changing the status quo of migration and asylum policies in turkey

7/23/2019 Changing the Status Quo of Migration and Asylum Policies in Turkey

1/23

Changing the Status Quo of Migrationand Asylum Policies in Turkey:

A Narrative Inquiry

OSMAN SEYHAN

Turkish National Police Academy, Ankara, Turkey

Turkey has been experiencing a migration policy transformation in the wake of

a new ruling entitled the Foreigners and International Protection Law (FIPL).

This qualitative inquiry investigates this major change process by focusing on

the planned reorganisation which is a result of the legislation process, with the

aim of connecting the change process to a change model. The researcher

interviewed twenty-seven middle and upper-level managers and experts from

the Foreigners, Border, and Asylum Department (FBAD) and Asylum and

Migration Bureau (AMB) of the Turkish Ministry of the Interior. Both their

implementation of the change process and perceptions on such atransformation period were investigated. The study also examined the change

process of the irregular migration and asylum regime within Turkeys bid for

full European Union membership as well as implementation of the draft FIPL.

This study provides an example of a policy change process by analysing how

governmental practice and legislation have evolved with regard to irregular

migration, asylum seekers, and refugees in Turkey. The results noticeably

reveal that, instead of seeing irregular migration and asylum as merely a threat

to national security or a welfare issue, Turkey has chosen a way of developing a

humanitarian approach in both the legislative and administrative fields. This is

the first study which attempts to analyse a particular policy change process in

the migration and asylum regime in Turkey. The results could influence policy

dynamics and set priorities by suggesting policy solutions.

keywords migration, asylum, policy change, organisational change manage-

ment, Turkey, European Union, refugee

Introduction

The massive migratory movements of human beings across international bordershave come to be regarded as one of the most crucial and intractable problems

journal of organisational transformation & social change,Vol. 11 No. 3, November, 2014, 185206

W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1477963314Z.00000000029


2/23

which countries face in the modern world. Unauthorised immigration, refugee

movements, and human trafficking have become worldwide concerns for policy

makers and nongovernmental agencies, as well as law enforcement units, due to

security issues. They are the main topics of conversation in all countries because

they represent a threat to human rights and a security issue. Every country is

affected, to a greater or lesser extent, by the results of human mobility in an

economically and politically integrated world, requiring the implementation and

practise of common and appropriate policies. Challenges regarding migration push

countries as well as regional unions like the European Union (EU) to adapt to

new circumstances through institutional and legislative changes (Cornelius &

Rosenblum, 2005; Green & Grewcock, 2002). Yet, given that no country can

manage these challenges alone, policies and measures need to be agreed at the

international level (Betts, 2011; IOM, 2010).

In this era of rapid change, the social, political, and economic dynamics of global

and/or regional migration influxes have become much more complex and integrated.Traditional approaches to analysing such dynamics in most situations have become

misguided and provide inadequate results. Within the policy development context,

countries are more likely to strive to become integrated, especially regarding issues

of migration control, migration management, and border security (Martin et al.,

2006; OECD, 2008). The EU, for instance, is a noteworthy example of constituting

a common immigration policy for its member countries. The very first step towards

adopting a common approach to migration management was the Treaty of

Amsterdam in 1997. In December 2006, the European Council defined a com-

prehensive policy to provide an efficient and coherent response to the challenges of

irregular migration. This approach focuses on balancing fighting against illegalmigration, including trafficking in human beings, and human rights recognising

the fundamental freedoms of migrants within the Geneva Convention as well as

allowing due access to asylum procedures. It is also based on the general principles

of proportionality, subsidiarity, solidarity, and respect for the diverse legal systems

and practices of the EU member states.1

Essentially, two complexities impact the process of shaping migration policies.

First, due to growing concerns about human rights, focused practices and laws on

irregular migration and asylum are conducive to illegality and criminality (Bigo,

2004; Bogusz et al., 2004; Edwards, 2005; Feller, 2006), meaning that a

securitising approach to deal with the issue has gained more acceptance,especially within targeted countries. The rapidly increasing number of undocu-

mented migrants in the global context has pushed countries to crack down on their

migratory policies. Second, there is a lack of an agreed status for migrants.

Traditional categorisations of irregular migrants stand as a challenge to policy

responses. In most situations, splitting migrants into categories of irregular

migration types turns into a political debate. A study of Iranian asylum seekers in

The Netherlands, for instance, pointed out that the same individual could describe

herself as a refugee and/or a labour migrant based on the legal circumstances

impacting her situation (Koser, 1997). Similarly, the International Organization

for Migration (IOM) suggests using the terminology: people in refugee likesituations to describe people who are outside their country or territory of origin

186 OSMAN SEYHAN


3/23

and who face protection risks similar to those of refugees, but for whom refugee

status has, for practical or other reasons, not been ascertained (IOM, 2010: 119).

Growing worldwide migratory flows urge the formation of regulatory regimes in

the global context. As such, the formation of migration, asylum, and refugee

regimes between Turkey and Europe is a prerequisite to forming international

migratory regimes (I?cduygu, 2000).

Turkey has been experiencing a migration policy transformation in the wake of a

new ruling entitled the Foreigners and International Protection Law (FIPL). The

ruling is currently on the agenda of the Turkish Parliament for passing into law. This

study aims to present insights and understanding regarding policy changes within

the reconstruction of the international migration system in Turkey. The study

investigates the major change process by focusing on the planned reorganisation

resulting from the legislation process of the FIPL prepared by the Asylum and

Migration Bureau (AMB) of the Turkish Ministry of the Interior (MOI). The

problem of an institutional change is conceptualised for qualitative inquiry. In orderto understand the implementation of a change process in the migration policy of

Turkey, this article specifically applies Kotters eight-step change model for narrative

investigation. The researcher interviewed twenty-seven middle and upper-level

managers and experts from the Foreigners, Border, and Asylum Department (FBAD)

and AMB of the MOI. It is also worth mentioning that the interviewees were all

experienced in the area of migration from both a practical and an academic

standpoint. Thus, the narrative inquiry provided a great deal of information on

participants implementation of the change process and how they viewed the

process, including their thoughts and experiences. The study initially aims to

contribute to the policy change literature by applying a model to a specific case. It isthe first study which has attempted to analyse a particular policy change process

regarding migration and asylum seeking and suggests tangible solutions for Turkey.

Research question

This study had the following research question:

How have the FBAD and AMB, as change agents, implemented the migration and

asylum policy change process in Turkey?

The article proceeds in three main parts. The first section presents the problemwithin the context of Turkeys bid for full EU membership and implementation of

the FIPL. The second section includes a description of the research methodology

and its limitations. The third and final section summarises the findings from the

analyses, suggests policy solutions, and draws final conclusions.

