© 2004 European Consortium for Political Research

bogaç erozan

INTRODUCTION[1]

The history of political science has not yet acquired an established place among the subfields of political science. Still, there is a growing interest in the history of the discipline. Most of the existing literature, however, relates to the histories of American and European political science (Crick, 1959; Somit and Tanenhaus, 1967; O’Furner, 1975; Collini, Winch, and Burrow, 1983; Ricci, 1984; Seidelman and Harpham, 1985; Anckar and Berndtson, 1988; Farr, 1988 and 1990; Ross, 1991; Easton, Gunnell, and Graziano (eds), 1991; Easton, Gunnell, and Stein (eds), 1995; Silverberg (ed.), 1998). Even a cursory examination of this literature reveals that some authors prefer writing such history from the point of view of what happened when, how, and why. Others experiment with generalisable reflections derived from historical findings, and a minority concentrates on the effort of understanding and interpreting the texts and ideas produced by the practitioners of political science. This article seeks to contribute to the efforts of the minority.
The article attempts to demonstrate how an interpretive approach can enrich our understanding of the discipline’s past and present. It is of course useful to have organisational histories of political science. Yet such studies are inadequate for the purposes of capturing continuity and change in the array of political concepts that later become central tools of research and teaching in political science.

In addition to theoretical reflections on the advantages of an interpretive approach, the article also provides a case study to exemplify the approach at work. It does so by exploring the conceptual roots of institutionalism[2] in Turkish political science. Put differently, it represents an attempt to understand the key conceptual mix, as well as its reception and transmission, that is in part responsible for the persistence of institutionalism in Turkish political science today. Specifically, the case study part of the article describes Maurice Hauriou’s ‘theory of institutions’ and its reception by Tarik Zafer Tunaya, late Professor of Constitutional Law and a great forerunner of Turkish political science. Tunaya’s application of Hauriou’s concept of institution to political parties in Turkey has left a lasting mark on Turkish political science.
The article thus has a twofold purpose. It seeks to contribute to research into the history of Turkish political science and therefore to the comparative history of the discipline. At the same time it seeks to demonstrate how an interpretive approach can be used to establish a variety of new research agendas aimed at understanding the past and present identity of political science.

REFLECTIONS ON AN INTERPRETIVE APPROACH TO THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

As the existing literature suggests, historians of political science sometimes adopt the perspective of organisational history. This involves a focus on the establishment of departments and the inauguration of political science courses and curricula. However, another approach is possible. This involves seeking ‘a grasp of the internal character of [the] disciplinary evolution’ of political science (Gunnell, 1995: 59) by trying to understand the conceptual tools with which earlier political scientists attempted to make sense of the political world around them. Such an effort concentrates on understanding concepts as employed by earlier practitioners, while being equally attentive to what they did with those concepts in a given context (Farr, 1995b: 40; Ball, 1995:18-9; Skinner, 1988a: 60-2). Such an interpretive approach takes us closer to what Gunnell refers to as grasping ‘the internal character of disciplinary evolution’.

In order to demonstrate the plausibility of their approach, interpretive historians of political science must first tackle a number of issues. One issue is the fact that ‘the roots of political science are’ – as Guy Peters (1999: 1) observes – ‘in the study of institutions’. In the United States, where the discipline first took root, political science emerged as a ‘science of the state,’ or, in any case, as a science of institutions.[3] Why, then, try to write a history of political science from an interpretive perspective when political science itself was born with an institutionalist bent? Research based on an analysis of the formal documents regarding the establishment of a political science department at a university makes a contribution to our understanding of the context within which a professor started to teach political science. Such an analysis, however, cannot by itself disclose the meaning that politics and political science had for that particular professor. The conceptual arsenal that the professor brought to political science instruction from her/his previous academic orientations will also remain hidden. By filling in such lacunae, an interpretive approach to the history of political science promises to provide more informed and detailed histories.

A ‘normative institutionalist’ rejoinder to interpretive approaches is possible. March and Olsen’s (1998: 948, 951-2) approach offers a way of combining context and meaning. If institutions are effective in influencing their members’ behaviour, the members will act not according to the consequences of their actions but according to the appropriateness of their actions to the norms of the institution (Peters, 1999: 29). In this sense, the ‘normative institutionalist’ approach promises to reveal the meanings of actions, explaining them in terms of the above ‘logic of appropriateness’. It is sensitive to individuals’ own interpretations of institutional norms. Still, this makes poor history if we look at matters from the perspective of the history of political science. Acting in accordance with the imperatives of a university’s rules may be one consideration for a professor of political science in carrying out the activities of teaching and writing. Yet this cannot account for all s/he teaches and writes in the field of politics. A textbook on political subjects written by that professor is an invaluable source for an historian adopting an interpretive approach. Studying the textbook, the historian will be able to identify what is left out and – by comparing them to ‘prevailing conventions governing the treatment of the issues and themes with which the text is concerned’ (Skinner, 1988b: 77) – the way selected topics are covered. Whereas for a normative institutionalist historian it would suffice to record whether the professor had acted according to the institutional norms of the university, the interpretive historian would provide multidimensional histories, sensitive to the professor’s own conceptualisations and writings, and to the larger literary and non-literary contexts in which those writings appeared.
When a person comes to occupy a chair in political science for the first time in a country, for an interpretive historian of the discipline, the significance of the occasion goes beyond the mere fact of the appointment. The occasion marks a critical juncture, one in which certain elements of pre-existing political discourse become central subject matters of political science. Attending to past discourses, the historian encounters forerunners of the discipline, for instance moral philosophers in the United States and constitutional and public law professors in Turkey. Forerunners’ understandings of politics, the state, democracy, liberty, institutions and the like are of critical importance since it is in their works, in what I call transmission works, that the interpretive historian finds out how certain political concepts and subjects are transmitted to the fledgling discipline of political science. This is one task among the manifold tasks of the historian. Once it is accomplished, the historian concentrates on conceptual change and continuity in the work of political scientists after the formal establishment of the discipline (cf. Farr, 1995a).

In light of the foregoing, the following is a modest example of what an interpretive approach to the history of political science can offer. I study a forerunner of Turkish political science, Tarik Zafer Tunaya, with an eye to understanding how he transmitted a specific understanding of the concept of ‘institution’, that of Maurice Hauriou, to the vocabulary of political science in Turkey.

MAURICE HAURIOU, THE THEORY OF INSTITUTIONS, AND TARIK ZAFER TUNAYA

Maurice Hauriou (1856-1929), the French legal scholar and long-time dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Toulouse, published a definitive explication of his theory of institutions in Cahiers de la Nouvelle Journée in 1925 under the title ‘La Théorie de l’Institution et de la Fondation: Essai de Vitalisme Social’. According to Hauriou’s theory, an institution is ‘an idea of a work or enterprise that is realised and endures juridically in a social milieu’ (Hauriou, 1944: 645; Gigacz, 1997-2001).[4] The fundamental element of an institution is the idea. Following Plato and Bergson,[5] Hauriou believed that ideas existed objectively outside the subjective consciousness of individuals. Individuals do not invent but discover ideas (Hauriou, 1944: 649). Once discovered, an idea becomes the ‘idée-directrice’ or a directing idea for members of a group who are interested in its realisation. The directing idea gives shape to a formerly heterogeneous and orderless mass of people by mobilising them – at least a portion of them — around the idea to be realised. Beginning with a few followers, the number of people who are mobilised by the directing idea grows. Once these ‘manifestations of communion’ appear and once the idea is ‘interiorised’ first by the group and then by the larger social milieu, an institution is born. This is critical for if the idea is not ‘interiorised’ by the group, it cannot ‘incorporate’ (op. cit., 652-3; 665-6; 668-9). If the institution does not get accepted by the social milieu, it tends to die. However, Hauriou claims that even if the institution dies, the idea that leads to its foundation lives on. Later, new people will gather around it (Onar, 1941: 511; Okandan, 1950: 89-93).

