Search

This article argues that the evolution of the Europeanization research program and that of the literature on Turkey has come evolved incongruously. The article identifies the limits of this interaction, investigates the conceptual, theoretical and methodological origins of these limits, and concludes that such incongruence may be overcome by cross-utilization of the conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and research design tools offered by the Europeanization research program more effectively in studying Turkey. Doing so will allow studying the exclusive impact of the EU on the processes of transformation in Turkey by isolating its transformative role from the impact of other domestic dynamics and international factors. Key Words: Europeanization Research Program, Turkey, Comparative Case Study, Intervening Variables, Mechanisms. Bu makale Avrupa entegrasyonu calismalarinin Avrupalilasma yazini yonunde evrilmesiyle Turkiye'deki Avrupalilasma calismalarinin gelisimi arasinda bir kopukluk oldugu gozleminden yola cikmaktadir. Calisma bu etkilesimin sinirliliklarini tespit ettikten sonra, bu sinirliliklarin kavramsal, kuramsal ve yontemsel kokenlerini incelemektedir. Soz konusu sinirliliklarin asilabilmesi icin Avrupalilasma yaziniyla ortaya cikan kavramsal, kuramsal ve yontemsel yeniliklerin Turkiye'yi calisirken etkin bir bicimde kullanilmasinin gerekliligine dikkat cekilmektedir. Bu tur bir uygulamanin Turkiye'deki donusumun uzerindeki AB etkisini diger ic dinamikler ve dis faktorlerden ayirt etme imkanini yaratacagini vurgulanmaktadir. Bu degerlendirmeyi yaparken ozellikle Turkiye'yi konu alan yazinin kuramsal yaklasimlar, kapsam, ara degiskenler, mekanizmalar ve arastirma tasarimi acisindan gelisimini analiz edilmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Avrupalilasma Arastirma Programi,Turkiye, Karsilastirmali Vaka Analizi, Ara Degiskenler, Mekanizmalar., Giris Bu calismanin temel amaci Avrupa entegrasyon kuraminda son yillarda guclenen, ucuncu ve son kusagi temsil eden Avrupalilasma arastirma programi cercevesinde, Turkiye'yi konu alan yazinin sinirlarini ortaya koymak, bu sinirlarin [...]

There is widespread consensus in the comparative welfare state literature that the welfare state can be best conceptualized in terms of social rights of citizenship. The Social Citizenship Indicator Program (SCIP) and the Comparative Welfare Entitlements Dataset (CWED), which rely on operational definitions of quantified legislated social rights, constitute centrepieces of this thriving research. As leading state-of-the-art tools for capturing welfare stateness, these two datasets are being widely used. Scholars in general have also been treating them as interchangeable measurement tools. Upon closer inspection, however, we discover that the two datasets point to contrasting images of welfare state change for certain countries and time periods. This article aims to contribute to the scholarly exchange on the validity problem in measuring welfare state generosity. The exchange has hitherto been confined to problems of dataset choice with respect to only replacement rates, a set of key indicators included in both datasets. However, there are 11 key non-replacement rate indicators SCIP and CWED have in common, whose convergent validity has yet to be questioned. We thus explore the convergent validity of these non-replacement rate indicators across the two datasets. We then replicate the two leading composite indexes (Decommodification Index (DI) and Benefit Generosity Index (BGI)) constructed on the basis of these indicators. We identify problems of invalidity manifested in discrepancies in non-replacement rate indicator scores and index values for DI and BGI. We show how these discrepancies could lead to contrasting assessments of welfare state change. We then identify a set of potential sources for these discrepancies, most of which are related to different operationalizations of similar concepts. We conclude by calling for more dialogue among developers of SCIP and CWED to further clarify their conceptual and operational points of departure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why is Turkey's approach to EU's European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) more cautious now after a period of active cooperation in their shared neighbourhood? How can such reversal be explained despite parallels in the interests of the EU and Turkey in their shared neighbourhood and complementarities in their policy instruments used to advance these interests? This article evaluates the explanatory power of rational choice, sociological and historical institutionalism in comparative politics in addressing these questions. On the basis of qualitative case study evidence including interviews with key stakeholders, it concludes that historical institutionalism, with its emphasis on context, interaction and temporality, is better equipped than rational choice and sociological institutionalisms at accounting for Turkey's changing foreign policy choices concerning the ENP and the UfM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]