Year 2017, Volume 2 , Issue 2, Pages 493 - 514 2017-12-30

Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım
The Role of International Monetary Fund as an Apparatus of Hegemonic World Order: A Gramscian/Coxian Approach to the Neoliberal Transformation of Turkey

Görkem Altınörs [1]


Bu makalenin amacı IMF’nin Türkiye’de neoliberal dönüşümün yapımındaki rolünü analiz etmektir. Ulus-devletlerin neoliberalleşmesi hegemonik dünya düzeninin önemli bir şekilde ulus-üstü rolünü oynadığı ve uluslararası finansal kuruluşlar hayati bir şekilde görevlendirildiği bir süreçtir. Küresel kapitalist hegemonyanın yayılmasına yardım etmek için, ulusal devletler bu kuruluşlar tarafından yapılarını dönüştürmeleri için zorlanmışlardır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin ekonomik yapısının dönüşümü küresel hegemonyanın genişlemesi bağlamında incelenecektir. Gramsciyen/Coxyen teoriler bu araştırmada metot olarak kullanılacaktır. Ekonomik dönüşümün altında, Türk devletinin istihdamın, özelleştirmenin, sendikal hareketlerin ve sosyal devletin dönüşümü üzerinden incelenecektir.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of IMF in the making of neoliberal transformation in Turkey. The neoliberalisation of nation-states is a process in which the hegemonic world order critically plays its transnational role and international financial organisations are employed crucially. In order to assist the spread of the global capitalist hegemony, national states have been enforced to transform their structures by these institutions. In this paper, the transformation of the economic structures of Turkey will be investigated as a case within the enlargement of the global hegemony. The Gramscian and the Coxian theories will be used as method in this research. Under the economic transformation, the restructuring of Turkish state through transforming employment, privatisation, union activities and the social state will be examined.

