Ethical Structuring in the Process of
Public Administration
Reform in Turkey
Mustafa Demirci
F. Neval Genç
Abstract: This study critically examines the establishment of Ethics Board for
Public Service, which constitutes a fundamental element of the process of
public administration reform in Turkey, in terms of ethics management in the
public sector. The study primarily argues that the formation of the Ethical
Board for Public Servants has shifted ethics management in Turkish public
administration from a traditional compliance-based ethics management system to an integrity-based ethics management system, while retaining the
main components of the former.
Key Words: Ethical reform in public administration, ethics management in
public sector, the Ethical Board for Public Servants, compliance-based ethics
management, and integrity-based ethics management.
Introduction
Almost all over the world, ethical problems or unethical behaviour
collected under the main titles of corruption, maladministration and
conflict of interest in public administration have produced extremely
serious results; people’s confidence in the state or bureaucracy has
been damaged and public administration has lost its credibility.
Therefore, maintaining the respectability of public administration by
re-establishing people’s confidence has emerged as almost a global
concern. In this respect, international organizations such as the UN
and the OECD have conducted studies for the purpose of preventing
corruption and ensuring ethical behaviour. Particularly the OECD
Recommendation of 23 April 1998, which is based on a set of Principles for Managing Ethics in the Public Service, has provided a framework that would be a guide to countries in reviewing their ethics
management (PUMA, 1998).

This study is the reviewed and expanded version of the working paper titled “Ethical
Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform” presented at the 4th
Public Administration Symposium (KAYFOR 4) held in Muğla on 2-10 November
2006.

Asisstant Prof. Adnan Menderes University Nazilli FEAS.

Asisstant Prof., Adnan Menderes University Nazilli FEAS.
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration, Volume 2 No 2 June 2008, p. 51-69.
52
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
In public administration, an international trend towards specifying standards for ethical behaviour and establishing institutional
structures that would supervise compliance with those standards has
emerged (Behnke, 2002: 675). In the mid-1960s, Anglo-Saxon countries entered the “ethics era” in public administration. Ethical concerns did not remain restricted to merely these countries. After that,
many other countries conducted notable studies for maintaining and
developing public administration ethics (Kernaghan, 2003: 712). For
the purpose of specifying ethical standards and practices, various institutional bodies were established under different names (e.g. in the
USA, The Office of Government Ethic; in the United Kingdom, The
Committee on Standards in Public Life; in Canada, The Office of the
Ethics Counsellor; in Japan, National Public Service Ethics Board; in
Australia, The Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; in
Ireland, The Public Offices Commission).
In Turkey, legal and institutional regulations have started to be
adopted in order to establish the ethics infrastructure, which constitutes a significant part of public administration reform due to globalization and the European Union access process. The Ethical Board for
the Public Servants, which was founded within the structure of the
Office of the Prime Minister for the purpose of specifying the principles of ethical behaviour that should be complied with by public officials and employees and, observing the practice of the relevant principles by Law No.5176 dated 25 May 2004, can be considered as the
product of this process. Ombudsman Law No.5548, which was enacted by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on 28 September 2006,
but vetoed by the Presidency, formed another significant link of the
regulations in question.
The study aims to critically evaluate the structuring of the Ethical
Board for the Public Servants, established by Law No.3176 of 2004 in
the context of ethics management in the Turkish public administration under the process of reform, which constitutes a significant element of the ethics infrastructure. For this purpose, firstly, the reasons
that have brought about ethical reform in public administration at
global level and the effects of these reforms public ethics management will be discussed. Then, the study will attempt to analyze the
reasons for the establishment of the Ethical Board for the Public
Servants as an element of the ethics infrastructure in Turkey along
with its functions and competences and, problems that might be
faced by the Board within this framework.
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
53
The Reasons for the Emergence of Ethical Reform in
Public Administration
In the public sector, ethics has turned out to be one of the basic
spheres of interest in the countries’ reform efforts since the 1980s
and the 1990s. The rationales for putting ethics on the agenda of public administration reform may vary from country to country. However, the reasons listed below can be used as the rationales of countries
for conducting ethical reforms (Larbi, 2001: 251-253).
i) Filling trust and governance gaps: In the globalization era, developing countries not only face a democracy and “good governance”
gap, but also a “trust gap” in respect of the expectations of their citizens and international investors. Serious concerns emerged about the
erosion of values and standards in public administration all over the
world. This erosion sometimes manifested itself in the form of scandals of institutionalized malpractices covered by the media for a long
time, which involved top-level bureaucrats and politicians. In this respect, ethical reform, including getting malpractice under control, can
be regarded as a part of governments’ efforts towards fulfilling trust
and governance gaps.