Following its publication in 1925, Hauriou’s understanding of institutions and institutionalisation became an established subject in public, constitutional, and administrative law curricula in the Faculty of Law at Istanbul University. There is evidence that as early as 1928 Charles Crozat, Professor of Public Law and an admirer of Hauriou, was teaching ‘the theory of institutions’ to Turkish students (see Crozat, 1928-9: 53ff; 1934: 216-53). So was Siddik Sami Onar, Professor of Administrative Law (see Onar, 1933: 99-107; 1944: 388-400). In this intellectual environment, Onar took a further step and published an article (Onar, 1941) in which he explicitly drew upon Hauriou’s theory of institutions to explain the failure of reform efforts in the late nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire.

After the appearance of Onar’s influential article, in 1944 a young assistant in the Faculty of Law, Tarik Zafer Tunaya (1919-1991), translated Hauriou’s famous essay into Turkish. Two years later Tunaya finished his doctoral dissertation, entitled Müessese Teorisinde Fikir Unsuru ve Bazi Hususiyetleri [The Element of Idea and its Characteristics in the Theory of Institutions]. The dissertation was published in three instalments over two years.[6] It revealed Tunaya’s admiration for Hauriou. Just like Onar before him, Tunaya had found the theory of institutions congenial, as seen in his comments regarding historical developments in the Ottoman Empire and parts of Europe (Tunaya, 1946: 541-58; 1947b: 532-4, 542-8). Incorporation of an idea in an institution seemed to him to be the key to the explanation of a large number of political phenomena. For instance, he observed that ‘democracy’ became the ‘idée-directrice’ in the world after World War II (Tunaya, 1946: 556; 1947b: 556).

Tunaya’s dissertation appeared at a time when Turkey was democratising. In 1946, for the first time since the foundation of the Republic in 1923, Turkey witnessed the formation of a new opposition party and free general elections with two competing parties. In May 1950, the twenty-seven year rule of the Republican People’s Party (RPP) came to an end in the elections that brought the Democratic Party to power. The term ‘party’ no longer automatically signified the RPP. Parties became an undeniable element in Turkish politics. It was in this context that, in 1952, Tunaya published his masterpiece, Türkiye’de Siyasi Partiler [Political Parties in Turkey]. In his preface to the book, Tunaya explicitly states that his study of Turkish political parties was inspired by Maurice Hauriou’s theory of institutions: ‘... I have had the opportunity to examine and explore many issues owing to the inspiration provided by the great legal scholar Maurice Hauriou. In light of this, I am convinced that an inquiry into the reasons for both the emergence and persistence of political and social associations in our country is a must’ (Tunaya, 1952: v-vi).

Tunaya’s approach to political parties was nurtured by Hauriou’s understanding of institutions. Tunaya says that ‘political parties are organs that make political tendencies and mentalities concrete’ (Tunaya, 1952: 29). In other words, abstract political tendencies are incorporated in institutions known as political parties. The formal expressions of these tendencies are the programmes of parties. This is the ideational element of parties as institutions. Tunaya himself emphasises that the ‘emergence of ideas and interests’ is fundamental for the emergence of parties (op. cit., 1). The idea – or the programme — attracts followers and results in an agreement among the members of a group on the desirability of the realisation of the programme in a given social milieu. Perhaps this is the reason that the bulk of Tunaya’s work is devoted to the programmes of parties in Turkey. In the meantime, the very organisation of people around the idea to be realised engenders order in a formerly heterogeneous mass of people. In Tunaya’s terms, a ‘political party brings forth order and discipline in a community’ (op. cit., 28-9). Furthermore, Tunaya emphasises that the political party is a communality or a unity of idea and action by a group of individuals (op. cit., 11). It suggests that for a gathering of individuals to be called a party it is necessary to have consent or common agreement among those people about a certain idea and action plan. If we translate this into the language of Hauriou, Tunaya seems to be alluding to ‘manifestations of communion’ in a group.

Another important precept of Hauriou can also be seen in Tunaya’s work: Institutions tend to die if they do not fit the social milieu into which they are born, yet the ‘idée-directrice’ lives on. Likewise, Tunaya believes that ‘party means subjection to a programme or an idea, not to an individual. The founders of a party are mortal, but not the party’, which is formed for the realisation of an idea (op. cit., 11). Tunaya demonstrates in great historical detail that the idea of constitutional monarchy did not die when the New Ottomans Association disintegrated (op. cit. 91-5). Nor did the idea of ‘how to maintain the state’ disappear with the disappearance of, for instance, Firka-i Ahrar or the Ottoman Liberal Party (op. cit., 167, 171, 240-6).

Examples can be multiplied to underline the traces of Hauriou in Tunaya’s work. However, our concerns go beyond demonstrating the presence of conceptual continuities. Tunaya’s book is not merely a study of the historical evolution of political parties in Turkey. It is also what I call a transmission work, for his book is significant in transmitting institutionalism to Turkish political science. The evidence we can use to underline such intentional transmission is once again to be found in the book’s preface. Here, where he acknowledges the influence of Hauriou, Tunaya emphasises that his book is intended to be a ‘modest contribution to political science’ in Turkey (op. cit., viii). What Tunaya does is to provide an analysis of the emergence, development, and at times decline of parties as institutions in Turkey. He firmly believes that the ‘history of political parties in a country is the same as the political history of that country’ (op. cit., 749). Given that he understands party to be an institution, his statement also suggests that the history of institutions exhausts the political history of a country.

It is Hauriou’s influence that seems to lead Tunaya to such a conviction. According to Hauriou, the analysis of even one political institution requires a historical study of how an idea becomes incorporated, disseminated, accepted, and endured in a social milieu. A study of institutionalisation in this fashion therefore covers a lot of historical-political ground while opening up various research agendas. This is probably why Tunaya was content with the analysis of political parties as institutions. Hauriou’s understanding of institutions and institutionalisation gave Tunaya an opportunity to transcend the purely legalistic analysis of political parties. Tunaya’s move was toward political science at a time when it was rarely mentioned by the professors of the Faculty of Law at Istanbul University.[7]

In a later work Tunaya expressed the need for political science as follows: ‘The classical teaching and methods of constitutional law are no longer adequate for the study of political institutions... We need to analyse institutions… from a new perspective. It is political science that will provide us with such a perspective’ (Tunaya, 1966: 31). This is a later expression of what Tunaya did in his book on political parties in Turkey in 1952. What he did in 1952 was political science to him – a political science that concentrates on institutions.

THE PERSISTENCE OF INSTITUTIONALISM IN TURKISH POLITICAL SCIENCE

One legacy of Tunaya for political science in Turkey is the legitimation of the discipline itself. Legitimation of the plausibility of institutionalism in political science is another legacy he bequeathed. If we further ask what he transmitted within the institutionalist approach, we come across the name of Maurice Hauriou and his understanding of how ideas become institutions. I do not wish to imply that all Turkish political scientists became institutionalists following the appearance of Tunaya’s book. Maurice Duverger, Max Weber, behavioralism, and Marxism have also been influential in the discipline. Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas have had followers for at least the last two decades. Nonetheless the institutionalist approach still persists. Even though Hauriou’s terminology has been dropped and his name forgotten, the focus on institutions lives on.
A poignant example of the reception given to the institutionalist approach can be seen in Bülent Daver’s Siyaset Bilimine Giris [Introduction to Political Science]. This is the first introductory political science textbook to have been published in Turkish (Daver, 1969: xi). It consists of four major parts, namely, fundamental concepts, foundations of politics, political institutions, and political life and behaviour (op.cit., xiii-xv). In the part that relates to the subject matter of political science, Daver emphasises that the subject matter is ‘activity regarding the forces that influence power in the state’ (op. cit., 43). The state, in turn, is defined as the largest political institution. ‘It is the institution of institutions’ (op. cit., 166). This is indeed one of the definitions of the state according to Maurice Hauriou himself: ‘l’institution des institutions’ [institution of institutions] (Hauriou, 1910: 126).[8] Therefore, according to Daver, political science becomes the study of the forces that influence the largest institution. The institution is at the centre of political science. In addition, as late as 1997, Ahmet Taner Kislali defined political science as, ‘the science of behaviours that play a role in the emergence and working of institutions pertaining to political authority’ (Kislali, 1997: 18). Once again the focus of political science is ‘institutions’.

