Lade Inhalt...

European Union and Turkish Footwear Industry

A Case of Top-Down Europeanization?

von F. Deniz Erdoğan (Autor:in)
©2013 Magisterarbeit 79 Seiten


In this research, European footwear industry and its interaction to Turkish footwear industry will be analyzed in the context of Turkey-EU relations. Main target is to frame the impacts of relevant policies implemented to Turkey in its accession process to the European Union and assess the possible outcomes by seeking an answer to the question whether if the legal framework of this industry is being shaped from a top-down approach under the EU directives.




1.1 Scope and Delimitations
1.2 Theoretical Framework
1.3 Methodology

2A.1 Historical Glimpse
2A.2 Negotiations’ Timeline
2A.3 Current Status
2B.1 Turkey’s Footwear Industry
2B.2 Turkey-EU Footwear Relations
2B.2.1 Directive 94/11/EC of European Parliament and Council of 23 March
A. Article One
B. Article Two
C. Article Three
D. Article Four
E. Article Five
F. Article Six
2B.3 Other Regulations
2B.3.1 Respect of WTO Rules and Disciplines
2B.3.2 Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy
2B.3.3 Combating Fraud
2B.3.4 Commitment to the Environment
2B.4 Related Chapters of Negotiations
2B.4.1 Free Movement of Goods
2B.4.2 Free Movement of Capital
2B.4.3 Enterprise and Industrial Policy
2B.4.4 Customs Union

3.1 Free Movement of Goods
3.2 Free Movement of Capital
3.3 Enterprise and Industrial Policy
3.4 Customs Union

4.1 Delineating State Approache(s) and Interdependency
4.2 National and International Competitiveness
4.3 NGOs as Incentives for the Footwear Industry


A. Turkey’s annual average export growth rate (2002-2006)
B. EU trade with main partners (2011)
C. Turkey’s trade with main partners (2010)
D. Imports from Turkey to EU
E. Exports from EU to Turkey


Table 1. Chapters of Negotiation’s Time Table

Table 2: Footwear Exports of Turkey by Countries (Dollars)

Table 3: Extra-EU27 trade (million Euro)

Table 4: Top 10 suppliers in textiles (million Euro)

Table 5: Top 10 markets in textiles (million Euro)

Table 6: Turkey’s Action Plan for Free Movement of Goods

Table 7: Turkey’s Legislative Arrangement for Free Movement of Goods

Table 8: Turkey’s Action Plan for Free Movement of Capital

Table 9: Turkey’s Legislative Arrangement for Free Movement of Capital

Table 10: Turkey’s Action Plan for Enterprise and Industrial Policy

Table 11: Turkey’s Legislative Arrangement for Enterprise and Industrial Policy

Table 12: Turkey’s Action Plan for Customs Union

Table 13: Turkey’s Legislative Arrangement for Customs Union

Table 14: Manufacture of Textiles Production Index

Table 15: Manufacture of Textiles Employment Index

Table 16: Manufacture of Textiles Export Index

Table 17: Manufacture of Textiles Partial Productivity Index

Table 18: Imports of Footwear from Main Suppliers

Table 19: Exports of Footwear from Main Partners



Brazil is slowly taking over the world shoe market with its structured, organized, and well-equipped shoe companies and industry. It manifests the diligence and determination among Brazilians in trying to export their shoes by marking their own brand and be competitive in the international economic arena.

Looking back in the case of Turkey, particularly Ankara, there is a sense of disoriented business machinery and disorganized management within the footwear industry. The widening gap between Brazilian and Turkish shoe industries continues to and Turkish shoes still lack the marketability, standardization, and creativity compared with its European counterparts.

This led the researcher to surmise, contemplate, and realize that it is imperative to make a study on how the footwear industry may be one of the political cleavages in becoming an advantage for Turkey’s accession process towards the European Union.

Thus, it hypothesized whether Turkey’s accession to the membership of European Union is an opportunity (advantage) or constraint (disadvantage) for the footwear industry in Turkey.

1.1 Scope and Delimitations

The temporal duration of this study is from early 2007 to present. The reason being is because of some chapters of negotiations were closed and awaiting to be reopened in the near future.