ii) Citizens’ expectations for better public services: Public bureaucracy has generally attracted increasing criticisms from public service
users for the quality of services. Citizens have expectations of higherquality public service without any need to bribe public employees. In
developing countries, the unchanged quality of public services despite the increases in their costs leads to discontent. Issuance of the
rights and standards specified as to the performance culture in developed countries like the United Kingdom raises peoples’ expectations about public services. People’s expectations about public services heighten and citizens are more aware of their rights in an increasingly liberalizing and democratizing environment.
iii) Good governance agenda: Good governance agenda, which was
started in the 1990s in many developed countries, has played a critical role in governments’ handling of malpractice and other nonethical practices in public administration. Ethics and strategies for
preventing malpractice have become crucial for the operation, progress and quality of governance. In this respect, in many countries,
behaviours, which weaken integrity and damage trust in the public
sector, pose a threat to democratic institutions and political stability.
iv) The pioneering of international organizations: International
organizations such as the UN, the World Bank, the EU and the OECD
support countries to bring ethics and the fight against malpractice
54
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
onto the first ranks of the agenda. Particularly the OECD’s studies
have significantly contributed to the initiation of ethical and anticorruption reforms. Most of these international organizations that
have pioneered new public administration reforms encourage ethical
reforms in the public sector.
v) The change of the public value system by the New Public Management reforms: The New Public Mnagament reforms have considerably transformed the public sector culture, which is called “the
spirit of public administration” (Heclo, 2002: 691), “public sector ethics” or “ethics in the public service” and it still continues to be transformed. The basic elements of this transformation are shown in Table
1.
These neoliberal-oriented reforms had a significant effect on public employees’ standards of behaviour and public service values For
instance; diminishing commitment to rules compliance and thorough
supervision has potentially enhanced the risk of making risks and
generated more opportunities for inappropriate behaviour. In this respect, some people claim that the New Public Management reforms
have led to more collective and systematic non-ethical behaviour
(Maesschalck, 2004: 466). Nevertheless, others think the opposite
that it is the success of the moral vision of the market which has
made ethical concerns more apparent (Brereton and Temple, 1999:
461). Under any circumstances, the New Public Manegement reforms
make ethics management necessary. The reason is that in the reform
process, value conflict is a pervasive reality for today’s public administrator (Kernaghan, 2000: 96). For instance; customer sovereignty of
the New Public Management paradigm conflicts with the principle of
public interest, the primary value of the traditional public administration paradigm (Amado, 2002: 140). The ethical frameworks, which
have been established in such a way so as to re-define traditional
public service values with a traditional approach due to the change in
the nature of public services, are becoming irrelevant with the phenomenon of public administration (enterprise) that has significantly
changed by the New Public Management reforms (Doig, 2006: 45).
Table 1. The Comparison of Basic Characteristics of Bureaucratic Organizations and Post-Bureaucratic Organizations
Basic Characteristics of Bureaucratic
Organizations
Basic Characteristics of Post Bureaucratic Organizations
Policy and Administrative Culture
Organization-centered
Emphasizing on organizational
Citizen-centered
High quality services to citizens
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
needs
Position power
Control, command and compliance
Rule-centered
Rules, procedures and restrictions
Independent action
Less counseling, collaboration and
coordination
Status quo-oriented
Avoiding risks and mistakes
Process-oriented
Obligation of accountability for the
process
55
(and customers/stakeholder)
Participatory Leadership
Common values and participatory
decision-making
People- centered
A humane, authorizing environment for employees
Collective action
Counseling, collaboration and coordination
Change-oriented
Innovation, taking risk and continuous progress
Result-oriented
Obligation of accountability for
the results
Structure
Centralized
Hierarchy and centralized supervision
Department-based
Most of the programs are presented
by the relevant departments
Decentralized
Decentralization of power and supervision
Not department-based
Programs are presented in a wide
range of diversity by mechanisms
Market-Oriented
Budget-based
Programs are mostly financed by allowances
Monopolist
Monopoly of the state in providing
services
Revenue-based
Programs are financed under the
cost recovery system as much as
possible
Competitive
Private sector competition for
providing services
Source: Kernaghan, 2000: 92.
Ethics Management in the Public Sector
In public organizations, ethics management has turned out to be a
prerequisite due to the reasons that require ethics reform. Ethics
management can be regarded as systematic and consistent efforts
towards developing ethical organizations. By more formal definition,
ethics management is the cumulative action taken by managers to
engender an ethical sensitivity and consciousness that permeates all
aspects of getting things done in a public-service agency (Menzel,
2001: 355).
