Presented at IceGov International E-Government and E-Governance Conference hold 12-13 March 2009 at Ankar Turkey. The presentation focuses on the weakness of national ICT policy-making process in Turkey during the last decade, mainly on the failure of creating effective governance mechanisms in policy-making and its effect on e-government implementations. Participation of all interested parties and networking them are the keys of successful policy-making process. Turkey's excessively centralized governmental system displays a strong resistance against new administrative paradigms such as governance and its concomitant values, transparency, accountability and participation,

1. THE GOVERNANCE PHOBIA
WEAKNESS OF NATIONAL ICT POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
IN TURKEY
Dr. Özgür Uçkan
Istanbul Bilgi University
Turkish Exporters Assembly (TIM)

2. THE GOVERNANCE PHOBIA
WEAKNESS OF NATIONAL ICT POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
IN TURKEY
Dr. Özgür Uçkan
Istanbul Bilgi University
Turkish Exporters Assembly (TIM)

3. framework
• the weakness of national ICT policy-making
process in Turkey during the last decade
• the failure of creating effective governance
mechanisms in policy-making and its effect on e-
government implementations
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

4. outline
• The conceptual and practical framework of the
national ICT policies as related with e-government
and e-governance (network governance
• Turkey’s current state of affairs related to our subject
• The timeline of ICT policies and strategies in Turkey
• The inefficacious standing of all concerned parties of
e-governance
• Turkey’s policy and strategy development experience
in the context of the current operational “Information
Society Strategy”
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

5. strategies without a policy
In Turkey, ICT and information society policies are generally
perceived as a “strategy” concept. This is because the
“strategy” concept which stands for some scheduled plans to
achieve certain goals and the “policy” concept which sets
objectives that constitute this strategy within an action
framework are confused.
Turkish policymakers usually deploy strategies without a set
policy. By prefixing titles of strategies that are not formed by
consensus with the “national” word, they try to cover such
policy inadequacies.
In fact, ICT strategies that can be appropriately called
“national” are based only on National Information, Information
Society, Knowledge Economy and ICT policies that warrant
national consensus and interact with other macro policies.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

6. governance phobia
In Turkey, when considering practical problems experienced in
national ICT policy development processes, or, indeed, in any
other area, the usual practice is to blame the “political will” that
is blinded by the states of affaires and thus deprived of its
projective capabilities.
My own observations slightly differ from the received
perspectives.
I think, for all parties including the “political will”, the most
critical point of the policy and strategy development process
and the logical cause of ensuing failure experienced at action
planning, tactical and implementation stages, is “governance
phobia”.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

7. social, economic and administrative paradigm shift
• The “network effect” of ICT
• Impact of ICT on economic growth and total factor productivity
• Emergence of new business sectors and new organizational
forms
• Improvement of workforce quality and flexibility of labor market
• The ‘Wealth of the Networks’
• Exploitation of ICT in favor of national interests, development
of network economy, transition to knowledge economy, and the
transformation to an information society
• “Information literacy”, “knowledge culture” and ‘Information
Society’
• “Social embeddedness of technology”
• ICT as a “sociotechnical network”
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

8. social, economic and administrative paradigm shift
• The paradigm shift emerges when material inputs (raw
materials, labor, machinery, purchasing power) are substituted
by immaterial inputs (knowledge, content, process, social
capital, and intellectual assets)
• Network is, sharing… (the access, sharing and usage of
information that creates value)
• The network precludes the very concept of the center
• The network management is based on “horizontal
coordination”
• The new administrative paradigm of the “Information Age” is
decentralized, multilayered, participatory, shared network
governance, i.e. ‘e-governance’
• Only shared knowledge can create value
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

9. ICT, Knowledge Economy and Governance
Actors of the value creation process through knowledge:
• Economic networks where services, products, market information
are created, disseminated, shared and transformed into economic
value
• Political networks focusing from regulations to creation of a
competitive climate to solutions to most basic problems and thus to
formation of a business environment
• Social participatory networks that enable lifelong education and
fair and equalitarian sharing, and thus development
• Innovation networks that research, develop, project, fund and put
knowledge into practice
Social-economic-political value and impact pass through these
networks and becomes culture…
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

10. ICT, Knowledge Economy and Governance
Decentralized model of interaction:
• A model that thrives on partnerships that form the nodes of the
network and on horizontal coordination mechanisms shaped
by consensus which itself is achieved through communication
between stakeholders...
• Partnerships that involve all stakeholders such as
– the government,
– the public sector,
– the private sector,
– the NGOs in their all incarnations,
– civil initiatives,
– labor unions,
– academia and
– media…
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

11. network governance
Networks are a social coordination mechanism as an
alternative to hierarchical bureaucratic organizations or pure
interest based organizations subject to market forces.
The horizontal coordination between network structures
facilitates participation of involved parties and increases the
social benefit coefficient.
In network-like structures, the realm of social governance
based on consensus and in search of a decentralized
coordination is usually referred to as the “network
governance” or the ‘’e-governance’’.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

12. network governance
The dominant orientation of this governance model is
to evolve around interconnected interests that must
be coordinated and balanced, and its mode of
interaction is the multi-party agreement between
the public players, private sector and civil society
stakeholders.
Network governance is, by its very essence,
decentralized, based on horizontal coordination,
and constitutes a flexible and participatory
governance model.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

13. paradigm shift
• Public administration shaped by centralist paradigms is no
more deemed to be applicable.
• It has been both unproductive and ineffective economically,
• defying citizens’ participation and control, and
• prone to mismanagement and corruption;
• therefore, a public administration that does not offer any more
social justice and benefit must be reinvented…
The code name of this paradigm shift is “governance’’.
Sharing knowledge is sharing power….
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

14. governance & Turkey
• In Turkey where centralism and hierarchies are
deeply rooted, administrative models and
accompanying mindsets that allow possible win/win
outcomes for all parties are yet to be formed.
• Whereas the public sector tries to imitate the private
sector, the latter is increasingly more active in areas
that involve public benefit.
• Multi-party organizations such as NGOs and civil
initiatives are closer to the decentralized
administrative model as a consequence of their very
nature.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

15. ‘’policy convergence’’
• “Convergence” means coming together of technologies and
undergoing fusions, creating thereby new technological platforms.
• Most people understand convergence in terms of the network effect
and the interoperability principle necessitated by it
• The EU has initiated a conceptual debate with its i2010 programme :
“policy convergence”
• The constantly increasing interaction and convergence between
different economic sectors and social development areas
• EU which is essentially a “network state”, the need for an
“institutional and regulatory convergence” is more obvious
• EU’s “i2010” strategy is aiming to counter the ‘’technological
convergence’’ with a “policy convergence”
• A policy convergence between every macro policy issues.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

16. ‘’policy interaction’’
The concept of “policy interaction” was developed to
describe circumstances where, for example,
• policies from different areas are brought into
interaction to obtain more extensive solutions;
• policies at different global, national, local levels are
allowed to interact to offer a more consistent and
sustainable action platform;
• and policies of different parties focused on the same
target are fused together as to support an effective
framework for action.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

17. ‘’policy interaction’’
Maximum interaction should be secured between ICT
policies and macro/micro policy issues such as
• public administration reform, economy, foreign trade, industry,
energy, science-technology-innovation, agriculture, health,
education, security, EU integration;
• clustering, SMEs, FDI, VC, technoparks and technology
development zones, regional development, public
procurement, taxation, industry-university cooperation, PPP,
etc..
The policy development process requires the existence of
interactions -based on network governance- both
• between decision makers and implementers,
• and between implementers of different channels.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

18. ‘’policy governance’’
• Policy making processes should be redesigned as to
incorporate “convergence”, “interaction” and
“governance” concepts along the basic
developmental targets.
• Unless ICT policies are developed by all concerned
parties and in a participatory way, the ICT sector
cannot fulfill its strategic functionality to provide any
significant national interest.
• Policy convergence and interaction leads to the (ICT-
based) “connected” or “networked” governance as
a global trend in all e-strategies, including e-
government and e-democracy mindset.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

