Abstract
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.
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.
As a political sociological conception, “center-periphery” refers to a distinct context in the Turkish experience alongside its conventional meaning, as explained in the first and second sections.
- 2.
The overthrow of Erbakan’s government through illegitimate ways using different parameters. Since the most prominent breakthroughs in the process have been made by the military on February 28, 1997 at the National Security Council, the whole process is called the 28th of February process.
- 3.
In his influential book The Great Transformation (2001), Polanyi argues that the most striking feature of the new economic mindset and practice has been penetration to all the social, political, and cultural matters by shaping the mentality codes and life practices as a function of economics. He uses the term “embeddedness” in referring to this sort of qualitative relationship.
References
Adaş, Emin Baki. 2003. Profit and the Prophet: Culture and Politics of Islamic Entrepreneurs in Turkey. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
AK Party. 2002. Urgent Action Plan.
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.
Giddens, Anthony. 1994. Beyond Left and Right. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoşgör, Evren. 2011. Islamic Capital/Anatolian Tigers: Past and Present. Middle Eastern Studies 47 (2): 343–360.
Kadıoğlu, Ayşe. 1999. Cumhuriyet İradesi Demokrasi Muhakemesi. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Karpat, Kemal. 2009. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Kimlik ve İdeoloji. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
Kasaba, Reşat, and Sibel Bozdoğan. 2010. Türkiye’de Modernleşme ve Ulusal Kimlik. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Kongar, Emre. 2012. 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Küçükömer, İdris. 2009. Batılılaşma ve Düzenin Yabancılaşması. İstanbul: Profil Yayıncılık.
Mannheim, Karl. 2013. Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge
Mardin, Şerif. 1973. Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics? Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 102 (1): 169–190.
MUSIAD Members’ Company Profiles. 1995. Istanbul: MUSIAD.
Öniş, Ziya. 2010. Crises and Transformations in Turkish Political Economy. Turkish Policy Quarterly 9 (3): 45–61.
Öniş, Ziya, and Umut Türem. 2001. Business, Globalization and Democracy: A Comparative Analysis of Turkish Business Associations. Turkish Studies 2 (2): 94–120.
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.
Parla, Taha. 2006. Ziya Gökalp, Kemalizm ve Türkiye’de Korporatizm. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shils, Edward. 1982. The Constitution of Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Timur, Taner. 1968. Türk Devrimi: Tarihi Anlamı ve Felsefi Temeli. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.
TUSIAD Members’ Company Profiles. 1989. Istanbul: TUSIAD.
Wilson, Francis G. 1980. The Case for Conservatism. London: Penguin Books.
Yeşilada, Birol A. 2002. The Virtue Party. Turkish Studies 3 (1): 62–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Babacan, A. (2018). Political Economy of Transformation of Capital Structure in Turkey: A Historical and Comparative View. In: Aysan, A., Babacan, M., Gur, N., Karahan, H. (eds) Turkish Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70380-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70380-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70379-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70380-0
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)