Abstract
Writing nearly three decades ago, a prominent scholar of Turkish political economy was expressing a feeling widely reflecting the state of affairs at the time “that Turkish studies were excessively insular” so as to drive home the point that there is a need for establishing closer links with the theoretical debates pertaining to developmental issues so “that students of social, political and economic change in the Third World could benefit from a knowledge of the Turkish example” (Keyder 1987: iv). More recently, it has been purported that “Turkish experience provides valuable lessons for other emerging markets in particular and developing countries in general” (Öniş and Şenses 2009: 313). No doubt, the academic interest in Turkey has soared particularly with the coming to power of a political party, Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP), with its Turkish acronym that kept baffling the observers of the Turkish case with its style of ruling during the last 13 years. It is indeed remarkable that there has been a proliferation of studies undertaken by both Turkish and non-Turkish scholars with a quest to account for the dramatic changes that have been experienced in terms of state-society and/or state-economy relations over the last few decades, as the country has been portrayed not only as an “emerging market economy” but also as a regional and global power. Yet, it is debatable whether this rise of interest has paved the ground for putting the Turkish example in a broader comparative framework so as to conclude that the declared intention of earlier studies has been duly accomplished. Nor is it plausible to suggest that a critical political economy perspective has come to characterize most of the recent studies which claim to focus on “the changed political-economic character of Turkey” (Barkey 2011), as it has been described, allegedly, “from being one of the world’s sealed off societies” to become “one of its more open and penetrated” (Park 2012: 207).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While there has obviously been an appeal of the notion of modernity in the neoliberal era to come to terms with the transformation of the development model in which the State played a key, central role as reflected across the Global South, and in Latin America in particular (cf. Garreton 2002); it is worth noting what F. Jameson has reminded us: “‘modernity’ is something of a suspect word in this context, being used precisely to cover up the absence of any great collective social hope, or telos, after the discrediting of socialism. For capitalism itself has no social goals. To brandish the word ‘modernity’ in place of ‘capitalism’ allows politicians, governments and political scientists to pretend that it does, and so to paper over that terrifying absence” (Jameson 2000).
- 2.
As duly noted, “the term Kemalism is not of Turkish origin but has been invented by foreign analysts of modern Turkey” (Kramer 2000: 249).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
“It is an oversimplification to see the current political tensions in Turkey as a struggle between “Islamists” and “secularists”. Rather, these tensions are part of a struggle for power between newly emerging social sectors and the secularized elite—a struggle between the “periphery” and the “centre” that has deep roots in Ottoman and recent Turkish history. The democratization of Turkish society since the mid-1980s has opened up political space for forces that had been largely excluded from politics (including Islamists) to organize and propagate their views” (Rabasa and Larrabee 2008).
- 6.
Interestingly, even in post-Marxist reformulation of Gramscian notion of hegemony, it would not be plausible to refer to “Kemalism” as hegemonic, since its nation building project “proceeded not through the construction of equivalential chains between actual democratic demands, but through authoritarian imposition” (Laclau 2005: 212).
- 7.
“Islamism … refers to forms of political theory and practice that have as their goal the establishment of an Islamic political order … as a holistic, totalising system whose prescriptions permeate every aspect of daily life” (Mandaville 2007: 57–58).
- 8.
Curiously there is a certain appeal of this notion of “exceptionalism” for the analysts of the Turkish case although for quite the opposite reasoning. While for Mardin the emphasis has been on what he called interpenetration of Islam and secularism, thereby creating “a special setting for Islam” in the political space (Mardin 2005), for the advocates of the alternative usage of “Turkish exceptionalism” the emphasis is on the radical purging of the influence of Islam from the political and legal order as well as from the socio-cultural and educational spheres by the republican state (Savran 2015). Put differently, the first implies a process of “sacralisation” and “de-privatisation” whereby the presence of Islam is felt strongly in different spheres of social life, whereas the second, that is, secularism in the Turkish republican project implies, its exact opposite, that of “desacralisation” of politics, i.e. the abolition of sacral legitimation of political power and authority (cf. Keyman 2007).
