BibTex RIS Cite

Kemalizm ve İktisadi Sonuçları

Year 2015, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 1 - 23, 01.01.2015

Abstract

Kemalizm, anayasaya göre altı ilkeden oluşmaktadır; ancak bu ilkelere batıcılığın da ilave edilmesi gerekir. Bu ilkeler yargı kesimi, ordu, eğitim sistemi, iş dünyası ve medya ve siyaset düzeni olmak üzere beş kurum tarafından uygulanmaktadır. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin resmi ideolojisi olduğundan iktisadi alanda da birtakım sonuçlarının olması doğal olan Kemalizm, dışa kapalı, serbest piyasa karşıtı ve devletçi iktisat politikalarını tercih etmiştir. 1980 yılından sonra uygulanan neoliberal iktisat politikalarının bu anlayışla uyumlu olmaması yaşanan iktisadi krizlerin en önemli nedenlerindedir. Bu makalede Kemalizm’in iktisat anlayışı değerlendirilmiş ve neoliberal iktisat politikalarıyla çatışması ele alınmıştır. AK Parti’nin iktisadi başarılarının arkasında Kemalist ideolojinin ve kurumların gücünü nispeten yitirmesi yatmaktadır. İlave olarak, 28 Şubat Kemalist kurumların sistemi korumak adına beraber hareket ettikleri güzel bir örnek oluşturmaktadır. İktisadi faktörler 28 Şubat’ın en önemli nedenlerindedir.

References

  • Arpac, Ozlem and Graham Bird (2009) “Turkey and the IMF: A case study in the political economy of policy implementation” Rev Int Organ, volume: 4, pp.135–157.
  • Asutay, Mehmet (2006a) “Deconstructing and Moderating the Functioning and Consequences of Political Manipulation of the Economy in Turkey”, European Public Choice Society, Turku, Finland.
  • Asutay, Mehmet (2006b) “European Futures in the ‘Wilderness’: Turkey’s Accession to the EU” The Muslim World Bank Review, Volume: 26, Issue: 4, pp. 6-18.
  • Barkey, Henri J. (2000) “The struggles of a ‘Strong’ State”, Journal of International Affairs, Volume: 54, Issue: 1, pp. 87-105.
  • Belge, Murat (2001) “Mustafa Kemal ve Kemalizm” (in) Ahmet İnsel (ed), Kemalizm, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul:, pp. 29-43.
  • Boratav, Korkut (1981) “Kemalist Economic Policies and Étatism” (in) Kazancıgil, Ali and Ergun Özbudun (eds) Atatürk: Founder of a Modern State, London: C. Hurst&Company.
  • Boratav, Korkut (2003) Türkiye İktisat Tarihi, 1908-2002, (6. Baskı) İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
  • Boratav, T., K. O. Türel and E. Yeldan (1996) “Dilemmas of Structural Adjustment and Environmental Policies under Instability: Post-1980 Turkey, World Development, Volume: 24 Isue:2, pp. 373-193.
  • Buğra, Ayşe, (1994) State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study, State University of New York Press, New York.
  • Cizre-Sakallıoğlu, Ümit and Erinç Yeldan (2000) “Politics, Society and Financial Liberalization: Turkey in the 1990s”, Development and Change, Volume: 31, pp. 481-508.
  • Cizre-Sakallıoğlu, Ümit and Menderes Çınar (2003) “Turkey 2002: Kemalism, Islamism, and Politics in the Light of the February 28 Process” The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume: 102, Isue: 2/3, pp. 309-332.
  • Cooper, Malcolm (2002) “The Legacy of Atatürk: Turkish Political Structures and Policy-Making”, International Affaris, Volume: 78, Issue: 1, pp. 115-128.
  • Demirhan, Ahmet (2010) “Kamusal Alan ve Başörtüsü “Stratejik Düşünce Enstitüsü, www.sde.org.tr.
  • Doğan, Necati (2012) “Rakamlarla Özelleştirme: Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Özelleştirme Uygulamaları ve Özelleştirme Fonu’nun Kaynak ve Kullanımları” Özelleştirme İdaresi Başkanlığı: Ankara. İnternet erişimi:http://www.oib.gov.tr/baskanlik/ozellestirme-kitap29%203.pdf. 25.04.2014 tarihinde erişildi.
  • Gözler, Kemal (1999) Anayasa Hukukunun Metedolojisi, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • Hale, William (1981) The Political and Economic Development of Modern Turkey, Croom Helm, London.
  • Yüksek Öğretim Kanunu, www.yok.gov.tr.
  • İnsel, Ahmet, (1996) Düzen ve Kalkınma Sürecinde Türkiye: Kalkınma Sürecinde Devletin Rolü, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • İnsel, Ahmet, (2001) “Giriş” (in) Ahmet İnsel (ed), Kemalizm, İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık, pp. 17-27.
  • Jenkins, Gareth (2001) Context and Circumstance: The Turkish Military and Politics, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London.
  • Karadag, Roy (2010) Neoliberal Restructuring in Turkey: From State to Oligarchic Capitalism, MPIFG Discussion Paper 10/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne (Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln).
  • Kepenek, Yakup (2012) Türkiye Ekonomisi, (25. Baskı), Remzi Kitabevi, Ankara.
  • Köker, Levent (2012) Modernleşme, Kemalizm ve Demokrasi, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Mardin, Şerif (2008) Türkiye’de Toplum ve Siyaset, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Mehmet, Ozay (1983) “Turkey in Crisis: Some Contradictions in the Kemalist Development Strategy”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume. 15, Issue: 1, pp. 47-66.
  • Nas, Tevfik F. (2008) Tracing the Economic Transformation of Turkey from the 1920s to EU Accession, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden-Boston.
  • Öniş, Ziya (1999) State and Market: The Political Economy of Turkey in Comparative Perspective, Boğaziçi University Press, Istanbul.
  • Öniş, Ziya and Ahmet Faruk Aysan, (2000) “Neolibeal Globalization, the State and Finacial Crises ib the Semi-Pereiphery: A Comparative Analysis”, Third World Quarterly, Volume: 21, Issue: 1, pp. 119-139.
  • Öniş, Ziya and Ali Burak Güven (2010) “Global Crisis, National Responses: The Political Economy of Turkish Exceptionalism” TÜSİAD-Koç Unıversity Economic Research Forum, Working Paper: 1013.
  • Öniş, Ziya and Umut Türem (2002) “Entrepreneurs, Democracy, and Citizenship in Turkey” Comparative Politics, Volume. 34, Issue: 4, pp. 439-456
  • Ergun, Özbudun (2007) Democratization Reforms in Turkey, 1993–2004, Turkish Studies, 8:2, 179-196, DOI: 10.1080/14683840701312195 Özman, Aylin (2010) “Law, Ideology and Modernization in Turkey: Kemalist Legal Reforms in Perspective, Social & Legal Studies, Volume: 19, Issue: 1, pp. 67–84.
  • Pollis, Amanda (1989) “State Repression and Development: The Case of Turkey”, (in) Lopez, George A. and Micheal Stohl (eds) Dependence, Development, and State Repression, Greenwood Press, New York.
  • Rodric, D. (2006) “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLIV (December 2006), ss. 973–987.
  • Savaş, Vural (1989) “Anayasalarda Ekonomik Hak ve Özgürlükler: T. C. Anayasaları Örneği”, Anayasa Yargısı Dergisi, Volume: 6, pp. 175-203.
  • Savaş, Vural Fuat (1994) “Yeni Anayasa İçin Ekonomik Anayasa Önerileri”, Anayasa Yargısı Dergisi, Volume: 11, pp. 215-226.
  • Savaş, Vural Fuat (1998) “Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Özelleştirme (İktisadi Yaklaşım)”, Anayasa Yargısı Dergisi, Volume: 15, pp. 79-98.
  • Shaker, Sallama (1995) State, Society, and Privatization in Turkey, 1979-1990, The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington.
  • Siyasi Partiler Kanunu (1983), T.C. Resmi Gazete, 18027, 22 Nisan 1983.
  • Şahin, Hüseyin (2012) Türkiye Ekonomisi: Tarihsel Gelişimi-Bugünkü Durumu, (12. Baskı), Ezgi Kitabevi, Bursa
  • T.C. Anayasası, (1982), T.C. Resmi Gazete, 2709, 9 Kasım 1982.
  • Türkiye’nin Güçlü Ekonomiye Geçiş Programı, www.tbmm.gov.tr.
  • Waterbury, John (1992) “Export-Led Growth and the Center-Right Coalition in Turkey”, Comparative Politics, Volume: 24, Issue: 2, pp. 127-145.
  • Williamson, J. (2005) “The Strange History of the Washington Consensus”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Volume: 27, Issue: 2, ss. 195-206.
  • Yanık, Murat (2008) “Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararları Işığında Özelleştirme Yüksek Kurulu” e-akademi, Volume. 72, www.e-akademi.org, Erişim Tarihi: 09.02.2011.
  • Yavuz, M. Hakan (2000) “Cleansing Islam from the Public Sphere” Journal of International Affairs, Volume: 54, Issue: 1, pp. 21-42.
  • Yükseköğretim Kanunu, (1981) T.C. Resmi Gazete, 2547, 6 Kasım 1981.
  • Zürcher, Erik Jan (2001) “Kemalist Düşüncenin Osmanlı Kaynakları” (in) Kemalizm, Ahmet İnsel (ed), İletişim Yayıncılık, İstanbul Çeviren: Özgür Gökmen, pp. 44-55.

Kemalism and Its Economic Consequences

Year 2015, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 1 - 23, 01.01.2015

Abstract

Kemalism consists of six principles according to the constitution; however westernization should be added to these principles. The principles have been applied by five institutions: the judiciary, the military, the education system, the business world and the political order. Kemalism, for which it is natural to have certain economic consequences due to its being the official ideology of the Turkish Republic, prefers self-enclosed, anti-free market and statist economic policies. The fact that the neo-liberal economic policies that have been applied after 1980 are in contradiction with Kemalism is one of the most important reasons for the economic crises that the country has gone through. The economic success of the AK Party rests on the relative decrease in power of the Kemalist ideology and institutions. In addition, the February 28 is a good example where the Kemalist institutions acted together in order to defend the system. Economic reasons are important to understand the February 28. In this article, we investigate Kemalist economic policies and their contradictions with neoliberal economic policies

References

  • Arpac, Ozlem and Graham Bird (2009) “Turkey and the IMF: A case study in the political economy of policy implementation” Rev Int Organ, volume: 4, pp.135–157.
  • Asutay, Mehmet (2006a) “Deconstructing and Moderating the Functioning and Consequences of Political Manipulation of the Economy in Turkey”, European Public Choice Society, Turku, Finland.
  • Asutay, Mehmet (2006b) “European Futures in the ‘Wilderness’: Turkey’s Accession to the EU” The Muslim World Bank Review, Volume: 26, Issue: 4, pp. 6-18.
  • Barkey, Henri J. (2000) “The struggles of a ‘Strong’ State”, Journal of International Affairs, Volume: 54, Issue: 1, pp. 87-105.
  • Belge, Murat (2001) “Mustafa Kemal ve Kemalizm” (in) Ahmet İnsel (ed), Kemalizm, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul:, pp. 29-43.
  • Boratav, Korkut (1981) “Kemalist Economic Policies and Étatism” (in) Kazancıgil, Ali and Ergun Özbudun (eds) Atatürk: Founder of a Modern State, London: C. Hurst&Company.
  • Boratav, Korkut (2003) Türkiye İktisat Tarihi, 1908-2002, (6. Baskı) İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
  • Boratav, T., K. O. Türel and E. Yeldan (1996) “Dilemmas of Structural Adjustment and Environmental Policies under Instability: Post-1980 Turkey, World Development, Volume: 24 Isue:2, pp. 373-193.
  • Buğra, Ayşe, (1994) State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study, State University of New York Press, New York.
  • Cizre-Sakallıoğlu, Ümit and Erinç Yeldan (2000) “Politics, Society and Financial Liberalization: Turkey in the 1990s”, Development and Change, Volume: 31, pp. 481-508.
  • Cizre-Sakallıoğlu, Ümit and Menderes Çınar (2003) “Turkey 2002: Kemalism, Islamism, and Politics in the Light of the February 28 Process” The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume: 102, Isue: 2/3, pp. 309-332.
  • Cooper, Malcolm (2002) “The Legacy of Atatürk: Turkish Political Structures and Policy-Making”, International Affaris, Volume: 78, Issue: 1, pp. 115-128.
  • Demirhan, Ahmet (2010) “Kamusal Alan ve Başörtüsü “Stratejik Düşünce Enstitüsü, www.sde.org.tr.
  • Doğan, Necati (2012) “Rakamlarla Özelleştirme: Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Özelleştirme Uygulamaları ve Özelleştirme Fonu’nun Kaynak ve Kullanımları” Özelleştirme İdaresi Başkanlığı: Ankara. İnternet erişimi:http://www.oib.gov.tr/baskanlik/ozellestirme-kitap29%203.pdf. 25.04.2014 tarihinde erişildi.
  • Gözler, Kemal (1999) Anayasa Hukukunun Metedolojisi, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • Hale, William (1981) The Political and Economic Development of Modern Turkey, Croom Helm, London.
  • Yüksek Öğretim Kanunu, www.yok.gov.tr.
  • İnsel, Ahmet, (1996) Düzen ve Kalkınma Sürecinde Türkiye: Kalkınma Sürecinde Devletin Rolü, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • İnsel, Ahmet, (2001) “Giriş” (in) Ahmet İnsel (ed), Kemalizm, İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık, pp. 17-27.
  • Jenkins, Gareth (2001) Context and Circumstance: The Turkish Military and Politics, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London.
  • Karadag, Roy (2010) Neoliberal Restructuring in Turkey: From State to Oligarchic Capitalism, MPIFG Discussion Paper 10/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne (Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln).
  • Kepenek, Yakup (2012) Türkiye Ekonomisi, (25. Baskı), Remzi Kitabevi, Ankara.
  • Köker, Levent (2012) Modernleşme, Kemalizm ve Demokrasi, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Mardin, Şerif (2008) Türkiye’de Toplum ve Siyaset, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Mehmet, Ozay (1983) “Turkey in Crisis: Some Contradictions in the Kemalist Development Strategy”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume. 15, Issue: 1, pp. 47-66.
  • Nas, Tevfik F. (2008) Tracing the Economic Transformation of Turkey from the 1920s to EU Accession, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden-Boston.
  • Öniş, Ziya (1999) State and Market: The Political Economy of Turkey in Comparative Perspective, Boğaziçi University Press, Istanbul.
  • Öniş, Ziya and Ahmet Faruk Aysan, (2000) “Neolibeal Globalization, the State and Finacial Crises ib the Semi-Pereiphery: A Comparative Analysis”, Third World Quarterly, Volume: 21, Issue: 1, pp. 119-139.
  • Öniş, Ziya and Ali Burak Güven (2010) “Global Crisis, National Responses: The Political Economy of Turkish Exceptionalism” TÜSİAD-Koç Unıversity Economic Research Forum, Working Paper: 1013.
  • Öniş, Ziya and Umut Türem (2002) “Entrepreneurs, Democracy, and Citizenship in Turkey” Comparative Politics, Volume. 34, Issue: 4, pp. 439-456
  • Ergun, Özbudun (2007) Democratization Reforms in Turkey, 1993–2004, Turkish Studies, 8:2, 179-196, DOI: 10.1080/14683840701312195 Özman, Aylin (2010) “Law, Ideology and Modernization in Turkey: Kemalist Legal Reforms in Perspective, Social & Legal Studies, Volume: 19, Issue: 1, pp. 67–84.
  • Pollis, Amanda (1989) “State Repression and Development: The Case of Turkey”, (in) Lopez, George A. and Micheal Stohl (eds) Dependence, Development, and State Repression, Greenwood Press, New York.
  • Rodric, D. (2006) “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLIV (December 2006), ss. 973–987.
  • Savaş, Vural (1989) “Anayasalarda Ekonomik Hak ve Özgürlükler: T. C. Anayasaları Örneği”, Anayasa Yargısı Dergisi, Volume: 6, pp. 175-203.
  • Savaş, Vural Fuat (1994) “Yeni Anayasa İçin Ekonomik Anayasa Önerileri”, Anayasa Yargısı Dergisi, Volume: 11, pp. 215-226.
  • Savaş, Vural Fuat (1998) “Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Özelleştirme (İktisadi Yaklaşım)”, Anayasa Yargısı Dergisi, Volume: 15, pp. 79-98.
  • Shaker, Sallama (1995) State, Society, and Privatization in Turkey, 1979-1990, The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington.
  • Siyasi Partiler Kanunu (1983), T.C. Resmi Gazete, 18027, 22 Nisan 1983.
  • Şahin, Hüseyin (2012) Türkiye Ekonomisi: Tarihsel Gelişimi-Bugünkü Durumu, (12. Baskı), Ezgi Kitabevi, Bursa
  • T.C. Anayasası, (1982), T.C. Resmi Gazete, 2709, 9 Kasım 1982.
  • Türkiye’nin Güçlü Ekonomiye Geçiş Programı, www.tbmm.gov.tr.
  • Waterbury, John (1992) “Export-Led Growth and the Center-Right Coalition in Turkey”, Comparative Politics, Volume: 24, Issue: 2, pp. 127-145.
  • Williamson, J. (2005) “The Strange History of the Washington Consensus”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Volume: 27, Issue: 2, ss. 195-206.
  • Yanık, Murat (2008) “Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararları Işığında Özelleştirme Yüksek Kurulu” e-akademi, Volume. 72, www.e-akademi.org, Erişim Tarihi: 09.02.2011.
  • Yavuz, M. Hakan (2000) “Cleansing Islam from the Public Sphere” Journal of International Affairs, Volume: 54, Issue: 1, pp. 21-42.
  • Yükseköğretim Kanunu, (1981) T.C. Resmi Gazete, 2547, 6 Kasım 1981.
  • Zürcher, Erik Jan (2001) “Kemalist Düşüncenin Osmanlı Kaynakları” (in) Kemalizm, Ahmet İnsel (ed), İletişim Yayıncılık, İstanbul Çeviren: Özgür Gökmen, pp. 44-55.
There are 47 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Cengizhan Yıldırım This is me

Publication Date January 1, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 3 Issue: 1

Cite

ISNAD Yıldırım, Cengizhan. “Kemalizm Ve İktisadi Sonuçları”. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi 3/1 (January 2015), 1-23.