DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TITUTE FO S R IN N Number 27 — August 2015 N EA O R T G E A N I S H T S P A O L W I C E Y H RESEARCH NOTES T Ideas. Action. Impact. 3 0 ng years stro THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY Turkey’s Political Uncertainty IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUNE 2015 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS SONER CAGAPTAY with Caitlin Stull and Mark Bhaskar Introduction tudying the June 7 election results is useful, S as it reveals interesting trends in Turkey’s On June 7, 2015, Turkey’s governing Justice and electoral behavior especially as Turkey prepares Development Party (AKP) lost its thirteen-year for potential early elections later this year. This parliamentary majority in general elections, drop- paper evaluates the results through the micro lens ping 9.4 percentage points compared to the 2011 of the provincial results, offering insight into the elections. This was the first time since the AKP’s wide-ranging variables that significantly affected ascension to power in 2002 that support for the voter behavior. It maps the shifts of support bases party decreased. Although the AKP had the high- for the country’s main parties—AKP, CHP, MHP, est number of total electoral votes, the party actu- and HDP—in order to determine where sup- ally lost 69 parliamentary seats. port was higher or lower than the national aver- Meanwhile, Turkey’s Kurdish population earned age. After defining the eight electoral regions its biggest voice ever in national politics, as the HDP, that constitute Turkey’s electoral landscape, the which absorbed its sister Peace and Democracy paper analyzes where the largest shifts in electoral Party (BDP) in 2014, received 13.0% of overall votes. support occurred and the sustainability of these This surpassed the 10% electoral threshold required changes in voter behavior. The study also pres- for parliamentary representation and translates into ents the elections’ potential short- and long-term 80 parliamentary seats, tying the HDP and MHP implications for the AKP and President Erdogan; as Turkey’s third largest political group. Turkish domestic politics, including the Kurds; and Turkish foreign policy, including Syria and Table 1. 2015: Published National Tallies the United States. NATIONAL NATIONAL PARLIAMENT % NATIONAL For the purposes of this study, the authors chose VOTES AVERAGE SEATS LEGISLATURE to use the provincial totals listed in Table 2 rather AKP 18,864,864 40.9% 258 46.9% than published national totals displayed in Table 1.1 CHP 11,518,070 25.0% 132 24.0% All analysis in this paper reflects the figures listed MHP 7,519,168 16.3% 80 14.5% in Tables 2 and 3. HDP 6,057,507 13.1% 80 14.5% OTHER 2,200,030 4.8% 0 0.0% 1. All tables reflect official election results as published by Haber- TOTAL 46,159,639 turk, http://www.haberturk.com/secim/secim2015/genel-secim. © 2015 The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. All rights reserved. Soner Cagaptay The rise of the HDP as a new player in parliamen- eral voters could flee the party. If the HDP fails to tary politics has created a complex political landscape, reach the threshold, the AKP would pick up its seats requiring the formation of a coalition or minority