The area of the study is in the Turkey setting only, not necessarily related to relevant countries in discussing some issues that are specifically in consonance to the their values and political mindset.

The scope of the study covers only the Turkey’s footwear industry, its relations with the European market, and the related chapters of negotiations which will be tackled in the main parts of this thesis.

Information provided were limited in scale that is why the results were not able to reveal the holistic approach to the obtained data nor emphasized the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts in scrutinizing the different interpretations given by the presented statistical reports and data gathered.

It also affects in submitting a comprehensive and thorough discernment about the study due to scarcity in time and confined or restricted within certain limits of assessing some scholarly/academic sources.

1.2 Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework of complex interdependence[1] by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye will be the theoretical basis or ground in assessing its locality within the bounds of the discipline of International Relations. Human aspirations, communications, and economics were the interdependent factors of continuity of change in world politics.

According to the authors, interdependence means mutual dependence, it refers to situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries in world politics. It involves costs and benefits in an interdependent relationship. This somehow establishes international regimes which refer to sets of governing arrangements that affect the relationship of interdependence. It may be incorporated into interstate agreements or treaties.

Moreover, there are three characteristics of complex interdependence: (1) Multiple channels which feasibly connect societies via models of interstate, transgovernmental, and transnational. (2) Absence of hierarchy among issues such as high politics (military, security or foreign policy) and low politics (economics, cultural exchanges or education). (3) Minor role of military force (this according to them is the use of force often has costly effects on nonsecurity goals that popular opposition to prolonged military conflicts is remarkably high).

Military force could, for instance, be irrelevant to resolving disagreements on economic issue among members of an alliance, yet at the same time be tremendously crucial for that alliance's political and military relations without rival bloc.

In this regard, there is a political process of complex interdependence which may theoretically support the study. First, there should be linking strategies (making initiative on the economic plans such as trade and commerce between Turkey and EU under the footwear industry). Second, setting the agenda via the negotiation phases of related chapters must be comprehensively done. Third, the condition on multinational corporations as independent actors and instruments may be run the risk of manipulation by governments.

Contacts between governmental bureaucracies charged with similar tasks may not only alter their perspective but lead to transgovernmental coalitions on particular policy questions. Lastly, is the role of international organizations as mediator in the negotiation process that may help set an international agenda, act as a catalyst for coalition-formation, and arena for political competition.

Another important component of analysis in this study is the Europeanization. Based on Tanja Borzel’s definition of Europeanization, it is taken as a “process by which domestic policy areas become increasingly subject to European policy-making”.[2] Kerry Howell explains it as, “In its most explicit form Europeanization is conceptualized as the process of downloading European Union (EU) directives, regulations and institutional structures to the domestic level.”[3] In this formulation, members and candidate states follow, copy, absorb and implement European policies, rules and regulations. However, how much these rules and regulations are internalized or accepted is important.

This study will try to look at all the legislative changes carried out since 2007 in the footwear industry following the EU directives as part of the accession process and will try to analyze whether this downloaded legislation is deemed beneficial or not for the Turkish footwear industry, as well as trying to look into sectoral developments and characteristics.[4]

1.3 Methodology

In this section of the study, the researcher whose works is in a discipline or engages in an inquiry used a body of practices, procedures, and rules. This is the portion wherein the branch of logic that deals with the general principles of the formation of knowledge would be considered and simply discussed.

Secondary data were made available from the internet sources which are official representatives of concerned parties (Turkey and EU), some books, magazines, periodicals and other informational sheet being provided. Much more of electronic journals, books and even leaflets, also articles from online news were given the importance for gathering the information needed. Especially those sources that are recently published or displayed at the world wide web using the google search key.

The research design of the present investigation primarily calls for the descriptive study. With the help of an Online Public Access Catalog or OPAC, which is a computerized online catalog of the materials held in a library, the library staff and the public can usually access it at several computer terminals within the library.

It is a database searchable by library personnel whose institutions have a paid subscription by the administration of the University. It is not typically searchable by the general public unless their local library subscribes to the OCLC FirstSearch reference service.