19. components of ICT policy
• ICT industries
• Liberalization of the telecommunications sector and
its regulation
• The National Innovation System
• ICT use in governmental and public sector (e-
government)
• A social policy to meet structural changes (social
inclusion)
• Protection of information privacy & intellectual rights
• The right for access to information (FOA),
• Legislation on cyber crimes.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

20. current situation in Turkey
• Partial support for offering incentives aimed at ICT industries is
present, however, no radical and systematic development can be
observed that embraces the industry as a whole.
• There is still no strategy and action plan for software and
services.
• The liberalization process of telecommunications is still ongoing,
progress is visible, but still targets are not met. (The recent
legislation of Electronic Communications Act can have a positive
impact on the liberalization process, however, it is yet due. )
• The R&D Act introduced in 2007 can be interpreted as an indicator
of a slight progress in the National Innovation System, however,
no signs of industry-academia cooperation, micro innovation at firm
level, clustering strategies for the innovation of SMEs, or promotion
of venture capital sector are visible.
• Considerable achievements are made in e-government services.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

21. current situation in Turkey
• Recently the “e-Government Portal” has been introduced and
thus the system integration accomplished.
• But on the “client” side, there are seriously big problems for
both the business world and citizens regarding services.
• The structuring of e-government does not help much the public
administration to make some progress in the direction of
governance.
• Achievements are made to computerize and bring the Internet
to schools.
• Other rapid developments are in progress that aims to offer
more public access points to the Internet and to enhance
universal access.
• Still, no policies are developed that would embed
technology socially.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

22. current situation in Turkey
• the Data Protection Law is on the table for the last ten years
awaiting to meet demands of several government institutions that
compete to introduce their own versions of exceptions.
• As regards the intellectual rights, the situation looks relatively
better; not on the regulatory side but on the implementation side
there are some problems but they are solvable.
• In 2004, the Access to Information Act has been introduced but it
is already inapplicable as it is almost completely left to authorities to
interpret it the way they like.
• Amendments to the Turkish Penal Code have been introduced to
address cyber crimes, but they still vague and wide open to
interpretation.
• In 2007, Law Number 5651 “of regulating the internet transmission
issues and combating the crimes which are conducting by internet
transmission” was introduced and chaos ensued.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

23. current situation in Turkey
• The national “Information Society Strategy” and its
concomitant action plan that would coordinate and bring all
ICT policies and strategies into interaction, and converge them
with other national policies, are introduced in 2006.
• In 2005, the “e-Transformation Turkey Executive Board”
was formed that included some ministers and public
institutions as decision makers, whereas ICT NGOs were only
invited as observers. It is this board who endorsed the strategy
document.
Turkey has been developing continuously policies, strategies
and action plans in the fields of, first, science-technology, and
then ICT, since the adoption of “planned development”
paradigm of 60s…
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

24. Milestones of ICT Related Policy
Development Process in Turkey
• TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey)
was founded in 1963.
• In 1966 TURDOK (Scientific and Technical Documentation Center of
Turkey) was established.
• TBD (Turkish Informatics Association), Turkey’s first ICT NGO was founded
in 1971.
• The 1st National Information Congress convened in 1976.
• TUBISAD (Turkish Informatics Industry Association) was founded as a
sectoral organization in 1979.
• In 1983, BTYK (Supreme Council for Science and Technology) was
founded.
• In 1986, TÜVAKA (Universities and Research Institutions Network of
Turkey) was created.
• In 1986, Ege University, Yildiz University and Middle East Technical
University / TUBITAK developed the Internet infrastructure (EARN
connection).
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

25. Milestones of ICT Related Policy
Development Process in Turkey
• In 1990, BYK (Supreme Council for Informatics) was founded.
• In 1991, to fund ICT related R&D, TTGV (Turkey Technology Development
Foundation) was founded.
• In 1991-1993, the TRNET (TR-Grid) infrastructure was developed. In 1993,
TUBA (he Turkish Academy of Sciences) and in 1994, Türk Patent
Enstitüsü (Turkish Patent Institute) was founded.
• TBV (Turkish Informatics Foundation), another important ICT NGO was
founded in 1995. In 1995, the 1st Internet Conference was held.
• In 1997, ULAKBIM (Turkish National Academic Network and Information
Center) was founded.
• The same year TBD founded KamuBIB (Union of Public Data-Processing
Center Manager) and ODTU (METU) founded the Institute of Informatics.
• In 1998 TUENA (National Information Infrastructure Master Plan of Turkey)
was conceived but it did not materialized.
• In 1998, the 9th Transportation Council Telecommunication Commission
Workshop was held..
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

26. Milestones of ICT Related Policy
Development Process in Turkey
• In 1998, ETKK (E-Commerce Coordination Committee) was founded and
delivered critical reports.
• In 1998, the Internet Advisory Board and Public-Net Supreme Council were
formed.
• In 2000, Information Technologies and Policies Special Expertise
Commission’s Report (within the VIII. Five-Year Development Plan) has
been issued.
• The same year, TUBITAK led the Vision 2023 efforts.
• In 2001, ICT NGOs came together to form the BSTO (ICT NGO Platform),
however, it did not lead to anything substantial.
• Same year IvHP (Internet and Law Platform) was founded, and it made
important contributions to ICT based legislative regulations.
• The same year Turkey became a member of “eEurope+” initiative and
started “eTurkey Initiative”, and developed short term action plans focusing
on e-government.
• In 2002 the 1st Informatics Council convened.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

27. Milestones of ICT Related Policy
Development Process in Turkey
• In 2003, the Communications Council was realized.
• TBV reported sectoral priorities to the Prime Minister.
• In 2003, the new government announced the e-Turkey Transformation
Project and convened the E-Transformation Executive Board.
• State Planning Organization Information Society Department was founded.
• In 2004, member NGOs of the Executive Board founded the NGO Watch
Committee for e-Transformation Turkey Executive Board and started
delivering reports.
• In 2004 Izmir Economy Congress convened and significant documents
related to knowledge economy, information society, science-technology,
R&D policies were submitted.
• World Bank issued Knowledge Economy Assessment Study of Turkey.
• ICT NGOs submitted the Alternative Information Society Strategy Initiative
to the Executive Board.
• 2nd Informatics Council was held.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

28. Milestones of ICT Related Policy
Development Process in Turkey
• In 2004, TUSIAD (Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association)
convened the 2st Innovation Congress.
• In 2005 National Innovation Initiative was created.
• In 2006, the Information Society Strategy and its Action Plan were realized.
• In 2007, TUBISAD made an Open Announcement addressing all political
parties.
• TUBISAD submitted its Software Strategy to the Executive Board.
• TIM (Turkish Exporters Assembly) organized an “Innovation” Conference.
• In 2008, TBV, TBD and TUBISAD gave presentations to the Executive
Board delineating the expectations of the sector, policy improvements and
project prioritizations.
Alas, none of these ventures ended up as desired…
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

29. ‘’governance phobia‘’
• There is a good deal of serious effort to develop a national
ICT policy, without much success.
• Here the problem stems not from “instrumental” issues such
as a lack of resources, know-how, infrastructure, access to
technology, etc.
• It is completely one of a mindset, a “governance phobia”, the
result of complete “political inadequacy” which usually
materializes in terms of insistence on a centralist
administration tradition, a distrust in the business world, in
NGOs, in academia and in its own citizens, and trying, instead,
to cover up (the lack of) participation with image making
operations...
• Unless all concerned parties are included in this process, you
cannot expect social demand and mobilization emerge on its
own. Dr. Özgür Uçkan

