journal of organisational transformation & social change, Vol. 11 No.

3, November, 2014, 185206

Changing the Status Quo of Migration

and 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 a
transformation 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 management, Turkey, European Union, refugee

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

W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014

DOI 10.1179/1477963314Z.00000000029

186

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 comprehensive policy to provide an efficient and coherent response to the challenges of
irregular migration. This approach focuses on balancing fighting against illegal
migration, 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 undocumented 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 like
situations to describe people who are outside their country or territory of origin

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

187

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 (Icduygu, 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 order
to 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 is
the 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 problem
within 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-one
children and eighteen women, died in this dreadful incident. The Turkish

188

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 immigration 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 risk
?
to national unity, and approached policy changes reluctantly (Icduygu, 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 (Icduygu,
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 it
?
as a destination and/or means of transit to Europe (Icduygu, 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 the
other hand, when compared with the number of undocumented migrants in 2010,

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

189

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

SOURCE: KOM (2011)

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 &
gelman, 1994; Kirisci & Avc, 2007).
O
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 do
not 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
N
N

appointment of civilian-dressed female personnel to assist victimised women

where victims are detected to be minors, taking protective measures in
cooperation with organisations like the Agency for the Protection of Children
treating and rehabilitating victims and providing residence permits
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 5 39,084.
SOURCE: FBAD.

190

OSMAN SEYHAN

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.

N
N

keeping victims personal details confidential throughout the investigation

and making sure they are safely repatriated sua sponte4
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 to
dynamic 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 systematic
and long-term policies and strategies mainly started with the commencement of
?
EU relations (Icduygu, 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

figure 2 Number of human trafficking victims identified in Turkey in 2011, by nationality.

SOURCE: KOM (2011)

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

191

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 twentyseven 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 process

Because 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 (Icduygu, 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 its
asylum 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):

192

N
N
N
N
N

OSMAN SEYHAN

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.
Start alignment of visa legislation and practice with those of the EU.
Adopt and implement the EU acquis and practices on migration (admission,
readmission, expulsion) so as to prevent illegal migrations.
Continue strengthening border management and prepare for full implementation of the Schengen Convention.
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 an ad hoc task force to adopt acquis on border control,
migration, and refugees. This ad hoc task force yielded three strategy documents
on border protection, asylum, and migration in 2003. The Turkish Cabinet
Decree, 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 policy
agendas:

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

N
N
N
N
N

193

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

and migration (Section 4.3)
establishment of a country of origin and asylum information system (Section
4.4.1)
construction of reception and accommodation centres for asylum seekers and
refugee guest houses (Section 4.4.3)
construction of return centres (Section 4.4.5)
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 in
Turkey. 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 Schengen
system (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, forming
a 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 2009
and 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 eastcentral European states as gatekeepers against irregular migration (Baldwin, 1991;

194

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 Law

The 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 for
migration 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), a
governmental 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 to
the 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 and
investigative legislation for citizens regarding domestic violence cases in Turkey,

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

195

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 and
with 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 securitising
approach 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 and
upper-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 thinktanks 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 is
hosting stakeholders through workshops or seminars to monitor their thoughts and

196

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 design

This 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 method
aims 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
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

establishing a sense of urgency

creating a guiding coalition
developing a vision and strategy
communicating the change vision
empowering broad-based action
generating short-term wins
consolidating gains and producing more change
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 shared
vision of change. Even though an organisation has various dynamics and

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

197

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 the
legislation 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 regulate
migration 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 acquis as
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 letters
which provided partial solutions to the irregular migration challenges. However,

198

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 administrative 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 a
capacity 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 brainstorming 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 rather
than 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 the
change vision and strategies on migration and asylum policies to the FBAD. In this

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

199

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 an
independent 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. The
prospective migration management system is not only related to establishing an

200

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 interviewee

articulated:
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/or
units 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 institutions
including 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 to
consciously decide and promulgate rules.

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

201

TABLE 3
OVERVIEW OF THEMES AND FINDINGS
Themes

Findings

Theme

Feedback

Problem(s)

Policy Solution(s)

Establishing a
sense of urgency

The necessity for

comprehensive legislation
regulating migration
movements

Reactive and capricious

policy 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.

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 membership
application 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 socially
and politically fragile geography. The findings of this study revealed that the FBAD

202

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 forthcoming employees, including line officers and middle and upper-level managers, in
the 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 and
culture 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 European
countries which have embraced various practices leading to discrimination against

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

203

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 reorganisational
change 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 prosperity, 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)
zer (2012).
and Akbas & O
For detailed information visit: ,http://www.
ntvmsnbc.com/id/25379818.
accessed
22
February 2013.
For the most recent number of Syrian asylum seekers
visit: ,http://www.afad.gov.tr/TR/HaberDetay.aspx?
IcerikID51273&ID512. accessed 22 February
2013.

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.
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.
The Cabinet Decree is available in Turkish
at: ,http://www.abgs.gov.tr/index.php?p5
196&l51. accessed 29 December 2012.
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/UlusalEylem-Planlar%C4%B1.aspx. accessed 29
December 2012.

204
8

OSMAN SEYHAN

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 committee resolved to speed up the process of referring 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.

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-doeskotters-eightstep-plan-deal-with-resistance-tochange.; ,http://changeleadershipnetwork.org/
2011/11/28/applying-kotters-change-managementprinciples-to-project-management.; ,http://
www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/
changesteps/changesteps..

References
zer, M. 2012. European Union Common Asylum System: To What Extent Has Uniformity in
Akbas, H. & O
Positive and Rejection Decisions among EU Countries Been Obtained? Turkish Journal of Police Studies,
14(3): 10521.
gelman, N. 1994. Recent Developments in East-West Migration: Turkey and the Petty Traders.
Aktar, C. & O
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. Insan Haklar Sozlesmesinin 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 to
Come. International Journal of Refugee Law, 18(34): 50936.

MIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES IN TURKEY

205

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.
?
Icduygu, A. 2000. The Politics of International Migratory Regimes: Transit Migration Flows in Turkey.
International Social Science Journal, 52(165): 35767.
?
Icduygu, A. 2004. Demographic Mobility and Turkey: Migration Experiences and Government Responses.
Mediterranean Quarterly, 15(4): 8899.
?
Icduygu, A. 2005. Transit Migration in Turkey: Trends, Patterns and Issues. Research Reports, CARIM-RR
2005/04 Badia Fiesolana, San Domenico Di Fiesole (FI).
?
Icduygu, A. 2006. A Panorama of the International Migration Regime in Turkey. Revue Europeenne des
Migrations Internationals, 22(3): 1121.
?
zerine Brifing (Briefing on
Icduygu, A. 2009. Turkiyeye Yonelen Goc ve Sgnma Hareketleri ve Politikalar U
Migration and Refugee Movements towards Turkey). Istanbul: Koc Universitesi Goc 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. International
Migration 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 (Iskan 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.

206

OSMAN SEYHAN

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.
rgutlerde Degisim ve Degisimin Yonetimi (Change Management in Organizations).
Tokat, B. 1998. O
Kutahya: Dumlupnar Universitesi 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 Faculty
of 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 for
almost 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, Il Emniyet Mud, Yabanclar S,ube M,
Erzurum Cad. No:72, 04100 Agri, Turkey. Email: oseyhan@egm.gov.tr

Copyright of Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change is the property of

Maney Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.