Another basis for the researcher’s method used is the Research Forum's database which was designed to provide researchers, policymakers, and practitioners easy access to research projects related to welfare and income security; child/family issues; and community/neighbourhood issues have brought a collection of data arranged for ease and speed of search and retrieval.

According to the host, which is the EBSCO (Elton B. Steven Company) HOST Research Database of the university, the information is current through 2000s when Research Forum operations will be cease.

In addition, personal queries and interviews to first-hand parties such as internal and external shoe makers, producers, technical workers, managers, designers, traders, proprietors, non-governmental organizations, and members of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Economics. They all provided anecdotal accounts that supported the data gathered.



This chapter will discuss the relations between Turkey and the European Union. From EU’s inception and Turkey’s first application to the current status and situation of the negotiation of the accession process.

2A.1 Historical Glimpse

In an official statement by the Turkish government, they regard Europe as their “common home that they have built by uniting around common norms, principles and values … Today, a full account of the history of Europe cannot be made without analyzing the significant role that Turkey played in the Continent.”[5]

The Turkish-EU relations began with the application of Turkey for membership in the former European Economic Community (EEC) in 1959. She was an associate member of the Community, with the potential of becoming a full member at a future date. In 1963, Ankara Agreement was established in order to fully acknowledge the final goal of membership which constituted legal basis and arrangement. Ever since, Turkey has been knocking on the EU’s door and thus has been waiting as a candidate country longer than any other outsider.[6]

In April 1987, Turkey applied for full membership in the EU, but was rejected on the grounds that Turkey was not ready for the membership. Turkey tried again at the European Summit Meeting in Helsinki in December 1999. Finally, on October 3, 2005 the EU decided to begin the accession negotiations with Turkey under tough conditions.[7]

According to Yilmaz, one of the main arguments against Turkey’s membership is the claim that it represents cultural, religious, and mental “otherness”. The argument that European culture is based upon a Judeo-Christian identity and a heritage leading back to Greek, and Roman civilization implicitly argues that Turkey has no place in the European Union.

In addition to the disagreements is the demographic issue where Turkey is comparable with the population size of Germany, where it has a young population (i.e., there is a high fertility rate compared with most of the European countries). It will also make a dominant figure in the decision making processes because Turkey holds a substantial population which gives them more seats in the parliamentary and other institutions of EU.

Another issue is when the EU immediately accepted the Greek-part-of-Cyprus and did not wait for the outcome of proposed “United Cyrus Republic” under the Kofi Annan plan in 2004. It exacerbated the conflicting tension in Turkey’s accession membership process particularly on the agreed ‘Customs Union’ between them, which Turkey did not comply on some of its provision by rejecting to open its ports to Greek Cypriots’ ships and planes. Therefore, EU forcefully closed most of the chapters in the communautaire acquis in the negotiation table, which prolonged the length of the accession process.

2A.2 Negotiations’ Timeline

The EU opened membership negotiations with Turkey on 3rd October 2005. This was done by adopting a negotiating framework for this candidate country.[8] On 29 July 2005, the additional protocol extending the Ankara Agreement to new member states that acceded to the EU in 2004 was concluded by exchange of letters among Turkey, the EU Presidency and the Commission. An official declaration which was an integral part of the letter and signature was also made. In the declaration, it was explicitly stated that Turkey, by signing the “Additional Protocol,” did not recognize the “Republic of Cyprus” by any means.[9]

The first stage of negotiations started immediately with the screening process. Screening meetings were completed in October 2006. Following this, the Commission prepared screening reports for each chapter. The first chapter to be negotiated (Chapter 25 - Science and Research), which opened and provisionally closed on 12 June 2006.

In November 2006, the European Union expressed concern over restrictions to the free movement of goods, including restrictions on means of transport to which Turkey had committed by signing the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement.

