{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027204502814258912, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.466666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bargaining in institutionalized settings: The case of Turkish reforms

By analyzing the case of a bargaining situation in an institutionalized setting, which derives from Turkey’s reform process in a sensitive issue area (civil—military relations), this study assesses the explanatory power of competing models of bargaining: rational, normative, and discursive/argumentative .The bargaining outcome in this case was puzzling because despite the existence of a strongly pro-status quo veto player (i.e. the military), the bargaining processes led to a new status quo.This study shows that the veto player simply failed to prevent a shift to a new status quo because such an action would do substantial damage to the military’s ideational concerns (normative entrapment). The rational model remains under-socialized, while the discursive model is over-socialized in analyzing this bargaining situation. Although the normative model sheds more light on this puzzling outcome, a synthesis between normative and rational models would provide us with much better insight.