  • Bibliography 
  • Ahmad, Feroz (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Arpac, Ozlem and Bird, Graham (2009). “Turkey and the IMF: A Case Study in the Political Economy of Policy Implementation”. The Review of International Organizations 4(2): 135-157.
  • Arrighi, Giovanni (2007). Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of Twenty-First Century. London and New York: Verso.
  • Augelli, Enrico and Murphy, Craig N. (1993). “Gramsci and International Relations: A General Perspective with Examples from Recent US Policy towards the Third World” in Stephen Gill (ed.) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 127-147.
  • Atasoy, Yildiz (2009). Islam’s Marriage with Neoliberalism: State Transformation in Turkey. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Aydın, Zulkuf (2005). The Political Economy of Turkey. London: Pluto Press.
  • Bieler, Andreas (2000). Globalisation and Enlargement of the European Union: Austrian and Swedish Social Forces in the Struggle over Membership. London and New York: Routledge. 
  • Bieler, Andreas; Bonefeld, Werner; Burnham, Peter and Morton, Adam David (2006). “Globalisation, The State and Class Struggle: An Introduction” in Andreas Bieler, Werner Bonefeld, Peter Burnham, and Adam David Morton (eds.) Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour: Contesting Neo-Gramscian Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. 1-5.
  • Bieler, Andreas; Lindberg, Ingemar and Pillay, Devan (2008). “The Future of the Global Working Class: An Introduction” in Andreas Bieler, Ingemar Lindberg and Devan Pillay (eds.) Labour and the Challenges of Globalization: What Prospects for Transnational Solidarity?. London: Pluto Press. 1-22.
  • Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David (2003). “Theoretical and Methodological Challenges of neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Political Economy”. http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/resources/online_articles/articles/bieler_morton.shtml [accessed on 02.06.2011].
  • Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David (2004). “A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations”. Capital & Class 28(1): 85-113.
  • Bina, Cyrus and Yaghmaian, Behzad (1990). “Post-war Global Accumulation and the Transnationalisation of Capital”. Review of Radical Political Economics 22(1): 78-98. 
  • BSB [Bağımsız Sosyal Bilimciler] (2007). IMF Gözetiminde On Uzun Yıl 1998-2008: Farklı Hükümetler Tek Siyaset. İstanbul: Yordam Yayınevi.
  • Burnham, Peter (1991). “Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order”. Capital & Class 15(3): 73-92.
  • Cam, Surhan (2002). “Neo-liberalism and Labour Within the Context of an Emerging Market Economy-Turkey”. Capital & Class 26(2): 89-114. 
  • Cizre, Ümit and Yeldan, Erinc (2002). “Turkey: Economy, Politics and Society in the Post-Crisis Era”. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic572311.files/Wed%20July%208/CizreYerdan.pdf [accessed on 05.06.2011].
  • Clarke, Simon (1988). “Class Struggle, Overaccumulation and the Regulation Approach”. Capital & Class 12(3): 59-92.
  • Colas, Alejandro (2005). “Neoliberalism, Globalisation and International Relations” in Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston (eds.) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press. 70-79.
  • Cox, Robert W. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”. Millennium: A Journal of International Studies 10(2): 126-155.
  • Cox, Robert W. (1983). “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method”. Millennium: A Journal of International Studies 12(2): 162-175.
  • Cox, Robert W. (1987). Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Cox, Robert W. (1995). “Critical Political Economy” in Björn Hettne (ed.) International Political Economy: Understanding Global Disorder. London: Zed Books. 31-45.
  • Cox, Robert W. (1996). “The Executive Head: An Essay on Leadership in International Organization” in Robert W. Cox and Timothy J. Sinclair (eds.) Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 317-348.
  • European Commission (2007). “European Commission Progress Report on Turkey”. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/turkey_progress_reports_en.pdf [accessed on 10.06.2011].
  • Erdoğdu, Seyhan (2010). “Global Unions and Global Capitalism: Contest or Accommodation?” in Alfredo Saad-Filho and Galip L. Yalman (eds.) Economic Transition to Neoliberalism in Middle-income Countries. London and New York: Routledge. 74-89.
  • Evrensel, Ayse Y. (2004). “IMF Programs and Financial Liberation in Turkey”. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 40(4): 5-19.
  • Gill, Stephen (1991). “Historical Materialism, Gramsci, and International Political Economy” in Craig N. Murphy and Roger Tooze (eds.) The New International Political Economy. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publisher.  51-76.
  • Gill, Stephen (1997a). “Transformation and Innovation in the Study of World Order” in Stephen Gill and James H. Mittelman (eds.) Innovation and Transformation in International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5-24.
  • Gill, Stephen (1997b). “Gramsci, Modernity and Globalization”. http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/resources/online_articles/articles/gill01.shtml [accessed on 21.06.2011].
  • Gill, Stephen and Law, David (1993). “Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital” in Stephen Gill (ed.) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 93-126.
  • Gilpin, Robert (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Gramsci, Antonio (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
  • Harrod, Jeffrey (1997). “Social Forces and International Political Economy: Joining the Two IRs” in Stephen Gill and James H. Mittelman (eds.) Innovation and Transformation in International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105-114.
  • Hobden, Stephen and Jones, Richard Wyn (2008). “Marxist Theories of International Relations” in John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142-159.
  • Hobson, John M. (2000). The State and International Relations Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • IMF (2005). “IMF Press Release, No: 05/104”. http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2005/pr05104.htm [accessed on 13.06.2011].
  • Karataş, Cevat (1990). Privatisation in Britain and Turkey. İstanbul: The İstanbul Chamber of Industry.
  • Keleş, Rusen (1993). Kentleşme Politikası. Ankara: Remzi Kitabevi Yayınları.
  • Keohane, Robert (1984). After Hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Keyder, Çaglar (1987). State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development. London: Verso.
  • Lapavitsas, Costas (2005). “Mainstream Economics in the Neoliberal Era” in Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston (eds.) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press. 30-40. 
  • Linklater, Andrew (2000). “The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory” in Andrew Linklater International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Vol. IV. London and New York: Routledge. 1633-1655.
  • Lyotard, Jean-François (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • Marx, Karl (1963). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.
  • Öniş, Ziya (2006). “Varieties and crises of neoliberal globalisation: Argentina, Turkey and the IMF”. Third World Quarterly 27(2): 239-263. 
  • Pasha, Mustafa Kamal (1997). “Ibn Khaldun and World Order” in Stephen Gill and James H. Mittelman (eds.) Innovation and Transformation in International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56-74.
  • Paterson, Bill (2009). “Trasformismo at the World Trade Organization” in Mark McNally and John Schwarzmantel (eds.) Gramsci and Global Politics: Hegemony and Resistance. London: Routledge. 42-57.
  • Polanyi, Karl (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Poulantzas, Nicos (1976). “The Capitalist State: A Reply to Miliband and Laclau”. New Left Review, I/95: 63-83.
  • Robinson, William I. and Harris Jerry (2000). “Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class”. Science and Society 64(1): 11-54.
  • Ruggie, John Gerard (1982). “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order”. International Organization 36(2): 379-415.
  • Rupert, Mark (2000). Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Saad-Filho, Alfredo (2005). “From Washington to Post-Washington Consensus: The Neoliberal Agendas for Economic Development” in Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston (eds.) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press. 113-119.
  • Soyak, Alkan and Eroğlu, Nadir (2008). “Türkiye’nin Kalkınma Anlayışının Dönüşümünde IMF-Dünya Bankası Yapısal Uyum Politikalarının Rolü”. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11466/1/MPRA_paper_11466.pdf [accessed on 30.06.2011].
  • Şahin, Sevgi Balkan (2010) “Privatization as a Hegemonic Process in Turkey”. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 18(4): 483-498.
  • Uysal, Dogan (2004). IMF Politikaları ve Türkiye. İstanbul: Çizgi Yayınevi.
  • Ünay, Sadik (2010). “Hegemony, Aid and Power: A Neo-Gramscian Analysis of the World Bank”. European Journal of Economics and Political Studies 3(2): 39-52. 
  • The Economist (2007). “Could the IMF be Putting Itself Out of a Job?”. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/02/could_the_imf_be_putting_itsel [accessed on 31.08.2011] The World Bank (2010). “World Development Indicators Database: Gross Domestic Product 2010, PPP”. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP_PPP.pdf [accessed on 21.07.2011].
  • Tuğal, Cihan (2009). Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
  • Wallerstein, Immanuel (1976). “Semi-Peripheral Countries and the Contemporary World Crisis”. Theory and Society 3(4): 461-483. 
  • Wade, Robert Hunter (2003). “What Strategies are Viable for Developing Countries Today? The World Trade Organization and the Shrinking of ‘Development Space’”. Review of International Political Economy 10(4): 621-644.
  • Walicki, Andrzej (1979). “A History of Russian Thought: From Enlightenment to Marxism”. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
  • Williamson, John (1989). Latin American Readjustment: How Much Has Happened. Washington: Institute for International Economics.
  • Yalman, Galip L. (2002). “The Turkish state and bourgeoisie in historical perspective: a relativist paradigm or a panoply of hegemonic strategies?” in Neşecan Balkan and Sungur Savran (eds.) The Politics of Permanent Crisis. Class, Ideology and State in Turkey. New York: Nova Science. 21-54.
  • Yeldan, Erinc (2006). “Neoliberal Global Remedies: From Speculative-Led Growth to IMF-Led Crisis in Turkey”. Review of Radical Political Economics 38(2): 193-213. 
  • Yeldan, Erinc (2009). “Patterns of Adjustment under the Age of Finance: The Case of Turkey as a Peripheral Agent of Neoliberal Globalization”. http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/yeldan140409.html [accessed on 21.08.2011].
  • Zizek, Slavoj (2001). “Repeating Lenin: Lenin’s Choice”. http://www.lacan.com/replenin.htm [11.07.2011].
Subjects Social, Political Science
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: orcid.org/0000-0001-7314-9349
Author: Görkem Altınörs
Institution: BİLECİK ŞEYH EDEBALİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : December 30, 2017

Bibtex @research article { bseusbed327080, journal = {Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi}, issn = {2548-088X}, eissn = {2548-088X}, address = {}, publisher = {Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi}, year = {2017}, volume = {2}, pages = {493 - 514}, doi = {10.33905/bseusbed.327080}, title = {Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım}, key = {cite}, author = {Altınörs, Görkem} }
APA Altınörs, G . (2017). Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 2 (2) , 493-514 . DOI: 10.33905/bseusbed.327080
MLA Altınörs, G . "Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım". Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2 (2017 ): 493-514 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bseusbed/issue/32065/327080>
Chicago Altınörs, G . "Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım". Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2 (2017 ): 493-514
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım AU - Görkem Altınörs Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.33905/bseusbed.327080 DO - 10.33905/bseusbed.327080 T2 - Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 493 EP - 514 VL - 2 IS - 2 SN - 2548-088X-2548-088X M3 - doi: 10.33905/bseusbed.327080 UR - https://doi.org/10.33905/bseusbed.327080 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım %A Görkem Altınörs %T Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım %D 2017 %J Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi %P 2548-088X-2548-088X %V 2 %N 2 %R doi: 10.33905/bseusbed.327080 %U 10.33905/bseusbed.327080
ISNAD Altınörs, Görkem . "Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım". Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2 / 2 (December 2017): 493-514 . https://doi.org/10.33905/bseusbed.327080
AMA Altınörs G . Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2017; 2(2): 493-514.
Vancouver Altınörs G . Hegemonik Dünya Düzeninin Bir Aracı Olarak Uluslararası Para Fonu’nun Rolü: Türkiye’nin Neoliberal Dönüşümüne Gramsciyen/Coxyen Bir Yaklaşım. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2017; 2(2): 514-493.