TEPAV web sitesinde yer alan yazılar ve görüşler tamamen yazarlarına aittir. TEPAV'ın resmi görüşü değildir.
© TEPAV, aksi belirtilmedikçe her hakkı saklıdır.
Söğütözü Cad. No:43 TOBB-ETÜ Yerleşkesi 2. Kısım 06560 Söğütözü-Ankara
Telefon: +90 312 292 5500Fax: +90 312 292 5555
tepav@tepav.org.tr / tepav.org.trTEPAV veriye dayalı analiz yaparak politika tasarım sürecine katkı sağlayan, akademik etik ve kaliteden ödün vermeyen, kar amacı gütmeyen, partizan olmayan bir araştırma kuruluşudur.
The Wall Street Journal now has an online Turkish portal. It’s very  useful. The other day, it carried a piece on the agenda of Turkey’s  Cabinet. In 2012, a whopping 60 percent of the Cabinet’s decisions were  about construction projects. They actually counted every decision of the  body, which is headed by the prime minister himself. I find this rather  telling of the Turkish way of doing things. Let me elaborate. 
Construction  projects are inherently local. You first need a piece of land to build  something on. Most of the time, there are locals there who need to be  consulted and manage the project. Yet, in Turkey’s case, all large-scale  construction decisions are taken by the highest administrative body of  the country, in Ankara. They know what’s best for you and they will come  and build things where you live. No wonder the Gezi Park incident was  sparked by a construction project. There is something wrong in Ankara’s  way of doing things. 
There always has been. Ankara’s micro  management is a structural characteristic of the Turkish way of doing  things. A simple comparison helps to illustrate this point: Both Turkey  and Sweden are unitary states (meaning that they are not federations of  self-governing states). While 85 percent of civil servants are employed  by Ankara in  Turkey, only 15 percent work for the central government in Sweden.  Imagine that. Local administrations in Turkey only employ a meager 15  percent of civil servants in the country. They are weak. Turkey is a  centralized unitary state where all decisions are taken in Ankara.  Sweden is not. 
But Ankara’s recent levels of control  freakishness are high even by its own standards. According to the WSJ  piece, only 9 percent of Cabinet decisions were about local construction  projects in 2009. That increased to 17 percent in 2010 and 23 percent  in 2011. In 2012 it was finally, 60 percent! That is high. So our  highest administrative body started focusing on local construction  projects in 2012. Where does that leave other important issues of state?  The Arab Spring turns messy, no room on the agenda. The middle income trap is leading  to sluggish productivity growth? No time to talk about it; let’s fiddle  around with Istanbul’s public transportation system. The Kurdish  reconciliation process, a new Constitution, public unrest. Sorry, no  room on the agenda. Too many construction projects. God forbid they  would be handled by municipalities. It’s no wonder that Turkey has not  had any structural reforms since 2007. Except the smoking ban, of  course. 
In 2002, this same government first prepared a municipal  reform package that gave powers to local administrations. It was vetoed  by the then president of Turkey, Ahmet Necdet Sezer. A pity, if you ask  me. In 2010, that same government decided to preside over all urban  renewal construction projects across the country. They made the  decision-making process more centralized than ever before. 
There  was always something wrong in Ankara’s way of doing things. Micro  management is a Turkish trait, embedded strongly in our psyche. Recently  Ankara’s bad habits have reached a new summit. This has to change,  sooner or later.
This commentary was published in Hürriyet Daily News on 17.08.2013