Those debating better ethics management generally differ in two
basic approaches: Compliance-based ethics management and integri-
56
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
ty-based ethics management (Yüksel, 2005a: 268; Maesschalck, 2005:
22; Bertok, 1999: 679). This distinction dates back to Friedrich-Finer
(1935-41) a debate held on the importance of internal and external
control of public employees. Contrary to Finer’s view that public
managers should be subject to minute legislative control, Friedrich
held the belief that the best means for ensuring that management is
responsive policy is the professionalism of the manager. (Smith,
2003: 285).
Compliance-based ethics management lays emphasis on the importance of external control on the behaviour of public officials. Accordingly, public management should involve formative detailed
rules and processes to the extent that ethical preference is restricted
to complying with rules (ethical behaviour) or, violating them (unethical behaviour). In fact, in the traditional public administration
model, ethics management is largely based on this approach. Regulations, strict rules on behavior, comprehensive control mechanisms
and control staff entrusted with comprehensive powers can be listed
among typical instruments of this approach. On the other hand, ethics
management based on integrity focuses on internal control, i.e. selfcontrol used by each of the public employees individually. Internal
control mechanisms consist of two elements. The first one is based on
ethical judgment of public officials. This skill can be strengthened by
learning, understanding and applying necessary values and norms
and developing skills required for ethical decision-making. The second element of internal control is ethical character. An integritybased ethical approach endeavors to improve the character by different methods. As stated by many writers, these two approaches do not
pose a simple contrast. Therefore, in practice, rather than seeing the
two approaches as the opposite poles of a continuum that exclude
one another, they should be considered together as complements of
each other (Maesschalck, 2005: 22).
The New Public Management reforms have shifted ethics management in the public sector towards the integrity-based approach
without totally excluding the compliance-based approach. One of the
notable aspects of the New Public Management reforms is that these
reforms have decentralized decision-making units and increased the
discretionary power of public administrators, who have assumed
more complicated tasks in an internationalized environment. This
development indicates a transition from external control and detailed
regulations to internal control and performance measurement. With
the expansion of discretionary power and performance management,
the internal point of view has assumed more importance in resolving
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
57
ethical dilemmas, thus indicating the significance of soft ethics
measures such as training, knowledge and recommendation today
(Behnke, 2002: 691).
The OECD’s Ethics Management Template:
Ethics Infrastructure
Establishing a sound ethics infrastructure in public ethics management has gained priority in efforts towards building confidence in
public administration (van Blijswijk, 2004: 719). The reason is that
establishing a sound ethics infrastructure can be compared to building houses on rocks (Tenbrunsel et al., 2005: 285). The OECD has pioneered the trend of setting up the standards for ethical behaviour in
the public sector and harmonizing these standards with other countries. The OECD, in the light of the examples from Anglo-Saxon countries, the USA and the United Kingdom, has established a framework
that merged compliance-based and integrity-based approaches. The
American Office of Government Ethics in the USA and Committee on
Standards in Public Life in the United Kingdom have greatly contributed to the spread of the OECD’s opinion about the elements that
constitute the ethics infrastructure in a country (Behnke, 2002: 676).
The OECD considered public administration ethics to be a managerial
problem (Bertok, 1999: 673) and therefore dealt with systems, structures, dynamics and incentives rather than prescriptive regulation
(Mills, 1999: 63).
According to the OECD, ethics infrastructure has eight key elements (Bertok, 1999: 676):
 An effective legal framework,
 Political commitment,
 Efficient accountability mechanisms,
 Workable codes of conduct,
 Professional socialization mechanisms,
 Supportive public service conditions,
 An ethics coordinating body,
 An active civic society to act as a watchdog over government
activities.
These elements can be divided into two as compulsive and soft
measures. In this respect, legal framework and accountability mechanisms can be regarded as compulsive measures, while an ethics coor-
58
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
dinating body and professional socialization mechanisms are the examples for soft elements (Behnke, 2002: 680).
At the same time, the elements of ethics infrastructure can be categorized according to the main functions they serve- guidance, management and control. Different elements may serve more than one
function. Guidance is provided by a strong commitment from political
leadership; statements of values such as codes of conduct; and professional socialization activities such as education and training. Management can be realized through co-ordination by a special body or
an existing central management agency, and through public service
conditions, management policies and practices. Control is assured
primarily through a legal framework enabling independent investigation and prosecution; effective accountability and control mechanisms; transparency, public involvement and scrutiny. The ideal mix
and degree of these functions will depend on the cultural and political-administrative milieu of each country (Bertok, 1999: 676).
