Advertisement

Reforming Sticky Institutions: Persistence and Change in Turkish Agriculture

  • Ali Burak GüvenEmail author
Article

Abstract

The recent revival of interest in institutions in development studies favors the analysis of macroinstitutions and questions of institutional origination and change. But a strong emphasis on mid-range, sectoral arrangements, and a refined notion of continuity, can also improve our understanding of institutions in late developers—one by facilitating a thick view of institutions while offering a sharp perspective on the current institutional reform agenda, and the other by casting new light on instances of irregular change and failed or partial reform. The trajectory of Turkey’s agricultural support regime is used as a case to substantiate this argument. Building on an analytic distinction between resilience and persistence, the article explains the dynamic continuity of populist-corporatist forms of market governance in Turkish agriculture, despite the neoliberalism of the 1980s and 1990s and radical institutional reform efforts of the 2000s.

Keywords

Institutions Institutional reform Resilience Continuity Turkey Agriculture 

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. De facto political power and institutional persistence. Am Econ Rev 2006;96(May):325–30.Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA. The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev 2001;91(December):1369–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akder H. Türkiye tarim politikasinda ‘destekleme reformu’ (“‘support reform’ in Turkey’s agricultural policy”). Asomedya 2003;(December):46–68.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander C. Personal states: making connections between people and bureaucracy in Turkey. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. Allina-Pisano J. Sub rosa resistance and the politics of economic reform: land redistribution in post-soviet Ukraine. World Polit. 2004;56(4):554–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alper CE, Öniş Z. Financial globalization, the democratic deficit, and recurrent crises in emerging markets: the Turkish experience in the aftermath of capital account liberalization. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 2003;39(3):5–26.Google Scholar
  7. Aoki M. Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes. Journal of Institutional Economics 2007;3(1):1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arıcanlı T. Agrarian relations in Turkey: a historical sketch. In: Richards A, editor. Food, states and peasants: analyses of the agrarian question in the Middle East. Boulder: Westview; 1986. p. 23–68.Google Scholar
  9. Berger S, Dore R, eds. National diversity and global capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  10. Birtek F, Keyder Ç. Agriculture and the State: an inquiry into agricultural differentiation and political alliance: the case of Turkey. J Peasant Stud 1975;2(4):446–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boratav K. Inter-class and intra-class relations of distribution under ‘structural adjustment’: Turkey during the 1980s. In: Arıcanlı T, Rodrik D, editors. The political economy of Turkey: debt, adjustment and sustainability. London: Macmillan; 1990. p. 199–229.Google Scholar
  12. Boratav A, Yeldan AE, Kose AH. “Globalization, distribution and social policy: Turkey, 1980–1998.” CEPA Working Paper Series No. 20. New York; 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Burki S, Perry G. Beyond the Washington consensus: institutions matter. Washington: World Bank; 1998.Google Scholar
  14. Canovan M. Trust the people! populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies 1999;47(1):2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang H-J, Evans P. The role of institutions in economic change. In: De Paula S, Dymski GA, editors. Reimagining growth: towards a renewal of development theory. London: Zed; 2005. p. 99–140.Google Scholar
  16. Cizre Ü, Yeldan E. The Turkish encounter with neo-liberalism: economics and politics in the 2000/2001 crises. Rev Int Polit Econ 2005;12(3):387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cizre-Sakallıoğlu Ü, Yeldan E. Politics, society and financial liberalization: Turkey in the 1990s. Dev Change 2000;31:481–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Commission of the European Communities. Turkey 2007 Progress Report. Brussels; 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Çakmak E, Akder H. DTÖ ve AB’deki Gelişmeler Işığında 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye Tarımı (Turkish agriculture in the 21st century in the light of developments in the WTO and EU). Istanbul: TÜSİAD; 2005.Google Scholar
  20. Çakmak E, Yeldan E, Zaim O. The rural economy under structural adjustment and financial liberalization: results of a macro-integrated agricultural-sector model for Turkey. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 1996;17(3):427–47.Google Scholar
  21. Easterly W, Levine R. Tropics, germs and crops: how endowments influence economic development. NBER Working Paper, 9106; 2002.Google Scholar
  22. Ergüder, Ü. “Politics of agricultural price policy in Turkey.” In: Ergun Ö, Aydın U, editors. Politics of agricultural price policy in Turkey. New York: Holmes and Meier; 1980. p. 169–95.Google Scholar
  23. Ergüder Ü. Agriculture: the forgotten sector. In: Heper M, editor. Strong state and economic interest groups: the post-1980 Turkish experience. New York: Walter de Gruyter; 1991. p. 71–8.Google Scholar
  24. Evans P. Development as institutional change: the pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation. Stud Comp Int Dev 2004;38(4):30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans P. The challenges of the ‘institutional turn’: new interdisciplinary opportunities in development theory. In: Nee V, Swedberg R, editors. The economic sociology of capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2005. p. 90–116.Google Scholar
