1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma
Social Capital and Civil Society in Turkey, 1994-2014: A Cross-Regional Comparison

Cerem İ. CENKER-ÖZEK [1]


Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1990’lardan günümüze, Türkiye’de sivil toplum kuruluşlarına (STK) katılımın ne şekilde değiştiğini analiz ederek, STK’ların sosyal sermaye üretebilme potansiyelini tartışmaktır. Bu özelliği ile çalışma, Türkiye’nin sosyal sermayesi üzerine yapılan çalışmalara katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Analiz için Dünya Değerler Araştırması’nın (DDA) 1994-2014 Türkiye verisi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, 2000’li yıllarda Türkiye’de STK katılım oranlarının düştüğünü; geleneksel çıkar gruplarına katılımda gözlenen düşüşlerin dikkat çekici olduğunu ve sosyal sermaye literatürünün önem atfettiği yeni siyasi hareketler ve kendini ifade etme değerleri ile ilgili STK türlerine katılım oranlarının, Türkiye’nin bölgeleri arasında ciddi farklılıklar gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, ayrıca, aynı dönemde, STK katılımcılarının değişen demografik özelliklerine de dikkat çekmektedir. 2000’li yıllarda, daha fazla kadın ve genç, STK’lara katılım göstermiş, STK katılımcılarının ortalama eğitim seviyeleri de yükselmiştir.

The objective of this study is to discuss civil society organizations’ (CSOs) potential to generate social capital in Turkey by analyzing the changes observed in patterns of CSOs participation since the 1990s onwards. In this vein, the study aims to contribute to research on Turkey’s social capital. For the analysis, the study utilizes World Values Survey (WVS), 1994-2014 Turkey data. The findings show declining CSOs participation rates; a noteworthy decline in the participation rates to traditional interest groups; and serious regional differences of participation to CSOs, which are given special emphasis by social capital literature such as the CSOs on new social movements and self-expressive values, during 2000s. The study also underlines the changing demographic properties of the CSOs’ participants during the same period. More women and younger citizens have started to participate in the CSOs throughout the 2000s. Participants’ average education levels have increased as well. 

  • Aytaç, S.E., Çarkoğlu A. and Ertan, G. (2017) Türkiye'de Kişilerarası Güven ve Bireysel Belirleyicileri, METU Studies in Development, 44 (1), 1-26.
  • Boşnak, B. (2016) Europeanization and De-Europeanization Dynamics in Turkey: The Case of Environmental Organizations, South European Society and Politics 21 (1), 75-90.
  • Brehm, J. ve Rahn, W. (1997) Individual-level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital, American Journal of Political Science 41 (3), 999-1023.
  • Cenker-Özek, C. (2017) Civic Space in Turkey: A Social Capital Approach to Civil Society, Turkish Studies, 18 (4), 688-709.
  • Çakmaklı, D. (2015) Active Citizenship in Turkey: Learning Citizenship in Civil Society Organizations, Citizenship Studies, 19 (3-4 ), 421-435.
  • Çarkoğlu, A. ve Cenker, I. C. (2011) On the Relationship Between Democratic Institutionalization and Civil Society Involvement: New Evidence from Turkey, Democratization 18 (3), 751-773.
  • Cohen, J. (1999) Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable Democracy: The Contemporary American discourse of Civil Society, Mark E. Warren Der. Democracy and Trust, 208-249 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Collier, R.B. ve Mahoney, J. (1997) Adding Collective Actors to Collective Outcomes: Labor and Recnt Democratization in South America and Southern Europe, Comparative Politics, 29, 285-303.
  • Dasgupta, P. ve Serageldin, I. (2000) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington: The World Bank.
  • Dekker, P. ve van den Broek, A. (1998) Civil Society in Comparative Perspective: Involvement in Voluntary Associations in North America and Western Europe, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9 (1), 11-38.
  • Dekker, P. ve Uslaner, E. Der. (2001) Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life, New York: Routledge.
  • Diamond, L. (1999) Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press
  • Erdoğan, E. (2006) Sosyal Sermaye, Güven ve Türk Gençliği, http://www.urbanhobbit.net/pdf/sosyal%20sermaye_emre%20erdogan.pdf (01.04.2018)
  • Ergun, A. (2010) Civil Society in Turkey and Local Dimensions of Europeanization, Journal of European Integration, 32 (5) (2010), 507-522.
  • Esmer, Y. (2012), “Türkiye Değerler Atlası,” Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, http://content.bahcesehir.edu.tr/public/files/files/ATLAS%20SUNUM%202_10_2012%20(2).pdf (01.04.2018)
  • Farole, T., Rodriguez-Pose, A., ve Storper, M. (2007) Social Capital, Rules and Institutions: A Cross-Country Investigation, Working paper, No. 12. Instituto Madrileno de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
  • Granovetter, Mark (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360-1380.
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi (1998) Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması (TNSA), Nüfus Etüdleri Enstitüsü, Ankara http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/pdf/TNSA1998-AnaRapor.pdf
  • Haggard, S ve Kaufman, R. (1997) The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions, Comparative Politics, 29, 263-283.
  • Heper, M. ve Keyman, F. (1998) Double-Faced State: Political Patronage and the Consolidation of Democracy in Turkey, Middle Eastern Studies 34 (4), 259-277.
  • Hooghe, M. ve Stolle, D. Der. (2003) Generating Social Capital:Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, New York: Palgrave.
  • Howard, M. M. ve Gilbert, L. (2008) A Cross-National Comparison of the Internal Effects of Participation in Voluntary Organizations, Political Studies, 56: 12-32.
  • Huntington, S. (1991) Democracy’s Third Wave, Journal of Democracy, 2 (2), 12-34.
  • Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Post-modernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen et al. (Der.), (2014) World Values Survey: Round Six - Country-Pooled Datafile 2010-2014. Madrid: JD Systems Institute. Version:http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV (01.02.2018)
  • İçduygu, A. (2011) Interacting Actors: The EU and Civil Society in Turkey, South European Society and Politics, 16 (3), 381-394.
  • İçduuygu, A., Meydanoğlu, Z. ve Sert, D. Ş. (2011). Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum: Bir Dönüm Noktası, Türkiye Üçüncü Sektör Vakfı, http://www.tusev.org.tr/tr/arastirma-ve-yayinlar/online-yayinlar/step-raporu-turkiyede-sivil-toplum-bir-donum-noktasi (03.05.2018)
  • Kadıoğlu, A. (2005) Civil Society, Islam, and Democracy in Turkey: A Study of Three Islamic Non-Governmental Organizations, The Muslim World 95 (1 ), 23-41.
  • Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2001) Turkish Democracy: Patronage versus Governance, Turkish Studies 2 (1), 54-70.
  • Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2002) State and Civil Society in Turkey: Democracy, Development and Protest, Amyn B. Sajoo (Der.) Civil Society in the Muslim World: Contemporary Perspective, 247-272. London, New York: I.B. Tauris.
  • Kaliber, A. ve Tocci, N. (2010) Civil Society and the Transformation of Turkey’s Kurdish Question, Security Dialogue, 41, 191-215.
  • Keyman, F. ve İçduygu, A. (2003) Globalization, Civil Society and Citizenship in Turkey: Actors, Boundaries, and Discourses, Citizenship Studies 7 (2), 219-234.
  • Knack, S. (2002). Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence from States American Journal of Political Science, 46 (4), 772-785.
  • Knack, S. (2003) Groups, Growth, and Trust: Cross-country Evidence for Olson and Putnam Hypotheses, Public Choice, 117 (3-4), 341-355.
  • Kubicek, P. (2002) The Earthquake, Civil Society, and Political Change in Turkey: Assessment and Comparison with Eastern Europe, Political Studies 50 (4), 761–778.
  • La Porta, L., Lopez-de-Silane, F, Shleifer, A. ve Vishny, R.W. (1995) Trust in Large Organizations, NBER Working paper Series #5864, http://www.nber.org/papers/w5864.pdf (03.06.2018)
  • Linz, J. ve Stepan, A. (1997) Toward Consolidated Democracies, Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-han Chu, ve Hung-mao Tien (Der.) Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives, 14-33. Baltimore, London: The Johns Hopkins University.
  • Mair, P. (1998) Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Olson, M.(1982) The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Pusch, B. (2000 Stepping into the Public Sphere: The Rise of Islamist and Religious-Conservative Women’s Non-Governmental Organizations, Stefanos Yerasimos, Günter Seufert, and Karin Vorhoff, Der. Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism, 475-505. İstanbul, Orient-Institut and Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes.
  • Putnam, R., Nanetti, R., ve Leonardi, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Putnam, R.(2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
  • Putnam, Robert (2007) 2007 E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty- first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.
  • Rothstein, B. (2004). Social Capital and Institutional Legitimacy: The Corleone Connection, Sanjeev Prakash ve Per Selle, Der. Investigationg Social Capital: Comparative Perspectives on Civicl Society, Participation and Governance, 113-137, New Delhi: Sage.
  • Rumelili, B. Ve Çakmaklı, D. (2017) Civic Partiicpation and Citizenship in Turkey: A Comparative Study of Five Cities, South European Society and Politics, 22 (3), 365-384.
  • Sarkissian, A. ve Özler, İ. Ş. (2013) Democratization and the Politicization of Religious Civil Society in Turkey, Democratization, 20 (6), 1014-1035.
  • Sayarı, S. ve Esmer, Y. (2002) Politics, Parties and Elections in Turkey, Lynne Rienner, Boulder.
  • Sayarı, S., Musil, P.A. ve Demirkol, Ö. (2018) Party Politics in Turkey: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, London.
  • Schlozman, K. L., Burns, N., ve Verba, S. (1994) Gender and Pathways to Participation: The Role of Resources, The Journal of Politics, 56 (4), 963-990.
  • Stolle, D. ve Rochon, T. R. (1998) Are All Associations Alike? Member Diversity, Associational Type, and the Creation of Social Capital, The American Behavioral Scientist, 42 (1), 47-65.
  • Stolle, D. (2001) ‘Getting to trust’: an analysis of the importance of institutions, families, personal experiences and group membership, Paul Dekker ve Eric Uslaner, Der. Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life, 118-134, New York: Routledge.
  • Stolle, Dietlind (2002) Trusting Strangers- The Concept of Generalized Trust in Perspective, Austrian Journal of Political Science (ÖZP), 31 (4), 397-412.
  • Stolle, D. (2003) The Sources of Social Capital, Marc Hooghe ve Dietlind Stolle, Der. Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, 19-43, New York, Palgrave.
  • Şimşek, S. (2004) The Transformation of Civil Society in Turkey: From Quantity to Quality, Turkish Studies 5 (3), 46-74.
  • Tocqueville, A. (2003) Democracy in America and Two Essays on America, Çev. Gerald E. Bevan, London, Penguin.
  • TÜİK (2018), Bölgesel İstatistikler, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/bolgeselistatistik/ (05.05.2018)
  • Uğuz, H. E., Örselli, E., ve Sipahi, E. B. (2011) Sosyal Sermayenin Ölçümü: Türkiye Deneyimi, Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 6(1), 8-40.
  • Uslaner, E. (2001) Volunteering and Social Capital: How Trust and Religion Shape Civic Participation in the United States, Paul Dekker ve Eric Uslaner (Der.) Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life, London: Routledge.
  • Uslaner, E. (2002) Moral Foundations of Trust. New York, Madrid, South Africa: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walzer, M. (1991) A Better Vision: The Idea of Civil Society, Dissent 39 (Spring), 293-304.
  • van der Meer, J. (2003) Rain or Fog? An Empirical Examination of Social Capital’s Rainmaker Effects, Marc Hooghe ve Dietlind Stolle, Der. Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, 133-153, New York, Palgrave.
  • Wnuk-Lipinski, E. (2009). Civil Society and Democratization, Russell Dalton ve Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Der. Political Behavior, 675-693, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Primary Language tr
Subjects Economics
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0001-5689-1322
Author: Cerem İ. CENKER-ÖZEK

Dates

Application Date : July 10, 2018
Acceptance Date : August 28, 2018
Publication Date : September 30, 2018

Bibtex @research article { auiibfd463391, journal = {Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi}, issn = {1302-9975}, eissn = {2667-7229}, address = {AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ DEKANI DUMLUPINAR CAD. ANTALYA}, publisher = {Akdeniz University}, year = {2018}, volume = {18}, pages = {44 - 77}, doi = {10.25294/auiibfd.463391}, title = {1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma}, key = {cite}, author = {Cenker-özek, Cerem İ.} }
APA Cenker-özek, C . (2018). 1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma . Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi , , 44-77 . DOI: 10.25294/auiibfd.463391
MLA Cenker-özek, C . "1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma" . Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi 18 (2018 ): 44-77 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/auiibfd/issue/39322/463391>
Chicago Cenker-özek, C . "1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma". Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi 18 (2018 ): 44-77
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - 1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma AU - Cerem İ. Cenker-özek Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.25294/auiibfd.463391 DO - 10.25294/auiibfd.463391 T2 - Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 44 EP - 77 VL - 18 IS - 2018 Özel Sayısı SN - 1302-9975-2667-7229 M3 - doi: 10.25294/auiibfd.463391 UR - https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.463391 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi 1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma %A Cerem İ. Cenker-özek %T 1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma %D 2018 %J Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi %P 1302-9975-2667-7229 %V 18 %N 2018 Özel Sayısı %R doi: 10.25294/auiibfd.463391 %U 10.25294/auiibfd.463391
ISNAD Cenker-özek, Cerem İ. . "1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma". Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi 18 / 2018 Özel Sayısı (September 2018): 44-77 . https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.463391
AMA Cenker-özek C . 1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi. 2018; 18(2018 Özel Sayısı): 44-77.
Vancouver Cenker-özek C . 1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi. 2018; 18(2018 Özel Sayısı): 44-77.
IEEE C. Cenker-özek , "1990’lardan Günümüze Türkiye’de Sosyal Sermaye ve Sivil Toplum: Bölgeler Arası bir Karşılaştırma", Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, vol. 18, no. 2018 Özel Sayısı, pp. 44-77, Sep. 2018, doi:10.25294/auiibfd.463391