In a country, the probability of applying new ethics measures
(ethics infrastructure elements) depends on demand for such
measures on the one hand, and their existence or supply. The demand
for an ethical measure can only be determined when ethical problems
created by a situation require specific rules and norms that do not yet
exist. Ethics infrastructure is the cornerstone of the demand for ethics measures. Ethics infrastructure encompasses the most likely ethical problems that might be typically encountered in the public sector
and provides the necessary ethics measures. Even though the demand for an ethical measure determines its function, its form may
change to a large extent. This constitutes the supply aspect of ethics
measures. The versions of the form that brings solutions to the problems depend on the institutional tools employed by the decisionmakers and undoubtedly it varies from country to country.
The supply of ethics measures depends on politicians’ cognitive
patterns, the existing institutional structure and the influence of interested actors on suggesting and producing new institutional solutions. Political actors tend to choose solutions compliant with existing
institutional structures and inherited cognitive patterns. For example,
the tradition of Roman Law and constitutional state (Rechtsstaat), as
elements that shaped German administrative and political culture,
has established the politicians’ cognitive pattern, thus developing the
tendency to find strict and compelling legal solutions for ethical problems. On the other hand, due to their Common Law tradition, AngloSaxon countries tend to produce more flexible solutions to ethical
problems. In the United Kingdom, the Committee on Standards in
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
59
Public Life/the Nolan Committee was established in 1994 to investigate standards in public life as a reaction to a political scandal (Cash
for Questions Affair). Diminished citizen confidence and confusion
about expected standards brought about the institutionalization of
ethics as the basic sphere of interest of the public sector in the United
Kingdom. On the other hand, similar scandals did not create the same
impact in Germany. The money laundering scandal that occurred in
Germany in 1999 was handled as an issue that should be legally investigated rather than an ethical problem (Behnke, 2002: 677-704).
As analyzing all key elements of ethics infrastructure set forth by
the OECD in respect of Turkey would overreach the purpose of the
study, merely the structuring of the Ethical Board for the Public Servants, a significant step towards establishing ethics management and
ethics infrastructure in Turkey, will be examined.
Ethical Board for the Public Servants
The Ethical Board for the Public Servants, which was established
by Law No.5176 dated 25 May 2004, constitutes an important element of ethics infrastructure as the coordinating body in respect of
Turkish public ethics management. In the light of the discussions
made until now, the study will attempt to examine the reasons for the
establishment of the Ethical Board for the Public Servants as a part of
the public management reform in Turkey as well as its duties and
powers, innovations introduced by the Board as regards ethics management in the public sector and criticisms towards the Board.
a) Reasons for the Establishment of the Board
The emergence of one of the elements of ethics infrastructure like
the Ethical Board for the Public Servants is closely related to the supply and demand for the element in question. As was explained both in
the rationales of Law No.5176 and at the Plenary Session of Grand
National Assembly of Turkey, the demand for the Board display close
similarities to the reasons discussed under the title “The Reasons for
the Emergence of Ethical Reform in Public Administration” in this
study.
i) Erosion of confidence in public administration: Though it is not
clearly mentioned neither in the rationales for the Law, nor within
the Law itself, the decline in fundamental values and standards,
which public management is founded on; and the loss of credibility
that has relevantly emerged and the unfavorable portrait that appeared both in administrative and political aspects of public administration (e.g, misconduct, bribery and other similar crimes that were
60
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
brought onto the agenda of Parliament, the allegations of some politicians’ relationships with organized crime groups) are among the
primary reasons for the inclusion of ethics in the public service in
Turkey.
Among certain acts of corruption covered by the media since the
1980s are İSKİ,1 İLKSAN2 and TÜRKBANK3 incidents and acts of fictitious exports. In the “Corruption Perceptions Index” issued by Transparency International (IT) in 2005, Turkey ranked 65th among 159
countries. Field studies conducted by various non-governmental organizations, chiefly TESEV,4 TÜSİAD5 and TOBB,6 confirmed the widespreadness of corruption (Tarhan et al., no date: 3) The need for “rebuilding peoples’ confidence in public administration”, one of the rationales for the establishment of the Board, has resulted from the
pervasion of corruption.
ii) Citizens’ expectations for better quality public services : In Turkey, citizens’ complaints about the quality of public services and their
expectations for the improvement in public service quality started to
increase from the 1980s. The growth in demand for public services in
provinces stemming from the rise in urban population was accompanied by inadequacies in the rendering of services, thus leading to the
increase in complaints. Corruption-related complaints ranked first
among such complaints. Upon these developments, the civic society
asked for more transparency in public administration. In this period,
the studies conducted by the Association of Social Transparency
Movement, Association of State Auditors, Turkish Ethical Values Center, Association of Protecting Citizen’s Tax, Economic and Social research Foundation of Turkey, TUSİAD, White Point Foundation,
TOBB, İTO, ATO and İSO were also significant steps towards raising
awareness about the issue in question. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the sensitivity of the civic society concerning the issue of
corruption was not mentioned in the rationales for Law No.5176.
