Suchergebnisse

Ziya Onis and Suhnaz Yilmaz discuss the nature of the current Turkish-Greek rapprochement. They conclude that while the relations have improved, in order to reach a durable partnership and to move beyond the existing stalemate, a more proactive approach from both sides on core issues of conflict is necessary. Adapted from the source document.

The 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.

The recent Turkish experience clearly illustrates how markets and politics can interact in producing significant economic transformation. Focusing on the new phase of neo-liberal restructuring in Turkey in the post-crisis era, we highlight the importance of the European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) anchors and the specific domestic and external linkages through which these double external anchors have operated. We argue that the anchors played significant and complementary roles in the recent transformation process in Turkey. We also underline some of the tensions that are likely to arise in the new era of accession negotiations with the EU given the incomplete transformation accomplished so far. Adapted from the source document.

The increasing interest of big business in democracy in Turkey is explained by a mix of domestic & global influences. Democracy is highly valued by big business because its absence effectively isolates Turkey from global norms & from benefits of full membership in the EU. Domestically, democracy is conceived instrumentally as a necessary mechanism to limit arbitrary state intervention & contain redistributive pressures from below & threats from other segments of the business community. Though an improvement over current arrangements, this understanding of democracy does not extend social rights or challenge existing power relations. It seeks instead to create a more stable & predictable environment in which an externally competitive market economy can flourish. Adapted from the source document.

Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020. ; Product of workshop No. 1 at the 2nd MRM 2001

While the literature on populism is rich on specifying the characteristics of populist movements that distinguishes them from non-populists, much less attention has been paid on distinguishing between different types of populist movements. In this article we highlight and account for divergent trajectories of populist practice in two major emerging economies -- Argentina and Turkey. We stress that both the Kirchner governments of Argentina and the Erdogan governments of Turkey closely fit to the populist pattern of rule, yet a close analysis of their policies suggests a left-wing type of populism in Argentina and a right-wing type in Turkey. Beyond identifying divergent strands of populism in two national contexts, we also explain the mix of domestic and external factors that accounts for this contrasting pattern. Adapted from the source document.