The quest of the metropolitan government model for Turkey: The case of İstanbul

This study aims to compare the metropolitan government of İstanbul which is the biggest metropolitan city in Turkey, with the London metropolitan government (Greater London Authority) and the Paris metropolitan government (Metropol du Grand Paris). And with the result of the comparison of how the metropolitan government model is designed; some kind of suggestions are made with the reference of the comparison. As an area of research, a holistic assessment was made in terms of the governing bodies of these three metropolitan governments, the relations between these bodies, the relations between the lower and upper-level government elements, the services provided at the metropolitan level, the control mechanisms and financial structures of the metropolitan governments. A qualitative research method was used within the scope of the study. In the fieldwork part, which comes after the comparative analysis, interviews were conducted using an in-depth interview method with a sample of 25 people formed by the data-based triangulation method. For the analysis of the interviews, Maxqda 2020 Program was used. The sample consists of academicians, central government actors, and local government actors. Suggestions were made for the current metropolitan management model of Istanbul by blending the findings obtained from the interviews with the findings obtained in the comparison section. Compared to the Paris and London metropolitan governments, these are the main findings: İstanbul has a workload that unables it to fulfill the coordination task of the general aim of the two-tier model. The task definition of İstanbul metropolitan government is less development-based compared to Paris and London metropolitan governments. Tasks of the lower level municipalities are less and similar to the tasks of the high-level government compared to London and Paris metropolitan governments. The decision-making/audit and executive bodies are not completely separated from each other. The ombudsman audit does not have a local character, and a large part of İstanbul metropolitan government's financial revenues consist of central transfers. For these findings determined within the scope of the study on the current metropolitan administration of İstanbul, these suggestions are made: The full separation of the decision-making/audit and executive bodies of the İstanbul metropolitan government. Localization of the ombudsman institution as an audit mechanism to be more effective. Dividing tasks from the center to the local and from top to the lower level in local to increase the coordination quality. And finally, to eliminate the dependency of the metropolitan administration on the center financially, by increasing its own revenues.