- 9.
“It is necessary to build a theory of the State’s role in shaping and creating markets – more in line with the work of Karl Polanyi who emphasized how the capitalist ‘market’ has from the start been heavily shaped by State actions” (Mazzucato 2013); see also Watson (2005: 19) for a critical evaluation of IPE theorists for posing the problem of international order in terms of “how states shape markets”.
- 10.
- 11.
“When classes struggle for their own sectional interests they are going to be ineffectual, but when they struggle to defend or expand society, then they are likely to be much more successful. In other words, for Polanyi, society is the transcendent historical category and not class!” (Burawoy 2003).
- 12.
- 13.
See Ercan 2001 for an early critique of the state-market dichotomy as a common feature of neoliberal-cum-institutionalist as well as national developmentalist analyses.
- 14.
See Akça et al. 2014 for a further critique of this dissident but hegemonic discourse’s impact on academic analysis as well as on the political debate in the country; see also Hoşgör (2015) for a brief review of activities of the so-called left-liberal intellectual circles, concerned with human rights issues, functioning as organic intellectuals of this dissident but hegemonic discourse, raising their “voices against the authoritarian state along with pious-Muslims”.
- 15.
See http://www.bagimsizsosyalbilimciler.org/ for their published studies mostly in Turkish; see also BSB (2006).
- 16.
See Morton 2013 for a substantive methodological critique of such studies to emphasize the point that distinctions made between concepts such as civil society and political society were merely methodological rather than organic, i.e. ontological distinctions for Gramsci.
- 17.
- 18.
Initially, this symbiosis led to the inclusion of the Turkish case as an example of what has been characterised as “post-Islamism” (Bayat 2007: 40–41).
- 19.
“‘New Turkey’ becomes a catchword disseminated to the public in order to define the core elements of a particular national imagery aiming at hegemony” (Alaranta 2015).
- 20.
See Navaro-Yashin (2002: 130–137) for a critical, albeit constructivist, account of the ways in which state-civil society distinction was constructed as a political strategy on the part of the liberal intelligentsia so as to legitimize the ongoing restructuring of the state and, in turn, effectively instrumentalised by the Islamist political cadres since the 1990s; see also White 2002: 179.
- 21.
See for instance Morton Abramowitz and Henri Barkey, “Turkey’s Judicial Coup d’Etat”, Newsweek, 14.4.2008; M.Freely “Turkey Crisis: Hopes of Democracy are Hanging in the Balance”, The Observer, 6.7. 2008; S.Kinzer “Breaking the Grip of Turkey’s Military”, The Guardian, 7.9.2010.
- 22.
A last minute public resistance to the destruction of a green park area in central İstanbul, known as Gezi Park, has brought forward a spontaneous mass movement which has no precedent in the recent history of the Turkish Republic. It brought together a diversity of organisations and groups so as to prevent neoliberal-cum-Islamist urban regeneration project of Gezi Park and its contiguous Taksim Square as promulgated personally by the Turkish Prime Minister. It would, however, be insufficient to portray their struggle as an example of “right to city” movement per se, for such demands have been coupled with a set of broader political demands for enhancing democratic rights and freedoms. Gezi Park resistance which has changed the political scene, if not, the actual balance of social forces in the country, showed that the resistance to the use of violence and imposition of policies by an authoritarian government can be rewarding, in that instance, in terms of protection of public space; thereby, negating the AKP government’s efforts to discredit the very idea of resistance to its policies.
- 23.
As aptly, though belatedly, put, “there is no doubt that Western analysts, guided by Turkish liberals, have thoroughly misinterpreted the AKP’s attempt to build a new Turkey” (Alaranta 2015).
- 24.