With no solution found, the European Council decided on 14-15 December 2006 to suspend negotiations on eight chapters relevant to Turkey's restrictions with regard to the Republic of Cyprus:

- Chapter 1 Free movement of goods
- Chapter 3 Right of establishment and freedom to provide services
- Chapter 9 Financial services
- Chapter 11 Agriculture and rural development
- Chapter 13 Fisheries
- Chapter 14 Transport policy
- Chapter 29 Customs union
- Chapter 30 External relations

It was therefore decided that no chapter would be provisionally closed until Turkey fulfils its commitments under the additional protocol to the EU-Turkey association agreement. However, this did not mean that the process of negotiations was blocked. In a retelling public ‘official’ website[10], records show the key milestones in the Turkey-EU relations which are bulleted below:

1959 – Turkey applies for associate membership in the European Economic Community.

1963 – Association Agreement signed, acknowledging the final goal of membership.

1964 – Association Agreement comes into effect.

1970 – Protocol signed providing a timetable for the abolition of tariffs and quotas on goods.

1980 – Freeze in relations following the 1980 Turkish coup d'état.

1983 – Relations fully restored following elections.

1987 – Turkey submits an application for full membership on 14 April.

1989 – European Commission refuses to immediately begin accession negotiations, citing Turkey’s economic and political situation, poor relations with Greece and their conflict with Cyprus, but overall reaffirming eventual membership as the goal.

1993– The EU and Turkey Customs Union negotiations start.

1996– The Customs Union between Turkey and the EU takes effect on 1 January.

1999– At the Helsinki Summit in December, the European Council gives Turkey the status of candidate country for EU membership, following the Commission's recommendation in its second Regular Report on Turkey.

2001– The European Council adopts the EU-Turkey Accession Partnership on 8 March, providing a road map for Turkey's EU accession process. On 19 March, the Turkish Government adopts the NPAA, the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (acquis means EU law), reflecting the Accession Partnership. In addition, at the Copenhagen Summit in September, the European Council Decides to Significantly increase EU financial support through what is now called "pre-accession instrument" (IPA).

2002 – European Council states that "the EU would open negotiations with Turkey 'without delay' if Turkey fulfills the Copenhagen criteria."

2004– Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus back the Annan Plan for Cyprus. European Union agrees to start negotiations. On 17 December, the European Council Decides to open membership talks with Turkey.

2005– Accession Negotiations open on October 3rd. Opening of 6 chapters of the Acquis: Right of Establishment & Freedom To Provide Services, Company Law, Financial Services, Information Society & Media, Statistics, and Financial Control.

2006 – Chapter on Science & Research opened and closed. Continued dispute over Cyprus prompts the EU to freeze talks on 8 chapters and state that no chapters would be closed until a resolution is found.

2007– In November, the European Commission presented to the European Council, the Regular Report concerning Turkey's accession negotiations. Chapters on Enterprise & Industrial Policy, Health & Consumer Protection, and Trans-European Networks are opened. Chapter on Statistics & Financial Control opened, but the opening of the chapter on Economic & Monetary Policy was blocked by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

2008– The European Commission published in November its yearly progress report on Turkey's preparation for EU accession. Chapters on Company Law, Intellectual Property Law, Free Movement of Capital, and Information Society & Media are opened.

2009 – Chapters on Taxation and Environment are opened.

2010 – Chapter on Food Safety, Veterinary & Phytosanitary Policy is opened.

2012 - Launch of the "Positive Agenda" with Turkey started.

2A.3 Current Status

As of January 2007, the negotiations were back on the track on the chapters that were not suspended. To date, 12 chapters have been under negotiations, as the table below shows it.

In the following period, there are three chapters that may be opened provided that Turkey fulfils the technical criteria. These chapters are Competition Policy, Public Procurement, and Social Policy and Employment.[11]

Table 1: Chapters of Negotiation’s Time Table

illustration not visible in this excerpt

In the document entitled “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011-12,” a communiqué from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council (dated 12 October 2011)[12] stated that Turkey’s accession process remains the most effective framework for promoting EU-related reforms, developing dialogue on foreign and security policy issues, strengthening economic competitiveness and diversifying supply of energy sources. In the accession negotiations, it has regrettably not been possible to open a new negotiating chapter for over a year.

However, in supporting the enlargement process, the EU will give financial support to Turkey. Assistance is provided essentially under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), under which total allocation over the period 2007-2013 is €11.6 billion. Around 10% of the available IPA funds will be allocated to multi-country projects across Turkey.

