POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TYPOLOGIES OF STATECRAFT: LOCATING TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY UNDER THE AKP

Öz

This article aims to contribute to the literatures on Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), International Relations (IR), and Turkish Foreign Policy (TFP) by putting forward a comprehensive understanding of statecraft and foreign policy behaviour. Using the case of Turkey under the rule of the AKP (Justice and Development Party), the study evaluates the applicability of various commonly used state typologies—including the “trading state”, “illiberal state”, “Machiavellian state”, “garrison state”, “developmental state”, “civilizational state”, “middle power” and several others—within the context of Turkish foreign policy. By situating contemporary Turkey within this framework, the article offers an analysis of how global balance of power, internal political dynamics (e.g. party ideology) and economic strategies shape Turkey’s foreign relations. In addition, the study explores the broader relevance of these typologies for understanding the foreign policy-making processes of other countries across the globe. Through this typological analysis, the article seeks to provide a versatile tool for scholars and practitioners in FPA and IR, offering insights into the nature of state behaviour. This work seeks to lay the foundation for further research that could apply this framework to a global range of case studies and help explain shifting foreign policies in a time of changing dynamics in the early 21st century.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Foreign Policy Analysis
• Economic Statecraft
• Statecraft Typology
• Turkish Foreign Policy
• Justice and Development Party

Etik Beyan

In this article, Ethical Committee Approval is not needed.

DEVLET YÖNETİMİNİN SİYASAL VE EKONOMİK TİPOLOJİLERİ: AK PARTİ DÖNEMİ TÜRK DIŞ POLİTİKASINI KONUMLANDIRMAK

Öz

Bu makale, devlet yönetimi (statecraft) ve dış politika davranışına ilişkin kapsamlı bir analitik çerçeve geliştirerek Dış Politika Analizi (DPA), Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) ve Türk Dış Politikası (TDP) literatürlerine katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma; Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AK Parti) iktidarı dönemindeki Türkiye örneğinden hareketle, dış politika bağlamında yaygın biçimde kullanılan çeşitli devlet tipolojilerinin — ticaret devleti (trading state), illiberal devlet (illiberal state), Makyavelist devlet (Machiavellian state), garnizon devlet (garrison state), kalkınmacı devlet (developmental state), medeniyet devleti (civilizational state), orta güç (middle power) ve benzeri yaklaşımların — analiz kapasitesini değerlendirmektedir. Makale, çağdaş Türkiye’yi söz konusu tipolojik çerçeve içerisinde konumlandırarak küresel güç dengesi, iç siyasal dinamikler (örneğin parti ideolojisi) ve ekonomik stratejilerin Türkiye’nin dış ilişkilerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini analiz etmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra çalışma, bu tipolojilerin dünyanın farklı bölgelerindeki devletlerin dış politika yapım süreçlerinin anlaşılmasına ne ölçüde katkı sağlayabileceğini de tartışmaktadır. Bu tipolojik analiz aracılığıyla makale, devlet davranışının niteliğine ilişkin yeni açılımlar sunmayı ve Dış Politika Analizi ile Uluslararası İlişkiler alanlarında çalışan araştırmacılar için çok yönlü bir analitik araç geliştirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Son olarak çalışma, önerilen çerçevenin farklı ülke örneklerine uygulanmasına zemin hazırlamayı ve 21. yüzyılın değişen uluslararası dinamikleri karşısında dönüşen dış politika yönelimlerinin açıklanmasına katkı sağlayacak gelecekteki araştırmalar için bir temel oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dış Politika Analizi
• Ekonomik Devlet Yönetimi
• Devlet Yönetimi Tipolojisi
• Türk Dış Politikası
• Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi

Etik Beyan

Bu makalede etik beyana gerek yoktur.

Kaynakça

1. [1] Acharya, A. (2020). The myth of the ‘civilization state’: Rising powers and the cultural challenge to world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 34(2), 139–156.
2. [2] Akser, M., & Baybars, B. (2023). Repressed media and illiberal politics in Turkey: The persistence of fear. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 23(1), 159–177.
3. [3] Altunışık, M. B. (2023). The trajectory of a modified middle power: An attempt to make sense of turkey’s foreign policy in its centennial. Turkish Studies, 24(3–4), 658–672.
4. [4] Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. Oxford University Press.
5. [5] Andrew, C. (2018). The secret world: A history of intelligence. Penguin.
6. [6] Aral, B. (2019). The world is bigger than five’: A salutary manifesto of turkey’s new international outlook. Insight Turkey, 21(4), 71–95.
7. [7] Baccelli, L. (2025). In search of machiavelli’s theory of the state: Umori, tumulti, ordini, rule of law. Jus Cogens, 7, 55–73.
8. [8] Beşgül, B. (2024). The evolution of TİKA: A case study in Turkish soft power projection. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 115, 57–82.

9. [9] Boyle, M. J. (2016). The coming illiberal order. Global Politics and Strategy, 58(2), 35–66.
10. [10] Brommeson, D. (2010). Normative europeanization: The case of Swedish foreign policy reorientation. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(2), 224–244.
11. [11] Carr, E. H. (1939). The twenty years’ crisis: 1919–1939. Palgrave Macmillan.
12. [12] Chomsky, N. (2000). Rogue states: The rule of force in world affairs. South End Press.
13. [13] Cinar, M. (2018). Turkey’s ‘western’ or ‘muslim’ identity and the akp’s civilizational discourse. Turkish Studies, 19(2), 176–197.
14. [14] Cline, K., Rhamey, P., Henshaw, A., Sedziaka, A., Tandon, A., & Volgy, T. J. (2011). Identifying regional powers and their status. In Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics: Global and Regional Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
15. [15] Coker, C. (2019). The rise of the civilizational state. Polity.
16. [16] Destradi, S. (2010). Regional powers and their strategies: Empire, hegemony, and leadership. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 903–930.
17. [17] Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151–1169.
18. [18] Fearon, J. D. (1998). Domestic politics, foreign policy and theories of international relations. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 289–313.
19. [19] Fischer, M. (1996). Machiavelli’s theory of foreign politics. In Roots of Realism. Routledge.
20. [20] Gear, M. B. (1941). Role of buffer states in international relations. The Journal of Geography, 40(3), 81–89.
21. [21] Geddes, B. (1999). What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 115–144.
22. [22] Gehring, T., Urbanski, K., & Oberthür, S. (2017). The European union as an inadvertent great power: EU actorness and the Ukraine crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(4), 727–743.
23. [23] Göksel, O. (2019). Foreign policy making in the age of populism: The uses of anti-westernism in Turkish politics. New Middle Eastern Studies, 9(1), 13–35.
24. [24] Göksel, O. (2023). Trading state or Machiavellian state? Re-Evaluating the political economy of Turkish foreign policy under Erdoğan. UPA Strategic Affairs, 4(2), 72–107.
25. [25] Herzog, M., & Robins, P. (2014). The role, position and agency of cusp states in international relations. Routledge.
26. [26] Ipek, P. (2015). Ideas and change in foreign policy instruments: Soft power and the case of the Turkish international cooperation and development agency. Foreign Policy Analysis, 11(2), 173–193.
27. [27] Jacques, M. (2009). When China rules the world: The end of the western world and the birth of a new global order. Penguin.
28. [28] Jeong, H. W. (2022). South korea’s middle power diplomacy in the middle east: Development, political and diplomatic trajectories. Routledge.
29. [29] Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1), 165–181.
30. [30] Kaarbo, J. (2015). A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic politics turn in IR theory. International Studies Review, 17(2), 189–216.
31. [31] Kara, M. (2023). Turkish-American Strategic Partnership: Is Turkey Still a Faithful Ally? Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 23(2), 431–451.
32. [32] Kardaş, Ş. (2021). Revisionism and resecuritization of turkey’s middle east policy: A neoclassical realist explanation. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 23(3), 490–501.
33. [33] Karl, T. L. (1997). The paradox of plenty: Oil booms and petro-states. University of California Press.
34. [34] Kaya, A. (2020). Migration as a leverage tool in international relations: Turkey as a case study. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 17(68), 21–39.
35. [35] Kelkitli, F. A. (2024). The foreign policy behaviour of the nationalist action party in Türkiye: Aspirations, actions, and limitations. Comparative Southeast European Studies, 72(3), 283–304.
36. [36] Kennedy, P. (1987). The rise and fall of the great powers.
37. [37] Keohane, R. O. (2005). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
38. [38] Kesgin, B. (2020). Turkey’s Erdoğan: Leadership style and foreign policy audiences. Turkish Studies, 21(1), 56–82.
39. [39] Khan, M. A., Shoaib, H., Fatima, F., & Qamar, R. (2021). Garrison state structure of Egypt and its implications for growth and development. Nile Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 78–100.
40. [40] Kirişçi, K. (2009). The transformation of Turkish foreign policy: The rise of the trading state. New Perspectives on Turkey, 40, 29–56.
41. [41] Kissinger, H. A. (1966). Domestic structure and foreign policy. Daedalus, 95(2), 503–529.
42. [42] Kissinger, H. A. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster.
43. [43] Köstem, S. (2018). Different paths to regional hegemony: National identity contestation and foreign economic strategy in Russia and Turkey. Review of International Political Economy, 25(5), 726–752.
44. [44] Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
45. [45] Krickovic, A. (2022). Revisionism revisited: Developing a typology for classifying Russia and other revisionist powers. International Politics, 59, 616–639.
46. [46] Kubicek, P. (2022). Structural dynamics, pragmatism, and shared grievances: Explaining russian-turkish relations. Turkish Studies, 23(5), 784–801.
47. [47] Kutlay, M., & Öniş, Z. (2021). Turkish Foreign Policy in a Post-Western Order: Strategic Autonomy or New Forms of Dependence? International Affairs, 97(4), 1085–1104.