The problem

On 6 September 2012, a tragic incident occurred on the west coast of Turkey close

to the city of Izmir. A boat full of more than 100 undocumented migrants, trying

to arrive at a Greek island, capsized. Sixty-one migrants, including thirty-onechildren and eighteen women, died in this dreadful incident. The Turkish

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY 187


4/23

coastguard saved fifty migrants.2 Sadly, news reports in Turkish newspapers of

undocumented migrants and asylum seekers dying while trying to cross sea

borders have become a common topic in the last two decades. Another incident

has been ongoing on the Turkish-Syrian border concerning asylum seekers. More

than 100,000 Syrian asylum seekers, escaping from repressive military campaigns

in their own country, have fled to Turkey. They have been provided with shelter,

food, and other humanitarian aid in fifteen different camps located in different

cities.3 Dealing with irregular migration and refugees has been an inherent

problem in Turkey (Frantz, 2003; Kirisci, 2002). Due to its geographic location,

immigration flows always have impacted Turkeys social, economic, and political

infrastructure and daily life. Its relative stability and geographical position might

account for the increasing influx of migrants to Turkey (Biehl, 2009). However, as

the patterns of migration have changed continuously, framing a systematic policy

response has not been possible. New situations and constant challenges have

forced successive governments to formulate a new position on migration and

refugees. Like many EU countries, the Turkish authorities have viewed the issue of

migration as a threat to the countrys welfare and national stability. Therefore,

indispensable migration and refugee policy changes mostly have occurred in a

nonlinear fashion, based on the uncertain political and social dynamics of Turkey.

Founded as a nation state understanding in 1923, Turkey developed immigra-

tion and refugee policies and practices mostly considering national unity. In this

regard, the only national promulgation regulating asylum and immigration in

Turkey historically was the Law on Settlement No. 2510, which was in force from

1934 until 1994. Within this long time period, policy makers regarded the issues of

irregular migration and asylum seeking as comprising an economic burden and riskto national unity, and approached policy changes reluctantly (I

?cduygu, 2004).

Consequently, Law 5543 and national policies allowed only immigrants of Turkish

descent and/or culture to settle in Turkey (Law 5543, 2006; Kirisci, 2003). There

was not a migration problem; instead, there were foreigners within the territorial

border who had legal and humanitarian problems.

After the 1980s, especially due to the first Gulf War, Turkey was affected by mass

population influxes in its region and conventional approaches to the phenomenon of

irregular migration slogged away in response to this new circumstance (I?cduygu,

2009). Especially in the last two decades, Turkey has received more refugees and

immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and the Balkans, who treat itas a destination and/or means of transit to Europe (I?cduygu, 2000; Kirisci, 2007).

Between 2005 and 2010 there were an increasing number of asylum applications

(see Table 1); 29,084 asylum applicants had been resettled to a third country by the

end of 2010.

In addition to its geographical location, recent economic developments, abuse of

visa exemptions, political unrest, and civil commotions in source countries can be

counted as contributing factors to making immigration a major issue for Turkey.

Figure 1 illustrates the number of undocumented immigrants caught in 2011

across Turkey. The number has increased by 36 per cent compared to 2010.

Undocumented immigrants from Myanmar comprise the largest number. On theother hand, when compared with the number of undocumented migrants in 2010,

188 OSMAN SEYHAN


5/23

there has been an increase of 969 per cent in those of Eritrean nationality, 116 per

cent in those of Myanmar nationality, 97 per cent in those of Georgian nationality,

and 80 per cent in those of Syrian nationality (KOM, 2011). Furthermore, the

economic recession in former Soviet Union countries also has created irregular

migrants of labour to Turkey, due to its relatively soft visa regime (Aktar &

Ogelman, 1994; Kirisci & Avc, 2007).

In 2010, a total of 176,944 foreigners received settlement documents for various

reasons (Table 2). There were 19,351 foreigners with working permits and 29,266

international students studying in Turkey in 2010. These numbers reflect only

foreigners who had legal documents and settlement permits for the country and donot include irregular migrants and asylum seekers. Moreover, human trafficking

has become a menacing issue for the last two decades in Turkey. In 2011, the

number of trafficking victims increased by 41 per cent compared to 2010 across

Turkey (Figure 2); 73 per cent of these victims were citizens from Central Asian,

Black Sea, and South Caucasus countries. Policy makers regard the issue of

protecting trafficking victims as a critical component of effectively responding to

human trafficking. In this sense, the FBAD has grouped its efforts regarding the

protection of trafficking victims into five areas:

N appointment of civilian-dressed female personnel to assist victimised women

N where victims are detected to be minors, taking protective measures in

cooperation with organisations like the Agency for the Protection of Children

N treating and rehabilitating victims and providing residence permits

figure 1 Number of undocumented migrants in Turkey in 2011, by nationality.

SOURCE: KOM (2011)

TABLE 1

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN TURKEY (200510)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2,931 3,555 5,866 11,954 6,736 8,653

NOTE: Total number of asylum seekers resettled to a third country between 1994 and 2010 539,084.

SOURCE: FBAD.

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1477963314Z.00000000029&iName=master.img-000.jpg&w=353&h=141


6/23

N keeping victims personal details confidential throughout the investigation

and making sure they are safely repatriated sua sponte4

N providing medical and psychological support and accommodation to

trafficking victims.

This study intends to present an example of a policy change process by analysing

how governmental practice and legislation have evolved with regard to irregular

migration, asylum seekers, and refugees in Turkey. Especially for the last two

decades, Turkey has witnessed increasing human mobility, which has led todynamic capacity-building attempts and changes in migration policies in the mean

time. As democratic standards and international protection norms have been

achieved, especially in the last decade, the securitising point of view has changed to

a new contemporary and secular understanding of migration and asylum policies,

focusing on problem solving in Turkey (Eksi, 2009). The very first steps of

developing immigration policies from a secularising instead of a securitising

approach began during the same time period. However, these policy approaches

mostly occurred capriciously, asymmetrically, and in a disorganised manner, in

response to short-term migration-related goals and strategies. Even though the

1994 regulation provided a legislative basis, the process of constituting systematicand long-term policies and strategies mainly started with the commencement of

EU relations (I?cduygu, 2006). While entering into accession negotiations for the

EU membership process in December 2004, practices and policies, border security,

and border management entered an integration process of acquis. The EU

membership process constituted one of the major dynamics for migration-related

policy changes in Turkey. Yet, migration and asylum policy making in Turkey

TABLE 2

NUMBER OF FOREIGNERS SETTLED IN TURKEY BY THE END OF 2010

Working Studying Other Reasons Total

19,351 29,266 128,327 176,944

SOURCE: FBAD.

figure 2 Number of human trafficking victims identified in Turkey in 2011, by nationality.SOURCE: KOM (2011)

190 OSMAN SEYHAN
http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1477963314Z.00000000029&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=353&h=141


7/23

necessitates identifying and considering other sociological and political dynamics.

In other words, the whole process of developing and implementing policies has to

be based on evidence.

Historically, challenges regarding migration and asylum seeking in Turkey

mostly became barriers to developing policies in response. Due to misinformation

and inadequate data on migration, in the past, policies had to be designed based on

nonlinear, reactionary, and uncertain social and political dynamics. The purpose

of this study is to understand the implementation of a migration and asylum policy

change process. Implementation of a change process is the most crucial part of

policy making. Within the policy change framework, the necessity for change in

public management and policy mostly urges a holistic and strategic approach for

all related topics (Yalcn, 2002). However, evidence is required in developing the

policy content and transforming this content into effective policy implementation

to achieve the desired outcomes. This study provided qualitative evidence in the

form of narrative inquiry, collected through interviews conducted with twenty-seven middle and upper-level managers and experts from the FBAD and AMB, in

order to influence policy dynamics, set priorities, and suggest policy solutions.

The EU membership processBecause it is an EU membership candidate country, migration policies in Turkey

have been influenced by the process of aligning common political principles with

those of the EU. EU concerns over the growing extent of transit migration through

Turkey (I?cduygu, 2005, 2005) have stipulated a zero immigration policy for

Turkish EU membership. Yet, since the quota level of accepting refugees in EU

countries is low or has remained the same, Turkey has been reluctant to change itsasylum and migration regime (Biehl, 2009). The 1994 legislation regulates

procedures and principles for asylum seekers or those demanding residence in

order to allow transit to another country, as well as mass asylum movements.

Criticism of the 1994 regulation seems to have continued as Turkeys concerns

about becoming a buffer zone for asylum seekers to Europe have not been

remedied. Given its long territorial borders with Syria, Iran, and Iraq, the EU full

membership process has played a significant role in shaping Turkeys irregular

migration and refugee regime. The Turkish application to become a full member of

the EU has had a considerable effect on the illegal migration question in Turkey. If

Turkey becomes a full member of the EU, the EUs borders will extend to the east.Given the selection by illegal migrants of European transit and destination

countries, the EU places particular emphasis on the issue of border security.

With the European Council meeting in Helsinki in December 1999, Turkey

became a candidate state destined to join the EU. As part of the full membership

process, on 8 March 2001, the European Council adopted a decision on the

principles, priorities, intermediate objectives, and conditions contained in the

Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey.5 The purpose of this

document was to set out a framework to develop policy instruments for the

adoption of acquis. Under the title of Justice and Home Affairs, the following

objectives have been identified for Turkey in the short term (European Council,2001: 21, 22):



8/23

N Adopt the EU acquis in the field of data protection so as to be able to fully

participate in the Schengen information system and in Europol.

N Start alignment of visa legislation and practice with those of the EU.

N Adopt and implement the EU acquis and practices on migration (admission,

readmission, expulsion) so as to prevent illegal migrations.

N Continue strengthening border management and prepare for full implementa-

tion of the Schengen Convention.

N Lift the geographical reservation to the 1951 Geneva Convention in the field

of asylum and develop accommodation facilities and social support for

refugees.

On 14 April 2003 the Accession Partnership was revised to reemphasise the issues

of developing effective border management and combating illegal migration. In

this regard, Turkey formed anad hoctask force to adoptacquison border control,

migration, and refugees. This ad hoc task force yielded three strategy documents

on border protection, asylum, and migration in 2003. The Turkish CabinetDecree, dated 23 June 2003, regulating the Turkish national programme on

undertaking acquis, yielded the following provisions:

Initiation of harmonization process with the EU legislation in the field of asylum has

been identified as a priority in the Accession Partnership Document of 2003 and it is

foreseen that administrative and technical capacity be improved particularly through

the maintenance of works in developing accommodation and social support

mechanisms for refugees. Following the enactment of the Draft Bill on Asylum,

administrative arrangements shall be put into force and the harmonization process

with the EU legislation shall continue.6

In February 2005, Turkey carried out the Turkish National Action Plan for the

Adoption of the EU Acquis in the Field of Asylum and Migration (NAP), which

aimed to align asylum and migration policy and practices with EU norms,

including legal arrangements, technical and administrative capacity enhancements,

and training of personnel.7 In the NAP, the issue of lifting the geographical

limitation was left open due to Turkeys concerns about becoming a target for

refugee influx and the political and economic burdens of such a consequence. The

NAP states:

The validity of Turkeys concerns for burden sharing becomes obvious when it is

considered that countries making up the European Union have in the recent period

been working towards establishing stricter practices and policies in the field of asylum

and migration, where there is the lack of a common European system, and debates on

safe third countries still continue, during which probable conflicts may arise in the

geographical area occupied by Turkey particularly in the Middle East and the

Caucasus, and a mass influx may occur with half a million people arriving at the

borders of Turkey (NAP, 2005: 4.13).

Having been highly impacted by mass migration influxes, Turkeys concerns about

lifting the geographical limitation because of its possible consequences can be

deemed reasonable. The 2005 NAP included the following follow-up policyagendas:

192 OSMAN SEYHAN


9/23

N recruitment and training of personnel working/to work in the field of asylum

and migration (Section 4.3)

N establishment of a country of origin and asylum information system (Section

4.4.1)

N construction of reception and accommodation centres for asylum seekers and

refugee guest houses (Section 4.4.3)

N construction of return centres (Section 4.4.5)

N building an integration system for aliens and asylum seekers (Section 4.9.1).

Furthermore, there is not an integration system for aliens except for asylum seekers inTurkey. Therefore, a national plan was advised to coordinate the integration of all aliens

with the IOM, EU, and the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR).

The NAP was revised in December 2008. As well as highlighting the same

provisions and endeavours regarding asylum and migration policies as the previous

programme, it also concluded an extensive asylum law, which includes forming an

asylum authority under the FIPL, mostly to align the visa regime with the Schengensystem (Kirisci, 2005; NAP, 2008: 24.2). The FIPL also aims to regulate aliens

entry to, stay in, and departure from Turkey, as well as procedures regarding the

scope and implementation of international protection.8 Furthermore, the NAP

dated 2008 resolved the formation of a new and independent migration, asylum,

and border management system under the MOI and training of staff to be

employed in the planned units. The Migration and Asylum Unit will include an

assessment board for consideration of objections to initial decisions made in the

asylum process (NAP 24.2.5) and monitoring and assessment of mass population

movements (NAP 24.2.6). Another important point which the 2008 NAP covers is

provision of a calendar to realise previously identified titles. For example, forminga fingerprint database in order to uphold Dublin Treaty requirements (NAP

24.2.7), training of field officers, and construction of return centres for aliens

(NAP 24.2.9.2) were scheduled to be accomplished between 2009 and 2012.

Another roadmap concerns border management (NAP 24.3.2). Since Turkeys

territorial and maritime borders are protected by military units, there is a necessity

to integrate its external borders with EU standards in order to implement a

common policy in Turkey. Within Turkeys integrated border management

strategy, the calendar identifies four titles. The calendar of the first title

elaborating the integrated border management plan and identifying the technical

needs of border protection units was scheduled for completion between 2009and 2010. The second and third titles strengthening the capacity and technical

infrastructure of the current border units until formation of the planned border

management system and finishing the legal, institutional, and administrative

substructure of the envisioned integrated border management system were

planned to be completed in 2013. Lastly, aspiring to the safe and open border

strategy of the EU through development and promotion of Turkeys legal,

institutional, and technical capacity, in order to align with the EUs integrated

border management policy, was envisioned to be accomplished in 2012.

The building of common external borders forced the EU to develop new regimes

to cope with unwanted immigrants and refugees. In this regard, the EU views east-central European states as gatekeepers against irregular migration (Baldwin, 1991;



10/23

Vachudova , 2000). The EU sees Turkey as one of the main entrances to EU borders

used by irregular immigrants. Soon after acceptance of the Turkish application to

the EU at the Helsinki Summit in 1999, Turkeys EU harmonisation period

accelerated. In this regard, the Turkish National Police prepared thirty-five

twinning projects. Sixteen twinning projects have been completed, eight are

currently ongoing, and eleven are in the preparation phase. It is important to note

that seventeen of the projects concern asylum and irregular migration strategies,

integrated border management, training of border police, combating trafficking in

human beings, and screening and accommodation centres for refugees/asylum

seekers.

The Foreigners and International Protection LawThe FIPL is legislated by the AMB of the MOI. There are middle and upper-level

managers and experts from the FBAD contributing to the legislation. In fact, both

the FBAD and the AMB have been primary actors in the change process formigration policies, management, and procedures. The AMB not only has created a

legislation unit, but also effected capacity building for migration management.

The FIPL has been in force since April 2014, meaning that Turkey will have

extensive legislation and an institutional substructure for migration management.

The current legislation Law Related to Residence and Travel of Foreigners in

Turkey is dated 1950 and does not have adequate references regarding the

fundamental rights of aliens and stateless persons in Turkey. Thus, Turkey

occasionally has been criticised about violations of the human rights of foreigners

in national and international public discourses. Furthermore, the FIPL will

constitute the General Directorate of Migration Management (GDMM), agovernmental agency specialising in migration management. The GDMM will put

into practice a system of migration and international protection of aliens through an

institutional understanding. It is an administrative mechanism which considers the

equilibrium of human rights and public security regarding migration management in

compliance with EU standards. In other words, the GDMM will provide an asylum

and migration management system aligned with acquis as an independent

institutional body.

In current practice, settlement and working permits for foreigners are granted by

the FBAD within the country which brings deportation problems in cases of

refusal. However, according to the FIPL, such applications now will be made tothe immigration offices within Turkish consulates abroad, meaning that addressing

the issue of irregular migration will start before travellers have even entered the

country. The FIPL provides a legal framework for deportations and administrative

detention procedures for aliens. Another establishment is the Board of Migration

Policies (BMP), which will determine middle and long-term migration strategies

and plans. The BMP also will be in charge of resolving precautions and

governmental steps in cases of mass immigration influxes and determining the

alien labour requirements of Turkey.

One noteworthy regulation of the FIPL is protecting womens and childrens

rights in cases of domestic violence. Even though there is protective andinvestigative legislation for citizens regarding domestic violence cases in Turkey,

194 OSMAN SEYHAN


11/23

the FIPL will be the first law applicable to aliens and stateless persons in this

regard. Furthermore, running readmission centres and shelters for human

trafficking victims will be based on international norms. Essentially, the FIPL

aims to maintain migration control and international protection of aliens related

practices in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention and acquis; yet, the

issue of geographical limitation will remain.

In a 2011 progress report, the absence of a national legal framework for asylum

seekers in Turkey was criticised:

Concerning refugees and asylum-seekers, circulars issued in 2010 produced some

positive results in terms of improving practices on the part of law enforcement officials

and central and local administrations. However, the lack of a comprehensive legal

framework for refugees and asylum-seekers prevented further improvement. A draft

revised FIPL has been prepared. Meanwhile, continuing gaps in legislation, particularly

in immigration related detention and deportation practices, remain a concern.

Unaccompanied minors found themselves at risk of detention together with adults andwith no access to State child protection services (Turkish Progress Report, 2011: 43).

The policies formulated through both the EU process and the FIPL aim to create a

strong and manageable migration system in Turkey. Perhaps one of the first steps

for achieving a manageable migration structure is the creation of empowered and

integrated specialised border management. Another step, which should go further

in unison with the first, is aligning the international migration-related legislative

and administrative system with international norms. The migration policy in

Turkey is focused on agnatic migration of Turkish ethnicity and/or culture and

needs to be updated and adapted to the new circumstances. A securitisingapproach to designing the migration policy would ignore multifaceted and human

rights dimensions of the issue of migration management. Thus, policy makers

envision construction of larger and adaptive structures and patterns of the

migration system, capable of coping with the intractably complex nature of the

migration phenomenon. Policy solutions currently have been implemented to

enhance the legal framework and institutional capacity on migration and asylum

as well as to promote and coordinate the strategies and practices identified in the

EU process.

In order to manage the process efficiently, the Turkish MOI founded the AMB on

15 October 2008 in Ankara. Members of the team were selected from middle andupper-level managers from the FBAD, experts from other units of the MOI, and

academicians. The senior and middle managers of the FBAD have supported the

AMB regarding the legislation process of the FIPL, as well as backing interrelated

projects. In addition to the AMB, several governmental agencies FBAD, Ministry

of Foreign Affairs, Undersecretariat of Customs, Ministry of Health, Commander of

the Coast Guard, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), universities, and think-

tanks are active partners in the process. The AMB has the policy strategy of

developing vision among relevant and affiliated institutions and NGOs, and

reinvigorating them through desired objectives. For successful implementation of

this strategy, the AMB has two monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. The first ishosting stakeholders through workshops or seminars to monitor their thoughts and



12/23

proposals on the process. The second is coordinating Reform Monitoring Group

meetings which are organised semi-annually under the presidency of the deputy

prime minister and analysing their outputs.

Methodology and research designThis study investigates the change process concerning irregular migration and

asylum policies in Turkey implemented by governmental agents. Utilising

qualitative methodology, analysis was conducted of the stages, structures, and

consolidation of the aforementioned policy changes. Thus, this work aims to

present insights and understanding of policy change within the context of

reconstruction of the migration system in Turkey through the patterns in the data

that have been obtained from interviews conducted with twenty-seven middle and

upper-level managers and experts working at the FBAD and the AMB. The study

primarily examines the change process within the irregular migration and asylum

regime as part of Turkeys bid for EU full membership and implementation of the

FIPL. The problem of institutional reconstruction is conceptualised for qualitative

inquiry. A qualitative research method in this work provided an in-depth and

detailed study of understanding policy change in international migration-related

governmental agents with a focus on the FIPL. The primary information was

obtained through interviews. The data provided a great deal of information on

how participants viewed the process, including their thoughts and experiences.

Given that the main goal of this work was to understand the implementation

process of policy change, a qualitative method was deemed appropriate for this

inquiry based on the respondents experiences and ideas. A qualitative methodaims to understand the thoughts and terms used to describe processes or structures

regarding particular phenomena (Morse & Richards, 2002). Thus, a qualitative

approach was regarded as the most appropriate method for participants to present

their own perspectives and perceptions. After reviewing the change management

literature, Kotters model was regarded as the most appropriate framework to

form a logical sequence between the data and the questions (Appelbaum et al.,

2012; Dopson et al., 2008; Graetz & Smith, 2010). Kotter (1995) holds that

successful organisational change can occur by considering eight sequential steps:

N establishing a sense of urgency

N creating a guiding coalition

N developing a vision and strategy

N communicating the change vision

N empowering broad-based action

N generating short-term wins

N consolidating gains and producing more change

N anchoring new approaches in culture.

The model is one of the best-regarded change management tools applied to

research by scholars and practitioners.9 Kotters eight steps of transforming an

organisation build a plan which sets a platform for alignment through the sharedvision of change. Even though an organisation has various dynamics and

196 OSMAN SEYHAN


13/23

capacities, unless they are in order and systematised they do not contribute to the

change process. Given that this research initially aimed to examine migration and

asylum policy change, the steps which are key to the success of organisational

transformation primarily guided this inquiry.

The primary data source in this research was respondents involved in the change

process. In the study, purposive sampling was used. The respondents were selected

based on their position middle and upper-level managers and expertise given

their direct experience of preparing the FIPL. Although the study used structured

questions, interviews were also performed using a mix of unstructured questions to

explore personal perceptions and perspectives. Interview questions were prepared

based on Kotters (1995) eight-step change management model. Interviews were

performed at interviewees own offices. The purpose of the interview was explained

during each session. The questions were categorised based on the themes derived

from this model and asked to the interviewees in the same sequence. The interview

notes have been aggregated and categorised based on the themes of Kotters model.The data which were obtained as a result of this categorisation were stored and

analysed by identifying significant themes and findings in the dataset. The themes in

Kotters model were used to compare the findings of the study and construct a

matrix in order to understand the nature of the change process.

Limitations

The narrative inquiry aimed to explore whether the change process can be

explained using Kotters change model as a standpoint. The link between the

migration and asylum policy change process and the affected employees was used

for the narrative inquiry. In this regard, as the FIPL is still undergoing thelegislation process, three of Kotters change themes generating short-term

wins, consolidating improvements, and anchoring new approaches in the

culture were excluded from the model.

Themes and findings

The data collected from interviews and documents were analysed based on

Kotters themes of change. The first theme focused on establishing a sense of

urgency among employees put in charge of the change process. Senior managers

and experts emphasised the necessity for comprehensive legislation to regulatemigration movements in Turkey. The standing Turkish Passport Law (TPL) and

the Law of Foreigners and Settlement in Turkey (LFST) are dated from 1950,

which is well before international laws on individuals fundamental rights and

freedoms. While discussing the TPL and the LFST, one respondent said: Along

with its geographic and economic status, current laws and regulations on

migration in Turkey generate a legal hole which is impeding the due process.

Considering this fact, the AMB has prepared the FIPL by scrutinising EU acquisas

well as considering the current situation and needs. Another respondent stated

that: The necessity for change in the migration policy is the result of reactive and

capricious policy responses to the daily developments through circular letterswhich provided partial solutions to the irregular migration challenges. However,



14/23

another responder underscored one advantage of circular letters and stated that

[The circular letters] are easy to execute based on the changing conditions.

The second theme was building a team to lead the change process. The MOI

assigned the AMB to lead the change process. The AMB is focused on capacity

building in the legislative field as well as leading and coordinating administrative

reconstruction and development. Assigning a unit as a leading team for adminis-

trative and legislative change in the area of asylum and migration was a critical step in

implementation of the change process. One respondent explained that: in every

phase of the process the AMB not only consulted with the academicians, public policy

practitioners, and NGOs, but also scholars from EU countries in order to be tuned

with the acquis and international legislations on migration. Another interviewee

asserted:

I believe that the AMB has the capacity to provide professional solutions to the migratory

issues and be successful in benefiting from various specialists. As well as academicians,

there are members who are experienced in practice from the FBAD, for instance. Such acapacity clearly means not to start from zero. It is much more essential to have qualified

human capacity (professionals and experts) than to found an institution.

The third theme was developing a vision and the strategy to achieve that vision.

Basically, the AMB played the role of hosting and coordinating a variety of brain-

storming activities which brought together different actors and stakeholders

including public practitioners and prominent scholars. All these activities focused

on establishing and implementing a strong migration policy and law in Turkey.

One respondent supported this approach: [The vision for implementation of an

effective migration policy] is to bring a holistic approach to the problems ratherthan to deal with them on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, some responders

did not agree that the vision was realistic for entire problems. One interviewee

noted:

I agree with the necessity of tackling the issue of migration from the secular point of

view instead of securitising it. Yet, there still are points we cannot disregard in terms of

policing. One of the most important points is administrative surveillance of irregular

migrants. As you know, irregular migrants like trafficking victims are not law breakers.

However, they might experience surveillance by the law enforcement units as an

administrative precaution. Thus, given that it is a practice that is restricting freedom,

the new vision on migration policy should not ignore the possible results of practices

related with law enforcement.

One respondent shared this idea and added another point: It is very important and

also necessary to manage migration with a comprehensive institutional capacity

and legislative structure. Yet, if we do not integrate migration and border

management under a common understanding, developing a vision is not realistic.

Another theme that the records revealed is communication of the vision and

strategies to guide practitioners. As noted earlier, the GDMM will be the main

institutional system for migration and international protection of aliens, and will

be established subsequent to the FIPL. Thus, it was important to communicate thechange vision and strategies on migration and asylum policies to the FBAD. In this

198 OSMAN SEYHAN


15/23

regard, senior and middle managers from the FBAD were employed during the

process of drafting the FIPL. The AMB not only consulted with practitioners from

the field to share their ideas, but also actively included them in the process.

According to one respondent: consulting senior and middle managers from the

FBAD is extremely important on such a challenging change process. Another

interviewee expressed her hesitation:

I believe that there are still ambiguities about the transition provisions of the FIPL. It

envisions a transition period of three years. Maybe, nationwide institutionalisation of

the GDMM will require a longer period of time. Although, during transition, current

units and staff will further their services, we need an exact statute about how long the

GDMM will take to finish its nationwide institutionalisation.

It is critical to note that the AMB has represented a successful and leading role in

communicating the migration and asylum policy and legislative change vision. The

AMB played a platform role in hosting a range of views and perceptions of the

field as well as providing an intellectual body of knowledge from academia. One

respondent asserted:

I cannot deny the efforts of the AMB in communicating the new vision and policy

approach to migration. Turkey geographically stands on a critical intersection of

global mass movements of humans as well as commodities. Each passing day poses

new challenges about migration. It requires developing a comprehensive understanding

to respond and policing. Policing must be flexible but also sustainable. Law

enforcement practitioners should be included more in the process of communicating

the new vision as well as policy makers, academicians, and NGOs.

One senior manager proclaimed:

In the beginning of my tenure as a middle manager, for us, there were only foreigners

who had problems like visa, settlement, working permit, and asylum seeking. We were

the official counterparts supposed to respond to these problems and were not thinking

about how and why these people came to the country. The common perception was

that foreigners were living somewhere outside with lots of problems which we should

tackle within. The term migration was not an agenda for us worth considering.

Today, a policy approach is being designed through managing migration. Indeed, we

are talking about founding an independent and ad hoc institution specifically for

migration. In the future, I believe, the issue of migration will be dealt with by anindependent ministry in Turkey. The FIPL can be seen as a critical turning point in such

a challenging transformation over the long term.

The fifth theme that emerged from the narrative inquiry was empowering

employees through the change process. In this sense, removing barriers and

forming a sustainable migration system and policy making were highlighted by the

respondents. The AMB has a significant function to design legal power to make

changes. One respondent explained: especially line supervisors in the field have

freedom to make decisions and consultations. Another interviewee commented:

Addressing the migratory problems necessitates thinking out of the box today. Theprospective migration management system is not only related to establishing an



16/23

institutional body but also a new mindset that is different from that we used to apply

to the challenges in the past. I do not think it is that difficult to convince people

through such a mindset change because almost all employees, whether managers or

line officers, agree to the change.

However, some barriers were envisaged by several respondents. One intervieweearticulated:

Occasionally, there are middle or upper-level managers who have the idea that change

will result in losing control over critical issues about foreigners such as geographical

limitation and asylum policies. Although such kinds of thoughts are rarely echoed, it

must be accepted as a barrier to change. Maybe we need more simulated analyses and

research to make clear such hesitations. As a line officer, I want to see a clear future

regarding what sort of migratory challenges my country will face after 10, 20, even 50

years.

Another respondent said:

Effective sea and land border management, including customs enforcement and

administration as well as control systems, are crucial parts of responding to migration.

It is said that, with the GDMM, prospective migration management practice and

international protection of aliens will be carried out to EU standards. The GDMM is

designed as an administrative mechanism to respond to these challenges; yet, we still

need integration with border management of this system in Turkey. Without a holistic

approach to responding to all phases of migration and coordination, a vision of

migration management to international standards is not realistic.

With regard to removing barriers to change, there are many departments and/orunits to deal with, as one interviewee explained:

This is not only constructing the legal platform to regulate migration in Turkey, but

also running the process in coordination with various institutions and ministries. I

mean, this is not solely correcting or cleaning up a mess. This is something: convincing

all responsible institutional and judicial parties, agencies, or rather individuals. What

we believe while trying to change something becomes less important, if we do not

succeed in a mental change. In fact, many of them are behind it from day one. This is

everybodys business. The AMB and the FBAD are both playing essential roles in

managing the process coherently and coordinating the demands of various institutionsincluding customs, border security, and judicial systems.

Table 3 provides an overview of the themes and findings collected from the

interviews with senior managers and experts working at the FBAD and AMB

under the MOI. The interview transcripts, based on the five themes of the research

questions, were used for the data analyses. The exploration assumed that the FIPL

process was one of the underpinning dynamics for change in the migration and

asylum policies of Turkey. Laws are subject to change as problems from the

environment are encountered. As such, Posner (1983) argues that only human

communities have developed communication abilities of a sufficient complexity toconsciously decide and promulgate rules.

200 OSMAN SEYHAN


17/23

Discussion and conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine migration and asylum policy change in

Turkey by focusing on implementation of the FIPL as well as the EU membershipapplication process. The intention has been to analyse how senior managers and

experts working at migration-related departments the FBAD and the AMB under

the MOI have been implementing the change process, particularly utilising

Kotters change management approach. Since the FIPL is still under the development

phase, the themes of generating short-term wins, consolidating improvements,

institutionalising, and implementation were excluded from the model.

The senior managers and experts from the MOI presented common agreement

on the necessity for policy and organisational change in migration management in

Turkey. They elucidated the benefits of a new philosophy and vision over the

traditional approach to the challenges of migration management in such a sociallyand politically fragile geography. The findings of this study revealed that the FBAD

TABLE 3

OVERVIEW OF THEMES AND FINDINGS

Themes Findings

Theme Feedback Problem(s) Policy Solution(s)

Establishing asense of urgency

The necessity forcomprehensive legislation

regulating migration

movements

Reactive and capriciouspolicy responses

Scrutinising EU acquis

Exploring potential crises

and analysing current situation

Creating the

guiding coalition

Capacity building and

professional approach

to migratory issues

Building a team to lead

the change process

Delegation of power and

independent decision making

Developing vision

and strategy

Role of the AMB in hosting

and coordinating a variety

of brain-storming activities

Possible results of practices

related to law enforcement

Developing a vision on

account of analysing the

needs and situation

Integrating migration and

border management

Communicating the

change vision strategy

Role of the FBAD in the

process of FIPL

implementation

Ambiguities about transition

provisions of the FIPL,

nationwide institutionalisation

of the GDMM

Prolonged transition

time period

Forming networks among

policy makers, academicians,

and NGOs

Empowering

broad-based action

Forming a sustainable and

flexible migration system

Anxieties about results of

the change

Influence of analyses on

the FIPL in the near future

Administrative and bureaucratic

obstacles to change

Coordinating the demands

of various institutions

including customs, border

security, and judicial systems

NOTE: Based on Kotters eight-step change management model excluding the steps: generating short-term wins,

consolidating improvements and producing more change, and anchoring new approaches in the culture.



18/23

and the AMB have a leading team role in the change process. This study revealed

that the objectives of the AMB in leading the change focused on providing a new

understanding of migration management with a comprehensive legislative

platform that will lead to effective migration management with a clear and

appealing direction in Turkey. The MOI provided the AMB with administrative

and material resources, such as personnel, offices, various bureau equipment, and

a budget, as well as administrative authority. The senior and middle managers of

the FBAD have shown their support for the AMB regarding the legislation process

of the draft FIPL and backing interrelated projects. The new vision developed by

managers and experts maintains a manageable migration process in Turkey and is

clear enough to generate engagement, commitment, and coordination among

responsible parties. An authoritarian leadership style and micromanagement

maintain the status quo instead of changing or transforming it (Karip, 1998; Kiel,

1994; Kotter, 1996; Tokat, 1998). During the migration and asylum policy change

process, the team avoided such leadership styles and successfully engaged with

different agents and actors in the change process. It was found that the more

employees were aware of the vision, the more they were motivated to achieve the

goals. However, as one respondent explained, the new vision for Turkeys

migration policy ought to include law enforcement practices regarding migrants,

such as protection of human trafficking victims and surveillance of migrants,

despite these being administrative practices. The developed vision ought to be

shared with the respective agents and units, particularly the prospective employees

of the GDMM, from the beginning of the selection process. In this regard, the

AMB, being the leading team, should develop training programmes for forth-

coming employees, including line officers and middle and upper-level managers, inthe short and medium term. Application of effective leadership tenets, practices,

and means is critical in this process. What makes the migration and asylum policy

change inevitable must be internalised by all levels of employees, various agents,

other responsible actors, and certainly the whole population of Turkey. Forming

an organisational system from the beginning, instead of implementing a change

process within one or a couple of organisations, is an advantage in terms of some

supervisors misperceptions about losing control over their officers as a result of the

change. A new organisation has more opportunities to have a new understanding

and culture regarding its vision. One important result of the migration and asylum

policy change in Turkey is the transformation of organisational understanding andculture regarding the old way of doing things and historic practices.

In responding to the issue of irregular migration, the Turkish policy approach

has evolved from that of a traditional sovereign nation state to an integrated and

secular understanding of the EU accession process. Migration pressures and

opportunities for legal immigration to Europe are pushing many EU countries to

adopt restrictive migration regimes and practices featuring migration control more

than protection of refugee rights (Loescher & Milner, 2003). Roberts (1988)

points to tension between countries recognising the vulnerability of refugees and

their reluctance to enlarge the definition of refugee beyond those fleeing from

war, famine, civil unrest, and destitution. There have been criticisms of Europeancountries which have embraced various practices leading to discrimination against

202 OSMAN SEYHAN


19/23

and ill treatment of asylum seekers, which also threatens the 1951 Geneva

Convention. For example, Schuster (2003) contends that, in Britain, Germany, and

Ireland, asylum seekers are dispersed to different parts of the country with no

choice about their accommodation and/or destination under the dispersal practice

of those governments.

This study provides a deeper understanding of the process of reorganisationalchange in the irregular migration and asylum policy of Turkey, focusing on Turkeys

EU membership process and implementation of the draft FIPL. Given that the initial

goal of this study was to examine migration and asylum policies, the steps in Kotters

model primarily guided this study. Although the findings revealed several problems

as listed in Table 3, the migration and asylum policy change process in Turkey has

successful transformational characteristics. The Turkish migration and asylum

policy formation evolved on the basis of perception of the issue as a security matter,

which is why the issue has been institutionalised under the National Police

Organization in Turkey. Yet, as democratic standards have improved, especially in

the last decade, this securitising point of view has changed to a new contemporary

and secular understanding of migrants and asylum seekers, focusing on problem

solving and developing double-loop learning practices. The efforts in establishing

the AMB can be seen as an example of such a perception change. Instead of seeing

irregular migration and asylum as merely a threat to national security or a welfare

issue, Turkeys migration policy agenda represents a way of developing a

humanitarian approach in both the legislative and administrative fields. The process

of implementing organisational change by two governmental agencies reflects the

best practices suggested by the literature. Given the limited scope of this research, in

the future, the themes of generating short-term wins, consolidating gains and

producing more change, and anchoring new approaches in the organisational

culture could be analysed upon promulgation of the FIPL.

Notes

1 The European Commission has identified prosper-

ity, security, and solidarity as headings within a

common immigration policy. Security is focused on

irregular migration and has the principles of a

common visa policy serving the interests of the EU,

integrated border management, stepping up the

fight against illegal migration, and zero tolerance

for trafficking of human beings as sustainable and

effective return policies. For more information see:

Commission of the European Communities (2008)

and Akbas & Ozer (2012).2 For detailed information visit: ,http://www.

ntvmsnbc.com/id/25379818. accessed 22

February 2013.3 For themost recent number of Syrian asylum seekers

visit:,http://www.afad.gov.tr/TR/HaberDetay.aspx?

IcerikID51273&ID512. accessed 22 February

2013.

4 Regarding the repatriation of human trafficking

victims, departure transactions and fees are free

of charge; a resolution was made to take no

court orders for prohibition from entering into

the country for a definite time period.5 The Accession Partnership of March 2001 with

Turkey can be found at: ,http://www.avrupa.info.tr/

fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/l_08520010324

en00130023.pdf. accessed 29 December 2012.6 The Cabinet Decree is available in Turkish

at : ,http://www.abgs.gov.tr/index.php?p5

196&l51. accessed 29 December 2012.7 Atable showing the Turkish National Action

Plan for the Adoption of the EU Acquis in the

Field of Asylum and Migration can be found at:

,http://www.yabancilar.pol.tr/Sayfalar/Ulusal-

Eylem-Planlar%C4%B1.aspx. accessed 29

December 2012.



20/23

8 On 18 December 2011, in the 24th EU Reform

Screening Meeting in Konya City, in the process

of constituting the legal and institutional

base for asylum and immigration, the commit-

tee resolved to speed up the process of referr-

ing the Aliens and International Protection

Law to the Turkish Parliament. For

details visit: ,http://www.abgs.gov.tr/index.

php?p547063&l51. accessed 11 January

2013.

9 For more information about the application of

Kotters change model the following sources can be

utilised [accessed 21 February 2013]. Available at:

,http://www.slideshare.net/syaffhk/how-does-

kotters-eightstep-plan-deal-with-resistance-to-

change.; ,http://changeleadershipnetwork.org/

2011/11/28/applying-kotters-change-management-

principles-to-project-management .; ,http://

www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/

changesteps/changesteps..

References

Akbas, H. & Ozer, M. 2012. European Union Common Asylum System: To What Extent Has Uniformity in

Positive and Rejection Decisions among EU Countries Been Obtained? Turkish Journal of Police Studies,

14(3): 10521.

Aktar, C. & Ogelman, N. 1994. Recent Developments in East-West Migration: Turkey and the Petty Traders.

International Migration, 32(2): 34354.

Appelbaum, S.H., Habashy, S., Malo, J.-L. & Shafiq, H. 2012. Back to the Future: Revisiting Kotters 1996

Change Model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8): 76482.

Baldwin Edwards, M. 1991. Immigration after 1992. Policy & Politics, 19(3): 199212.

Betts, A. 2011. The Global Governance of Migration and the Role of Trans-Regionalism. In: R. Kunz, S.

Lavenex & M. Panizzon, eds. Multilayered Migration Governance: The Promise of Partnership. New York:

Taylor & Francis.Biehl, K. 2009. Migration Securitization and Its Everyday Implications: An Examination of Turkish Asylum

Policy and Practice. CARIM Best Participant Essay Series 2009/1. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced

Studies. San Domenica di Fiesole (FI): European University Institute.

Bigo, D. 2004. Criminalisation of Migrants: The Side Effect of the Will to Control Frontiers and the

Sovereign Illusion. In: B. Bogusz, R. Cholewinsky, A. Cygan, E. Szyszczak, eds. Irregular Migration and

Human Rights: Theoretical, European and International Perspectives. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus

Nijhoff Publishers.

Bogusz, B., Cholewinsky, R., Cygan, A. & Szyszczak, E. 2004. Irregular Migration and Human Rights:

Theoretical, European and International Perspectives. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Commission of the European Communities. 2008. Common Immigration Policy for Europe: Principles,

Actions and Tools. Impact Assessment. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Cornelius, W.A. & Rosenblum, M.R. 2005. Immigration and Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 8:

99119.

Dopson, S., Fitzgerald, L. & Ferliec, E. 2008. Understanding Change and Innovation in Healthcare Settings:

Reconceptualizing the Active Role of Context. Journal of Change Management, 8(3/4): 21331.

Edwards, A. 2005. Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right to Enjoy Asylum. International Journal of

Refugee Law, 17(2): 293330.

Eksi, N. 2009. I?nsan Haklar So zlesmesinin 6. Maddesinin Yabanclarn Snrds Edilmesine Uygun Olup

Olmayacag Sorunu (Application problem of the Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights to

the expulsion of Foreigners). MHB. 29(12): 119139.

European Council. 2001. Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey. [Accessed 1 August 2013].

Available at ,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri5CELEX:32001D0235&rid54..

Feller, E. 2006. Asylum, Migration and Refugee Protection: Realities, Myths and the Promise of Things toCome.International Journal of Refugee Law, 18(34): 50936.

204 OSMAN SEYHAN


21/23

Frantz, E. 2003. Report on the Situation of Refugees in Turkey: Findings of a Five-Week Exploratory Study,

December 2002January 2003. [Accessed 31 January 2013]. Available at: ,http://www.aucegypt.edu/

GAPP/cmrs/reports/Documents/frantz.pdf..

Graetz, F. & Smith, A.C.T. 2010. Managing Organizational Change: A Philosophies of Change Approach.

Journal of Change Management, 10(2): 13554.

Green, P. & Grewcock, M. 2002. The War against Illegal Migration: State Crime and Construction of

European Identity. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(1): 122.

I?cduygu, A. 2000. The Politics of International Migratory Regimes: Transit Migration Flows in Turkey.

International Social Science Journal, 52(165): 35767.

I?cduygu, A. 2004. Demographic Mobility and Turkey: Migration Experiences and Government Responses.

Mediterranean Quarterly, 15(4): 8899.

I?cduygu, A. 2005. Transit Migration in Turkey: Trends, Patterns and Issues. Research Reports, CARIM-RR

2005/04 Badia Fiesolana, San Domenico Di Fiesole (FI).

I?cduygu, A. 2006. A Panorama of the International Migration Regime in Turkey. Revue Europeenne des

Migrations Internationals, 22(3): 1121.

I?cduygu, A. 2009. Turkiyeye Yonelen Goc ve Sgnma Hareketleri ve Politikalar Uzerine Brifing(Briefing on

Migration and Refugee Movements towards Turkey). Istanbul: Koc U niversitesi Go c Arastrmalar

Program.

International Organization for Migration (IOM). 2010. World Migration Report: The Future of Migration

Building Capacities for Change. [Accessed 20 December 2012]. Available at: ,http://www.jcp.ge/iom/pdf/

WMR_2010_English.pdf..

Kiel, L.D. 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for Managing Change,

Innovation, and Organizational Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kirisci, K. 2002. Immigration and Asylum Issues in EU-Turkish Relations: Assessing the EUs Impact on

Turkish Policy and Practice. In: S. Lavenex & E. Uarer, eds. Migration and the Externalities of European

Integration. Maryland: Lexington Books.

Kirisci, K. 2003. Turkey, UNHCR and the 1951 Convention Relating to Status of Refugees: Problems and

Prospects of Cooperation. In: Selm, J. van K. Kamanga, J. Morrison. The Refugee Convention At Fifty: A

View From Forced Migration Studies. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.Kirisci, K. 2005. A Friendlier Schengen Visa Asylum System as a Tool of Soft Power: The Experience of

Turkey.European Journal of Migration and Law, 7(4): 343367.

Kirisci, K. 2007. Turkey: A Country of Transition from Emigration to Immigration.Mediterranean Politics,

12(1): 9197.

Kirisci , K. & Avc, G. 2007. Turkeys Immigration and Emigration Dilemmas at the Gate of the European

Union. In: S. Castles & R. Delgado Wise, eds. Migration and Development: Perspectives from the South.

Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Migration.

KOM. 2011. The Turkish National Police Department of Anti-Smuggling and Organized Crime Annual

Report. [Accessed 18 November 2012]. Available at: ,http://www.kom.gov.tr/Tr/Dosyalar/Dosyalar/2011_

Ingilizce.pdf..

Koser, K. 1997. Social Networks and the Asylum Cycle: The Case of Iranians in the Netherlands. InternationalMigration Review, 31(3): 591611.

Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformations Fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 5967.

Kotter, J.P. 1996. Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Law 5543 (I?skan Kanunu). 2006. [Accessed 12 November 2012]. Available at: ,http://www.mevzuat.adalet.

gov.tr/html/27159.html..

Loescher, G. & Milner, J. 2003. The Missing Link: The Need for Comprehensive Engagement in Regions of

Refugee Origin International Affairs. Royal Institute of International Affairs, 79(3): 595617.

Martin, P.L., Martin, S.F. & Weil, P. 2006. Managing Migration: The Promise of Cooperation. Lanham, MD:

Lexington Books.

Morse, J.M. & Richards, L. 2002.Read Me First for a Users Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.



22/23

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2008. International Migration Outlook.

Annual Report. Paris: OECD.

Posner, R. 1983. The Economics of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Roberts, A. 1988. More Refugees, Less Asylum: A Regime in Transformation. Journal of Refugee Studies,

11(4): 37595.

Schuster, L. 2003. Common Sense or Racism? The Treatment of Asylum-Seekers in Europe. Patterns of

Prejudice, 37(3): 23356.

Tokat, B. 1998. Orgutlerde Degisim ve Degisimin Yonetimi (Change Management in Organizations).

Ku tahya: Dumlupnar U niversitesi Yaynlar.

Vachudova, M.A. 2000. Eastern Europe as Gatekeeper: The Immigration and Asylum Policies of an Enlarging

European Union. In: P. Andreas & T. Snyder, eds. The Wall around the West: State Borders and

Immigration Control in North America and Europe. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

Yalcn, A. 2002. Degisim Yonetimi(Change Management). Adana: Nobel Yaynlar.

Notes on contributor

Osman Seyhan received his MA degree in education management from the Facultyof Education at Karadeniz Technical University in 2003, and PhD degree in public

affairs from the School of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences at the

University of Texas (Dallas, USA) in 2009. Dr Seyhan has published many articles

and book chapters. His dissertation, entitled: Identifying Social and Political

Correlates of National Human Trafficking Scores: An Extension of Bales Theory

of Modern Slavery, has been published by Lampart in Germany. Dr Seyhans

research interests include police management, illegal migration, human trafficking,

security management, organisational change, and negotiation. After working in

different units of the Turkish National Police Organization as a ranking officer foralmost fifteen years, Dr Seyhan is currently working as a Police Superintendent at

the Asylum and Migration Research Centre of the Turkish National Police

Academy. He also teaches stress management and negotiation.

Correspondence to: Dr Osman Seyhan, I?l Emniyet Mu d, Yabanclar S,ube M,

Erzurum Cad. No:72, 04100 Agri, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

206 OSMAN SEYHAN


23/23

C o p y r i g h t o f J o u r n a l o f O r g a n i s a t i o n a l T r a n s f o r m a t i o n & S o c i a l C h a n g e i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f

M a n e y P u b l i s h i n g a n d i t s c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o

a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t t h e c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y

p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .