Neoliberal Küreselleşme Çağında Uluslararası Örgütlerin Politik Sosyolojisi

Year 2021, Volume: 17 Issue: 34, 1338 - 1354, 28.02.2021

Görkem Altınörs

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.797023

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı uluslararası örgütlerin küresel neoliberalizm çağında nasıl ulus devletlerin sosyo-politik yapılarını şekillendirdiğini anlamaktır. İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası dönemde uluslararası örgütler liberal uluslararası düzenin en etkin aktörleri haline gelmiştir. Bu makale özellikle Bretton Wood örgütlerine, ismen Uluslararası Para Fonu, Dünya Bankası ve Dünya Ticaret Örgütü’ne ve bunların egemen devletlerin siyasal sosyolojileri üzerindeki etkilerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu makaleye göre uluslararası örgütler, özellikle de Bretton Wood örgütleri, nihai olarak ulus devletlerin politik sosyolojisini iki biçimde şekillendirmektedir. İlk olarak o ülkenin ideolojik yapısını değiştirmekte, ikinci olarak da o ülkelerdeki otoriter meyilleri artırmaktadır. Bu paradigmayı incelemek için, bu çalışma Türkiye’nin 1950’larden bu yana süregiden IMF ile olan ilişkilerini incelemektedir. İdeolojik tarafta, Bretton Wood örgütlerinin Türkiye’nin politik ekonomisi ile angajmanı 1980’lerden bu yana siyasal İslam’ın yükselişine neden olmuştur. Otoriter eğilimler için ise, Bretton Wood örgütleri ile angajman Türkiye’de otoriter eğilimleri artırmış, hatta 1980’de darbe yapılmasını dahi tetiklemiştir.

Keywords

Neoliberal Küreselleşme, Uluslararası Örgütler, Siyaset Sosyolojisi, Bretton Woods

The Political Sociology of International Organisations (IOs) in the Age of Neoliberal Globalisation

Abstract

The aim of this research is to understand how international organisations (IOs) shape the politico-sociological structure of the nation-states in the age of neoliberal globalisation. IOs have become the most dominant actors of the liberal international order in the post-war era. This article specifically focusses on the Bretton Woods (BW) institutions, namely International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and their impact on the political sociology of the sovereign states. This article argues that the IOs, especially the BW institutions, eventually shape the political sociology of nation-states in two ways. First, it changes the ideological structure of the country, and second it increases the authoritarian tendencies in these countries. To analyse the paradigm, this research studies the Turkish case vis-à-vis its relationship with the IMF since the 1960s. On the ideological side, the BW institutions involvement in the Turkish political economy cause the rise of political Islam since the 1980s. For the authoritarian tendencies, the relationship with BW institutions increased the level of authoritarianism, and as a matter of fact, it even triggered the coup d’état in 1980.

Keywords

Neoliberal Globalisation, International Organisations, Political Sociology, Bretton Woods

References

• Arato, A. (2010). Democratic constitution-Making and Unfreezing the Turkish process. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 36(3-4), 473-487.
• Atasoy, Y. (2009). Islam’s marriage with neoliberalism: State transformation in Turkey. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ayata, S. (1996). Patronage, party, and state: The politicization of Islam in Turkey. The Middle East Journal, 50(1), 40-56.
• Aydin, Z. (2005). The political economy of Turkey. London: Pluto Press.
• Bedirhanoglu, P., and Yalman, G. L. (2010). State, class and the discourse: Reflections on the neoliberal transformation in Turkey. In A. Saad-Filho & G. L. Yalman (Eds.), Economic Transition to Neoliberalism in Middle-income Countries. London and New York: Routledge.
• Boratav, K. (1990). Inter-class and intra-class relations of distribution under structural adjustment: Turkey during the 1980s. In T. Arıcanlı ve D. Rodrik (Eds.), The Political Economy of Turkey: Debt, Adjustment and Sustainability. London: Macmillan.
• Cakmakcı, U. ve Oba, B. (2007). The role of employer unions in hegemonic struggle, interest representation and promotion of managerial perspectives in Turkey. Business History, 49(5), 695-716.
• Cam, S. (2002). Neo-liberalism and Labour Within the Context of an Emerging Market Economy – Turkey. Capital & Class, 26(2), 89-114.
• Carkoglu, A. and Kalaycıoglu, E. (2009). The rising tide of conservatism in Turkey. London and New York: Palgrave and Macmillan.
• Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: an essay in method. Millennium: A Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 162-175.
• Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Dikici-Bilgin, H. (2009). Civil society and state in Turkey: A gramscian perspective. In M. McNally and J. Schwarzmantel (Eds.), Gramsci and Global Politics: Hegemony and Resistance. London: Routledge.
• Erdogdu, S. (2010). Global unions and global capitalism: Contest or accommodation?. In A. Saad-Filho and G. L. Yalman (Eds.), Economic Transition to Neoliberalism in Middle-income Countries. London and New York: Routledge.
• Evans, P. (1992). The state as problem and solution: Predation, embedded autonomy, and structural change. In S. Haggard and R. Kaufman (Eds.), The Politics of Economic Adjustment: International Constrains, Distributive Conflicts, and the State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gill, S. (1991). Historical materialism, gramsci, and international political economy. In C. N. Murphy and R. Tooze (Eds.), The New International Political Economy. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publisher.
• Hobson, J. M. (2000). The state and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Keles, R. (1993). Kentleşme politikası. Ankara: Remzi Kitabevi.
• Laciner, O. (2007). 27 Nisan Muhtırası, seçimler: Aristokratlar ile burjuvazi mücadelesinde son aşamaya doğru. Birikim, 218, 3-9.
• Mouffe, C. (1979). Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci. In C. Mouffe (Ed.) Gramsci & Marxist Theory. London, Boston and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Oncu, A. (2003). Dictatorship plus hegemony: A Gramscian analysis of the Turkish State. Science & Society, 67(3), 303-328.
• Onis, Z. (2006). The political economy of Turkey’s justice and development party. In H. Yavuz (Ed.), The Emergence of a New Turkey: Islam, Democracy and the AK Party. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
• Onis, Z. and Senses, F. (2005). Rethinking the emerging Post-Washington Consensus. Development and Change, 36: 2, 263-290.
• Pevehouse, J., Nordstrom, T. and Warnke, K. (2004). The correlates of War 2 international governmental organizations data version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(2), 101–19.
• Rittberger, V., Zangl, B., Kruck, A. and Dijkstra, H. (2019). International organization (3rd Edition). London: Red Globe Press.
• The Economist. (2011, 9 June). Turkey’s bitter election: On the last lap. Accessed on 15 September 2020 at http://www.economist.com/node/18805597.
• The Guardian. (2011, 13 June). Recep Erdogan wins by landslide in Turkey's general election. Accessed on 13 September 2020 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/recep-erdogan-turkey-general-election.
• Toussaint, E. (2004, 28 September). World Bank – IMF Support to Dictatorships. Accessed on 18 September 2020 at http://cadtm.org/World-Bank-IMF-support-to.
• Tugal, C. (2009). Passive revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
• van der Pijl, K. (1997). Transnational class formation and State Forms. In S. Gill and J. H. Mittelman (Eds.), Innovation and Transformation in International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Woods, N. (2001). Making IMF and the World Bank More Accountable. International Affairs, 44(1), 83-100.
• Yalman, G. L. (2009). Transition to Neoliberalism: The Case of Turkey in the 1980s. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
• Yalman, G. L. (2010). Crises as driving forces of neoliberal transformismo: The Case of Turkey in the 2000s. Historical Materialism Seventh Annual Conference, London.
• Yeldan, E. (2006). Neoliberal global remedies: From speculativeled growth to IMF-Led Crisis in Turkey. Review of Radical Political Economics, 38(2), 193-213.
• Yeldan, E. (2009, 14 April). Patterns of adjustment under the age of finance: The Case of Turkey as a peripheral agent of neoliberal globalization. Accessed on 15 September 2020 at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/yeldan140409.html.
• Zizek, S. (2000). Holding the Place. In J. Butler, E. Laclau, and S. Zizek (Eds.), Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. London and New York: Verso.