“Turkey’s government is the new normal in the Middle East” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tukeys-government-is-the-new-normal-in-the-middleeast/2012/01/19/gIQA5GRaJQ_story.html
- 25.
World Bank has been equally celebratory of “the regulatory and supervisory framework implemented to align more closely to EU standards” as part of the structural reforms (World Bank 2006) which preceded the coming to power of AKP but has been duly taken on board by it.
- 26.
In other words, this particular reading of “new capitalism” is a reflection of a more broader tendency to establish an affinity between the neoliberal hegemonic representation of the market as a “self-regulating” entity and “a Polanyian understanding of the shifting boundaries between state and market, which would see markets as having become “disembedded” from the state”. (Panitch and Konings 2009). In the Turkish context, it implies a particularist reading since it seems to assume that the affinity is still generally valid with the proviso of a regulatory state put in place for capitalist societies in the neoliberal era.
- 27.
- 28.
Western press during 2010 and 2011 were full of such commentaries especially in the wake of Mavi Marmara incident in May 2010. See, on the other hand, Editorial, “Turkey: Not Lost but Found”, The Guardian, 5 June 2010 or P.Stephens “West must Offer Turkey a Proper Seat”, Financial Times, 17 June 2010 for more sober analyses.
- 29.
As they put it, “Erdoğan’s current course would take Turkey from an imperfect democracy to an autocracy”, Morton Abramowitz et al. “The United States needs to tell Turkey to change course” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-united-states-needs-to-tell-turkey-to-changecourse/2014/01/23/3525bf52-7eda-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
“Crises ‘in’ are normal and may be resolved through established crisis-management routines and/or through innovations that largely restore previous patterns. Crises ‘of’ are less common and involve a crisis of crisis-management, indicating inability to ‘go on in the old way’ and demanding more radical innovation”. (Jessop 2015).
- 33.
References
Abramowitz, M. (2011). The real Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. October 19, 2011. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-real-recep-tayyip-erdogan-6031
Adaman, F. et al. (2014). Turkey’s political economy in the last two centuries: Coercion and community. mimeo.
Akça, İ. (2014). Hegemonic projects in post-1980 Turkey and the changing forms of authoritarianism. In İ. Akça, A. Bekmen, & B. A. Özden (Eds.), Turkey reframed: Constituting neoliberal hegemony. London: Pluto Press.
Akça, İ., et al. (2014). Introduction. In İ. Akça, A. Bekmen, & B. A. Özden (Eds.), Turkey reframed: Constituting neoliberal hegemony. London: Pluto Press.
Akyüz, Y., & Boratav, K. (2003). The making of the Turkish financial crisis. World Development, 31(9), 1549–1566.
Alaranta, T. (2015). Turkey under the AKP: A critical evaluation from the perspective of Turkey’s EU negotiations. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Working Paper 84, February. http://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/480/turkey_under_the_akp/
Atiyas, I. (2014). Enhancing competition in a post-revolutionary Arab context: Does the Turkish experience provide any lessons? In I. Diwan (Ed.), Understanding the political economy of the Arab uprisings (pp. 165–192). New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd.
Ayata, S. (1996). Patronage, party, and state: The politicization of Islam in Turkey. The Middle East Journal, 50(1), 40–56.
Barkey, H. (2011). Coordinating responses to the Arab Revolt: Turkey and the Transatlantic Alliance. In N. Tocci, et al. (Eds.), Turkey and the Arab Spring. The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Mediterranean Paper Series, October.
Bayat, A. (2007). Islamism and empire: The incongruous nature of Islamist anti-imperialism. Socialist Register 2008. London: Merlin Press.
Bedirhanoğlu, P., & Yalman, G. (2010). State, class and the discourse: Reflections on the neoliberal transformation in Turkey. In A. Saad-Filho & G. Yalman (Eds.), Economic transitions to neoliberalism in middle-income countries. London/New York: Routledge.
Bedirhanoglu, P., Cömert, H., Eren, I., Erol, I., Demiroz, D., Erdem, N., Gungen, A., Marois, T., Topal, A., Türel, O., Voyvoda, E., Yalman, G., & Yeldan, E. (2013). Comparative perspective on financial systems in the EU: Country report on Turkey, FESSUD Studies in Financial Systems, No. 11. http://fessud.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Turkey-Studies.pdf
Bekmen, A. (2014). State and capital in Turkey during the neoliberal era. In İ. Akça, A. Bekmen, & B. A. Özden (Eds.), Turkey reframed: Constituting neoliberal hegemony. London: Pluto Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic. London: Verso.
Bölükbaşı, T. (2012). Political economy. In M. Heper (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of modern Turkey. New York: Routledge.
Boratav, K. (2011). Serbest Sermaye Hareketleri ve Kriz-Küçülme Dönemeçleri 1990–2010. In S. Şahinkaya & İ. Ertuğrul (Eds.), Bilsay Kuruç’a Armağan, Mülkiyeliler Birliği Yayın No.2011/2. Ankara, 405–435.
Bozdoğan, S., & Kasaba, R. (1997). Introduction. In S. Bozdoğan & R. Kasaba (Eds.), Rethinking modernity and national ıdentity in Turkey (pp. 3–14). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
BSB. (2006). Turkey and the IMF: Macroeconomic policy, patterns of growth and persistent fragilities. Penang: Third World Network (TWN).
Buğra, A. (1998). Class, culture, and state: An analysis of interest representation by two Turkish business associations. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 30(4), 521–539.
Buğra, A. (2002a). Political Islam in Turkey in historical context: Strengths and weaknesses. In N. Balkan & S. Savran (Eds.), The politics of permanent crisis: Class, state and ideology in Turkey. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Buğra, A. (2002b). Labour, capital, and religion: Harmony and conflict among the constituency of political Islam in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 38(2), 187–204.
Buğra, A. (2003). The place of the economy in Turkish society. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 102(2/3), 453–470.
Buğra, A., & Keyder, Ç. (2003). New poverty and the changing welfare regime in Turkey. Ankara: Report prepared for the UNDP.
Buğra, A., & Savaşkan, O. (2014). New capitalism in Turkey. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Burawoy, M. (2003). For a sociological marxism: The complementary convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi. Politics & Society, 31(2), 193–261.
Eder, M. (2001). The challenge of globalization and Turkey’s changing political economy. In B. Rubin & K. Kirişci (Eds.), Turkey and its world: The emergence of a multi-regional power (pp. 189–215). London: Lynne Rienner.
Ercan, F. (2001). Çelişkili Bir Süreklilik olarak Sermaye Birikimi”. Praksis, 5, 25–75.
Ercan, F., & Oğuz, Ş. (2014). From Gezi resistance to Soma massacre: Capital accumulation and class struggle in Turkey. Socialist Register 2015. London : Merlin Press.
Garreton, M. A. (2002). The transformation of collective action in Latin America. Cepal Review 76, April.
Gülalp, H. (2001). Globalisation and political Islam: The political bases of Turkey’s Welfare Party. International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 33, 433–448.
Güngen, A. R. (2012). Debt management and financialisation as facets of state restructuring: The case of Turkey in the post-1980 period. Unpublished PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Gürcan, E. & E. Peker (2015) Challenging Neoliberalism at Turkey’s Gezi Park, Palgrave
Heper, M., & Keyman, F. (1998). Double‐faced state: Political patronage and the consolidation of democracy in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 34(4), 259–277.
Hoşgör, E. (2015). The question of AKP hegemony: Consent without consensus. In N. Balkan et al. (Eds.), The neoliberal landscape and the rise of Islamist capital in Turkey. New York: Berghahn Books.
IMF. (2005). Turkey: Request for stand-by arrangement and extension of repurchase expectations—Staff report; Staff supplements; Press release on the Executive Board discussion; and statement by the executive director for Turkey. IMF Country Report No. 05/412. Washington, D.C.
İnsel, A. (2003). The AKP and normalizing democracy in Turkey. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 102(2/3), 293–308.
İnsel, A. (2007). The praetorian state and its owners. Online, available at: www.birikimdergisi.com/birikim/article.aspx?mid=512&article=The%20Praetorian%20State%20and%20Its%20Owners
ISO. (2013). The Turkish economy 2013, report prepared by Istanbul Chamber of Industry, May.
Jameson, F. (2000). Globalization and political strategy. New Left Review 4, July–August.
Jessop, B. (2015). Neoliberalism redux? Managing the contradictions of neoliberalism in crisis. Paper presented at inaugural cultural political economy conference, Lancaster, September 1–2, 2015.
Karadağ, R. (2010). Neoliberal restructuring in Turkey from state to oligarchic capitalism. MPIfG Discussion Paper 10/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne.
Karadağ, R. (2013). Where does Turkey’s new capitalism come from? European Journal of Sociology, LIV(1), 147–152.
Keyder, Ç. (1987). State and class in Turkey. London/New York: Verso.
Keyder, Ç. (1997). Whither the project of modernity? Turkey in the 1990s. In S. Bozdoğan & R. Kasaba (Eds.), Rethinking modernity and national ıdentity in Turkey (pp. 37–51). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Keyder, Ç. (2004) “The Turkish Bell Jar”, New Left Review, 28www.taraf.com.tr/haber-yeni-orta-sinifa-dikkat-157992
Keyder, Ç. (2014). ‘Yeni Orta Sınıf’a dikkat. July 30, 2014, http://www.taraf.com.tr/haber-yeni-orta-sinifa-dikkat-157992/
Keyman, F. (1995). On the relation between global modernity and nationalism: The crisis of hegemony and the rise of (Islamic) identity in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 13, 93–120.
Keyman, F. (2007). Modernity, secularism and Islam: The case of Turkey”. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(2), 215–234.
Keyman, F., & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2014). Democracy, identity and foreign policy in Turkey: Hegemony through transformation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Keyman, F., & Koyuncu, B. (2005). Globalization, alternative modernities and the political economy of Turkey. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 105–128.
Keyman, F., & Öniş, Z. (2007). Turkish politics in a changing world. Şişli: İstanbul Bilgi University Press.
Kinzer, S. (2011). Reset: Iran, Turkey and America’s future. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Koplow, M. J. (2014). Why the United States is getting tough with Turkey. Foreign Affairs, February 20, 2014.
Köse, A. H., & Yeldan, E. (1998). Turkish economy in the 1990s. New Perspectives on Turkey, Spring, 18, 51–78.
Kramer, H. (2000). A changing Turkey. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kupchan, C., & Mount, A. (2009). The autonomy rule. Democracy 12, Spring.
Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.
Lesser, I. O. (2006). Turkey, the United States and the delusion of geopolitics. Survival, 48: 3, Autumn.
Mandaville, P. (2007). Global political Islam. London/New York: Routledge.
Mardin, Ş. (1969). Power, civil society and culture in Ottoman Empire. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 11(3), 258–281.
Mardin, Ş. (1978). Youth and violence in Turkey. Archives Europeenes de Sociologie, 19, 229–254.
Mardin, Ş. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics. Daedalus, Winter.
Mardin, Ş. (2005). Turkish Islamic exceptionalism yesterday and today: Continuity, rupture and reconstruction in operational codes. Turkish Studies, 6(2), 145–165.
Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs private sector myths. New York: Anthem Press.
Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). (2011). Turkish industrial strategy document 2011–2014 (Towards EU membership), www.abgs.gov.tr/files/haberler/2011/turkish_industrial_strategy.pdf
Morton, A. (2013). The limits of sociological Marxism. Historical Materialism, 21(1), 129–158.
Munck, R. (2005) “Neoliberalism and Politics and the Politics of Neoliberalism”, in A.Saad-Filho & D.Johnston (eds), Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader, Pluto Press.
Nafaa, H. (2011). The Turkish model in the mirror of the Arab Spring. In N. Tocci et al. (Eds.), Turkey and the Arab Spring. The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Mediterranean Paper Series, October. Washington, D.C.
Navaro-Yashin, Y. (2002). Facets of the state: Secularism and public life in Turkey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
OECD. (2014). OECD economic surveys: Turkey. July 2014 Overview.
Öniş, Z. (2006). Varieties and crises of neoliberal globalization: Argentina, Turkey and the IMF. Third World Quarterly, 27(2), 239–263.
Öniş, Z. (2009). Beyond the 2001 financial crisis: The political economy of the new phase of neoliberal restructuring in Turkey. Review of International Political Economy, 16(3), 409–432.
Öniş, Z. (2010). Crises and transformations in Turkish political economy. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 9(3), 45–61.
Öniş, Z. (2011). Power, interests and coalitions: The political economy of mass privatisation in Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 32(4), 707–724.
Öniş, Z. (2014). Monopolizing the center: The AKP and the uncertain path of Turkish democracy. Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2499213
Öniş, Z., & Bakır, C. (2007). Turkey’s political economy in the age of financial globalization: The significance of the EU anchor. South European Society and Politics, 12(2), 147–164.
Öniş, Z., & Şenses, F. (2007). Global dynamics, domestic coalitions and a reactive state: Major policy shifts in post-war Turkish economic development. METU Studies in Development, 34(2), 251–286.
Öniş, Z., & Şenses, F. (2009). Turkish economy at a new stage of integration into the global economy. In Z. Öniş & F. Şenses (Eds.), Turkey and global economy. New York: Routledge.
Özcan, G. B., & Turunç, H. (2011). Economic liberalization and class dynamics in Turkey: New business groups and Islamic mobilization. Insight Turkey, 13(3), 63–86.
Özkazanç, A. (2005). Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümü ve Liberal Düşünce. In M. Yılmaz (ed.), Liberalizm, (pp. 634–657). İstanbul: İletişim.
Panitch, L. and M. Konings (2009) “Myths of Neoliberal Deregulation”, New Left Review, 57, May/June, 67-83.
Park, B. (2012). Modern Turkey: People, state and foreign policy in a globalized world. New York: Routledge.
Parla, T. (2004). Corporatist ideology in Kemalist Turkey. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Poulantzas, N. (1975). Classes in contemporary capitalism. London: New Left Books.
Poulantzas, N. (1978). State, power, socialism. London: Verso.
Rabasa, A., & Larabee, S. (2008). The rise of political Islam in Turkey. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Rodrik, D. (2015). Premature de-industrialisation. NBER Working Paper No. 20935, February. Journal of Economic Growth. 2015; 21 : 1-33. Copy at http://j.mp/1IqySld
Saad Filho, A. (2010). Crisis in neoliberalism or crisis of neoliberalism? (Socialist Register 2011). London: The Merlin Press.
Savran, S. (2015). Class, state and religion in Turkey. In N. Balkan et al. (Eds.), The neoliberal landscape and the rise of Islamist capital in Turkey. New York: Berghahn Books.
Sayarı, S. (2012). Introduction. In M. Heper (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of modern Turkey. New York: Routledge.
Şenalp, M. G., & Şenalp, Ö. (2012). Ulusötesi Kapitalizm: Sermayenin ve Devletin Ulusötesileşmesi ve Türkiye’de Ulusötesi Tarihsel Blok Oluşumu. Praksis, 19, 191–240.
Taymaz, E. (2015). Transformation of trade and industrialization. Unpublished background paper to FESSUD WP-6, Financialisation, Development and Global Governance.
Taymaz, E., & Voyvoda, E. (2012). Marching to the beat of a late drummer: Turkey’s experience of neoliberal industrialization since 1980. New Perspectives on Turkey, 47, 83–113.
Topal, A., & Yalman, G. (2015). “2009-2010 Tekel İşçileri Direnişi, Öncesi ve Sonrası: Toplumsal Farkındalıktan, Özelleştirme Mağduriyetine. In E. Özçelik & E. Taymaz (Eds.), Türkiye Ekonomisinin Dünü Bugünü Yarını (pp. 401–426). Ankara: İmge.
Toprak, B. (1996). Civil society in Turkey. In A. R. Norton (Ed.), Civil society in the Middle East (pp. 87–118). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Tuğal, C. (2002). Islamism in Turkey: Beyond instrument and meaning. Economy and Society, 31(1), 85–111.
Tuğal, C. (2006). The appeal of Islamic politics. The Sociological Quarterly, 47, 245–273.
Tuğal, C. (2007) ‘‘NATO's Islamists’’ New Left Review, 44, March/April.
Türel, O. (2014). Turkey vis-à-vis the periphery of the EU: An economic assessment. METU Studies in Development, 41(December), 389–413.
Turner, B. (1994). Orientalism, postmodernism and globalism. London/New York: Routledge.
Ünay, S. (2006). The political economy of development planning in Turkey. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Watson, M. (2005). Foundations of international political economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
White, J. (2002). Islamist mobilization in Turkey: A study in vernacular politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
World Bank. (2006). The World Bank in Turkey: 1993–2004: An IEG country assistance evaluation. http://www.worldbank.org/ieg
World Bank. (2014). Turkey public finance review: Turkey in transition: Time for a fiscal policy pivot? Report No. 85104-TR, May 20, 2014.
Yalman, G. (2002). State and bourgeoisie in historical perspective: A relativist paradigm or a panoply of hegemonic strategies? In N. Balkan & S. Savran (Eds.), The politics of permanent crisis: Class, state and ideology in Turkey (pp. 21–54). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Yalman, G. (2007). Rethinking the nature of the beast: The Turkish state and the process of Europeanisation. In A. H. Köse, F. Şenses, & E. Yeldan (Eds.), Neoliberal globalisation as new imperialism (pp. 225–243). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Yalman, G. (2009). Transition to neoliberalism: The case of Turkey in the 1980s. Şişli: İstanbul Bilgi University Press.
Yalman, G. (2011). Discourse and practice of poverty reduction strategies: Reflections on the Turkish case in the 2000s. In İ. Eren (Ed.), Converging Europe (pp. 227–245). Farnham: Ashgate.
Yalvaç, F. (2012). Strategic depth or hegemonic depth: A critical realist analysis of Turkey’s position in the world system. International Relations, 26(2), 165–180.
Yavuz, H. (1999). Search for a new social contract in Turkey: Fethullah Gülen, the Virtue Party and the Kurds. SAIS Review, 19(1), 114–143.
Yıldırım, D. (2009). AKP ve Neoliberal Popülizm. In İ. Uzgel & B. Duru (Eds.), AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (pp. 66–107). Ankara: Phoenix.
Yıldızoğlu, E. (2009). AKP ve Liberal Entellektüellerin Yavaş İntiharı. In İ. Uzgel & B. Duru (Eds.), AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (pp. 103–125). Ankara: Phoenix.
Yılmaz, K., & İzmen, Ü. (2009). Turkey’s recent trade and foreign direct investment performance. In Z. Öniş & F. Şenses (Eds.), Turkey and the global economy: Neo-liberal restructuring and integration in the post-crisis era. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yalman, G.L. (2016). Crises as Driving Forces of Neoliberal “Trasformismo”: The Contours of the Turkish Political Economy since the 2000s. In: Cafruny, A., Talani, L., Pozo Martin, G. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical International Political Economy. Palgrave Handbooks in IPE. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50018-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50018-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-50017-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-50018-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)