Thematic Evaluation of EU Support to Public Administration Reforms (PAR) and Public Financial Managemet (PFM) Reforms under IPA I and IPA II 2004 – 2020 Programming Years in Turkey

1. Specific Contract Nr 300011060
Desk Study
Report
Consortium led by
DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN
UNION TO TURKEY – THEMATIC
EVALUATION OF EU SUPPORT TO PAR AND
PFM UNDER IPA I AND IPA II 2004 – 2020
PROGRAMMING YEARS IN TURKEY
EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi
Specific Contract Number 300011060
Final Report
21 February 2022
An-EU Funded Project Managed
by FCG Germany GmbH

2. Specific Contract Nr 300011060 Final Report
THEMATIC EVALUATION OF EU SUPPORT TO PAR AND PFM UNDER IPA I AND IPA II 2004 – 2020
PROGRAMMING YEARS IN TURKEY
Specific Contract Nr 300011060
DISCLAIMER
This report has been prepared with the financial assistance of the European Commission. The views
expressed herein are those of the consultants and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the
European Commission.
REPORT PREPARED BY REPORT REVISED BY CONTRACTOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
Nick Norvell
Team Leader
Sefa Pamuksuz
Supply Expert
Coşkun Cangöz
PFM Expert
Ms. Milica Simin
Project Director
FCG Germany GmBH
Mr Andreas von Brühl Pohl,
Project Director
Fasanenstrasse 4, 10623 Berlin,
Germany
Tel. +49 (0)30 200 89-200
Fax: +49 (0)30 200-89-79
E-mail: lot05@fcgconsult.com

3. Specific Contract Nr 300011060 Final Report
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................7
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................13
1.1 Content and Scope of the Evaluation ................................................................................................ 13
1.2 The Reform Process................................................................................................................................... 14
1.2.1 Public Administration Reform (PAR)................................................................................................... 14
1.2.2 Public Finance Management ................................................................................................................. 18
1.3 EU and Government Policy Objective ................................................................................................ 19
1.3.1 EU policy objective................................................................................................................................. 19
1.3.2 Government policy objective ............................................................................................................. 21
1.4 Programme, Projects and Complementary Project Description.............................................. 22
1.4.1 Pre-accession Financial Assistance for Turkey (2002/2006)................................................... 22
1.4.2 Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) I (2007-2013)................................................ 22
1.4.3 Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) II (2014 – 2020)............................................ 23
1.4.4 IPA projects assessed in-depth ......................................................................................................... 25
1.4.5 Complementary projects ..................................................................................................................... 28
1.5 IPA III Regulation........................................................................................................................................ 29
2 ANSWERED QUESTIONS / FINDINGS........................................................................31
2.1 Were the PA and PFM selected areas of action and proposed measures relevant to
the EU and Turkey’s policy objectives and thus conducive to accession progress?
considering the limited availability of resources do they represent a priority in the
context of the reform process?............................................................................................................. 31
2.2 Were the resources (budget and technical assistance) adequate and appropriate to
achieve the critical mass able to put in motion changes? and was the quality of
advice in line with international best practices? Were the institution buildings’ tools
appropriate to identified needs and were they complementing each other?................... 35
2.3 Was the institutional framework, partners ownership at political, managerial, and
technical levels, and partners performance conducive to changes? ..................................... 37
2.4 Was the adopted operational strategy and concerning actions properly
coordinated, sequenced, able to ensure efficiency and complementarity? ....................... 38
2.5 Were the expected short-term changes achieved?...................................................................... 39
2.6 Were the short-term changes sustainable? what is left of the completed projects
now? what factors have hampered the sustainability of the projects? ................................ 48
2.7 Were the expected progresses towards meeting accession criteria for a responsible
and accountable public administration achieved? ....................................................................... 50
2.8 Were the expected progresses in the cross-cutting areas such as gender equality,
environment, climate change, and equal opportunities for disadvantaged people
achieved?....................................................................................................................................................... 51
3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................51
3.1 Lesson Learnt............................................................................................................................................... 51