  26. Frey FW. Patterns of elite politics in Turkey. In: Lenczowski G, editor. Political elites in the Middle East. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; 1975. p. 41–82.Google Scholar
  27. George AL, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Greif A, Laitin D. A theory of endogenous institutional change. Am Polit Sci Rev 2004;98(4):633–52.Google Scholar
  29. Günaydın G. Küreselleşme ve Tarım (Globalization and agriculture). Ankara: Turkish Union of Agricultural Engineers; 2002.Google Scholar
  30. Haggard S. Institutions and growth in East Asia. Stud Comp Int Dev 2004;38(4):53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haggard S, Lim W, Kim E. Whither the chaebol? In: Haggard S, Lim W, Kim E, editors. Economic crisis and corporate restructuring in Korea: reforming the chaebol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. p. 307–36.Google Scholar
  32. Hall PA, Soskice D, eds. Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  33. Hollingsworth JR, Schmitter P, Streeck W, eds. Governing capitalist economies: performance and control of economic sectors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  34. Jacoby T. Agriculture, the state and class formation in Turkey’s first republic, 1923–1960. J Peasant Stud 2006;33(1):34–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson J. Path contingency in postcommunist transformations. Comp Polit 2001;33(3):253–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karataş C. Fiscal policy in Turkey: public debt and the changing structure of taxation and government expenditure, 1980–1993. In: Balım Ç, et al, editor. Turkey: political, social and economic challenges in the 1990s. New York: Brill; 1995. p. 130–66.Google Scholar
  37. Kasnakoğlu H. Agricultural price support policies in Turkey: an empirical investigation. In: Richards A, editor. Food, states and peasants: analyses of the agrarian question in the Middle East. Boulder: Westview; 1986. p. 131–57.Google Scholar
  38. Kasnakoğlu H. Support for Turkish agriculture relative to developing and OECD countries. In: Balım Ç, et al, editor. Turkey: political, social and economic challenges in the 1990s. New York: Brill; 1995. p. 246–55.Google Scholar
  39. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Zoido-Labatón P. Governance matters. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2196; 1999.Google Scholar
  40. Keyder Ç. The cycle of sharecropping and the consolidation of small peasant ownership in Turkey. Journal of Peasant Studies 1983;10(2/3):130–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keyder Ç. State and class in Turkey. London: Verso; 1987.Google Scholar
  42. Keyder Ç, Tabak F, eds. Landholding and commercial agriculture in the Middle East. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  43. Kip E. Türkiye’de Taban Fiyatları, Destekleme Alımları ve İç Ticaret Hadleri (Floor prices, support purchases and domestic terms of trade in Turkey). In: Pamuk Ş, Toprak Z, editors. Türkiye’de Tarımsal Yapılar (Agrarian structures in Turkey). Ankara: Yurt Publications; 1988. p. 135–62.Google Scholar
  44. Kitschelt H, Lange P, Marks G, Stephens JD, eds. Continuity and change in contemporary capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  45. Knill C, Lenschow A. ‘Seek and ye shall find!’ linking different perspectives on institutional change. Comparative Political Studies 2001;34(2):187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kurtz M. Free market democracy and the Chilean and Mexican countryside. Cambridge: CUP; 2004.Google Scholar
  47. Leftwich A. Politics in command: development studies and the rediscovery of social science. New Political Economy 2005;10(4):573–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levitsky S. Crisis and renovation: institutional weakness and the transformation of argentine peronism, 1983–2003. In: Levitsky S, Murillo MV, editors. The politics of institutional weakness: argentine democracy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press; 2005. p. 181–206.Google Scholar
  49. Luong PJ, Weinthal E. Contra coercion: russian tax reform, exogenous shocks and negotiated institutional change. Am Polit Sci Rev 2004;98(1):139–52.Google Scholar
  50. Mahoney J. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory Soc 2000;29(4):507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mann CK. The effects of government policy on income distribution: a case study of wheat production in Turkey since World War II. In: Özbudun E, Ulusan A, editors. The political economy of income redistribution in Turkey. New York: Holmes and Meier; 1980. p. 197–245.Google Scholar
  52. Mardin Ş. Center-periphery relations: a key to Turkish politics? Daedalus 1973;102(1):169–90.Google Scholar
  53. McDermott GA. The politics of institutional renovation and economic upgrading: recombining the vines that bind in Argentina. Polit Soc 2007;35(1):103–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Naim M. Latin America: the second stage of reform. J Democr 1994;5(4):32–48.Google Scholar
  55. Naim M. Fads and fashion in economic reforms: Washington consensus or Washington Confusion? Third World Q 2000;21(3):505–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. North DC. Capitalism and economic growth. In: Nee V, Swedberg R, editors. The economic sociology of capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2005. p. 41–52.Google Scholar
  57. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). OECD review of agricultural policies: Brazil. Paris: OECD; 2005.Google Scholar
  58. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Economic surveys: Turkey. Paris: OECD; 2006.Google Scholar
  59. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Producer and consumer support estimates, OECD Database: 1986–2007; 2008.Google Scholar
  60. Official Gazette [Resmi Gazete]. “Tarım Kanunu No. 5488” (“Agricultural Law No. 5488.”). Ankara (25 April); 2006.Google Scholar
  61. Önder İ. Cumhuriyet Döneminde Tarım Kesimine Uygulanan Vergi Politikası. (Agricultural tax policy during the republican era). In: Pamuk Ş, Toprak Z, editors. Türkiye’de Tarımsal Yapılar (Agrarian structures in Turkey). Ankara: Yurt; 1988. p. 113–33.Google Scholar
  62. Öniş Z. State and market: the political economy of Turkey in comparative perspective. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  63. Painter M. The politics of administrative reform in East and Southeast Asia: from gridlock to continuous self-improvement? Governance 2004;17(3):361–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pierson P. Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 2000;94(2):251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Przeworski A. Institutions matter? Gov & Oppos 2004;39(4):527–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rodrik D, ed. In search of prosperity: analytic narratives on economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  67. Rodrik D. Goodbye Washington consensus, hello Washington confusion? A review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning From a Decade of Reform. J Econ Lit 2006;44(December):973–87.Google Scholar
  68. Rodrik D, Subramanian A, Trebbi F. Institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over integration and geography in economic development. J Econ Growth 2004;9(2):131–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sandbrook R, Edelman M, Heller P, Teichman J. Social democracy in the global periphery: origins, challenges, prospects. Cambridge: CUP; 2007.Google Scholar
  70. Schmitter PC. Still the century of corporatism? The Review of Politics 1974;36(1):85–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shih V. Partial reform equilibrium, chinese style: political incentives and reform stagnation in Chinese financial policies. Comp Polit Stud 2007;40(10):1238–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. SIS [State Institute of Statistics]. Statistical indicators: 1923–2002. Ankara; 2003.Google Scholar
  73. Skogstad G. Ideas, paradigms and institutions: agricultural exceptionalism in the European union and the United States. Governance 1998;11(4):463–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Snyder R. Politics after neoliberalism: reregulation in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  75. Somel K. Agricultural support policies in Turkey: 1950–1980. In: Richards A, editor. Food, states and peasants: analyses of the agrarian question in the Middle East. Boulder: Westview; 1986. p. 97–130.Google Scholar
  76. Streeck W, Thelen K, eds. Beyond continuity: institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  77. Teichman J. Merging the modern and the traditional: market reform in Chile and Argentina. Comp Polit 2004;37(1):23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thelen K. How institutions evolve: insights from comparative historical analysis. In: Mahoney J, Rueschemeyer D, editors. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: CUP; 2003. p. 208–40.Google Scholar
  79. TKB [Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs]. II. Tarım Şurası Çalışma Belgesi (Proceedings of the second agricultural convention). Ankara; 2004.Google Scholar
  80. TZOB [Turkish Union of Chambers of Agriculture]. Zirai ve İktisadi Rapor: 2001–2002 (Agricultural and economic report: 2001–2002). Ankara; 2003.Google Scholar
  81. Ulusan A. Public policy toward agriculture and its redistributive implications. In: Özbudun E, Ulusan A, editors. The political economy of income redistribution in Turkey. New York: Holmes and Meier; 1980. p. 125–67.Google Scholar
  82. Undersecretariat of Treasury. Treasury statistics: 1980–2002. Ankara; 2003.Google Scholar
  83. Waldner D. State-building and late development. Ithaca: Cornell; 1999.Google Scholar
  84. Waterbury J. Export-led growth and the center-right coalition in Turkey. Comp Polit 1992;24(2):127–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weyland K. Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America: how much affinity? Third World Q 2003;24(6):1095–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. World Bank. Program performance audit report: Turkey—second and third structural adjustment loans. June 28; 1985.Google Scholar
  87. World Bank. Project appraisal document on a proposed loan in the amount of US$600 million to the republic of Turkey for an agricultural reform implementation project/loan. June 6; 2001.Google Scholar
  88. World Bank. World development report 2002: building institutions for markets. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 2002.Google Scholar
  89. World Bank. Turkey: a review of the impact of the reform of agricultural sector subsidization. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 2004.Google Scholar
  90. World Bank. World development report 2008: agriculture for development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yeni R, Dölekoğlu CÖ. Tarımsal Destekleme Politikasında Süreçler ve Üretici Transferleri (Processes and producer transfers in agricultural support policy). Ankara: Agricultural Economics Research Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  92. Yükseler Z. Tarımsal Destekleme Politikaları ve Doğrudan Gelir Desteği Sisteminin Değerlendirilmesi (Agricultural support policies and the evaluation of the direct income support system). DPT Policy Paper; 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations