Daniel David Shoup

A centralized decentralization: outsourcing in the Turkish cultural heritage sector

Recently Turkey has experimented with reforming its highly centralized cultural heritage sector by outsourcing commercial activities at museums and archeological sites. We examine three outsourcing contracts executed in 2009–2010 and their implications for understanding New Public Management in Turkey’s cultural sector. The initial project at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum was soon superseded by a ‘monopoly’ model that outsourced gift shop and ticket collection services at over 50 museums and sites to single companies. All three projects have significantly increased visitor numbers and revenues for the revolving fund that controls commercial operations within the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Yet unlike countries such as Italy, where outsourcing has led to decentralization, increased private sector involvement in Turkey has increased the control of the central government. This ‘centralized decentralization’ is a distinctly Turkish approach that allows for modernization without disturbing a highly centralized administrative tradition.

Byzantine Planning: Site Management in Istanbul

Abstract A new site management plan for Istanbul’s Historic Peninsula was approved in late 2011. In this paper, we examine its institutional setting, preparation process, and contents from organizational and administrative perspectives. The result of a participatory process, the plan is professional, logically consistent, and effectively identifies challenges facing cultural heritage. The heart of the plan is a complex architecture of Objectives, Strategies, and Actions that are integrated into forty-nine Project Packages. Surprisingly, however, the plan specifies neither concrete activities nor financial resources. Moreover, cultural heritage is consistently downplayed: rather than substantive interventions at monuments or museums, attention is focused on managerial and urban planning buzzwords (coordination, capacity-building, participation, awareness-raising, marketing). This arose from the preparation process, which was participatory but nonetheless dominated by urban planners and government agencies. The case suggests the potential risks of the uncritical application of managerial and urban planning tools to cultural heritage.

Heritage management at the local level: rhetoric and results in the case of Gaziantep, Turkey

Following international trends, Turkey has recently introduced decentralisation reforms to its highly centralised public administration system. These reforms have also applied to the cultural heritage sector, where innovative laws since 2004 have allowed local administrations and private actors to play new entrepreneurial roles. The Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality has been a pioneer in this process, promoting policies that promote cultural tourism as an engine of economic growth. Under its leadership, hundreds of historic buildings have been restored, nine new museums and heritage sites opened, and museum visitors increased tenfold. These positive results make Gaziantep an interesting case of successful decentralisation in heritage management. Despite these successes, however, the disconnection between rhetoric and results, and the fragmentation and ambiguity of responsibilities emerging from the decentralisation process raises serious questions about its sustainability and replicability.

When megaprojects meet archaeology: a research framework and case study from Yenikapi, Istanbul

Abstract From 2004 to 2012, 37 well-preserved Byzantine shipwrecks were discovered during construction of two underground train stations at Yenikapı, Istanbul. Despite its complexity, archaeology is rarely studied through organisational and management lens. This paper investigates the Yenikapı rescue excavations using two innovative analytical frameworks for archaeology – the Heritage Chain and Structure Conduct Performance analysis – which highlight the crucial but too often overlooked role of practices (or emerging strategies) in public policy, helping identifying strengths and weaknesses of the project. In this sense, two elements of the system seem fundamental: its extreme centralisation and its ongoing process of decentralisation. The research, based on a phenomenon-driven approach to management of archaeological and cultural heritage projects, highlights how Turkey’s uncertain legal environment for rescue archaeology led to emergent, ad hoc management and funding solutions that mixed state and private involvement in novel ways through a multi-level outsourcing.