Review

ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)

Volume: 1 Number: 2 December 31, 2016
EN TR

ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)

Abstract

This study examines the actor’s role in institutional change on evolution of each conversion of economy and industrialization politics which was applied between the establishment years of Republic of Turkey and the date when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk died: 1938. Secondary data which focuses on the economy politics of foundation era is used in the analysis. Ideological tendency has critically changed three times by the changes in environmental conditions and predominantly by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s guidance, who was the institutional actor between these years. Characteristics and the causes of the institutional changes are also investigated inside the paper. After the readings, for each periodical change Saruhan and Özdemirci’s (2016) political tendency test is graded and the results are reported in this work.

This study examines the actor’s role in institutional change on evolution of each conversion of economy and industrialization politics which was applied between the establishment years of Republic of Turkey and the date when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk died: 1938. Secondary data which focuses on the economy politics of foundation era is used in the analysis. Ideological tendency has critically changed three times by the changes in environmental conditions and predominantly by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s guidance, who was the institutional actor between these years. Characteristics and the causes of the institutional changes are also investigated inside the paper. After the readings, for each periodical change Saruhan and Özdemirci’s (2016) political tendency test is graded and the results are reported in this work.


Keywords

References

  1. Battilana, J., Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals’ social position, Organization, 13(5) 653-676, 2006. Battilana, J., Leca, B., The role of resources in institutional entrepreneurship: Insights for an approach to strategic management combining agency and institutions. In L.A. Costanzo & R.B. MacKay, Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight, Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 2008. Boratav, K., Türkiye İktisat Tarihi (1908-2009), İmge Yayınları, Ankara, 2015. Boxenbaum, E., Battilana, J., Importation as innovation: Transposing managerial practices across fields. Strategic Organization 3(4): 1-29, 2005. Bozoklu, D., Atatürk Döneminde Bankacılık Sistemine ve Gelişimine Genel Bir Bakış. Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, 55(9), 2003. DiMaggio, P.J., Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations. 3-22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988. DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:1750-1762, 1983. Eisenstadt, S.N., Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs and social change: Comparative analyses of traditional civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85: 840-869, 1980. Emirbayer, M., Mische, A., What is agency?, American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962-1023, 1998. Fligstein, N., Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397-405, 1997. Fligstein, N., Social skills and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2): 105-125, 2001. Garud, R., Jain, S., Kumaraswamy, A., Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196-214, 2002. Garud, R., Karnøe, P., Path creation as a process of mindful deviation, In Path dependence and creation, R. Garud and P. Karnøe (eds.) Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: 1-38, 2001. Greenwood, R, Suddaby, R., Hinings, C.R., Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80, 2002. Kazgan, G., Tanzimat’tan 21. Yüzyıla Türkiye Ekonomisi, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013. Koç, V., Hayat Hikâyem, Apa Ofset Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1973. Lawrence, T.B. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 281-290, 2002. Leblebici, H, Salancik, G.R., Copay, A., King, T., Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 333-363, 1991. Levy, D.L., Scully, M., The Institutional Entrepreneur as Modern Prince: The Strategic Face of Lewis, B., Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu, Arkadaş Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2015. Lounsbury, M., Crumley, E.T., New Practice Creation: An Institutional Perspective on Innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012, 2007. Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363, 1977. Milli Kütüphane Arşivi; http://www.cnnturk.com/fotogaleri/yasam/diger/turk-siyasetine-ait-unutulmaz-afisler (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2017) Oliver, C., Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of Management Review,(16), 145-179, 1991. Pamuk, Ş., Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016. Perkmann, M., Spicer, A, Healing the Scars of History: Projects, Skills and Field Strategy in Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1101-1122, 2007. Power in Contested Fields, Organization Studies, 28(7): 971-991, 2007. Rao, H., Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 912-961, 1998. Saruhan, Şadi Can; Özdemirci, Ata, Bilim, Felsefe ve Metodoloji, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016. Scott, W. R., Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003. Scott, W. R., Unpacking Institutional Arguments, W. W. Powell ve P. J. DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 164-182. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. Scott, W.R., Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Seo, M., Douglas Creed, W.E., Institutional contradictions, praxis and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247, 2002. Taşçı D., Erdemir, E., Örgüt Kuramı, Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2013. Tezel, S.Y., Cumhuriyet Döneminin İktisadi Tarihi (1923-1950), Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2015. TÜİK İstatistik Göstergeler 1923-2009, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara, 2010. Wijen, F., Ansari, S., Overcoming Inaction through Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1079-1100, 2007. Zilber, T.B., Stories and the Discursive Dynamics of Institutional Entrepreneurship: The Case of Israeli High-tech after the Bubble, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1035-1054, 2007. Zürcher, E.J., Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Business Administration

Journal Section

Review

Publication Date

December 31, 2016

Submission Date

June 15, 2017

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2016 Volume: 1 Number: 2

APA
Özdemirci, A. (2016). ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). Marmara Business Review, 1(2), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324
AMA
1.Özdemirci A. ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). Marmara Bus. Rev. 2016;1(2):73-95. doi:10.23892/mbrev.2016128324
Chicago
Özdemirci, Ata. 2016. “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”. Marmara Business Review 1 (2): 73-95. https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
EndNote
Özdemirci A (December 1, 2016) ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). Marmara Business Review 1 2 73–95.
IEEE
[1]A. Özdemirci, “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”, Marmara Bus. Rev., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 73–95, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
ISNAD
Özdemirci, Ata. “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”. Marmara Business Review 1/2 (December 1, 2016): 73-95. https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
JAMA
1.Özdemirci A. ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). Marmara Bus. Rev. 2016;1:73–95.
MLA
Özdemirci, Ata. “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”. Marmara Business Review, vol. 1, no. 2, Dec. 2016, pp. 73-95, doi:10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
Vancouver
1.Ata Özdemirci. ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). Marmara Bus. Rev. 2016 Dec. 1;1(2):73-95. doi:10.23892/mbrev.2016128324