as the second most powerful party in the Kurdish government. Previous legislatures since 2002 had had provinces, endowing Erdogan’s party once again with as few as two or three parties in them, affording the a legislative majority. AKP enough seats to a form a government on its own. Several factors played a role in these surprising elec- June Results toral shifts, primarily growing dissatisfaction with the AKP, particularly the leadership style of Recep Tayyip Compared to the 2011 elections, decrease in vote Erdogan, former prime minister and AKP leader, who share and parliamentary seats were the highest for was elected president in August 2014. Conservative the AKP. The CHP’s national average decreased by .8 Kurds, upset by Ankara’s failure to help the Syrian points and the party lost 3 seats. The MHP’s national Kurdish town of Kobani when it came under Islamic average increased by 3.5 points in 2015 and the party State attack in October 2014, seem to have abandoned picked up 27 additional seats. The largest gains were the AKP for the HDP. The HDP also benefited from for the HDP, whose support increased nearly twofold a migration of CHP voters as well as first time vot- with 55 additional deputies. ers, some of them attracted by the HDP’s liberal mes- sage, and some of them secularists who seem to have Due to the rise of the HDP, conservative Kurdish voted tactically to help the HDP cross the 10% thresh- voters defected from the AKP, creating the greatest old. Furthermore, nationalist Turkish voters upset with AKP losses in Turkey’s southeast and largely remov- Erdogan’s efforts in the Kurdish Peace Process and ing the AKP’s presence in the Kurdish-dominated negotiations with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) region. The AKP and MHP’s ideological proximity seem to have defected from the AKP to the MHP. and similarly conservative rhetoric allowed the MHP Upset by the election outcome, President Erdogan to gain where the AKP lost. Both parties share a simi- has been pushing behind the scenes for early elections. lar rural, conservative, and nationalist voter base, with Some analysts suggest that Ankara’s recent campaign AKP supporters prioritizing Islamic values and MHP against the PKK is intended to weaken the HDP in supporters prioritizing the Turkish identity. Histori- case of early polls. The HDP is the political arm of the cally, right-wing voters have shifted their allegiance Kurdish movement in Turkey, though both a product between the two parties rather than shifting to Tur- of and subservient to the PKK. The Turkish president key’s political left. is counting on the HDP being unable to renounce PKK violence, a stance he hopes could cost the HDP Voter turnout was 86.6%, the highest since the the electoral threshold in early elections, since its lib- AKP’s ascension to power, increasing 4.1% from 2011. Table 2. Summary 2015/2011: Published Provincial Data 2015 2011 NATIONAL NATIONAL PARLIAMENT % NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL PARLIAMENT % NATIONAL VOTES AVERAGE SEATS LEGISLATURE VOTES AVERAGE SEATS LEGISLATURE AKP 18,135,262 40.4% 258 46.9% 21,399,281 49.8 327 59.5% CHP 11,338,730 25.2% 132 24.0% 11,154,972 26.0 135 24.5% MHP 7,423,011 16.5% 80 14.5% 5,585,513 13.0 53 9.6% HDP 5,846,255 13.0% 