iii) Good governance agenda: By the 1990s, the good governance
agenda has begun to influence Turkey as well, leading to increased interest in corruption and unethical behaviour. For instance, the “Action Plan for Enhancing Transparency in Public Management and
Strengthening Good Governance in Turkey” drawn up by the Execuİstanbul Water and Sewerage Authority
Primary School Teachers Health and Social Assistance Fund
3 Türk Ticaret Bankası
4 Economic and Social Research Foundation of Turkey
5 Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association
6 The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey
1
2
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
61
tive Committee for “Enhancing Transparency in Public Management
and Developing Effective Management in the Public Sector” in 2001
with the participation of the representatives from various public institutions suggests that along with weak efficiency and effectiveness,
the transparency gap is also among the primary reasons for corruption in public service (Tarhan et. al. no date: 3). In this respect, among
the rationales for Law No.5176, the title “Strengthening Governance
in the Public Sector” is referred in the National Program approved by
the Decree of Council Of Ministers No. 2003/5930 dated 23 June
2003.
iv) The requests of international organizations: The studies of international organizations such as the UN, the OECD, the World Bank
and the IMF concerning ethics and the fight against corruption have
also become effective in Turkey. For example, the influence of the
OECD’s general principles on ethics and the EU membership process
is clearly perceived in the rationale for Law No.5176 that constituted
the basis for the establishment of the Ethical Board for the Public
Servants. The references clearly made to the OECD recommendation
on ethics in the public service, the commitments made to the EU and
the letters of intent given to the IMF in the rationale of Law No.5176
and the negotiations of Parliament imply that the Ethical Board for
the Public Servants was established upon the request of international
organizations.
v) The requirements of the New Public Management paradigm:
The impacts of the New Public Management paradigm constitute the
rationales for the establishment of the Board due to its being the basis for public administration reform in Turkey. As a matter of fact,
during the Parliament’s negotiations, the Law was presented as a link
of public reform and as a contribution to the better operation of the
markets and economic development. However, the existing conflicts
between the fundamental values of the market-based public management paradigm and bureaucracy-based traditional public administration paradigm were mentioned neither in the rationales of the
Law, nor in the Parliament’s negotiations. The inconsistency between
the values of traditional public management and new public management creates an important problem such as which values public
employees will adopt in cases of ethical dilemmas and how they will
resolve such conflicts. Thus, the need for resolving value conflicts and
confusions experienced in the transition from bureaucratic organizations to post-bureaucratic organizations can be considered as one of
factors that has created a demand for the Board.
b) The Structure and Functions of the Board
62
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
After discussing the demand side of the establishment of the
Board, now the supply side can be examined. As mentioned before,
the supply of elements of ethics infrastructure may vary from country
to country as to the politicians’ cognitive patterns, the existing institutional structure and the impacts of interested actors in developing
and suggesting new institutional resolutions. Likewise, the structure
and functions of the Board -like ethics coordinating bodies differ from
country to country. In the Board- related negotiations of Parliament,
the supporters of the Law asserted that in view of the institutional
structures of the ethics coordinating bodies in other countries, a
model suitable for Turkey’s administration tradition and socioeconomic conditions was developed. In other words, taking into consideration the requests of international organizations, the Board-like coordinating structuring in developed countries was adapted to the
conditions of Turkey. Despite the fact that the necessity of the Board
was not much discussed, the compliance of its structure and functions
with Turkish administration tradition and socioeconomic conditions
led to arguments. At this point, firstly the structure and functions of
the Board specified by Law No.5176 will be set forth. Then, the related criticisms will be discussed.
The Ethical Board for the Public Servants is composed of 11 members elected by the Council of Ministers among high-level bureaucrats
serving in various public institutions and appointed for a term of four
years. The working procedures of the Board members are governed
by the Law. As the Board operates within the structure of the Office of
the Prime Minister, it is not a legal personality . Therefore, it seems to
be exposed to political effects, or is even dependent on the political
authority.
The Ethical Board for the Public Servants has two basic functions:
1) To specify the principles of ethical behaviour for public employees,
2) To supervise compliance with these principles.
The Board is entrusted with various duties and powers in order to
perform its functions:
i) To specify the standards of ethics and discipline applicable to
public servants via regulations,
ii) To investigate the complaints of alleged unethical behaviour
and to report its opinion to the relevant authorities,
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
63
iii) To conduct or contract out studies in order to embed ethics
culture throughout the public sector and, to support studies to be
carried out for this purpose,
iv) To set standards for receiving gifts; to request the lists of gifts
received by high-level public officials and to investigate their declaration of property, when deemed necessary,
There is only one sanction that falls within the scope of the
Board’s powers: publishing the names of public servants, whose
breach of ethical rules are proved, in the Official Gazette via the Office
of the Prime Minister. The functions of the Board are suggested to be
mainly in the form of research, training and guidance. Therefore, The
Ethics Board, as an element of ethics infrastructure, can be regarded
as a soft ethical measure, rather than a compelling one. Thus, it can be
asserted that with the establishment of the Board, there is a shift towards integrity-based ethics management as a complementary element for the compliance-based ethics management system in Turkey.
Article 1 of Law No.5176 excludes the following public officials
from the purview of the Board:
i) The President,
ii) Members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey,
iii) The Council of Ministers,
iv) Turkish Armed Forces,
v) Members of judicial bodies,
vı) Universities
Necessary conditions and procedures relating to applications to
the Board to be made by public agencies other than those listed
above are laid down in the Law. Accordingly, real persons can apply
to the Ethical Board for the Public Servants at least at the level of
General Director and/or the equivalent by submitting the satisfactory
documents and information involving their rationales without defamatory intent. The Board should be provided with the requested information and documents concerning the complaint.
The Code of the Principles of Ethical Behaviour for Public Servants
and the Principles and Procedures for Complaints entered into force
after being issued in the Official Gazette No. 25785 dated 13 April
2005. The values stipulated in the Regulations is the combination of
traditional public administration values that are laid down in other
laws such as Public Servants Law No.657 and certain values introduced by the New Public Management paradigm such as compliance
64
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
with the standards of public service and commitment to the goals and
missions. Therefore, it can be affirmed that the regulations in question might fail to be a satisfactory guide for public servants.
c) Criticisms Towards the Board
The structuring form of the Ethics Board, whose necessity was by
no means questioned, became the subject of criticism among various
institutions and organizations, particularly the main opposition party,
and academicians, due to likely challenges and unfavorable situations
that might arise while fulfilling its functions. During Parliament’s negotiations on the subject, the main opposition party voiced its criticism by using expressions such as “hollow”, “done hastily”, “careless”,
“not fully pursuant to the Constitution” occasionally”, “instead of ensuring impartiality in politics, it may lead to some discretpractices”,
“it may exert political pressure on public officials”, “it may allow any
government to suppress public servants and to adopt discretionary
practices” or “why have politicians been excluded?”. Nevertheless, the
suit filed by the main opposition party at the Constitutional Court for
the annulment of various Articles of Law No. 5176 was rejected (for
detailed information see: The Constitutional Court Decision No.
2004/60; Decision Number 2005/33).
While criticizing the Regulations issued by the Board, the Union of
Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) (2005)
mentioned the ideology lying behind it and the pressures of international organizations. According to TMMOB, not only the creation of a
particular ethics culture was imposed (neoliberalism), but also a particular market economy was blessed and the principles of the social
state and public interest were excluded.
The academician’s criticisms towards the Board (e.g. Yüksel,
2005b: 347-356; Arap and Yılmaz, 2005: 259-262), which were of a
technical nature and were mainly based on compliance-based ethics
management approach of traditional public administration, can be
summarized as follows:
i) The Board fails to fulfill its duty of monitoring the practice, i.e.
its fundamental task, due its structural inadequacies and limited
scope of duties and the field of supervision. Thus, it is doomed to be
symbolic rather than functional.
ii) The exemption of certain public officials from supervision, such
as legislative and executive members, is a crucial deficiency. While
stipulating that universities are excluded, Law No.5176 does not
clearly describe whether academic units or administrative units are
exempted from the Law. Meanwhile, there is the issue of the non-
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
65
accountability of the President. Does this situation require the exclusion of ethics outside the scope?
iii) The provision, which administers that if satisfactory information and/or documents are not submitted while filing the complaint, the complaint shall not be considered, is discouraging in respect of future applicants.
iv) The fact that numerous issues, which fall within the scope of
the duties of the Board, have already been governed in other laws and
regulations (i.e. Turkish Penal Code) diminishes the functionality of
the Board.
v) The appointment of Board members by the Council of Ministers
and the possibility of their re-election for a further term damage the
autonomy of the Board.
vi) “The principles of ethical behaviour”, which should be governed by the Law, are regulated by regulations that can be more easily amended compared to laws. Moreover, these principles are not as
clear as they should be.
vii) Though the regulations provide the scope of the prohibition of
accepting gift, donations excluded from the gift acceptance prohibition are open to misuse.
viii) Whereas the regulations specify that employees’ performance
will be assessed in respect of compliance with the principles of ethics,
the mechanisms for performance assessment are not stated.