48. [48] Lasswell, H. D. (1941). The garrison state. American Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 455–468.
49. [49] Leifer, M. (2000). Singapore’s foreign policy: Coping with vulnerability. Routledge.
50. [50] Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold war. Cambridge University Press.
51. [51] Manners, I. (2002). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
52. [52] Mansfield, E. D., & Milner, H. V. (2012). Votes, vetoes, and the political economy of international trade agreements. Princeton University Press.
53. [53] Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
54. [54] Mehmetcik, H., & Çelik, A. C. (2022). The militarization of Turkish foreign policy. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 24(1), 24–41.
55. [55] Mindle, G. B. (1985). Machiavelli’s realism. The Review of Politics, 47(2), 212–230.
56. [56] Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
57. [57] Müftüler-Baç, M. (2013). Turkish foreign policy, its domestic determinants and the role of the European union. In Turkey and the EU: Accession and Reform (pp. 71–84). Routledge.
58. [58] Nathan, A. J., & Scobell, A. (2012). China’s search for security. Columbia University Press.
59. [59] Nimmons, S. (2018). Securing Israel – the Mossad. Nimmons Consulting Policy Paper.
60. [60] Nolte, D. (2010). How to compare regional powers: Analytical concepts and research topics. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 881–901.
61. [61] Novikau, A., & Muhasilović, J. (2023). Turkey’s quest to become a regional energy hub: Challenges and opportunities. Heliyon, 9(11), 1–11.
62. [62] Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs.
63. [63] Oğuzlu, T. (2020). Turkish foreign policy in a changing world order. All Azimuth, 9(1), 127–139.
64. [64] Omand, D. (2010). Securing the state. Hurst & Co.
65. [65] Öniş, Z. (1991). The logic of the developmental state. Comparative Politics, 24(1), 109–126.
66. [66] Örmeci, O. (2023). Ukraine crisis in all aspects: Putin’s Machiavellian state. Foreign Analysis, 4.
67. [67] Ovalı, Ş., & Özdikmenli, İ. (2019). Ideologies and the western question in Turkish foreign policy: A neo-classical realist perspective. All Azimuth, 9(1), 105–126.
68. [68] Özkan, A., & Kırval, L. (2023). Continuity of maritime disputes in Turkish foreign policy in retrospect. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 20(78), 119–137.
69. [69] Özpek, B. B., & Tanriverdi Yaşar, N. (2018). Populism and foreign policy in Turkey under the AKP rule. Turkish Studies, 19(2), 198–216.
70. [70] Parlar Dal, E. (2016). Conceptualising and testing the ‘emerging regional power’ of Turkey in the shifting international order. Third World Quarterly, 37(8), 1425–1453.
71. [71] Parmeter, I. (2023). Strategic ambiguity: Turkey, Russia and the war in Ukraine. Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 15(2), 18–32.
72. [72] Pascovich, E. (2014). Military intelligence and controversial political issues: The unique case of the Israeli military intelligence. Intelligence and National Security, 29(2), 227–261.
73. [73] Rolland, N. (2017). China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’: Underwhelming or Game-Changer? The Washington Quarterly, 40(1), 127–142.
74. [74] Rosecrance, R. (1986). Rise of the trading state: Commerce and conquest in the modern world. Basic Books.
75. [75] Ross, M. (2012). The oil curse: How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. Princeton University Press.
76. [76] Rotberg, R. I. (2004). When states fail: Causes and consequences. Princeton University Press.
77. [77] Russet, B. (1993). Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-cold war world. Princeton University Press.
78. [78] Sak, G. (2024). Post-Election Turkey returns to economic orthodoxy. GIS Reports.
79. [79] Slater, D. (2012). Strong-State democratization in malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Democracy, 23(2), 19–33.
80. [80] Solis, M. (2017). Dilemmas of a trading nation: Japan and the united states in the evolving asia-pacific order. The Brookings Institution.
81. [81] Taş, H. (2022). The formulation and implementation of populist foreign policy: Turkey in the eastern mediterranean. Mediterranean Politics, 27(5), 563–587.
82. [82] Volodin, A. G. (2022). India as a civilizational state. Global Trends, 92, 827–837.
83. [83] Wallerstein, I. (1993). Foes as Friends? Foreign Affairs, 90, 145–157.
84. [84] Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
85. [85] Wehner, L. E. (2015). Role expectations as foreign policy: South American secondary powers’ expectations of Brazil as a regional power. Foreign Policy Analysis, 11(4), 435–455.
86. [86] Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
87. [87] Winn, G. F. T. (1986). North Korea: A garrison state. In The Armed Forces in Contemporary Asian Societies. Routledge.
88. [88] Yavuz, M. H. (2022). The motives behind the akp’s foreign policy: Neo-Ottomanism and strategic autonomy. Turkish Studies, 23(5), 659–680.
89. [89] Yegen, M. (2023). Ethnopolitics to geopolitics: The Turkish state and the Kurdish question since 2015. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 50(4), 943–961.
90. [90] Yilmaz, I., & Demir, M. (2023). Manufacturing the Ummah: Turkey’s transnational populism and construction of the people globally. Third World Quarterly, 44(2), 320–336.
91. [91] Zakaria, F. (2003). The future of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad. W. W. Norton & Company.