Moreover, the EU and Turkey started to intensify their cooperation on visa issues while the Commission entered into a dialogue with Turkey on visa, mobility, and migration, in line with the Council conclusions of February 2011.

This process started delivering results on both the issuance of visas for Turkish travellers and the tackling of irregular immigration to the EU and will help identify concrete steps required from Turkey in view of a future visa liberalization. In this context, an important step would be that Turkey take the necessary action for the swift conclusion of the readmission agreement.

As in previous years, a number of key challenges are given particular attention for Turkey’s accession process.

- Increased focus on strengthening the rule of law and public administration reform.
- Ensuring freedom of expression in the media. (The legal framework does not yet sufficiently safeguard freedom of expression. The high number of legal cases and investigations against journalists and undue pressure on the media raise serious concern.)
- Achieving sustainable economic recovery and embracing Europe 2020.
- Extending transport and energy networks. (The Commission supports Turkey financially in the further development of its transport networks, in particular concerning high speed rail connections and the modernization of port facilities. At the same time, Turkey should be encouraged to deepen its gas market, increasing liquidity, and contract flexibility. Such a process would lead to the emergence of an 'energy hub', the existence of which would achieve greater energy security.)


In this particular chapter, the discussion on the overall setting or situation of Turkey’s footwear industry will take place including its relations with the EU’s footwear industry. In addition, four selected chapters of negotiations for Turkey’s accession process are presented, but detailed analyses are accounted in the subsequent chapter.

2B.1 Turkey’s Footwear Industry

The footwear sector is a diverse industry which covers a wide variety of materials (textile, plastics, rubber, and leather) and products from different types of men's, women's, and children's footwear to more specialized products like snowboard boots and protective footwear. This diversity of end products corresponds to a multitude of industrial processes, enterprises, and market structures.[13]

Turkey’s footwear industry has developed at a rapid pace due to modern manufacturing processes, the availability of major quality raw materials, skilled workers, and high design capacity. Today, the Turkish footwear industry has a strong position among exporters of high quality of fashion goods. Another sign of positive development is the increase in foreign investments in the sector.[14]

The industry is the second in Europe after Italy.[15] The Turkish shoe sector had an export value of US$ 441 millions while imports totaled in US$ 871 millions in the year 2011. It is also important to note that the US$ 755 millions come from the Far East particularly China.[16] Furthermore, the export figure of the leather sector for 2011 was about US$ 1,262 million.[17] Major markets for the Turkish made shoes are the Russian Federation, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Bulgaria, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Romania.[18]

Table 2: Footwear Exports of Turkey by Countries (Dollars)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Ministry of Economy

The sector began automation in 1950s, then move to higher automation level to gain speed in medium and small scale enterprises in 1970s. However, the sector maintained its labor-intensive character substantially, and large scale enterprises proved to be the driving force for the increase in exports in 1990s. As far as it was estimated, Turkey accounts for 1.6 percent of the world’s total footwear production.[19]

According to Turkish State Institute of Statistics, the footwear industry employs 26,954 people and the industry have about 4753 companies which are manufacturing various shoes and slippers. Almost 50% of the total number of companies is active in Istanbul, Konya, Ankara, Gaziantep, İzmir, Manisa, Denizli, Adana, Malatya, and Corum (Iskilip) are other important shoe production centers in Turkey.[20]

The production capacity of the 33 leading companies in the sector is 328,100 pairs daily. In addition, there are many small and medium-size establishments in the sector. Turkey’s shoe production reached 212 million pairs. Almost 26% of the production consists of leather shoes. In addition, there has been a rapid increase in the manufacture of plastic shoes and slippers.[21] There are several non governmental organizations which are involved in advancing the interests of the shoe sector like Turkish Shoe Industrialist Association (Türkiye Ayakkabı Sanayicileri Derneği,TASD), the Turkish Shoe Industry Research, Development and Education Foundation (Türkiye Ayakkabı Sektörü Araştırma Geliştirme ve Eğitim Vakfı -TASEV), Footwear Industry Suppliers Association (Ayakkabı Yan Sanayicileri Derneği - AYSAD), etc.

