Civil Society Organizations as Partners in Providing Public Services in Türkiye: Findings from Focus Group Discussions

Öz

This study examines the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in public service delivery through a qualitative research design based on focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted in Eskişehir, İzmir, and Trabzon. The findings indicate a broad willingness among public actors to engage CSOs in service processes, while maintaining a public sector led, complementary model of involvement. The FGDs reveal several structural constraints that undermine the sustainability of public-CSO collaboration, including limited institutional infrastructure, ambiguity in roles and responsibilities, rigid bureaucratic procedures, project-based funding structures, and disparities in organizational capacity. Participants emphasize that sustainable collaboration requires clearer role definitions and accountability frameworks, the establishment of predictable and long-term financing mechanisms, and the development of phased and performance-based participation arrangements. Overall, the findings demonstrate that effective public-CSO collaboration depends not only on normative support for participation but also on the institutionalization of stable governance, financing, and coordination mechanisms that can sustain long-term engagement.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Governance
• Civil Society Organizations
• Providing Public Services
• Co-production
• Focus Group Discussions

Destekleyen Kurum

The General Directorate of Relations with Civil Society of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Türkiye

Etik Beyan

This study is based on the qualitative fieldwork conducted within the framework of the "Research and Development Project on the Role of Civil Society Organizations in Providing Public Services in Türkiye," which was initiated on September 1, 2025, and is planned to be completed on August 31, 2026. This study conducted within the framework of this project, in partnership with the General Directorate of Relations with Civil Society of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Türkiye, the Hacettepe Science Association, and Hacettepe University, is designed to complement the quantitative survey application.

Türkiye'de Kamu Hizmetleri Sunumunda Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Ortak Rolü: Odak Grup Tartışmalarından Elde Edilen Bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışma, Eskişehir, İzmir ve Trabzon'da gerçekleştirilen odak grup görüşmelerine (FGD'ler) dayanan nitel bir araştırma yöntemi benimseyerek, sivil toplum kuruluşlarının (STK'lar) kamu hizmeti sunmadaki rolünü analiz etmektedir. Bulgular, STK’ların kamu hizmeti sunumuna katılımına yönelik tüm tarafların istekli olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu katılımın kamu sektörünün liderliğinde ve kamu sektörünü tamamlayıcı nitelikte olması gerektiği genel kabul görmektedir. Odak grup görüşmelerinde, Kamu-STK iş birliğinin sürdürülebilirliği önündeki en temel sorunlar kurumsal altyapının yetersizliği, rol belirsizlikleri, bürokratik süreçlerin katılığı, proje temelli finansman ve kapasite eşitsizlikleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılar sürdürülebilir iş birliği için rol ve sorumlulukların netleştirilmesi, öngörülebilir ve uzun vadeli finansman mekanizmaları ile kademeli ve performans esaslı ortaklık düzenlemelerinin geliştirilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu bulgular, etkili kamu–STK iş birliğinin yalnızca katılıma yönelik normatif desteğe değil, uzun vadeli ortaklıkları sürdürebilecek istikrarlı yönetişim, finansman ve koordinasyon mekanizmalarının kurumsallaştırılmasına bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yönetişim
• Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları
• Kamu Hizmeti Sağlanması
• Ortak Üretim
• Odak Grup Görüşmeleri

Destekleyen Kurum

T. C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Sivil Toplumla İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, 1 Eylül 2025 tarihinde başlatılan ve 31 Ağustos 2026 tarihinde tamamlanması planlanan “Türkiye’de Kamu Hizmetlerinin Sunumunda Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Rolünün Araştırılması ve Geliştirilmesi Projesi” kapsamında yürütülen nitel alan çalışmasına dayanmaktadır. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti İçişleri Bakanlığı Sivil Toplumla İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü, Hacettepe Bilim Derneği ve Hacettepe Üniversitesi’nin ortak paydaşlığında bu proje çerçevesinde gerçekleştirilen çalışma, nicel anket uygulamasını tamamlayıcı nitelikte tasarlanmıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Acar, M., & Özgür, H. (2004). Training of civil servants in Turkey: Progress, problems, and prospects. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(3-4), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120028660
2. Aldret, A. D., Titova, E., & Gault, D. A. (2020). Legitimacy and transparency of civil society organizations in Mexico. Neutral or interested actors? [Legitimidad y transparencia de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en México. ¿Actores neutrales o interesados?]. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales, 65(239), 25–60. https://doi.org/10.22201/FCPYS.2448492XE.2020.239.68646
3. Alici, N. (2024). Learning from civil society actors in Turkey: Using transitional justice in an ongoing conflict. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 18(2), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijae015
4. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
5. Atar, E., Hossain, F., & Ullah, A. K. M. A. (2023). Syrian refugees in Turkey: Exploring the role of I/NGOs in refugee crisis. Third World Quarterly, 44(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2144208
6. Balcioğlu, Z. (2014). Civil society-state relations in Turkey: Analysis of legislative infrastructure and institutional reforms. Revista de Estudios Internacionales Mediterraneos, (17). https://doi.org/10.15366/reim2014.17.005
7. Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208956
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

9. Blåka, S., & Jacobsen, D. I. (2025). Is buying cheaper than sharing? A study of the effect stand-alone contracting out versus public co-production has on cost in Norwegian local auditing services. Local Government Studies, 51(3), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2393101
10. Bolleyer, N. (2021). State funding pressure in interest groups, political parties and service-oriented membership organisations. West European Politics, 44(7), 1577–1603. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1838193
11. De Corte, J., Verschuere, B. (2014). The Autonomy of Organised Civil Society in Strategic Policy Decision-Making: A Resource-Dependence Perspective. In: Brandsen, T., Trommel, W., Verschuere, B. (eds) Manufacturing Civil Society. IIAS Series: Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137351630_9
12. Doyle, J. L. (2018). Government co-option of civil society: Exploring the AKP’s role within Turkish women’s CSOs. Democratization, 25(3), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2017.1373096
13. Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2014). Restoring trust through the co-production of public services: A theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16(3), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848920
14. Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New Public Administration. University, Ala. : University of Alabama Press. Gupta, A. K., & Lamsal, B. P. (2023). From traditional to innovative public service: A review of paradigm shifts. Public Administration Issues, (6), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2023-0-6-137-156
15. Hornsby, M. (2022). Focus groups. In R. Kircher & L. Zipp (Eds.), Research methods in language attitudes (pp. 114–128). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108867788.011
16. Ignjatović, S. (2020). Qualitative applied research in social interventions and public policy programs: The case of focus group interviews [Kvalitativna primenjena istraživanja u okviru socijalnih intervencija i programa javne politike sa posebnim osvrtom na fokus grupe]. Sociologija, 62(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC2001042I
17. Liddle, J. (2017). Public value management and new public governance: Key traits, issues and developments. In E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 967–990). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_49
18. Kim, C., & Choi, T. (2023). Contracting out and the fiscal sustainability of public services. Public Performance and Management Review, 46(4), 890–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2204073
19. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
20. Köse, R., Akdoğan, M., Yıldırım, S., & Akdoğan, R. (2024). The transformative role of the European Union on Turkish civil society: A legal framework analysis from recognition to protection. Civil Szemle, 21(4), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.62560/csz.2024.04.8
21. Mazlum, S., & Firidin, E. (2025). The effect of good governance principles on creating public value: Case of Ankara metropolitan municipality. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 43 (3), 567-588. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1583534
22. McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x
23. McMullin, C. (2025). “We’re not there to lead”: Professional roles and responsibilities in “citizen-led” co-production. Public Administration Review, 85(1), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13770
24. Mikušová Meričková, B., Mališová, D., & Murínová, K. (2023). Market restrictions of contracting out the public service at the municipal level. In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics (pp. 37–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22749-3_3
25. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
26. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287
27. Mortensen, N. M. (2022). Frontmedarbejdere som professionelle samskabere: Dilemmaer og udfordringer i praksis. Academic Quarter, 24, 117–134. https://doi.org/10.54337/academicquarter.vi24.7255
28. Mourey, D., Eynaud, P., & Cordery, C. (2013). The impact of governmental policy on the effective operation of CSOs: A French case study. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 5(1), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2012-0015
29. Neumayr, M., Schneider, U., & Meyer, M. (2015). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013513350
30. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069177338
31. Ohemeng, F. L. K., & Grant, J. K. (2014). Neither public nor private: The efficacy of mixed model public service delivery in two Canadian municipalities. Canadian Public Administration, 57(4), 548–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12090
32. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
33. Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(S3), S31–S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12010
34. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
35. Palumbo, R., Vezzosi, S., Picciolli, P., Landini, A., Annarumma, C., & Manna, R. (2018). Fostering organizational change through co-production. Insights from an Italian experience. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-018-0205-7
36. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th edition). Sage Publications
37. Raipa, A. (2011). The possibilities of diagnosis of new public governance indicators [Naujojo viešojo valdymo indikatorių diagnozavimo galimybės]. Public Policy and Administration, 10(2), 167–182.
38. Raipa, A. (2016). The essence and structure of metagovernance [Metavaldymo samprata ir struktūra]. Public Policy and Administration, 15(4), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.13165/VPA-16-15-4-01
39. Rammelt, H. P., & Kołczyńska, M. (2025). Donor dependency, embeddedness and organizational structure of civil society: An analysis of a global sample of actors active in the field of corporate accountability. Global Networks, 25(3), Article e70024. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.70024
40. Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
41. Rosenau, J. N. (2009). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521775
42. Sicilia, M., Sancino, A., Nabatchi, T., & Guarini, E. (2019). Facilitating co-production in public services: Management implications from a systematic literature review. Public Money and Management, 39(4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592904
43. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50, 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106
44. Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative appearances synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
45. Topcuoglu, E. (2025). Civil society in action: Examining CSOs' influence on higher education policy in Turkey. Higher Education Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-025-00414-2
46. Tuncel, O. (2023). Selective inclusion under competitive autocratic regimes: An example from the Turkish educational civil society. Journal of Civil Society, 19(2), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2023.2206152
47. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1997). Governance for sustainable human development: A UNDP policy document. United Nations Development Programme.
48. Wang, S. (2006). Money and autonomy: Patterns of civil society finance and their implications. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(4), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686301
49. Willis, K., Green, J., Daly, J., Williamson, L., & Bandyopadhyaya, M. (2009). Perils and possibilities: Achieving best evidence from focus groups in public health research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00358.x
50. Wren, D. A. (2001). Henri Fayol as strategist: A nineteenth century corporate turnaround. Management Decision, 39(6), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005565