Same Ride, Different Riders

Abstract

Mainstream international relations definitions commonly assume that states are identical units in a constant state of competition for survival to increase their power. Yet, such a one-sided approach fails to fully consider that the internal structures and contexts of states at different times and under different leaders exert considerable effects on how states act in the international arena and on the foreign policies that shape their identities, priorities, and thus relations with other states. We begin by questioning such theoretical assumptions and then apply a more appropriate reformulation to the case of Turkey's changing trade policy with the European Union (EU). Examining Gül's administration (2007–2014) and Erdoğan's (2014–2020), we look at whether a change in Turkish leadership resulted in a significant change in trade policy and led to a change in the dynamics of its foreign relations approach. Turkey's relations with the members of the EU are assessed (via panel data estimations) as the volume of trade between Turkey and EU members. The data consists of 25 European states’ GDP, Exchange Rate, and Inflation Rate for 2000–2020. We find a significant difference in Turkey's behavior in terms of trade with the EU members between the two administrations under study. This suggests the need to rethink some central theoretical assumptions in certain mainstream international relations perspectives.

Note From the Editor

“…Fifth, Faez and Wong (2023) discuss how the internal structures/contexts of states at different times and under different leaders exert significant effects on how states act in the international arena and on the foreign policies that shape their identities, priorities, and relations with other states. Focusing on two very different administrations in Turkey in “Same Ride, Different Riders: The Effect of Change in Leadership on Turkey's Trade with the European Union,” Faez and Wong find that the differences in leadership led to very different foreign policies that suggest the need to rethink some central theoretical assumptions in certain mainstream international relations perspectives.…”