ıx) The sanctionary power granted to the Board is inadequate.
Conclusion and Evaluation
The study attempted to discuss the structuring of the Ethical
Board for the Public Servants, which was established by Law No.5176
within the framework of public administration reform, in respect of
ethics management in the public service by a critical approach. Highlighted findings of the study can be listed as follows.
Corruption incidents occurred in Turkey; the confidence and governance gap caused by such incidents; citizens’ expectations for better quality services; value conflicts stemming from the New Public
Management reforms and above all, the requests of international organizations such as the UN, the OECD and the IMF brought about the
review of public ethics management; the emergence of a new element
of ethics infrastructure like the Ethical Board for the Public Servants
and thus, a shift towards integrity-based ethics management as a
66
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
complementary element for compliance-based ethics management
without excluding it.
In Turkey, where the traditional public administration system that
historically follows the example of Continental Europe is adopted,
compliance-based ethics management approach and thus, compelling
elements are dominant. However, it has become obvious with the establishment of the Ethics Board that on the axis, where both rulebased ethics and integrity-based ethics management approaches concurrently prevail, there is a transition to integrity-based ethics management as in the Anglo-Saxon countries.
Accordingly, the stipulation of the goal of embedding “ethics culture” throughout the public sector in legal regulations, which constitute the basis for the establishment of the Board, while entrusting the
Board with only one sanctionary power supports this argument. In
this respect, the Board can be considered as an innovation in Turkish
ethics management.
Indeed, the negligence of the integrity-based approach in Turkey
was an important deficiency. The reason is that it is clearly seen that
strict laws that ban numerous non-ethical behaviour such as bribery,
misappropriation, malversation and embezzlement and the existence
of serious sanctions are inadequate in preventing corruption in the
public service. Undoubtedly, this argument does not mean that compliance-based ethics management in the public sector is unnecessary.
Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that integrity-based ethics
management, which is comprised of steps towards improving the ethical decision-making skills and personality of public employees, has a
crucial role in ensuring ethical behaviour in the public service.
As mentioned in criticisms, due to its current structuring and status, the Board faces difficulties in fulfilling its duties. Among these difficulties, the most important one is resolving the likely conflicts between the values of traditional public administration and New Public
Management paradigm . In the regulations, these values are listed in a
random manner. Therefore, it does not seem realistic to expect that
reading the regulations would be helpful to eliminate confusion about
values. In this respect, the Board should also assume the task of training public employees about ethical problems, guiding them and improving integrity. The achievement in this field depends on the performance of the Board. Therefore, the Board should systematically
assess its own performance and inform the public on a regular basis.
Ethics management in public service consists of more than one infrastructure element. The Ethical Board for the Public Servants as co-
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
67
ordinating body is only one of them. As required by its scope, the
study attempted to focus solely on this aspect. Therefore, the analysis
of Turkey’s case in respect of other elements of the ethics infrastructure is among the important fields of study that should be discussed
within the scope of the field of public administration in the future.
References
Amado, Rivka (2002), “New Ethical Challenges under the New Reform
Movements in the Public Administration Sector”, Eran Vigoda (Ed.), Public Administration An Interdisciplinary Critical Analysis, Marcel Dekker
Inc., New York, p. 139-149.
Anayasa Mahkemesi (2005), Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararı Esas Sayısı:
2004/60 Karar Sayısı: 2005/33 Karar Günü: 01/06/2005
http://www.bahum.gov.tr/bahum/bahumetik/anayasa_mah_karari.htm
(12.12.2005).
Behnke, Nathalie (2002), “A Nolan Committee for the German Ethics Infrastructure”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 41, No. 5, p. 675708.
Bertok, Janos (1999), “OECD Supports the Creation of Sound Ethics Infrastructure: OECD Targets Both the “Supply Side” and “Demand Side” of
Corruption”, Public Personnel Management, Vol.28, No. 4, p. 673-686.
Brereton, Michael - Michael Temple (1999), “The New Public Service Ethos:
An Ethical Environment for Governance”, Public Administration, Vol. 77,
No. 3, p. 455-474.
Doing, Alan (2006), “Half-Full or Half-Empty? The Past, Present and Future of
British Public Sector Ethics”, Public Money and Management, Vol.26, No.
1, p.15-22.
Heclo, Hugh (2002), “The Spirit of Public Administration”, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 35, No. 4, p. 689-694.
