Global Dynamics, Domestic Coalitions and a Reactive State: Major Policy Shifts in Post-War Turkish Economic Development

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe main objective of this study is to propose an analytical framework to explain the major policy shifts that has characterized post-war Turkish economic development; divided into four phases, starting respectively in 1950, 1960, 1980, and 2001. Its main contribution is to incorporate external and internal factors into this framework within a broadly political economy perspective, attaching particular significance to the role of economic crises in moving from one phase to the other. While the role of external agents is identified as the main factor behind policy shifts, the role of domestic coalitions in support of policy regime in each phase is also recognized. Drawing attention to the role of state in the impressive recent growth of countries such as China, India, and Ireland, the paper argues that there is still room for the state taking on a developmental role. The paper recommends that Turkey follows a similar path by improving state capacity not only with respect to its regulatory role but also in more developmental spheres, encompassing its redistributive and transformative role on the basis of a domestically-determined industrialization strategy.

Early riser, late bloomer: Contextualizing Turkish health achievements in the last 50 yearsvis-à-visChina and the global picture of development

“…132Turkey is within the lowest 20th percentile in terms of variation in its health performance and improvement over the 50-year timeframe, while in terms of the coefficient of variation during the same period it is fifth lowest overall, with only two developing countries—namely, Brazil and Nicaragua—having a less varying performance over the same period of time. This is roughly consistent with other research on Turkey, which emphasizes the non-changing nature of Turkey’s improvement and might be seen in either a positive or less than positive light; see Ziya Öniş and Fikret Şenses, “Global Dynamics, Domestic Coalitions and a Reactive State: Major Policy Shifts in Post-war Turkish Economic Development,” Economic Research Center, ERC Working Papers in Economics 07/06 (September 2007). ).…”

Economic Development in Turkey and South Korea: A Comparative Analysis

“…Some studies emphasize the timing of the transition from import substitution to export orientation and other trade-related issues (Krueger, 1987;Yılmaz, 2002;Onaran and Stockhammer, 2005). Other studies focus on the structure of and the strategies pursued by private sector firms and the role of state in directing the process of industrialization (Öniş, 1992;Buğra, 1994;Aydın, 1997;Erdoğdu, 1999;Oh and Varcin, 2002;Öniş and Şenses, 2007;Taymaz and Voyvoda, 2012). The quality of the labor force and the innovative/ imitative performance of the economy are also underlined in the existing literature (Pak and Türkcan, 2000;Taymaz, 2001;Şenses and Taymaz, 2003).…”

Wobbling but Still on its Feet: The Turkish Economy in the Global Financial Crisis

“…2 This article argues that one of the most significant institutional challenges ahead is the 'ideational rigidity' that prevents the adoption of Keynesian demand-side macroeconomic management. It has been previously documented that Turkey has a weak state capacity and cannot adopt proactive but only reactive industrial and sectoral policies in the face of challenges posed by financial/economic globalisation (Bakir 2006;Ö niş and Ş enses 2007). The focus in these studies, however, has been limited.…”