The continuing centrality, well into the 1990s, of the concept of institution in Turkish political science should not lead one to the misleading conclusion that the institutional approach had always been dominant (see Kalaycioglu, 1984; Turan 1997). Rather, the point is that centrality of the concept of institution has persisted, at times in the way that Hauriou outlined. For instance, many Turkish political scientists have tackled the ideas of ‘modernisation’ and ‘Westernisation’ as keys to understanding Turkish politics, and have focused on how these ideas became institutionalised. Not infrequently, the republican reforms that established modern institutions in Turkey have been interpreted as the realisation of Kemal Atatürk’s idea of modernism and modernisation (see Kili, 1988: 169). Münci Kapani’s textbook, Politika Bilimine Giris [Introduction to Political Science] (1995), provides further evidence that institutions are still the central elements of political science courses even if professors do not explicitly subscribe to institutionalism. For Kapani, political parties are ‘protagonists’ in political life among other actors (Kapani, 1995: 192). He defines parties as institutions that are organised around certain programmes and aim at attaining or sharing political power (op. cit., 160). Political power, in turn, is the ‘central subject-matter of political science’ (op. cit., 46-8). It is possible to deduce from these premises that the study of ‘protagonists’ in political life is primarily and necessarily the study of institutions. Institution once again assumes a critically significant place in political science.

CONCLUSION

This article has tried to serve a dual purpose. On the one hand, it has tried to make a contribution to the history of Turkish political science as well as to the comparative history of political science. It has highlighted the reception and the transmission of Maurice Hauriou’s institutionalist approach by a forerunner of Turkish political science, Tarik Zafer Tunaya. The article shows that the historical-conceptual roots of institutionalism help us to understand the persistence of the institutional approach in Turkish political science. Just as Hauriou and his theory of institutions is indispensable for an understanding of Tunaya, Tunaya is in turn indispensable for an understanding of the persistence of the institutional approach in Turkish political science. As far as the comparative history of political science is concerned, the article has sought to contribute to what James Farr conceptualises as the passage ‘from discourse to discipline’ (Farr, 1995a: 132). Farr limited himself, however, to the history of American political science, as he considered how American political discourse found a place in political science departments. Aspiring to undertake a similar study of the Turkish case, this article has explored material that could provide the opportunity for future comparative studies.

On the other hand, the article has sought to use the Turkish case as a means to argue for the need for an interpretive approach to the history of political science. The point has been to illustrate the newer and richer research dimensions that such an approach makes available. The story of how Turkish political science came into being can be told in various ways. If we wish to go beyond official registers, legal papers, and the laws governing universities, the interpretive approach represents a promising alternative. It allows us to follow the history of a political concept from one text to another and from one political scientist (or one forerunner) to another. Here I have interpreted a single text by Tunaya as a transmission work that connects a past conceptualisation of institution, that of Hauriou, with Turkish political science. A similar study could potentially be conducted into the persistence of sociological analyses in political science. In any case, the works of political scientists and their forerunners present invaluable resources to historians seeking to understand the internal evolution of what political science was and is about. Studies conducted in this fashion will provide extremely rich histories that illuminate not only the past but also the present identity of political science.

notes

1. Unless otherwise cited, all translations from Turkish and French are mine. My thanks are due to Erol Sadi Erdinç, Ilter Turan, Ahmet Emre Ates, and Ayse Özbay-Erozan.
2. By institutionalism I simply mean the approach that focuses on institutions as the central element of politics. For a distinction within institutionalism, see (Peters, 1999: 6-11).
3. The title of Theodore D. Woolsey’s (1878) textbook – Political Science or the State, Theoretically and Practically Considered – is a good example. To him the state was ‘the only scientific term proper for a treatise on politics’ (Woolsey, 1878, I: 142).
4. Stefan Gigacz’s website is a very helpful resource for a brief introduction to Hauriou. See
   http://www.hauriou.net, [accessed 2 January 2003].
5. For the influence of Plato, Bergson, Proudhon, and Thomism on Hauriou, see Gurvitch, (1931: 155-164). Crozat reports that Hauriou was nicknamed the ‘Bergson of law.’ See (Crozat, 1928-9: 53; 1934: 214).
6. Interview with Erol Sadi Erdinç, 19 December 2002, Istanbul. The three instalments were published as: Tunaya 1946; 1947a; 1947b.
7. Interview with Erol Sadi Erdinç, 19 December 2002, Istanbul.
8. Daver puts the definition in quotation marks but he does not cite the name of Hauriou. See (Daver, 1969:166).

references

Anckar, D. and E. Berndtson (1988), ‘Political Science between the Past and the Future’, Helsinki, The Finnish Political Science Association.

Ball, T. (1995), Reappraising Political Theory: Revisionist Studies in the History of Political Thought, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Collini, S., D. Winch and J. Burrow (1983), The Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Crick, B. (1959), The American Science of Politics, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Crozat, C. (1928-9), ‘Notes de Cours d’Histoire du Droit Public: Sources des Pouvoirs de l’État’, manuscript, Library of the Faculty of Law, Istanbul University.

Crozat, C. (1934), ‘Amme Hukuku’ [Public Law], Istanbul, Istanbul University Law Students Association.

Daver, B. (1969), Siyaset Bilimine Giris [Introduction to Political Science], Ankara, Dogan Publications, 2nd ed.

Easton, D., J. Gunnell and L. Graziano (eds) (1991), The Development of Political Science, A Comparative Survey, London and New York, Routledge.

Easton, D., J. G. Gunnell and M. B. Stein (eds) (1995), Regime and Discipline: Democracy and the Development of Political Science, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.

Farr, J. (1988), ‘Political Science and the Enlightenment of Enthusiasm’, American Political Science Review, 82:1, 51-69.

Farr, J. (1990), ‘Francis Lieber and the Interpretation of American Political Science’, Journal of Politics, 52:4, 1027-1049.

Farr, J. (1995a), ‘From Modern Republic to Administrative State: American Political Science in the Nineteenth Century’ in D. Easton, J. G. Gunnell and M. B. Stein (eds), Regime and Discipline: Democracy and Development of Political Science, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.

Farr, J. (1995b), ‘Understanding Conceptual Change Politically’ in T. Ball, J. Farr and R. L. Hanson (eds) (1995), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Gigacz, S. (1997-2001), http://www.hauriou.net , [accessed 2 January 2003].

Gunnell, J. G. (1995), ‘Can Political Science History be Neutral?’ in D. Easton, J. G. Gunnell and M. B. Stein (eds), Regime and Discipline: Democracy and Development of Political Science, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.

Gurvitch, G. (1931), ‘Les idées-maîtresses de Maurice Hauriou’, Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique, 1-2, 155-194.

Hauriou, M. (1910), Principes de Droit Public, Paris, Librairie de la Société du Recueil Sirey, 2nd ed.

Hauriou, M. (1944), ‘Müessese ve Tesis Teorisi: Içtimai Vitalizm Denemesi’ [The Theory of Institutions and Foundation: An Essay in Social Vitalism], Istanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuasi, 9:3-4, 639-671.