80 14.5% 2,709,029 6.3 35 6.4% OTHER 2,187,482 4.9% 0 0.0% 2,092,978 4.9 0 0.0% TOTAL 44,930,740 42,941,773 2 RESEARCH NOTE 27 Table 3. Regional Analysis 2015/2011 2015 ELECTION 2011 ELECTION 44,930,740 TOTAL VOTES 42,941,773 TOTAL VOTES REGIONAL % NATIONAL % REGIONAL PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT % NATIONAL % REGIONAL % NATIONAL % REGIONAL PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT % NATIONAL % REGIONAL VOTES VOTE VOTE SUPPORT (%) SEATS LEGISLATURE LEGISLATURE VOTE VOTE SUPPORT (%) SEATS LEGISLATURE LEGISLATURE Metropolitan 14,439,571 32.1% 151 27.5% 31.9% 147 26.7% Turkey AKP 6,023,221 41.7% 39–46 70 46.4% 50.0% 47–52 82 55.8% CHP 4,169,558 28.9% 24–29 48 31.8% 30.1% 24–32 48 32.7% MHP 1,993,566 13.8% 11–19 20 13.2% 11.3% 9–14 14 9.5% HDP 1,383,870 9.6% 5–12 13 8.6% 3.5% 0–5 3 2.0% OTHER 869,356 6.0% NA 0 0.0% 5.1% NA 0 0.0% Coastal Turkey 6,175,859 13.7% 66 12.0% 13.7% 66 12.0% AKP 1,778,468 28.8% 23–37 21 31.8% 37.1% 27–47 29 43.9% CHP 2,725,990 44.1% 39–53 33 50.0% 42.7% 37–52 31 47.0% MHP 984,802 15.9% 13–21 10 15.2% 13.1% 6–18 6 9.1% HDP 436,392 7.1% 1–10 2 3.0% 2.7% 0–4 0 0.0% OTHER 250,207 4.1% NA 0 0.0% 4.4% NA 0 0.0% Middle Turkey 4,343,752 9.7% 55 10.0% 9.9% 56 10.2% AKP 1,772,631 40.8% 36–48 25 45.5% 49.1% 42–57 33 58.9% CHP 1,248,848 28.8% 17–35 17 30.9% 28.0% 14–35 16 28.6% MHP 1,000,416 23.0% 16–32 13 23.6% 16.9% 8–27 7 12.5% HDP 146,551 3.4% 0–6 0 0.0% 0.6% 0–2 0 0.0% OTHER 175,306 4.0% NA 0 0.0% 5.4% NA 0 0.0% Euphrates-Aras 3,211,590 7.1% 52 9.5% 7.2% 53 9.6% Valleys AKP 1,578,727 49.2% 10–58 31 59.6% 62.5% 15–69 40 75.5% CHP 305,629 9.5% 1–25 3 5.8% 12.6% 1–57 7 13.2% MHP 413,014 12.9% 2–27 3 5.8% 9.1% 1–34 2 3.8% HDP 751,768 23.4% 1–60 15 28.8% 11.4% 0–31 4 7.5% OTHER 162,452 5.1% NA 0 0.0% 4.4% NA 0 0.0% Heartland 4,521,707 10.1% 61 11.1% 10.3% 61 11.1% AKP 2,629,082 58.1% 50–65 43 70.5% 65.9% 57–69 50 82.0% CHP 500,111 11.1% 2–16 3 4.9% 12.1% 3–18 4 6.6% MHP 1,065,052 23.6% 16–32 15 24.6% 16.3% 13–24 7 11.5% HDP 120,779 2.7% 0–5 0 0.0% 0.0% 0–0 0 0.0% OTHER 206,683 4.6% NA 0 0.0% 5.7% NA 0 0.0% Black Sea 3,744,553 8.3% 49 8.9% 8.7% 50 90.9% AKP 2,056,339 54.9% 51–66 33 67.3% 60.8% 55–68 37 74.0% CHP 784,440 20.9% 15–28 10 20.4% 20.2% 12–24 9 18.0% MHP 660,525 17.6% 8–21 6 12.2% 13.1% 7–16 4 8.0% HDP 54,032 1.4% 0–2 0 0.0% 0.0% 0–0 0 0.0% OTHER 189,217 5.1% NA 0 0.0% 5.9% NA 0 0.0% Kurdish 2,275,804 5.1% 49 8.9% 6.0% 50 9.1% Dominated AKP 279,668 12.3% 8–30 7 14.3% 36.2% 16–48 25 50.0% CHP 23,579 1.0% 0–1 0 0.0% 3.2% 0–4 0 0.0% MHP 41,743 1.8% 1–3 0 0.0% 1.7% 0–4 0 0.0% HDP 1,824,551 80.2% 60–85 42 85.7% 55.5% 40–79 25 50.0% OTHER 106,263 4.7% NA 0 0.0% 3.5% NA 0 0.0% Mediterranean 6,217,904 13.8% 67 12.2% 12.3% 67 12.2% Turkey AKP 2,017,126 32.4% 29–49 27 40.3% 42.3% 32–61 34 50.7% CHP 1,580,575 25.4% 7–36 18 26.9% 29.8% 11–38 19 28.4% MHP 1,263,893 20.3% 14–41 15 22.4% 19.2% 9–41 12 17.9% HDP 1,128,312 18.1% 3–17 7 10.4% 4.9% 0–9 2 3.0% OTHER 227,998 3.7% NA 0 0.0% 3.9% NA 0 0.0% Soner Cagaptay ROMANIA TURKISH ELECTORAL REGIONS 2015 BULGARIA Black Sea GEORGIA Kirklareli Istanbul Bartin Kastamonu Sinop E Tekirdag Istanbul C Edirne Zonguldak uk E Artvin Ardahan E Samsun R Sea of Kocaeli Karab Marmara Yalova Duzce Rize G Ordu Trabzon
Recommended publications
  • Temizlik Görevlisi

