy Analysis and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London: Research Turkey, 1(3): pp.35-41

Spendzharova, A., and Vachudova, M. A. (2012) “Catching-Up? Consolidating Liberal Democracy in Bulgaria and Romania”, West European Politics 35, 1.

Tocci, N. (2005) “Europeanization in Turkey: Trigger or Anchor for Reforms? .” South European Society and Politics 10(1): 73-83.

Ugur, M. (1999) The European Union and Turkey: An Anchor/Credibility Dilemma. Aldershot., Ashgate.

Ulusoy, K. (2007) “Turkey’s Reform Efforts reconsidered: 1987-2004.” EUI Working Paper 28.

Unalan, D., and Cowell, R. (2009)”Europeanization, Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Impacts on Environmental Governance”, Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 32-43.

Vachudova, Milada Anna (2005) Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage and Integration After Communism, Oxford: Oxford  University Press.

Yılmaz, G. (2012) From EU Conditionality to Domestic Choice for Change: Exploring Europeanization of Minority Rights in Turkey, in Ç. Nas and Y. Özer (eds), Turkey and the EU: Processes of Europeanisation Ashgate.

Yilmaz, G/Soyaltin, D. (2013) “Zooming into the ‘Domestic’ in Europeanization: Promotion of Fight against Corruption and Minority Rights in Turkey”, Journal of Balkans and Near Eastern Studies(forthcoming)

Zürn, M. and Joerges, C. (eds) (2005) Law and Governance in Postnational Europe:  Compliance Beyond the Nation-state, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.


Get our weekly email