Kalaycioglu, E. (1984), Çagdas Siyasal Bilim: Teori, Olgu ve Süreçler [Modern Political Science: Theory, Fact, and Processes], Istanbul, Beta Publishing Company.

Kapani, M. (1995), Politika Bilimine Giris [Introduction to Political Science], Ankara, Bilgi Publishing House.

Kislali, A. T. (1997), Siyaset Bilimi [Political Science], Istanbul, Imge Bookshop, 6th ed.

Kili, S. (1988), ‘Atatürk ve Politika’ [Atatürk and Politics] in Atatürkçülük: Atatürk ve Atatürkçülüge Iliskin Makaleler [Ataturkism: Ataturk and Essays in Ataturkism], Istanbul, Ministry of National Education and Sports Publications.

March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen, ‘The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,’ International Organization, 52:4, 943-969.

O’Furner, M. (1975), Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865-1905, Lexington, University Press of Kentucky.

Okandan, R. G. (1950), ‘Devletin Sahsiyetinin Müessese Fikriyle Izahi’ [An Explanation of the Personality of the State by the Idea of Institutions], Istanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuasi, 16:1-2, 88-96.

Onar, S. S. (1933), Idare Hukuku [Administrative Law], Istanbul, Istanbul University Law Students Association.

Onar, S. S. (1941), ‘Hauriou’nun Müessese Nazariyesinin Izahi ve Bazi Müesseselerimize Tatbiki’ [An Explanation of Hauriou’s Theory of Institutions and its Application to some of our Institutions], Adliye Ceridesi, 7, 501-520.

Onar, S. S. (1944), Idare Hukuku [Administrative Law], Istanbul, Ismail Akgün Press, 2nd ed.

Peters, B. G. (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism, London and New York, Pinter.

Ricci, D. (1984), The Tragedy of Political Science, New Haven, Yale University Press.

Ross, D. (1991), The Origins of American Social Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Seidelman, R. and E. Harpham (1985), Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1877-1920, Albany, SUNY Press.

Silverberg, H. (ed.) (1998), Gender and American Social Science: The Formative Years, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Skinner, Q. (1988a), ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’ in J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Skinner, Q. (1988b), ‘Motives, Intentions, and the Interpretation of Texts’ in J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Somit, A. and J. Tanenhaus (1967), The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism, Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Tunaya, T. Z. (1946), ‘Müessese Teorisinde Fikir Unsuru ve Bazi Hususiyetleri’ [The Element of Idea and its Characteristics in the Theory of Institution], Istanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuasi, 12: 2-3, 537-560.

Tunaya, T. Z. (1947a), ‘Müessese Teorisinde Fikir, Sahis, Kuvvet Unsurlari Arasindaki Münasebetler ve Içlesme Ameliyesi’ [Interiorisation and Relations between the Elements of Idea, Person, and Power in the Theory of Institution], Istanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuasi, 12:4, 1073-1099.

Tunaya, T. Z. (1947b), ‘Müessese Teorisinde Fikir Unsurunun Amme ve Devletler Hukuku Sahalarindaki Degeri’ [The Significance of the Element of Idea in the Theory of Institutions in Fields of Public and International Law], Istanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuasi, 13:2, 529-560.

Tunaya, T. Z. (1952), Türkiye’de Siyasi Partiler, 1859-1952 [Political Parties in Turkey, 1859-1952], Istanbul, Dogan Kardes Publications.

Tunaya, T. Z. (1966), Siyasi Müesseseler ve Anayasa Hukuku [Political Institutions and Constitutional Law], Istanbul, Sulhi Garan Press.

Turan, I. (1997), ‘Siyasal Bilimler’ [Political Sciences] in Cumhuriyet Döneminde Türkiye’de Bilim: Sosyal Bilimler [Science in Turkey in the Republican Era: Social Sciences], Ankara, Turkish Academy of Sciences.

Woolsey, T. D. (1878), Political Science or the State, Theoretically and Practically Considered, 2 vols, New York, Scribner, Armstrong and Company.