Political Economy of Transformation of Capital Structure in Turkey: A Historical and Comparative View

  • Abdurrahman Babacan


Comprehensive insight into the transformation of the Turkish capital structure implies understanding the historical basis of the issue, which should first include center-periphery relations that arose mainly as the historical tension between two blocs of Turkish political-economic forces. In this way, one may follow the footsteps of the breakthrough period initiated mainly by the Özal era in the early 1980s, whose main policies were aimed at effecting a transformation grounded on political and economic liberalism and its direct/indirect reflections for a newly emerging capital group mainly based in Anatolia, along with the statistical rise of some new local cities/regions/corporations, and its political-economic content. In this framework, the two main interest groups of industrial and business associations, Turkish Industry and Business Association (TUSIAD) and Independent Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (MUSIAD), appear more clearly in this historical process as representatives of the two different political-economic factions in terms of magnitude, volume, regional/geographic basis, mental and cultural codes/roots, and, hence, differentiated vision and structural realities.


MUSIAD TUSIAD Özal reforms Turkish capital structure Economic liberalism 

JEL Codes

A14 F68 L31 L51 P16 Z13 


  1. Adaş, Emin Baki. 2003. Profit and the Prophet: Culture and Politics of Islamic Entrepreneurs in Turkey. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  2. AK Party. 2002. Urgent Action Plan.Google Scholar
  3. Buğra, Ayşe. 2002. Labour, Capital, and Religion: Harmony and Conflict Among the Constituency of Political Islam in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies 38 (2): 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Giddens, Anthony. 1994. Beyond Left and Right. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hoşgör, Evren. 2011. Islamic Capital/Anatolian Tigers: Past and Present. Middle Eastern Studies 47 (2): 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kadıoğlu, Ayşe. 1999. Cumhuriyet İradesi Demokrasi Muhakemesi. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.Google Scholar
  8. Karpat, Kemal. 2009. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Kimlik ve İdeoloji. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.Google Scholar
  9. Kasaba, Reşat, and Sibel Bozdoğan. 2010. Türkiye’de Modernleşme ve Ulusal Kimlik. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.Google Scholar
  10. Kongar, Emre. 2012. 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.Google Scholar
  11. Küçükömer, İdris. 2009. Batılılaşma ve Düzenin Yabancılaşması. İstanbul: Profil Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  12. Mannheim, Karl. 2013. Ideology and Utopia. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Mardin, Şerif. 1973. Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics? Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 102 (1): 169–190.Google Scholar
  14. MUSIAD Members’ Company Profiles. 1995. Istanbul: MUSIAD.Google Scholar
  15. Öniş, Ziya. 2010. Crises and Transformations in Turkish Political Economy. Turkish Policy Quarterly 9 (3): 45–61.Google Scholar
  16. Öniş, Ziya, and Umut Türem. 2001. Business, Globalization and Democracy: A Comparative Analysis of Turkish Business Associations. Turkish Studies 2 (2): 94–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Özcan, Gül Berna, and Murat Çokgezen. 2003. Limits to Alternative Forms of Capitalization: The Case of Anatolian Holding Companies. World Development 31 (12): 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parla, Taha. 2006. Ziya Gökalp, Kemalizm ve Türkiye’de Korporatizm. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar
  19. Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Shils, Edward. 1982. The Constitution of Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Timur, Taner. 1968. Türk Devrimi: Tarihi Anlamı ve Felsefi Temeli. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  23. TUSIAD Members’ Company Profiles. 1989. Istanbul: TUSIAD.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, Francis G. 1980. The Case for Conservatism. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  25. Yeşilada, Birol A. 2002. The Virtue Party. Turkish Studies 3 (1): 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdurrahman Babacan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Humanities and Social Sciencesİstanbul Medipol UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations