{"id":7534,"date":"2012-05-29T22:39:07","date_gmt":"2012-05-29T19:39:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/europeanization-decoupled-fighting-corruption-in-turkey\/"},"modified":"2022-09-27T16:06:54","modified_gmt":"2022-09-27T13:06:54","slug":"europeanization-decoupled-fighting-corruption-in-turkey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/europeanization-decoupled-fighting-corruption-in-turkey\/","title":{"rendered":"T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Yolsuzlukla M\u00fccadele: G\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrde Avrupal\u0131la\u015fma m\u0131?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadelede 1999 y\u0131l\u0131nda Helsinki zirvesinde AB\u2019nin T\u00fcrkiye\u2019ye aday \u00fclke stat\u00fcs\u00fc verme karar\u0131 ve 2000-2001 ekonomik krizi bu alanda daha ciddi ve kapsaml\u0131 \u00f6nlemler al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in temel d\u00f6n\u00fcm noktalar\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.\u00a0 G\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir ki, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131nda ka\u011f\u0131t \u00fczerinde yasal uyum d\u00fczeyi olduk\u00e7a y\u00fcksektir. Fakat yasal altyap\u0131daki ve idari kurumlardaki de\u011fi\u015fikliler pratik uygulamalara etkin bi\u00e7imde aktar\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yap\u0131lan yasal ve idari d\u00fczenlemeler pratikte davran\u0131\u015fsal de\u011fi\u015fikliklere yol a\u00e7mam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r ki bu da yolsuzluk d\u00fczeyinin g\u00f6receli olarak neden hala y\u00fcksek oldu\u011funu ve siyasi hayat\u0131n bir\u00e7ok alan\u0131n\u0131 olumsuz y\u00f6nde etkilemeye devam etti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamaktad\u0131r.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

T\u00fcrkiye, 1999 Helsinki Avrupa Konseyi\u2019nde al\u0131nan karar ile AB adayl\u0131k stat\u00fcs\u00fc kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu tarihten itibaren Kopenhag \u00fcyelik kriterlerine ve AB m\u00fcktesebat\u0131na uymak i\u00e7in bir\u00e7ok \u00f6nemli reform hayata ge\u00e7irilmi\u015ftir (Ayd\u0131n\/Keyman 2004; Ba\u00e7 2005; \u00d6ni\u015f 2006; Tocci 2005). Fakat Bat\u0131 Balkan \u00fclkelerine benzer bi\u00e7imde \u00e7o\u011fu alanda AB ko\u015fullar\u0131na yasal uyum sa\u011flan\u0131rken, uygulamada ayn\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131 sa\u011flanamam\u0131\u015f, yasal uyum pratikten ayr\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (decoupling)<\/em> (see B\u00f6rzel\/Soyaltin 2012). H\u00fck\u00fcmetler AB yasalar\u0131n\u0131 h\u0131zla i\u00e7 hukuka aktarm\u0131\u015f ama bu politika akt\u00f6rlerinin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131nda bir de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fe ve kurallar\u0131n i\u00e7selle\u015ftirilmesine yol a\u00e7amam\u0131\u015f ve \u00e7o\u011fu Orta ve Do\u011fu Avrupa \u00fclkesinde tan\u0131k oldu\u011fumuz gibi s\u0131\u011f Avrupal\u0131la\u015fmaya (shallow Europeanization)<\/em> neden olmu\u015ftur. Yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele politikas\u0131n\u0131n da bu kapsamda bir istisna olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenebilir.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yolsuzluk en basit tan\u0131m\u0131 ile \u201ckamu g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6zel \u00e7\u0131karlar amac\u0131yla k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r.\u201c[1]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de yolsuzluk s\u00fcregelen, yayg\u0131n ve ciddi bir sorun olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, ne medyada, ne siyasi g\u00fcndemde ne de bilimsel \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalarda gerekti\u011fi kadar yer bulabilmi\u015ftir (Adaman 2011; Sarlak\/Bali 2008). \u00c7e\u015fitli kamuoyu yoklamalar\u0131 ve uluslararas\u0131 \u00f6rg\u00fctler taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar ise yolsuzlu\u011fun i\u015fsizlik ve enflasyon ile birlikte T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin en ciddi problemi olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ortaya koymaktad\u0131r[2]<\/a>. T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de yolsuzlu\u011fun yayg\u0131n bir sorun oldu\u011fu \u00e7e\u015fitli uluslararas\u0131 kurumlar\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmalarla da do\u011frulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Uluslararas\u0131 \u015eeffafl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan her y\u0131l yay\u0131nlanan ve bu alanda en yayg\u0131n olarak kullan\u0131lan yolsuzluk endeksleri genel olarak incelendi\u011finde T\u00fcrkiye, Avrupa\u2019da yolsuzlu\u011fun en y\u00fcksek olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fclkeler grubunda de\u011ferlendirilmektedir.[3]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>Bundan ba\u015fka belli ba\u015fl\u0131 y\u00f6neti\u015fim hatalar\u0131n\u0131 belirleyen D\u00fcnya Bankas\u0131 Y\u00f6neti\u015fim Endeksinde de T\u00fcrkiye\u2019deki yolsuzluk d\u00fczeyi son y\u0131llarda dalgalansa da y\u00fcksek d\u00fczeyde seyretmektedir.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Yolsuzluk, b\u00fcy\u00fck oranda, siyasi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin ve idari kapasitenin s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011fu otoriter politik sistemler ve serbest piyasan\u0131n devlet m\u00fcdahalelerinden ve \u015feffaf olmayan mevzuattan dolay\u0131 zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ekonomiler ile \u00f6zde\u015fle\u015ftirilir (Sandholtz\/Koetzle 2000<\/a>; Shen\/Wiliamson 2005<\/a>).\u00a0 T\u00fcrkiye \u2018de yolsuzlu\u011fun temel nedeni olarak Osmanl\u0131 \u0130mparatorlu\u011fu\u2019ndan miras kalan ataerkil y\u00f6netim yap\u0131s\u0131 (devlet baba)<\/em> ve merkeziyet\u00e7i b\u00fcrokratik yap\u0131 g\u00f6sterilir. Bu miras, 1950lerde \u00e7ok partili siyasi hayata ge\u00e7ilmesi ile patronaj ve klientelist ili\u015fkiler a\u011f\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f; \u00e7evre ve merkez aras\u0131ndaki u\u00e7urum, g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bir sivil toplumun eksikli\u011fi ve temel ve hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckler, demokrasi ve hukukun \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi alanlardaki k\u0131s\u0131tlamalar nedeni ile de s\u00fcrekli hale gelip kemikle\u015fmi\u015ftir (Mardin 1973<\/a>; Bu\u011fra 1994<\/a>; G\u00fcne\u015f-Ayata 1994<\/a>, Baran 2000). Bug\u00fcn hala devam eden devlet gelene\u011fi ve sosyo-k\u00fclt\u00fcrel ve idari politik k\u00fclt\u00fcr, hayata ge\u00e7en yasalar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 ve olu\u015fturulan kurumlar\u0131n etkinli\u011fini \u015fekillendirmektedir (\u00d6m\u00fcrg\u00f6n\u00fcl\u015fen <\/a>\/Doig 2012).<\/p>\n

T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadelede 1999 y\u0131l\u0131nda Helsinki zirvesinde AB\u2019nin T\u00fcrkiye\u2019ye aday \u00fclke stat\u00fcs\u00fc verme karar\u0131 ve 2000-2001 ekonomik krizi bu alanda daha ciddi ve kapsaml\u0131 \u00f6nlemler al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in temel d\u00f6n\u00fcm noktalar\u0131 olmu\u015ftur (Acar\/Emek 2008). Bu tarihlerden sonra kamu y\u00f6netiminin \u2018hesap verebilirlik\u2019, \u2018etkinlik\u2019 ve \u2018\u015feffafl\u0131k\u2019 gibi iyi y\u00f6neti\u015fime dayanan ilke ve de\u011ferler do\u011frultusunda yeniden yap\u0131land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve yasal \u00e7er\u00e7evenin d\u00fczenlenmesini ama\u00e7layan bir tak\u0131m reformlar yap\u0131lmaya ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015f; yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadeleye y\u00f6nelik b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00e7apl\u0131 operasyonlar hayata ge\u00e7irilmi\u015ftir (Ayd\u0131n\/\u00c7arko\u011flu 2009, Bryane 2004). Yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131ndaki geli\u015fmeyi de\u011ferlendirmek ad\u0131na AB m\u00fcktesebat\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015f g\u00f6stergeler olmasa da AB \u00fcyesi olmak isteyen \u00fclkeler yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele etmek i\u00e7in kapsaml\u0131 bir ulusal strateji geli\u015ftirmeli ve bunu da etkili \u015fekilde hayata ge\u00e7irmelilerdir (Vachudova 2009). Ayr\u0131ca yarg\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131, kamu ihaleleri, mali kontrol ve denetim, idari yap\u0131 ve sivil hizmet mevzuat\u0131 alanlar\u0131nda yap\u0131lacak d\u00fczenlemelerin yolsuzlu\u011fun ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131nda etkili olaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Son olarak da AB \u00fcyeli\u011fi i\u00e7in yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele ile ilgili Birle\u015fmi\u015f Milletler Yolsuzlukla M\u00fccadele S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, OECD R\u00fc\u015fvetle M\u00fccadele S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve Avrupa Konseyi Yolsuzlukla M\u00fccadele Ceza Hukuku S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gibi baz\u0131 uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin imzalanmas\u0131 ve uygulamaya ge\u00e7mesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n

Son y\u0131llarda yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131nda \u00f6nemli ad\u0131mlar at\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 1999-2002 d\u00f6nemindeki DSP-MHP-ANAP koalisyon h\u00fck\u00fcmeti bu alanda reformlar\u0131 ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f ve T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Kamu Y\u00f6netiminde \u015eeffafl\u0131\u011f\u0131n Art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve Iyi Y\u00f6neti\u015fimin G\u00fc\u00e7lendirilmesi Ulusal Eylem Plan\u0131 ile bu alanda at\u0131lacak yasal ve idari ad\u0131mlar\u0131 ortaya koymu\u015ftur. Bakanl\u0131k d\u00fczeyinde olu\u015fturulan bir yolsuzlukla mucadele komitesi de plan\u0131n uygulamas\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulmu\u015ftur. 2002 genel se\u00e7imlerinde AKP b\u00fcy\u00fck bir ba\u015far\u0131 kazanarak tek ba\u015f\u0131na iktidar olmu\u015f ve bir hizmet partisi (service party)<\/em> olarak yolsuzlu\u011fa kar\u015f\u0131 kararl\u0131 bir m\u00fccadele y\u00fcr\u00fctece\u011finin alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmi\u015ftir. Yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131ndaki kararl\u0131l\u0131k 2009 y\u0131l\u0131nda bir ulusal stratejinin ve gelecek d\u00f6rt y\u0131l\u0131 (2010-2014) kapsayan bir eylem plan\u0131n\u0131n daha kabul edilmesi ile g\u00fc\u00e7lenmi\u015ftir<\/p>\n

Bu eylem planlar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda AKP h\u00fck\u00fcmetleri Kopenhag kriterlerine ve AB m\u00fcktesebat\u0131n\u0131n yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadeleye ili\u015fkin olan k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131na uyum sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in bir tak\u0131m yasal de\u011fi\u015fiklikler hayata ge\u00e7irmi\u015flerdir. Yasal anlamda yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczenleyen ve 1990 y\u0131l\u0131nda kabul edilen Mal Beyan\u0131 ve R\u00fc\u015fvetle Sava\u015f Kanunu iki kez de\u011fi\u015ftirilmi\u015f; Bilgi Edinme Kanunu, Kamu \u00c7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 Etik Kurulu Kanunu, Kamu \u0130hale Kanunu, Kamuda Finsansal Kontrol ve Denetim Kanunu, Kamu G\u00f6revlileri Etik Davran\u0131\u015f \u0130lkeleri ile Ba\u015fvuru Usul ve Esaslar\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Y\u00f6netmelik ve Say\u0131\u015ftay Kanunu hayata ge\u00e7mi\u015f ve yolsuzluk alan\u0131nda daha a\u00e7\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmler getiren yeni bir Ceza Kanunu kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Bir Kamu Denet\u00e7ili\u011fi Kurumu (Ombudsman)<\/em> olu\u015fturulmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6ren bir yasal d\u00fczenleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f fakat Anayasa mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan iptal edilmi\u015ftir Yasal anlamdaki de\u011fi\u015fikliklerin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra \u00e7e\u015fitli kurumsal ve idari d\u00fczenlemeler de yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kamu \u00c7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 Etik Kurulu olu\u015fturulmu\u015f, Avrupa Sahtecilikle M\u00fccadele Ofisi (OLAF) i\u00e7in Ba\u015fbakanl\u0131k Tefti\u015f Kurulu muhatap kurum olarak atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Baz\u0131 kamu kurumlar\u0131n\u0131n (Bankac\u0131l\u0131k D\u00fczenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu, Kamu \u0130hale Kurumu vb.) te\u015fkilat kanunu yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadeleye ili\u015fkin \u00f6nlemleri ve etik kurallar\u0131 i\u00e7erecek \u015fekilde yeniden d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir (Erg\u00fcn 2007<\/a>;\u00d6m\u00fcrg\u00f6n\u00fcl\u015fen <\/a>\/Doig 2012).<\/p>\n

Ulusal alandaki de\u011fi\u015fiklikleri, uluslararas\u0131 alandaki reform \u00e7abalar\u0131 takip etmi\u015ftir. T\u00fcrkiye, uygulamada baz\u0131 problemler olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131ndaki temel uluslararas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelere taraf olmu\u015f, daha da \u00f6nemlisi T\u00fcrkiye, 2004 y\u0131l\u0131nda Yolsuzlu\u011fa Kar\u015f\u0131 \u00dclkeler Grubu \u2013GRECO- \u00fcyesi haline gelmi\u015f, grubun takip mekanizmas\u0131na dahil olmu\u015f ve GRECO\u2019nun yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele konusundaki \u00f6nerilerini uygulayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir. T\u00fcrkiye, Haziran 2010 itibariyle GRECO\u2019nun 21 \u00f6nerisinden 15\u2019ini k\u0131smen ya da tamamen yerine getirmi\u015f durumdad\u0131r[5]<\/a>. Ayni \u015fekilde OECD nezdinde olu\u015fturulan \u2018Yolsuzluk \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma Grubu\u2019 da T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin 2007\u2019de kendisinden at\u0131lmas\u0131 istenen ad\u0131mlar\u0131n [6]<\/a> \u00f6nemli k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

G\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir ki, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131nda ka\u011f\u0131t \u00fczerinde yasal uyum d\u00fczeyi olduk\u00e7a y\u00fcksektir (Adaman 2011<\/a>; Albion 2011<\/a>; \u00d6m\u00fcrg\u00f6n\u00fcl\u015fen <\/a>\/Doig 2012). Fakat yasal altyap\u0131daki ve idari kurumlardaki de\u011fi\u015fikliler pratik uygulamalara etkin bi\u00e7imde aktar\u0131lamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Uluslararas\u0131 \u015eeffafl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc Yolsuzluk Alg\u0131lanma Endeksi s\u0131ralamas\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye, 2007 y\u0131l\u0131nda 10 \u00fczerinden 4.1 puan ile 180 \u00fclke i\u00e7erisinde 64. s\u0131rada yer al\u0131rken, 2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda 4.2 puan ile 61. s\u0131rada yer alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Uluslararas\u0131 \u015eeffafl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc bir \u00f6nceki y\u0131l ile k\u0131yasland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin hi\u00e7 bir geli\u015fme kaydetmedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Yap\u0131lan yasal ve idari d\u00fczenlemeler pratikte davran\u0131\u015fsal de\u011fi\u015fikliklere yol a\u00e7mam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r ki bu da yolsuzluk d\u00fczeyinin g\u00f6receli olarak neden hala y\u00fcksek oldu\u011funu ve siyasi hayat\u0131n bir\u00e7ok alan\u0131n\u0131 olumsuz y\u00f6nde etkilemeye devam etti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca bu s\u00fcre zarf\u0131nda kamuoyunun yolsuzluk alg\u0131s\u0131nda ciddi bir de\u011fi\u015fiklik olmam\u0131\u015f, bir \u2018temizlenme\u2019 alg\u0131s\u0131 olu\u015fmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. H\u00fck\u00fcmetin kamu y\u00f6netiminde yolsuzlu\u011fa \u2018s\u0131f\u0131r tolerans\u2019<\/em> politikas\u0131na ra\u011fmen Uluslararas\u0131 \u015eeffafl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc K\u00fcresel Yolsuzluk Barometresinde politik partiler, kamu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 ve meclis en \u00e7ok yolsuzluk yapan kurumlar olarak s\u0131ralanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[7]<\/a> AB Komisyonu da 2010 ilerleme raporunda yasal alandaki reformlar\u0131 takdirle kar\u015f\u0131lam\u0131\u015f, fakat yolsuzluk d\u00fczeyinin d\u00fc\u015fmesi i\u00e7in ulusal anlamda yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele stratejisinin etkili \u015fekilde uygulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011finin alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izmi\u015ftir[8]<\/a>. Komisyon, 2011 raporunda da uygulama alan\u0131ndaki ilerlemenin yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Yasal alandaki de\u011fi\u015fiklilerin etkili sonu\u00e7lar \u00fcretmesi i\u00e7in daha \u00e7ok zaman gerekecektir. Fakat idari sistemdeki par\u00e7al\u0131 yap\u0131, temel akt\u00f6rler ve kurumlar aras\u0131ndaki yetersiz ileti\u015fim ve koordinasyon eksikli\u011fi T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de etkili bir yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele politikas\u0131n\u0131n hayata ge\u00e7irilmesini engellemekte ve bu s\u00fcrenin daha da uzamas\u0131na yol a\u00e7maktad\u0131r (Acar\/Emek 2008; \u00d6m\u00fcrg\u00f6n\u00fcl\u015fen\/ \u00d6ktem 2005<\/a>, \u00d6m\u00fcrg\u00f6n\u00fcl\u015fen\/ Doig 2012; Michael 2004<\/a>). S\u00fcreci h\u0131zland\u0131rmak ve h\u00fck\u00fcmetin yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele kapasitesini g\u00fc\u00e7lendirmek i\u00e7in tek bir \u00e7at\u0131 alt\u0131nda birle\u015ftirilmi\u015f kapsaml\u0131 bir yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele stratejisi olu\u015fturulmal\u0131 ve bir yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele birimi kurulmal\u0131d\u0131r. Al\u0131nan yasal ve kurumsal \u00f6nlemlerin uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak ve temiz bir y\u00f6netim kurmak i\u00e7in yolsuzlu\u011fa ili\u015fkin su\u00e7lar ve kamuda etik kodlara ili\u015fkin e\u011fitim aktiviteleri yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele stratejisinin tamamlay\u0131c\u0131 bir par\u00e7as\u0131 haline gelmelidir. Bu noktada Avrupa Konseyi ve Avrupa Komisyonu taraf\u0131ndan ortak y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f olan T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Yolsuzlu\u011fun \u00d6nlenmesi i\u00e7in Etik Projesi \u00f6nemli bir i\u015fleve sahip olmu\u015ftur. Proje, kamu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 i\u00e7in etik kodlar\u0131n geli\u015ftirilmesini ve yolsuzlu\u011fa ili\u015fkin \u00f6nleme ve m\u00fccadele tedbirlerinin etkinli\u011fini izlemek i\u00e7in sistemler geli\u015ftirmeyi ama\u00e7lam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u00a0 Fakat belirtilmelidir ki, t\u00fcm bu reform \u00e7abalar\u0131, ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ve \u00f6zg\u00fcr bir medya, g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc sivil toplum kurumlar\u0131 ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir kamu denet\u00e7isinin etkin izleme yetisi olmadan yolsuzlu\u011fun istenen d\u00fczeylere indirilmesinde etkili olamayacak ve reformlar \u201cg\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrde yap\u0131lmaya\u201d (decoupled)<\/em> devam edilecektir.<\/p>\n

Di\u011fdem Soyalt\u0131n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bu makaleyi \u015fu \u015fekilde referans vererek kullanabilirsiniz:<\/p>\n

Soyalt\u0131n, Di\u011fdem (May\u0131s, 2012), \u201cT\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Yolsuzlukla M\u00fccadele: G\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrde Avrupal\u0131la\u015fma m\u0131?\u201d, Cilt I, Say\u0131 3, s. 35-41, T\u00fcrkiye Politika ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Merkezi (AnalizT\u00fcrkiye), <\/em>Londra: AnalizT\u00fcrkiye (http:\/\/researchturkey.org\/?p=1205&lang=tr)<\/p>\n

Bu makaleyi PDF dosyas\u0131 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcleyin ve(ya) bilgisayar\u0131n\u0131za indirin\u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bibliografya<\/strong><\/p>\n

Adaman, F. (2011). \u201cIs Corruption a Drawback to Turkey\u2019s Accession to the European Union?\u201d South European Society and Politics 16<\/strong>(2): 309-321.<\/p>\n

Albion, A. S. (2011). Countries at the Crossroads: Turkey. Countries at the Crossroads, Freedom House.<\/p>\n

Ayd\u0131n, S.\/Keyman, F. 2004: European Integration and the Transformation of Turkish Democracy, i\u00e7inde: CEPS EU-Turkey Working Papers 2:1, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies ve Istanbul:\u00a0 Economics and Foreign Policy Forum.<\/p>\n

Ayd\u0131n, S.\/ \u00c7arko\u011flu,A. (2009). Reforms for a Consolidated Democracy: Turkey. International Actors, Democratization Rule of Law: Anchoring Democracy? . L. Morlino ve A. Magen. New York, Routledge.<\/p>\n

Ba\u00e7, Meltem M\u00fcft\u00fcler 2005: Turkey\u2019s Political Reforms and the Impact of the European Union, i\u00e7inde: South\u00a0 European Society and Politics 10\/1, 17-31.<\/p>\n

Baran, Z. (2000). \u201cCorruption: The Turkish Challenge.\u201d Journal of International Affairs 54<\/strong>(1): 127-146.<\/p>\n

B\u00f6rzel, T. A.\/Soyalt\u0131n, D. 2012: Europeanization in Turkey. Stretching a Concept to its Limits? KFG Working Paper \u00a0Series, No. 36, February 2012, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) \u201cThe Transformative Power of Europe\u201c Freie Universit\u00e4t \u00a0Berlin.<\/p>\n

Bryane, M. (2004). \u201cAnti- Corruption in the Turkey\u2019s EU Accession,.\u201d Turkish Policy Quarterly 3<\/strong>(4).<\/p>\n

Bu\u011fra, A. (1994). State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study. Albany, NY: State, University of New York Press.<\/p>\n

Erg\u00fcn, G. O. (2007). \u201cAnti-Corruption Legislation In Turkish Law.\u201d German Law Journal, 9<\/strong>(1).<\/p>\n

Goetz, Klaus H. 2005: The New Member States and the EU: Responding to Europe, i\u00e7inde: Bulmer, Simon\/ Lequesne, Christian (edit\u00f6rler): The Member States of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University \u00a0Press, 254-278.<\/p>\n

G\u00fcne\u015f-Ayata, A. (1994). Roots and Trends of Clientelism in Turkey. Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner.<\/p>\n

Mardin, S. (1973). \u201cCenter-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics? .\u201d Daedalus 102<\/strong>(1): 169-190.<\/p>\n

Michael, B. (2004). \u201cAnti-Corruption in the Turkey\u2019s EU Accession.\u201d Turkish Policy Quarterly 3<\/strong>(4).<\/p>\n

Sandholtz, W.\/ W. Koetzle (2000). \u201cAccounting for Corruption: Economic Structure, Democracy, and Trade.\u201d International Studies Quarterly 44<\/strong>: 31\u201350.<\/p>\n

Sarlak, Z. and B. B. Bali (2008). Corruption in Turkey: Why Cannot an Urgent Problem Be a Main Concern? Crime and Culture, University of Konstanz.<\/p>\n

Shen, C.\/ J. B. Wiliamson (2005). \u201cCorruption, Democracy, Economic Freedom, and State Strength: A Cross-National Analysis.\u201d International Journal of Comparative Sociology46<\/strong>(4): 327\u20133.<\/p>\n

\u00d6m\u00fcrg\u00f6n\u00fcl\u015fen, U.\/ \u00d6ktem, M.K. (2005). The Feasibility of an Ethical Administration in Turkey: Legal-Institutional and Cultural Pillars of Public Service Ethics\u201d, The Conference on Ethics and Integrity of Governance:. The First Transatlantic Dialog, EGPA. Leuven-Belgium, Catholic University of Leuven-Public Management Institute, ASPA, IIAS.<\/p>\n

\u00d6m\u00fcrg\u00f6n\u00fcl\u015fen, U\/ Doig, A. (2012): Why the Gap? Turkey, EU Accession, Corruption and Culture, Turkish Studies, 13:1, 7-25.<\/p>\n

\u00d6ni\u015f, Z. 2006: Turkey\u2019s encounters with the New Europe: Multiple Transformations, Inherent Dilemmas \u00a0and the Challenges Ahead, i\u00e7inde: Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans 8\/3, 279-298.<\/p>\n

Tocci, N. 2005: Europeanization in Turkey: Trigger or Anchor for Reforms? in: South European Society and Politics 10\/1, 73-83.<\/p>\n

Vachudova, M. A. (2009). \u201cCorruption and Compliance in the EU\u2019s Post-Communist Members and Candidates.\u201d JCMS 47<\/strong>: 43-62.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> D\u00fcnya Bankas\u0131, (www.worldbank.org\/publicsector\/anticorrupt\/<\/a>), Avrupa Komisyonu (http:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/LexUriServ\/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0317:FIN:EN:PDF<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a>\u00a0 TESEV Hane halk\u0131 g\u00f6z\u00fcnden T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Yolsuzlu\u011fun Nedenleri ve \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm \u00d6nerileri, 2001; \u015eeffafl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc K\u00fcresel Yolsuzluk Barometresi, 2004.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> Uluslararas\u0131 \u015eeffafl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc Yolsuzluk Alg\u0131lanma Endeksi2011: http:\/\/www.transparency.org\/publications\/publications\/other\/corruption_perceptions_index_2011<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators, Country Data Report for Turkey (1996-2010), link: http:\/\/info.worldbank.org\/governance\/wgi\/pdf\/c221.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> GRECO, T\u00fcrkiye Uyum Raporu, Greco RC-I\/II (2008) 2E, s.14.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> OECD De\u011ferlendirme Raporu 2. A\u015fama,\u00a0 Aral\u0131k 2007, link: http:\/\/www.oecd.org\/dataoecd\/13\/46\/39862163.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a>Uluslararas\u0131 \u015eeffafl\u0131k \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc K\u00fcresel Yolsuzluk Barometresi : http:\/\/www.transparency.org\/policy_research\/surveys_indices\/gcb\/2010\/results<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/a> Avrupa Komisyonu, T\u00fcrkiye \u0130lerleme Raporu 2010, Br\u00fcksel, SEC(2010) 1327,s.17<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/a> Avrupa Komisyonu, T\u00fcrkiye \u0130lerleme Raporu 2011, Br\u00fcksel, SEC (2011) 1201,s. 19<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadelede 1999 y\u0131l\u0131nda Helsinki zirvesinde AB\u2019nin T\u00fcrkiye\u2019ye aday \u00fclke stat\u00fcs\u00fc verme karar\u0131 ve 2000-2001 ekonomik krizi bu alanda daha ciddi ve kapsaml\u0131 \u00f6nlemler al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in temel d\u00f6n\u00fcm noktalar\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.\u00a0 G\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir ki, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin yolsuzlukla m\u00fccadele alan\u0131nda ka\u011f\u0131t \u00fczerinde yasal uyum d\u00fczeyi olduk\u00e7a y\u00fcksektir. Fakat yasal altyap\u0131daki ve idari kurumlardaki de\u011fi\u015fikliler pratik uygulamalara etkin bi\u00e7imde […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":9573,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[238],"tags":[205,206,207,208],"class_list":["post-7534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-researchpolicy-papers-tr","tag-article-2-tr","tag-dual-language-2-tr","tag-latests-tr","tag-main-page-tr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7534"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7534\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9576,"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7534\/revisions\/9576"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9573"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.researchturkey.org\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}