    Temizlik Görevlisi

    TEMZİLİK GÖREVLİSİ EK - 1 S.NO T.C. ADI SOYADI UNVANI ATANDIĞI KURUM 1 147******72 MEHMET KAYDI ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) AKÇAKALE DEVLET HASTANESİ 2 605******58 MUSA YILDIRIM ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) AKÇAKALE DEVLET HASTANESİ 3 181******16 MUSTAFA TAŞTAN ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) AKÇAKALE DEVLET HASTANESİ 4 499******68 SEMA NUR TAKAK ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) AKÇAKALE DEVLET HASTANESİ 5 538******22 HALİL MARA ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BALIKLIGÖL DEVLET HASTANESİ 6 208******84 İBRAHİM HALİL KOZAK ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BALIKLIGÖL DEVLET HASTANESİ 7 149******02 MAHMUT CANBEYLİ ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BALIKLIGÖL DEVLET HASTANESİ 8 113******00 VEHBİ ERYILMAZ ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BALIKLIGÖL DEVLET HASTANESİ 9 134******52 ADİLE ZİLAN CAN ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 10 268******12 AHMET ARSLAN ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 11 189******00 BARIŞ BURÇ ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 12 609******34 BOZAN ATÇI ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 13 230******96 BURHAN AKINAN ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 14 365******96 FATMA AÇMA ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 15 142******02 FEHİME ÜRKMEZ ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 16 522******40 HALİL DEMİRCAN ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK GÖREVLİSİ (Asil) BİRECİK DEVLET HASTANESİ 17 114******40 HALİL YAVUZ ŞANLIURFA TEMİZLİK
  • CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 86, 25 July 2016 2

    CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 86, 25 July 2016 2

    No. 86 25 July 2016 Abkhazia South Ossetia caucasus Adjara analytical digest Nagorno- Karabakh www.laender-analysen.de/cad www.css.ethz.ch/en/publications/cad.html TURKISH SOCIETAL ACTORS IN THE CAUCASUS Special Editors: Andrea Weiss and Yana Zabanova ■■Introduction by the Special Editors 2 ■■Track Two Diplomacy between Armenia and Turkey: Achievements and Limitations 3 By Vahram Ter-Matevosyan, Yerevan ■■How Non-Governmental Are Civil Societal Relations Between Turkey and Azerbaijan? 6 By Hülya Demirdirek and Orhan Gafarlı, Ankara ■■Turkey’s Abkhaz Diaspora as an Intermediary Between Turkish and Abkhaz Societies 9 By Yana Zabanova, Berlin ■■Turkish Georgians: The Forgotten Diaspora, Religion and Social Ties 13 By Andrea Weiss, Berlin ■■CHRONICLE From 14 June to 19 July 2016 16 Research Centre Center Caucasus Research German Association for for East European Studies for Security Studies Resource Centers East European Studies University of Bremen ETH Zurich CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 86, 25 July 2016 2 Introduction by the Special Editors Turkey is an important actor in the South Caucasus in several respects: as a leading trade and investment partner, an energy hub, and a security actor. While the economic and security dimensions of Turkey’s role in the region have been amply addressed, its cross-border ties with societies in the Caucasus remain under-researched. This issue of the Cauca- sus Analytical Digest illustrates inter-societal relations between Turkey and the three South Caucasus states of Arme- nia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, as well as with the de-facto state of Abkhazia, through the prism of NGO and diaspora contacts. Although this approach is by necessity selective, each of the four articles describes an important segment of transboundary societal relations between Turkey and the Caucasus.
  • The European Union's Black Sea Region Policy*

    The European Union's Black Sea Region Policy*

    * THE EUROPEAN UNION’S BLACK SEA REGION POLICY AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN KARADENİZ BÖLGESİ POLİTİKASI ПОЛИТИКА ЕВРОСОЮЗА К ЧЕРНОМОРСКОМУ РЕГИОНУ ** Assist. Prof. Dr. Haydar EFE ABSTRACT After Romania and Bulgaria entrance in to the EU, the Black Sea region has become very important for the European Union. First of all, stability and security in the Black Sea region is important for the EU. This region is also a main concern for the European Union regarding of preventing the spread of organized crime and terrorism. On the other hand, this region is an important hub for energy and transport flows for the EU. The EU is an important economic and trading partner for the Black Sea countries and makes many efforts to stimulate democratic and economic reforms and supports regional development of the whole region. In this context, “Black Sea Synergy” Programme as an EU initiative was launched in 2007, and finally in May 2009, the EU adopted the “Eastern Partnership” a plan to foster closer political and economic ties with these countries of the region. Key Words: European Union, Black Sea region, Black Sea Synergy, Eastern Partnership ÖZET Bulgaristan ve Romanya’nın AB’ye girmesinden sonra, Karadeniz bölgesi Avrupa Birliği için çok önemli hale geldi. İlk olarak, Karadeniz Bölgesinde istikrar ve güvenlik AB için önemlidir. Bu bölge organize suçlar ve terörizmin yayılmasını önlemede Avrupa Birliği için bir endişe kaynağıdır. Öte yandan, bu bölge AB için enerji ve ulaşım için önemli bir terminaldir. AB Karadeniz ülkelerinin önemli bir ekonomik ve ticari ortağıdır ve tüm bölgede bölgesel kalkınmayı desteklemekte ve demokratik ve ekonomik reformları teşvik etmek için çok çaba harcamaktadır.
  • The Possible Effects of Irrigation Schemes and Irrigation Methods on Water Budget and Economy in Atatürk Dam of South-Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey

    The Possible Effects of Irrigation Schemes and Irrigation Methods on Water Budget and Economy in Atatürk Dam of South-Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey

    The possible effects of irrigation schemes and irrigation methods on water budget and economy in Atatürk dam of south-eastern Anatolia region of Turkey Huseyin Demir1, Ahmet Zahir Erkan2, Nesrin Baysan2, Gonca Karaca Bilgen2 1 GAP Şanlıurfa Tünel Çıkış Ağzı 2 GAP Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey Abstract. The South-eastern Anatolia Project (GAP) has been implemented in the southeast part of Turkey, covering 9 provinces and the two most important rivers of Turkey. The main purpose of this gorgeous project is to uplift the income level and living standards of people in the region, to remove the inter-regional development disparities and to contribute to the national goals of economic development and social stability. The cost of the project is 32 billion USD consisting of 13 sub-projects in the river basins of Euphrates and Tigris. The project has evolved over time and has become multi sectoral, integrated and human based on the sustainable regional development. Upon the fully completion of the project, 1.8 Million hectares of land will be able to be irrigated in Euphrates and Tigris Basins through surface and underground water resources. From 1995 until now, 273.000 ha. of land have already been irrigated within the GAP Project. Roughly 739,000 ha. of this land will be irrigated from Atatürk Dam, the largest dam of GAP Project. At present, nearly ¼ of this area is under irrigation. Some technological developments have been experienced in the Project area, ranging from upstream controlled schemes having trapezoidal section, lined or unlined, to upstream controlled schemes having high pressurized piped system; and from conventional methods to drip irrigation method.
  • A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region a Report by the Commission on the Black Sea

    A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region a Report by the Commission on the Black Sea

    A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region A Report by the Commission on the Black Sea www.blackseacom.eu An initiative of: The Black eaS Trust for Regional Cooperation A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region A Report by the Commission on the Black Sea Contents Why read this Report? 4 What is the Commission on the Black Sea? 7 Executive Summary 12 Резюме выводов 15 Yönetici Özeti 19 The Report Introduction: The State of Play 22 Peace and Security 28 Economic Development and Welfare 31 Democratic Institutions and Good Governance 34 Regional Cooperation 36 Conclusions 38 Policy Recommendations 40 The Black Sea in Figures 45 Abbreviations 65 Initiators 67 The Rapporteurs, Editor and Acknowledgements 69 Imprint 70 3 Why read this Report? Why read this Report? … because the Black Sea matters The Black Sea region is coming into its own - but it is a contested and sometimes dangerous neighbourhood. It has undergone countless political transformations over time. And now, once again, it is becoming the subject of an intense debate. This reflects the changing dynamics of the Black Sea countries and the complex realities of their politics and conflicts, economies and societies. Geography, the interests of others and the region’s relations with the rest of the world in large part explain its resurgence. Straddling Europe and Asia, the Black Sea links north to south and east to west. Oil, gas, transport and trade routes are all crucial in explaining its increasing relevance. In the last two decades the Black Sea has changed beyond recognition. We have witnessed the transformation of the former communist societies and the impact of globalisation.
  • Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

    Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations

    Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations Updated November 9, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41368 SUMMARY R41368 Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations November 9, 2020 U.S.-Turkey tensions have raised questions about the future of bilateral relations and have led to congressional action against Turkey, including informal holds on major new Jim Zanotti arms sales (such as upgrades to F-16 aircraft) and efforts to impose sanctions. Specialist in Middle Nevertheless, both countries’ officials emphasize the importance of continued U.S.- Eastern Affairs Turkey cooperation and Turkey’s membership in NATO. Observers voice concerns about the largely authoritarian rule of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Clayton Thomas Turkey’s polarized electorate could affect Erdogan’s future leadership. His biggest Analyst in Middle Eastern challenge may be structural weaknesses in Turkey’s economy—including a sharp Affairs decline in Turkey’s currency—that have worsened since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic began. The following are key factors in the U.S.-Turkey relationship. Turkey’s strategic orientation and U.S./NATO basing. Traditionally, Turkey has relied closely on the United States and NATO for defense cooperation, European countries for trade and investment, and Russia and Iran for energy imports. A number of complicated situations in Turkey’s surrounding region—including those involving Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh (a region disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan), and Eastern Mediterranean energy exploration—affect its relationships with the United States and other key actors, as Turkey seeks a more independent role. President Erdogan’s concerns about maintaining his parliamentary coalition with Turkish nationalists may partly explain his actions in some of the situations mentioned above.
  • (Corylus Avellana L.) Cultivars from Turkey Using Molecular Markers

    (Corylus Avellana L.) Cultivars from Turkey Using Molecular Markers

    HORTSCIENCE 44(6):1557–1561. 2009. Miaja et al., 2001), amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) (Ferrari et al., 2004), and simple sequence repeat (SSR) (Boccacci Genetic Characterization of Hazelnut et al., 2006; 2008; Gokirmak et al., 2009). Palme and Vendramin (2002) used polymer- (Corylus avellana L.) Cultivars from ase chain reaction (PCR)-RFLP to look at chloroplast variation in wild hazelnut popu- Turkey Using Molecular Markers lations. The objective of this study was to evaluate RAPD, ISSR, and AFLP markers for Salih Kafkas1 and Yıldız Dog˘an identifying 18 hazelnut cultivars that are Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Cxukurova, economically important in Turkey. Adana, 01330, Turkey Materials and Methods Ali Sabır Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Selcxuk, Plant materials and DNA isolation. Eigh- teen hazelnut cultivars, grown primarily in Konya, 42070, Turkey the Giresun, Ordu, Trabzon, Duzce, and Ali Turan and Hasbi Seker Izmit provinces, were used (Table 1). Leaf samples were collected from the germplasm Hazelnut Research Institute, Giresun, 28200, Turkey collection of the Hazelnut Research Institute Additional index words. RAPD, ISSR, AFLP, genetic similarity, PCoA in Giresun, Turkey. DNA from young leaves was extracted according to the CTAB-based Abstract. Genetic relationships among 18 Turkish hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) cultivars method (Doyle and Doyle, 1987) with minor were investigated using randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), intersimple modifications (Kafkas et al., 2006). The con- sequence repeat (ISSR), and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. centration of DNA solution was estimated by Twenty-five RAPD primers, 25 ISSR primers, and eight AFLP primer pairs generated comparing band intensity with l DNA of a total of 434 polymorphic marker loci.
  • The Relationship Between Foreign Trade, East Border Gates and Entrepreneurship Culture in Tra2 Area: a Case of Turkey1

    The Relationship Between Foreign Trade, East Border Gates and Entrepreneurship Culture in Tra2 Area: a Case of Turkey1

    International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 24 [Special Issue – December 2012] The Relationship between Foreign Trade, East Border Gates and Entrepreneurship Culture in Tra2 Area: A Case of Turkey1 Adem KARAKAŞ Kafkas University, Department of Economics Kars, Turkey Sebahattin YILDIZ Kafkas University, Department of Business Administration Kars, Turkey Abstract The purpose of this research is to reveal the relationship between entrepreneurship culture, boarder gates and foreign trade dates in TRA2 area (Kars, Ağrı, Ardahan, Iğdır) in Turkey. Entrepreneurship values such as success need, focus of control, getting risk, tolerance to uncertain, trust and innovation were measured via questionnaire. Foreign trade datas were analyzed via Turkish Statistical Institution. The effects of border gates on entrepreneurship culture and foreign trade were disputed. Besides, the supports and the potential effect of SERKA, development agency in this area, on foreign trade and entrepreneurship were emphasized. In addition, the first ten goods regarding import and export in the area and the foreign trade volume and balance of foreign trade according to provinces were revealed. Keywords: Foreign Trade, Enterpreneurship, TRA2, Kars, Turkey. 1. Introduction Turkey has taken higher steps in world economy in respect of economical structure coming into prominence at international arena and important changes occuring during the recent years. However, she faces the risk of qualitatively uprising differences among regions. The differences in
  • Cooperation on Turkey's Transboundary Waters

    Cooperation on Turkey's Transboundary Waters

    Cooperation on Turkey's transboundary waters Aysegül Kibaroglu Axel Klaphake Annika Kramer Waltina Scheumann Alexander Carius Status Report commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety F+E Project No. 903 19 226 Oktober 2005 Imprint Authors: Aysegül Kibaroglu Axel Klaphake Annika Kramer Waltina Scheumann Alexander Carius Project management: Adelphi Research gGmbH Caspar-Theyß-Straße 14a D – 14193 Berlin Phone: +49-30-8900068-0 Fax: +49-30-8900068-10 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.adelphi-research.de Publisher: The German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety D – 11055 Berlin Phone: +49-01888-305-0 Fax: +49-01888-305 20 44 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.bmu.de © Adelphi Research gGmbH and the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2005 Cooperation on Turkey's transboundary waters i Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Motive and main objectives ........................................................................................1 1.2 Structure of this report................................................................................................3 2 STRATEGIC ROLE OF WATER RESOURCES FOR THE TURKISH ECONOMY..........5 2.1 Climate and water resources......................................................................................5 2.2 Infrastructure development.........................................................................................7
  • Field Surveys in Ardahan in 2016

    Field Surveys in Ardahan in 2016

    Anatolia Antiqua Revue internationale d'archéologie anatolienne XXV | 2017 Varia Field surveys in Ardahan in 2016 Sami Patacı and Ergün Laflı Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/452 DOI: 10.4000/anatoliaantiqua.452 Publisher IFEA Printed version Date of publication: 1 May 2017 Number of pages: 115-126 ISBN: 978-2-36245-066-2 ISSN: 1018-1946 Electronic reference Sami Patacı and Ergün Laflı, « Field surveys in Ardahan in 2016 », Anatolia Antiqua [Online], XXV | 2017, Online since 01 May 2019, connection on 21 December 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ anatoliaantiqua/452 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/anatoliaantiqua.452 Anatolia Antiqua TABLE DES MATIERES N. Pınar ÖZGÜNER et Geoffrey D. SUMMERS The Çevre Kale Fortress and the outer enclosure on the Karacadağ at Yaraşlı 1 Abuzer KIZIL et Asil YAMAN A group of transport amphorae from the territorium of Ceramus: Typological observations 17 Tülin TAN The hellenistic tumulus of Eşenköy in NW Turkey 33 Emre TAŞTEMÜR Glass pendants in Tekirdağ and Edirne Museums 53 Liviu Mihail IANCU Self-mutilation, multiculturalism and hybridity. Herodotos on the Karians in Egypt (Hdt. 2.61.2) 57 CHRONIQUES DES TRAVAUX ARCHEOLOGIQUES EN TURQUIE 2016 Erhan BIÇAKÇI, Martin GODON et Ali Metin BÜYÜKKARAKAYA, Korhan ERTURAÇ, Catherine KUZUCUOĞLU, Yasin Gökhan ÇAKAN, Alice VINET Les fouilles de Tepecik-Çiftlik et les activités du programme Melendiz préhistorique, campagne 2016 71 Çiğdem MANER Preliminary report on the forth season of the Konya-Ereğli Survey (KEYAR) 2016 95 Sami PATACI et Ergün LAFLI Field surveys in Ardahan in 2016 115 Erkan KONYAR, Bülent GENÇ, Can AVCI et Armağan TAN The Van Tušpa Excavations 2015-2016 127 Martin SEYER, Alexandra DOLEA, Kathrin KUGLER, Helmut BRÜCKNER et Friederike STOCK The excavation at Limyra/Lycia 2016: Preliminary report 143 Abuzer KIZIL, Koray KONUK, Sönmez ALEMDAR, Laurent CAPDETREY, Raymond DESCAT, Didier LAROCHE, Enora LE QUERE, Francis PROST et Baptiste VERGNAUD Eurômos : rapport préliminaire sur les travaux réalisés en 2016 161 O.
  • Analyzing the Aspects of International Migration in Turkey by Using 2000

