Policy Learning: An understudied mechanism of EU influence on Turkish Domestic Politics Alexander Bürgin Abstract This article argues that EU-induced learning processes in Turkish domestic politics deserve greater attention within the Turkey-related Europeanization literature, which, in view of Tur- key’s increasing distance from the European Union, tends to attribute a continued partial alignment with EU policies to either domestic, or to non-EU-related external factors. Two ar- guments are put forward. First, also in domestically driven reform processes, the EU may still be able to influence policy choices due to domestic actors’ bounded rationality and conflict- ing goals. Second, while persuasion and learning at the top political level is rather unlikely, given the currently tense relations, there are much more favourable context conditions for EU-induced learning in the interaction of the Turkish bureaucracy with the EU. Introduction The fading credibility of Turkey’s European Union membership perspective and Ankara’s in- creasing alienation from the EU have undermined the EU’s conditionality strategy; its trans- formative influence has decreased significantly since the opening of accession talks.1 Contin- ued partial alignment with EU standards is often attributed to domestic factors, particularly the domestic agenda of the governing party2, or by Turkey’s modernization strategy.3 In ad- dition, the role of other international actors in Turkish domestic politics, such as the Euro- pean Court of Human Rights and the UN has been highlighted.4 Explanations involving the domestic turn and the focus on global diffusion processes both have merits. However, these accounts neglect EU-induced learning processes as an al- ternative mechanism of EU influence. Different types of learning can be distinguished, rang- ing from simple strategic learning, where actors merely alter strategies, to complex learning 1 in which fundamental preferences and objectives are scrutinized and revised. Generally, the accession Europeanization literature differentiates between EU-driven social learning pro- cesses, and domestically driven lesson-drawing processes in which the EU plays no or only a minimal role.5 Social learning implies a process whereby positions, interests and identities are shaped trough the exchange with other actors.6 As a consequence of such EU-induced learning, domestic actors alter their view regarding policy goals, policy content, policy instru- ments, policy programmes, institutions, ideologies ideas and attitudes.7 Harmonization with EU standards is therefore not the result of strategic cost-benefit calculations, but rather, of learning and persuasion processes. Such learning processes may occur in EU-financed pro- jects or programs, but also in broader policy networks additionally incorporating interna- tional actors such as the UN, the World Bank and NGOs. In contrast, domestically-driven les- son drawing implies an instrumental use of the EU for domestically defined interests. Lesson drawing is therefore technical learning regarding policy instruments of actors who are en- gaged in problem resolution, however without changing their interests or preferences.8 The study of learning processes is relevant because of its focus on the micro-founda- tions of policy-making and international relations. A myriad of micro processes of interacting civil servants and politicians shape the policy making process. Consequently, understanding policy making processes requires a focusing on the micro level of individuals and their social interactions. Over time, “these exchanges generate changes in information, goals, values, behaviours, structures, policies and outcomes.”9 Learning in international networks at the administrative level can have two types of impact on political decisions at higher levels. Bu- reaucratic actors may either persuade further domestic actors at national level, or may climb in the hierarchy and attain more influence. The latter triggers policy changes because of changes in the domestic power constellation; however the positions and preferences of 2 these domestic actors are partly shaped by preceding policy learning processes in interna- tional networks. While political science learning approaches originated from the United States, learn- ing and learning-related theories have gained major significance in the study of EU politics, in particular due to the “European integration dynamics around 2000, including enlargement and the governance turn of exploring new instruments.”10 Internally, the increased use of soft mechanism of governance such as the open method of coordination has increased the interest in applying a learning perspective in the study of EU policy making. The governance turn presumes a tendency that policy making in the EU has moved away from hierarchical legislation towards network governance, assuming that such communicative networks will lead to a deliberative setting, allowing optimum solutions to be found by actors who are open to changing their positions in the light of the stronger arguments.11 As regards the ex- ternal dimension, a burgeoning literature underlines that “the EU has become increasingly active over the past two decades in seeking to extend or export its internal rules, norms, and standards beyond the Union’s borders to the wider world through a variety of institutional channels.”12 Thereby, learning and persuasion through participation in EU regulatory net- works and capacity building programmes have been identified as a relevant mechanism of EU influence.13 While the accession Europeanization literature has highlighted political con- ditionality as a key driver for domestic reforms,14 several studies have in addition shown the relevance of EU-induced learning and socialization processes in candidate country’s reform process.15 Despite this broad literature on policy learning in EU studies, Turkey related Europe- anization research has largely neglected this soft mechanism of influence, focussing instead on the EU’s political conditionality or domestic factors as explanations for (non)alignment 3 with EU standards. Rare exceptions include Bolukbasi and Ertugal,16 stressing the relevance of policy learning in the transformation of Turkey’s employment policy, and Bürgin,17 high- lighting the learning and socialization effects of projects financed by the EU’s instrument for pre-accession assistance. Against this background, this article aims at demonstrating the usefulness of policy learning as a conceptual framework to understand the impact of the EU on Turkish politics and policies. In face of the stalled EU accession talks, policy learning processes outside the framework of official accession negotiations represent an alternative pathway of Europeani- zation in Turkey. The study of policy learning may draw attention to the role of the Turkish bureaucracy, NGOs and policy networks at local and national level. While these actors are often engaged with EU actors and EU projects, they are neglected by the Europeanization literature on Turkey, which rather tends to focus on the behavior of the political elite, in par- ticular the ruling party, in order to explain success and failure of Europeanization pro- cesses.Two main arguments are put forward in this article. First, the domestic turn in Turkey- related Europeanization literature18 neglects the potentially significant role of the EU in mainly domestically driven lesson-drawing on the policy choices due to domestic actor’s bounded rationality and conflicting goals. The complexity of topics leads vaguely defined general positions, facilitating learning processes in which domestic actors are ready to fine- tune their positions. Consequently, learning goes beyond the mere strategic or instrumental use of the EU by these actors for domestically defined interests. Second, while it is important to acknowledge that tense EU-Turkey relations at the top political level, characterized by high levels of reciprocal mistrust, are obstacles for EU-induced learning processes, at the ad- ministrative level the context conditions for persuasion and learning are much more favoura- 4 ble. This assessment is the result of a series of interviews with civil servants from the Euro- pean Commission and Turkey’s EU Delegation to Brussels between April 2015 and October 2016; and with German officials from the Ministry for Economics and Energy, and the Minis- try for Environment, involved in EU projects in Turkey, in December 2016. Three main con- clusions from these interviews can be drawn. First, a professional EU-oriented expert com- munity in Turkish bureaucracy continues to take an interest in the progress of the accession talks. Second, changes in the political culture have contributed to a generally more transpar- ent policy formulation process, allowing civil society organisations greater access, and facili- tating the exchange of arguments. Third, intra- and interministerial administrative coordina- tion has been improved, partially as a result of the EU accession process, contributing to a more deliberative setting, and thus a more conducive context for learning processes within and between ministries, but also in the interaction with civil servants from the EU or the member states. The extent to which these factors are still valid in the post-attempted coup period remains to be seen. The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. The first section develops the argu- ment that ill-defined positions and conflicting goals of domestic actors,