When Can Idea Entrepreneurs Influence Foreign Policy? Explaining the Rise of the “Turkic World” in Turkish Foreign Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to shift the focus of scholarship on ideas and foreign policy from its overwhelming concern with domestic structures and institutional setup toward a greater awareness of the importance of changing national identity conceptions. I argue that Turkey’s foreign policy toward the post-Soviet Turkic Eurasia has been influenced by an ideational factor—the idea of the “Turkic World.” Advocated by nonstate actors, “Turkic World” was rapidly internalized by a wide range of political actors in Turkey in the 1990s. Despite the eventual fading of the geopolitical importance of the region for Turkey and the rise to power of a political party with Islamist roots, the idea has gained a “taken for granted” status in Turkey’s foreign policy interests and practices. I argue that idea entrepreneurs can influence foreign policy when two conditions are met: first, when a critical juncture prompts decision makers to search for a new foreign policy framework and second, when the evolving national identity conceptions of the ruling elite overlap with the general premise of the idea entrepreneurs’ proposals. In this case, “Turkic World” has not only provided Turkish decision makers with a pragmatic foreign policy course but also spoken to their changing “worldviews.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".