Kernaghan, Kenneth (2000), “The Post-Bureaucratic Organization and Public
Service Values”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 66,
p. 91-104.
Kernaghan, Kenneth (2003), “Integrating Values into Public Service: The Values Statement as Centerpiece”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 63, No.
6, p. 711-719.
Larbi, George (2001), “Assessing Infrastructure for Managing Ethics in the
Public Service in Ethiopia: Challenges and Lessons for Reformers”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 67, p. 251-262.
Maesschalck, Jeroen (2004), “The Impact of New Public Management Reforms on Public Servants’ Ethics: Towards A Theory”, Public Administration, Vol.82, No. 2, p. 465-489.
68
TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration
Maesschalck, Jeroen (2005), “Approaches to Ethics Management in the Public
Sector A Proposed Extension of the Compliance-Integrity Continuum”,
Public Integrity, Vol. 7, No.1, p. 21-41.
Menzel, Donald C. (2001), Ethics Management in Public Organizations What,
Why, and How?”, Terry L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics, Second Edition, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, p. 355-366.
Mills, Alexandra (1999), “Ethics Goes Global: The OECD Council Recommendation on Improving Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector”, Australian
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 58, No. 2, p. 61-69.
PUMA (1998), Principles for Managing Ethics in Public Service OECD Recommendation, PUMA Policy Brief No.4, Public Management Service,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/13/1899138.pdf (12.12.2005).
Smith, Robert W. (2003), “Enforcement or Ethical Capacity: Considering the
Role of State Ethics Commissions at the Millennium”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, p. 283-295.
T.C. Başbakanlık (2005), Kamu Görevlileri Etik Kurulu -Kanun ve İlgili Düzenlemeler-, Kamu Görevlileri Etik Kurulu Yayını, Yayın No: 1, Ankara.
T.C. Başbakanlık Kanunlar ve Kararlar Genel Müdürlüğü (2003), “Genel Gerekçe” http://www.todaie.gov.tr/KYP/pdf/5176_gerekce.pdf
(12.12.2005).
Tarhan, R. Bülent - Ömer Faruk Gençkaya - Ergin Ergül - Kemal Özsemerci Hakan Özbaran (tarihsiz), “Bir Olgu Olarak Yolsuzluk: Nedenler, Etkiler
ve Çözüm Önerileri”,
http://www.tepav.org.tr/eng/admin/dosyabul/pload/YOLSUZLUK.pdf (12.10.2006).
TBMM (2004b), “TBMM Genel Kurul Tutanağı 22. Dönem 2. Yasama Yılı 92.
Birleşim 25/Mayıs/2004 Salı”, http://www.todaie.gov.tr/KYP/5176_meclis.htm (07.06.2006).
Tenbrunsel, Ann E. et al. (2003), “Building Houses on Rocks: The Role of Ethics infrastructure in Organizations”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 16, No. 3,
p. 285-307.
TMMOB (2005), “Kamu Görevlilerinin Etik Davranış İlkeleri Hakkında
Yönetmelik Taslağı’na İlişkin TMMOB Görüşü”,
http://www.tmmob.org.tr/cr-/soylediklerimiz-/subat_2005.pdf
(12.12.2005).
Transparency International (2005) “Transparency International Corruption
Perceptions Index 2005” http://www.transparency.org/content/download/1516/7919 (10.03.2007).
Jacques A.M. van Blijswijk, Richard C.J. van Breukelen, Aimee L. Franklin, Jos
C.N. Raadschelders, Pier Slump (2004), “Beyond Ethical Codes: The Management of Integrity in the Netherlands Tax and Customs Administration”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, No. 6, p. 718-727.
Ethical Structuring in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Turkey
69
Yılmaz, Levent - İbrahim Arap (2005), “Yeni Kavramlarla Yeni Yönetim
Modeli: Kamu Görevlileri Etik Kurulu”, 2. Siyasette ve Yönetimde Etik
Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari
Bilimler Fakültesi, p. 251-267.
Yüksel, Cüneyt (2005a), Devlette Etikten Etik Devlete: Kamu Yönetiminde
Etik Kavramsal Çerçeve ve Uluslararası Uygulamalar, I. Cilt, TÜSİAD
Devlette Etik Altyapı Dizisi, http://www.tusiad.org/turkish/rapor/etik_1_cilt.pdf (12.12.2005).
Yüksel, Cüneyt (2005b), “Türk Kamu Yönetiminde Etik Mevzuatı Değerlendirmesi ve Çözüm Önerileri”, 2. Siyasette ve Yönetimde Etik Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler
Fakültesi, p. 347-360.