30. centralist administration culture
Is the culprit, then, only the bureaucracy and public authority?
Does not have the business world, labor organizations,
academia, NGOs, or the initiativeless citizen herself any
responsibility?
The answer is, unfortunately, yes, as long as they do not claim
actively participate and remain content with sharing the same
centralist administration culture.
ICT sector has not been successful in persuading the society,
politicians and the business world that a fully competitive,
easily accessible and innovative ICT sector would be the
leading force for national development. For it has its own share
of governance phobia which has become the hallmark of the
whole country.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

31. Background of “Information Society Strategy”
Although indisputably an “official” one, does this
document deserve to be called a “national” one?
• “e-Transformation Turkey Executive Board” and NGO
participation
• ICT NGOs “Watch Committee”
• Criticism focused on the inadequacy of juridical
legitimacy of the Executive Board, and relatively, the
fact that it lacked executive power and suffered from
governance phobia.
• The preparatory process of the “Information Society
Strategy”.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

32. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
• “Organizational Structure and Governance Model”
• “e-transformation Turkey”: “e-government”, with the most
mechanical interpretation of the word, just e-government
• The “Council of Transformation Leaders” is limited with public
participators. NGO and business world “leaders” are not
mentioned at all.
• “SPO Directorate General for Information Society” became the
“owner of the strategy”
• the “Action Plan” lacks a feasibility and risk analysis
• In this model which does not harbor anything worth than the
mechanical modernization of the public sector, not a single
word is mentioned regarding how the business world and
related NGOs will participate in the “governance” platform.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

33. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
Outlines of the Strategy related to the ‘’e-Transformation’’:
• “Social transformation”
• “Citizen-focused services transformation”
• “ICT adaptation by business”
• “Modernization in the public administration”
• “Competitive, widespread and affordable
communication infrastructure and services”
• “Improvement of R&D and innovation”
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

34. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
• The “information society” becomes an abstract and hollow concept
unless handled with its socioeconomic aspects. “Information
society”, which should accompany the concept of “knowledge
economy”, is a concept that qualifies societies that create value in
producing, sharing, disseminating and using information, and shares
this in a fair and equalitarian way.
• In that respect, it is clear that the subject matter of our information
strategy is not the “society”, but only the ‘’government’’!
• All proposals related to “social transformation” are limited to “e-
readiness” standards such as the development of the information
infrastructure in schools, promotion of Internet and computer
penetration, providing public access opportunities, Internet security
and content development.
• Social transformation calls for more than just being “ready” to the
information society.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

35. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
• How to create the proper social capital without an educational
reform ?
• No alternatives for opening the ICT sector to full competition
• No suggestions to give national sectors priority in public
procurement
• A domestic ICT market is envisioned that is totally import-oriented
• No financial model for PPP
• Proposed actions interact with each other by their very nature.
However, related integration projects, risk analyses and interactive
feasibilities are not given!
• All actions are about the public sector, and merely a compilation of
the existing achievements. No prioritizations for requirements are
made.
• Neither the legal infrastructure of the innovation, nor the industry-
university cooperation, nor financial models that will pave the way
for innovation and entrepreneurship
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

36. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
• The picture drawn for Turkey is poised to lag behind the
European standards
• With such a strategy, Turkey can only become an “information
market” and not an “information society”
• As one sees the “Knowledge Society” as a natural
consequence of ICT access, spread and use, it is quite
understandable to be content with a “strategy” that limits the
government’s priority responsibilities with a relative ICT
development that comprises formation of a mechanical e-
government system
• To use a dynamic such as “knowledge” to promote a country’s
social, economic and cultural development, a more complex
targeting system is needed.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

37. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
Information society and knowledge economy targets simply
mean
• an effective integration of the country with the information
transformed global economy;
• sustainability of growth and productivity;
• creation of global competitive advantage by giving domestic market
dynamics a manageable stability whereas increasing the foreign
trade volume with a value added focus;
• realizing a fair and equalitarian human and economic development
by creating new and profitable knowledge intensive employment
channels,
• making the innovation culture the driving force of entrepreneurship,
• and thus promoting a qualified, flexible, knowledge based and
continuously learning social capital.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

38. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
The reductionist approach of the strategy document yields the
same result in all subtitles which themselves short fall to
explain the information society.
As part of social transformation when “focused competence” is
the issue, one expects a “lifelong learning” model that
produces people in compliance with the knowledge economy;
but alas, what you get is “basic level ICT courses”!
When the subject is ICT adaptation by business, one expects
knowledge economy models that target improvement for
business operations, or offer legislative infrastructure that
support models which promote productivity in SME business
processes; once again you end up with computer ownership,
Internet access, e-trade promotion...
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

39. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
As one reads the subtitle “facilitating business transactions”
one readily is tempted to think about concrete measures for
cost reduction, promotion of ICT solutions for productivity,
entrepreneurship and innovation; however, it promptly
becomes clear that, all the fuss is about “reducing costs for
doing business with the government”.
The document talks about promoting exports but it does not
mention finding a solution to the techno park conundrum,
making, with the help of sectoral and regional clustering
strategies, entrepreneurship and innovation dominant factors
in added valued creation, nor emphasizes it other ventures
that would offer advantages to national sectors in public
economy with defense industries at the front!
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

40. “Information Society Strategy 2006-2010”
The document targets an ICT supported “modernization in public
administration”, however, it does not mention an “e-governance”
model that complies with the information society and knowledge
economy paradigms in public administration; it seems having
forgotten that e-government is simply a mechanical modernization
without e-democracy.
Law is the weakest chain in the strategy document. Except taxation
and public procurement, it does not show up much. To the contrary,
information society and knowledge economy can only thrive on a
suitable legal infrastructure. This infrastructure is a complicated
system from education to employment, public administration to
trade, or election system to health; and the determination of the
prioritized targets within the legal map can be only secured by
figuring out the national benefit upon a legal risk analysis and with
the help of a responsible legalization process which is also
transparent to the participation of all concerned parties.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

41. Information Society Co-Strategy
To balance the public administration-oriented inclination of the
Information Society Strategy, an Information Society Co-Strategy
may be necessary, to be developed by the participation of all
significant actors of economic and social life and led by the ICT
NGOs.
Priorities of this strategy are developing an effective policy
networking, assuring the telecom liberalization (EU regulatory
package), developing social embeddedness of technology,
improving legal and institutional environment, improving business
environment and investment climate, strengthening dynamics of ICT
sector, creating competitive advantages of software and ICT
services industries, developing effective public, private, and mixed
financial models, assuring integration of ICT to the macro and micro
innovation mechanisms, and finally, triggering national mobilization
for e-Transformation Turkey Initiative (in harmony with the EU i2010
Programme).
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

42. CONCLUSION
• Will Turkey be able to connect the line between
the will, policy, strategy and plan?
• the EU tiredness
• To assess it you have to manage it. And to manage it
you have to have a “policy”... Strategy follows, and
tactics is merely a detail.
• By playing the game with a tactical mindset, to
postpone the unavoidable Economy, social
infrastructure, culture...
• The country must trigger a quantum leap by
synchronizing, integrating and coordinating, that is, by
“governing” the power channels in these basic axes.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

43. CONCLUSION
• A national ICT policy means at the same time a
“national development policy”
• In Turkey, the process from creation of this policy to
its implementation within a governance regime must
be designed as a national mobilization effort to be
carried out together with the political will.
• Improvement of the national information factors –
technology, innovation, quality and competences- of
Turkey is of outmost importance regarding the
promotion of both the productivity and achievement of
sustainable, long-term economic growth targets.
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

44. CONCLUSION
Turkey is at a vital crossroads.
We are confronted, thanks to the administrative
impasse due to our insistence on the centralist
administration heritage, with a danger of skipping
the global paradigm transformation and to be
excluded from the global information flow.
We must get rid of the “governance phobia”!
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

45. CONCLUSION
Knowledge,
with policy,
creates economy…
Dr. Özgür Uçkan

46. Thank you!
Dr. Özgür Uçkan