The footwear sector relies on Turkish-made shoe production machinery as well as shoe parts. The share of the shoe parts industry in the total shoe industry production is around 5%, and production is quite diversified. The soles, heels, casting molds, and the welt of the shoes are exported. The shoe parts industry is located in Izmir, the Aegean region, Konya, Gaziantep, and in particular Istanbul.[22]

Advantages enjoyed by the sector are qualified manpower, rapid growth in demand fuelled by economic growth, increased urbanization, high installed capacity, high quality supplies from the domestic market, prompt delivery of products, proximity to European markets, and flexibility of boutique manufacturing.

The sector has also some challenges to cope up with, and these are low capacity utilization, dependency on imports in the supply of inputs, high energy costs, poor quality but cheap footwear exports from Far East, poor sanitation, lack of research and development, interest of producing counterfeit products, scarcity of new generations’ shoe designers, modelling and styling, branding, and labor-intensive sector.

2B.2 Turkey-EU Footwear Relations

The European footwear industry consists of a large number of small enterprises (some 20 employees), most of which are located in regions with little industrial diversity. However, there are differences from one member state to the other: French and German businesses employ about 100 workers while Spanish and Italian businesses employ about a dozen. The other Member States lie between these two extremes.[23]

EU action aims to promote innovation, competitiveness, and competition between companies involved in the sector, combat fraud and counterfeiting, and protect consumers' health and the environment.[24]

In 2011, the footwear sector generated €32.1 billion in turnover and €7.2 billion in added value and directly employed 418,000 people. Two thirds of the total EU footwear production is actually concentrated in three countries: Italy, Spain and Portugal with Italy producing around 50% of EU production.[25]

Manufacturing in EU countries has declined in many sectors including footwear, mainly because of labor intensive processes accompanied by high labor costs. However, it is largely acknowledged that manufacturing cannot be depleted. This is particularly true for the footwear sector since preserving a shoe making capability in Europe is considered vital for the future of the sector, in terms of employment, quality of products, service contents, and kind of entrepreneurship of European companies.[26]

While the sector in Europe needs to transform itself from an industry driven, Resource Based activity to a market led Knowledge Based activity, it is essential that it maintains its advantage in style and fashion. To build a Knowledge Society and a Knowledge Manufacturing does not mean to concentrate only on the Style and Design phases, but it also means to be able to master the whole product and process life cycle adding value (knowledge and intangible) to each phase.[27]

The main suppliers of footwear to the EU are China and Vietnam, which together account for more than 60% of the footwear imports into the EU (in value). The main markets for EU footwear are USA, Russia, and Switzerland.[28]

In view of the limited growth potential of the EU's internal market, and the fact that steadily growing low-priced imports are gaining an ever-increasing share of that market, open export markets are the only way of increasing EU production, or at least maintaining it at present levels.[29]

With the coordination of Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) throughout the whole process, Turkey has completed the screening on Enterprise and Industrial Policy chapter and the Negotiation Position Paper of Turkey was submitted to the European Commission in February 2007.[30] By the Council of the European Union decision on the 29 March 2007, the negotiations on chapter 20 - Enterprise and industrial policy were opened. Turkey has fulfilled its obligation of full non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement. However, in order for the chapter to be provisionally closed, the following two benchmarks need to be met:[31]

- Turkey provides the Commission with a revised comprehensive industrial policy strategy aiming at strengthening Turkey's industrial competitiveness. This strategy will address in some details all key sectors of industry, including all those referred to in the 2003 Industrial Strategy, inter alia shipbuilding, railway, and food industry. It will be built on a thorough evaluation of past policy performance and a solid analysis of the competitiveness of industries concerned. It should enable an improved policy coordination and coherence and lead to better policy ownership and improved policy implementation.

- The strategy should also take account of the two sectoral strategy documents already under preparation (for the steel and the automotive supply industry) as well as of any future strategic sectoral documents. It should also take into account results of Turkey's sector technical committees including on sectors such as motor vehicles and textiles.

Moreover, presented to the Public in April 2007, the 2007-2013 Program of Turkey to comply with the EU Acquis also indicate that by the first half of 2008, the Industrial Policy Strategy of Turkey is planned to be revised with the contribution and coordination role of MIT and other related institutions.[32]

As its explained in the Negotiation Position Paper, the sectoral technical committees of Turkey mentioned in the closing criteria are those that are established in MIT, namely on motor vehicles, machinery, electrical and electronics industry, textile, footwear, lifts, pressure equipment, gas appliances, pre-packaging, and weighing instruments. Therefore, MIT plans to utilize this existing platform and capacity for better policy formulation, implementation, and revision where private sector representatives discuss with public authorities problems arising from practical sectoral issues.[33]


[1] Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph Nye, Jr. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. 3rd Ed. Longman: London, 2000.

[2] Tanja Borzel, “Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanization in Germany and Spain”, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol 39, no. 4, 1999, p. 579

[3] Kerry Howell, Developing Conceptualizations of Europeanization and European Integration: Mixing Methodologies. In: UNSPECIFIED, Sheffield, UK, 2002, p. 8 accessed on 07/09/2012.

[4] The large amount of academic debate on the concept of Europeanization is not within the scope of this survey. For a detailed analysis of the conceptualization of Europeanization, see: Kevin Featherstone and Claudio Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002; and Paolo Graziano and Maarten P. Vink (eds), Europeanization: New Research Agendas, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2008.

[5] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

[6] Yilmaz, Bahri. “Turkey’s Membership in the EU: Realistic or Merely Wishful?” International Harvard Review (6 January 2011). Accessed on 15 August 2012 at,0

[7] Ibid.

[8] The official website of the delegation of the European Union to Turkey, which was accessed on 15 August 2012 at

[9] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

[10] The official website of the delegation of the European Union to Turkey, which was accessed on 15 August 2012 at

[11] The official website of the delegation of the European Union to Turkey, which was accessed on 15 August 2012 at

[12] COM(2011) 666 final; Brussels, 12.10.2011. “Enlargement Strategy and Main Chalenges 2011-2012”. Communication from the Commision to the European Parliament and the Council.

[13] “Overview of the Footwear Industry.” European Commission‘s Enterprise and Industry. Accessed on 30 August

2010 at

[14] “Leather Footwear and Jewellery (Footwear in Turkey).” Fibre2Fashion. Accessed on 15 August 2010 at

[15] “Turkish Footwear Industry: The Second in Europe after Italy.” Business Turkey Today. Accessed on 15 August 2012 at

[16] Seyirden, Esra “Ayakkabı ithalatı ‘koruma’ dinlemiyor (Shoe imports ‘protection’ listening)” Ticaret (Günlük Siyasi Ticari Gazete) . Accessed on 30 August 2012 at

[17] “Footwear in Turkey.” Official document released by the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Turkey. Accessed on 30 August 2012 at

[18] Information was provided by the official document released by the Ministry of Economy of Turkey on the current condition of the footwear industry in 2012.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Refer to footnote 17 and 19.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] “Overview of the Footwear Industrial Sector.” European Commission‘s Enterprise and Industry. Accessed on 30 August 2010 at

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] “Real Footwear Trend: Three paths for the future of the European footwear industry.” Future Concept Lab. September 2008. Accessed on 10 August 2010 at

[27] Smets, Roeland. “Custom, Environment, and Comfort made shoe.” Project completed on September 2008.

[28] “External dimension of the footwear sector” European Commision. Accessed on 17 August 2010 at

[29] Ibid.

[30] “Turkish Industrial Strategy Document 2011-2014: Towards EU Membership.” Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Industry and Trade. Accessed on 15 August 2012.

[31] “Turkey 2011 Progress Report.” Accompanying the document on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Commission Staff Working Paper. SEC(2011) 1201 final, Brussels, 12.10.2011.

[32] “Turkish Industrial Strategy Document 2011-2014: Towards EU Membership.” Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Industry and Trade. Accessed on 15 August 2012 at

[33] Ibid.


ISBN (eBook)
ISBN (Paperback)
1.7 MB
Institution / Hochschule
Middle east technical university; Ankara – International Relations
2014 (Februar)
European Union Footwear Turkey Europeanization International Relations


  • F. Deniz Erdoğan (Autor:in)


Titel: European Union and Turkish Footwear Industry