    Analyzing the Aspects of International Migration in Turkey by Using 2000

    MiReKoc MIGRATION RESEARCH PROGRAM AT THE KOÇ UNIVERSITY ______________________________________________________________ MiReKoc Research Projects 2005-2006 Analyzing the Aspects of International Migration in Turkey by Using 2000 Census Results Yadigar Coşkun Address: Kırkkonoaklar Mah. 202. Sokak Utku Apt. 3/1 06610 Çankaya Ankara / Turkey Email: [email protected] Tel: +90. 312.305 1115 / 146 Fax: +90. 312. 311 8141 Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu 34450 Sarıyer Istanbul Turkey Tel: +90 212 338 1635 Fax: +90 212 338 1642 Webpage: www.mirekoc.com E.mail: [email protected] Table of Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................................................3 List of Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................4 Selected Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................5 1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1 2. Literature Review and Possible Data Sources on International Migration..........................................6 2.1 Data Sources on International Migration Data in Turkey..............................................................6 2.2 Studies on International Migration in Turkey..............................................................................11
  • Palaeoearthquakes on the Kelkit Valley Segment of the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey

    Palaeoearthquakes on the Kelkit Valley Segment of the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey

    Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences (Turkish J. Earth Sci.), Vol.C. ZABCI20, 2011, ET pp. AL. 411–427. Copyright ©TÜBİTAK doi:10.3906/yer-0910-48 First published online 14 June 2010 Palaeoearthquakes on the Kelkit Valley Segment of the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey: Implications for the Surface Rupture of the Historical 17 August 1668 Anatolian Earthquake CENGİZ ZABCI1,*, HÜSNÜ SERDAR AKYÜZ1, VOLKAN KARABACAK2, TAYLAN SANÇAR3,4, ERHAN ALTUNEL2, HALİL GÜRSOY5 & ORHAN TATAR5 1 İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Ayazağa Yerleşkesi, Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü, Maslak, TR−34469 İstanbul, Turkey (E-mail: [email protected]) 2 Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü, TR−26040 Eskişehir, Turkey 3 İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Ayazağa Yerleşkesi, Avrasya Yerbilimleri Enstitüsü, Maslak, TR−34469 İstanbul, Turkey 4 Tunceli Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü, TR−62000 Tunceli, Turkey 5 Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü, TR−58140 Sivas, Turkey Received 02 November 2009; revised typescript receipts 20 May 2010; accepted 14 June 2010 Abstract: Th e 26 December 1939 Erzincan (Ms= 7.8) and 20 December 1942 Erbaa-Niksar (Ms= 7.1) earthquakes created a total surface rupture more than 400 km between Erzincan and Erbaa on the middle to eastern sections of the North Anatolian Fault. Th ese two faulting events are separated by a 10-km-wide releasing stepover, which acted like a seismic barrier in the 20th century. To understand the rupture behaviour in this structurally complex section of the North Anatolian Fault, we undertook palaeoseismological trench investigations on the Kelkit Valley segment where there is little or no palaeoseismic information. We found evidence for three surface faulting earthquakes predating the 1939 event during the past millennium in trenches excavated in Reşadiye and Umurca.