Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey

Year 2025, Volume: 22 Issue: 86, 27 - 48, 06.06.2025

Umut Aydın Oya Yeğen

https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1675144

Abstract

Popular backlash against globalization in recent years has eroded governments’ commitment to economic openness, multilateralism and international organizations, and thus has contributed to the crisis of the United States-led Liberal International Order. Most research on such backlash has so far focused on developed countries, leaving gaps in our understanding of emerging and developing countries. This paper seeks to fill this gap by focusing on attitudes towards economic and political globalization in Turkey, an emerging middle power. We demonstrate that the Turkish public holds positive views on trade but negative views on international organizations. We also show that confidence in international organizations has declined over time, in parallel with an underlying pessimism towards the United States and the European Union, and elite messaging that has questioned the legitimacy of these organizations.

Keywords

backlash globalization international organizations legitimacy public opinion

References

  • Adler-Nissen, R., and A. Zarakol. 2021. Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents. International Organization 75, 2: 611–634.
  • Altunışık, M. B, and L. G. Martin. 2011. Making Sense of Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East under AKP. Turkish Studies 12, 4: 569–587.
  • Altunışık, M.B, and L. G. Martin. 2023. Turkey and the Middle East and North Africa under the AKP: A Three Level Analysis of Foreign Policy Change. Uluslararası İlişkiler 20, 78: 79-96.
  • Anderson, B., T. Bernauer, and A. Kachi. 2019. Does International Pooling of Authority Affect the Perceived Legitimacy of Global Governance?. Review of International Organizations 14, 4: 661–683.
  • Aral, B. 2023. Turkey’s Voting Preferences in the UN General Assembly During the AK Party Era as a Counterchallenge to Its ‘New’ Foreign Policy. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 25, 3: 399– 439.
  • Arat, Y., and Ş. Pamuk. 2019. Turkey: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism. New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Avundukluoğlu, E. 2021. Turkey Will Never Submit its Economic Future to IMF: President Erdogan. Anadolu Ajansı, December 1.
  • Aydın Çakır, A., and G. Arıkan Akdağ. 2017. An Empirical Analysis of the Change in Turkish Foreign Policy Under the AKP Government. Turkish Studies 18, 2: 334-357.
  • Aydın, M., M. Çelikpala, S. Akgül-Açıkmeşe, E. Canan-Sokullu, S. Güvenç, Ö. Şenyuva, S. Kaya-Sönmez. 2022. Quantitative Research Report: Public Perception on Turkish Foreign Policy 2022, Istanbul, 8 September, Kadir Has University, Global Academy, Akademetre, https://www.globacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/TDP_2022_ENG_FINAL_07.09.22.pdf.
  • Aydin, U. 2014. Who Is Afraid of Globalization? Turkish Attitudes Toward Trade and Globalization. Turkish Studies 15, 2: 322–340.
  • Aydin, U. 2021a. Rule‐takers, Rule‐makers, or Rule‐promoters? Turkey and Mexico’s Role as Rising Middle Powers in Global Economic Governance. Regulation & Governance 15, 3: 544–560.
  • Aydin, U. 2021b. Emerging Middle Powers and the Liberal International Order. International Affairs 97, 5: 1377–1394.
  • Aydın-Düzgit, S. 2023. “Authoritarian Middle Powers and the Liberal Order: Turkey’s Contestation of the EU.” International Affairs 99,6: 2319–2337.
  • Aytaç, S. E., A. Çarkoğlu, and G. Ertan. 2017. Türkiye’de Kişilerarası Sosyal Güven ve Bireysel Belirleyicileri. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi 44, 1: 1–25.
  • Aytaç, S., and A. Çarkoğlu. 2018. Presidents Shaping Public Opinion in Parliamentary Democracies: A Survey Experiment in Turkey. Political Behavior 40: 371–393.
  • Bearce, D. H., and B. J. Jolliff Scott. 2019. Popular Non-Support for International Organizations: How Extensive and What Does This Represent? Review of International Organizations 14, 2: 187–216.
  • Bernauer, T., S. Mohrenberg, and V. Koubi. 2020. Do Citizens Evaluate International Cooperation Based on Information about Procedural and Outcome Quality? Review of International Organizations 15, 2: 505–529.
  • Bhagwati, J. 2004. In Defense of Globalization. New York, Oxford University Press.
  • Çarkoğlu, Ali, and Kemal Kirişci. 2004. The View from Turkey: Perceptions of Greeks and Greek-Turkish Rapprochement by the Turkish Public. Turkish Studies 5, 1: 117–53.
  • Çarkoğlu, A., and Ç. Kentmen. 2013. Diagnosing Trends and Determinants in Public Support for Turkey's EU Membership. In Turkey and the EU: Accession and Reform, ed. by G. Avcı and A. Çarkoğlu. London, Routledge.
  • Carpenter, T. G. 2017. The Populist Surge and the Rebirth of Foreign Policy Nationalism. SAIS Review of International Affairs 37, 1: 33–46.
  • Cooper, A. F., and E. Parlar Dal. 2016. Positioning the Third Wave of Middle Power Diplomacy: Institutional Elevation, Practice Limitations. International Journal 71, 4: 516–528.
  • Cooper, A. F., R. A. Higgott, and K. R. Nossal. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press.
  • Cope, K. L., and C. Crabtree. 2020. A Nationalist Backlash to International Refugee Law: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Turkey. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 17, 4: 752–788.
  • Copelovitch, M., and J. C.W. Pevehouse. 2019. International Organizations in a New Era of Populist Nationalism. Review of International Organizations 14, 2: 169–186.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., and J. Tallberg. 2015. The Social Legitimacy of International Organisations: Interest Representation, Institutional Performance, and Confidence Extrapolation in the United Nations. Review of International Studies 41, 3: 451–475.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., and J. Tallberg. 2020. Why National and International Legitimacy Beliefs Are Linked: Social Trust as an Antecedent Factor. Review of International Organizations 15, 2: 311–337.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., and J. Tallberg. 2021. Elite Communication and the Popular Legitimacy of International Organizations. British Journal of Political Science 51, 3: 1292–1293.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., J. A. Scholte, and J. Tallberg. 2019. Institutional Sources of Legitimacy for International Organisations: Beyond Procedure versus Performance. Review of International Studies 45, 4: 627– 646.
  • De Vries, C. E., S. B. Hobol, and S. Walter. 2021. Politicizing International Cooperation: The Mass Public, Political Entrepreneurs, and Political Opportunity Structures. International Organization 75, 2: 306- 332.
  • Dipama, S. and E. Parlar Dal. 2024. Assessing the Impact of Turkey’s Quest for Status Since the 2000s on Foreign Policy Change: Transformational or Transactional? Uluslararası İlişkiler, 21, 81: 77-93.
  • Dolan, L. R., and H. V. Milner. 2023. Low-Skilled Liberalizers: Support for Free Trade in Africa. International Organization, 77, 4: 848-870.
  • Dreher, A. 2006. Does Globalization Affect Growth? Evidence from a New Index of Globalization. Applied Economics 38, 10: 1091–1110.
  • Erdoğan, R. T.. 2017. The Vision of New Turkey: The World is Bigger than Five. Ankara: Cumhurbaşkanlığı Yayınları.
  • Efstathopoulos, C. 2021. Southern Middle Powers and the Liberal International Order: The Options for Brazil and South Africa. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 76, 3: 384–403.
  • Fagan, M. 2024. Most people in 35 countries see the UN favorably, but views have dipped in some places. Pew Research Center Short Reads. https://www.pewresearch.org/short- reads/2024/09/05/most-people-in-35-countries-see-the-un-favorably-but-views-have-dipped-in-some-places/.
  • German Marshall Fund of the United States and Bertelsmann Foundation. 2021. Transatlantic Trends 2021: Transatlantic Opinion on Global Challenges. https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/2021- 08/TT2021_Web_Version.pdf.
  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. 2022. Turkish Perceptions of the European Union https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/2022- 04/Turkish%20Perceptions%20of%20the%20EU%202022%20English.pdf.
  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. 2015. Turkish Perceptions https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/JULY_SURVEY_ToplineData_withSubtotals_final.pdf.
  • Gygli, S., F. Haelg, N. Potrafke, and J. E. Sturm. 2019. The KOF Globalization Index – Revisited. Review of International Organizations 14, 3: 543–574.
  • Hainmueller, J., and M. J. Hiscox. 2006. Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes toward International Trade. International Organization 60, 2: 469–498.
  • Handlin, S., A. Kaya, and H. Günaydın. Forthcoming. Sovereignty Intrusion: Populism and Attitudes Toward the International Monetary Fund. International Studies Quarterly 67, 4: sqad079.
  • Hurrell, A. 2018. Beyond the BRICS: Power, Pluralism, and the Future of Global Order. Ethics and International Affairs 32, 1: 89–101.
  • Ikenberry, G. J. 2020. A World Safe for Democracy: Liberal Internationalism and the Crises of Global Order. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
  • Inglehart, R. F., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin and B. Puranen (eds). 2022. World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid & Vienna: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. Dataset Version 3.0.0.
  • Isani, M., and B. Schlipphak. 2023. The Role of Societal Cues in Explaining Attitudes toward International Organizations: the Least Likely Case of Authoritarian Contexts. Political Research Exchange 2, 1: 1-18.
  • James, H. 2018. Deglobalization: The Rise of Disembedded Unilateralism. Annual Review of Financial Economics 10: 219–237.
  • Johnson, T. 2011. Guilt by Association: The Link between States’ Influence and the Legitimacy of Intergovernmental Organizations. Review of International Organizations 6, 1: 57–84.
  • Kaliber, A., and E. Kaliber. 2019. From De-Europeanisation to Anti-Western Populism: Turkish Foreign Policy in Flux. International Spectator 54, 4: 1–16.
  • Keohane, R. O., and J. S. Nye. 2000. Introduction. In Governance in a Globalizing World, ed. J. S. Nye and J. D. Donahue. Washington D.C., Brookings Institution.
  • Kıratlı, O. S. 2016. Türkiye’de Kamuoyunun Serbest Ticaret ve Küreselleşme Algısı ve Bu Algının Temel Dinamikleri. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar 53, 614: 83-94.
  • Kıratlı, O. S. 2018. To Fight or Not to Fight? A Multivariate Analysis of Turkish Public Opinion on the Use of Force. Turkish Studies 19, 3: 363–380.
  • Kıratlı, O. S., and B. Schlipphak. 2024. Populism and Public Attitudes toward International Organizations: Voting, Communication, and Education. The Review of International Organizations.
  • Kirişci, Kemal. 2013. Turkey and Its Post-Soviet Neighborhood. Current History 11, 756: 271–256.
  • Lamprianou, I., and G. Charalambous. 2018. Cue Theory and International Trust in Europe: The EU as a Proxy for Trust in the UN. Refugee Survey Quarterly 37, 3: 463–488.
  • Mansfield, E. D., and D. C. Mutz. 2009. Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety. International Organization 63, 3: 425–457.
  • Mansfield, E. D., H. V. Milner, and N. Rudra. 2021. The Globalization Backlash: Exploring New Perspectives. Comparative Political Studies 54, 13: 2267–2285.
  • Mayda, A. M., and D. Rodrik. 2005. Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist than Others? European Economic Review 49, 6: 1393–1430.
  • Milner, H. V., and K. Kubota. 2005. Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries. International Organization 59, 1: 107–143.
  • Müftüler-Baç, M. 2005. Turkey’s Political Reforms and the Impact of the European Union. South European Society and Politics 10, 1: 16–30.
  • O’Rouke, K. H., and R. Sinnott. 2001. “The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence.” Brookings Trade Forum, January: 157–206.
  • Öniş, Z., and M. Kutlay. 2020. The New Age of Hybridity and Clash of Norms: China, BRICS, and Challenges of Global Governance in a Postliberal International Order Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 45, 3: 123-142.
  • Öniş, Z. and Y. Uluyol. 2024. Middle Powers Between the West and the ‘Rest’: Turkey During the Russian War on Ukraine. Uluslararsaı İlişkiler, Advanced Online Publication: 1-21.
  • Özdamar, Ö. 2023. Role Theory in Practice: US-Turkey Relations in Their Worst Decade. International Studies Perspectives: 1–19.
  • Özpek, B. B., and N. Tanrıverdi Yaşar. 2018. Populism and Foreign Policy in Turkey under the AKP Rule. Turkish Studies 19, 2: 198-216.
  • PEW Research Center. 2023. Global Attitudes and Trends. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/datasets/.
  • PEW Research Center. 2024. NATO Seen Favorably in Member States; Confidence in Zelenskyy Down in Europe, U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/07/02/nato-seen-favorably-in- member-states-confidence-in-zelenskyy-down-in-europe-us/.
  • Plagemann, J., and S. Destradi. 2019. Populism and Foreign Policy: The Case of India. Foreign Policy Analysis 15, 2: 283–301.
  • Rodrik, D. 2022. A Better Globalization Might Rise from Hyper-Globalization’s Ashes. Project Syndicate, May 9.
  • Rogowski, R. 1989. Commerce and Coalitions. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Scharpf, F. W. 1997. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Schlipphak, B., P. Meiners, and O. S. Kıratlı. 2022. Crisis Affectedness, Elite Cues, and IO Public Legitimacy. Review of International Organizations 17, 4: 877–898.
  • Şenses, F. 2012. Turkey’s Experience with Neoliberal Policies since 1980 in Retrospect and Prospect. New Perspectives on Turkey 47: 11–31.
  • Spandler, K., and F. Söderbaum. 2023. Populist (de)legitimation of International Organizations. International Affairs 99, 3: 1023–1041.
  • Teney, C., O. P. Lacewell, and P. De Wilde. 2013. Winners and Losers of Globalization in Europe: Attitudes and Ideologies. European Political Science Review 6, 4: 575–595.
  • Walter, S. 2021. The Backlash against Globalization. Annual Review of Political Science 24: 421–442.
  • World Bank. 2023. Trade % of GDP: World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
  • YouGov-Cambridge Center for Public Opinion Research. 2021. YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project 2020. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/yougov-cambridge/home.
  • Zerka, P. 2021. Why Should Anyone Care? Foreign Policy and Public Opinion. European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/article/why-should-anyone-care-foreign-policy-and-public- opinion/.

Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey

Year 2025, Volume: 22 Issue: 86, 27 - 48, 06.06.2025

Umut Aydın Oya Yeğen

https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1675144

Abstract

Popular backlash against globalization in recent years has eroded governments’ commitment to economic openness, multilateralism and international organizations, and thus has contributed to the crisis of the United States-led Liberal International Order. Most research on such backlash has so far focused on developed countries, leaving gaps in our understanding of emerging and developing countries. This paper seeks to fill this gap by focusing on attitudes towards economic and political globalization in Turkey, an emerging middle power. We demonstrate that the Turkish public holds positive views on trade but negative views on international organizations. We also show that confidence in international organizations has declined over time, in parallel with an underlying pessimism towards the United States and the European Union, and elite messaging that has questioned the legitimacy of these organizations.

Keywords

backlash globalization international organizations legitimacy public opinion

Supporting Institution

Chilean Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) under FONDECYT Regular no. 1231906.

Thanks

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors of Uluslararası İlişkiler for their valuable comments. Umut Aydin also acknowledges the financial support of the Chilean Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) under FONDECYT Regular no. 1231906.

References

  • Adler-Nissen, R., and A. Zarakol. 2021. Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents. International Organization 75, 2: 611–634.
  • Altunışık, M. B, and L. G. Martin. 2011. Making Sense of Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East under AKP. Turkish Studies 12, 4: 569–587.
  • Altunışık, M.B, and L. G. Martin. 2023. Turkey and the Middle East and North Africa under the AKP: A Three Level Analysis of Foreign Policy Change. Uluslararası İlişkiler 20, 78: 79-96.
  • Anderson, B., T. Bernauer, and A. Kachi. 2019. Does International Pooling of Authority Affect the Perceived Legitimacy of Global Governance?. Review of International Organizations 14, 4: 661–683.
  • Aral, B. 2023. Turkey’s Voting Preferences in the UN General Assembly During the AK Party Era as a Counterchallenge to Its ‘New’ Foreign Policy. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 25, 3: 399– 439.
  • Arat, Y., and Ş. Pamuk. 2019. Turkey: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism. New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Avundukluoğlu, E. 2021. Turkey Will Never Submit its Economic Future to IMF: President Erdogan. Anadolu Ajansı, December 1.
  • Aydın Çakır, A., and G. Arıkan Akdağ. 2017. An Empirical Analysis of the Change in Turkish Foreign Policy Under the AKP Government. Turkish Studies 18, 2: 334-357.
  • Aydın, M., M. Çelikpala, S. Akgül-Açıkmeşe, E. Canan-Sokullu, S. Güvenç, Ö. Şenyuva, S. Kaya-Sönmez. 2022. Quantitative Research Report: Public Perception on Turkish Foreign Policy 2022, Istanbul, 8 September, Kadir Has University, Global Academy, Akademetre, https://www.globacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/TDP_2022_ENG_FINAL_07.09.22.pdf.
  • Aydin, U. 2014. Who Is Afraid of Globalization? Turkish Attitudes Toward Trade and Globalization. Turkish Studies 15, 2: 322–340.
  • Aydin, U. 2021a. Rule‐takers, Rule‐makers, or Rule‐promoters? Turkey and Mexico’s Role as Rising Middle Powers in Global Economic Governance. Regulation & Governance 15, 3: 544–560.
  • Aydin, U. 2021b. Emerging Middle Powers and the Liberal International Order. International Affairs 97, 5: 1377–1394.
  • Aydın-Düzgit, S. 2023. “Authoritarian Middle Powers and the Liberal Order: Turkey’s Contestation of the EU.” International Affairs 99,6: 2319–2337.
  • Aytaç, S. E., A. Çarkoğlu, and G. Ertan. 2017. Türkiye’de Kişilerarası Sosyal Güven ve Bireysel Belirleyicileri. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi 44, 1: 1–25.
  • Aytaç, S., and A. Çarkoğlu. 2018. Presidents Shaping Public Opinion in Parliamentary Democracies: A Survey Experiment in Turkey. Political Behavior 40: 371–393.
  • Bearce, D. H., and B. J. Jolliff Scott. 2019. Popular Non-Support for International Organizations: How Extensive and What Does This Represent? Review of International Organizations 14, 2: 187–216.
  • Bernauer, T., S. Mohrenberg, and V. Koubi. 2020. Do Citizens Evaluate International Cooperation Based on Information about Procedural and Outcome Quality? Review of International Organizations 15, 2: 505–529.
  • Bhagwati, J. 2004. In Defense of Globalization. New York, Oxford University Press.
  • Çarkoğlu, Ali, and Kemal Kirişci. 2004. The View from Turkey: Perceptions of Greeks and Greek-Turkish Rapprochement by the Turkish Public. Turkish Studies 5, 1: 117–53.
  • Çarkoğlu, A., and Ç. Kentmen. 2013. Diagnosing Trends and Determinants in Public Support for Turkey's EU Membership. In Turkey and the EU: Accession and Reform, ed. by G. Avcı and A. Çarkoğlu. London, Routledge.
  • Carpenter, T. G. 2017. The Populist Surge and the Rebirth of Foreign Policy Nationalism. SAIS Review of International Affairs 37, 1: 33–46.
  • Cooper, A. F., and E. Parlar Dal. 2016. Positioning the Third Wave of Middle Power Diplomacy: Institutional Elevation, Practice Limitations. International Journal 71, 4: 516–528.
  • Cooper, A. F., R. A. Higgott, and K. R. Nossal. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press.
  • Cope, K. L., and C. Crabtree. 2020. A Nationalist Backlash to International Refugee Law: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Turkey. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 17, 4: 752–788.
  • Copelovitch, M., and J. C.W. Pevehouse. 2019. International Organizations in a New Era of Populist Nationalism. Review of International Organizations 14, 2: 169–186.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., and J. Tallberg. 2015. The Social Legitimacy of International Organisations: Interest Representation, Institutional Performance, and Confidence Extrapolation in the United Nations. Review of International Studies 41, 3: 451–475.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., and J. Tallberg. 2020. Why National and International Legitimacy Beliefs Are Linked: Social Trust as an Antecedent Factor. Review of International Organizations 15, 2: 311–337.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., and J. Tallberg. 2021. Elite Communication and the Popular Legitimacy of International Organizations. British Journal of Political Science 51, 3: 1292–1293.
  • Dellmuth, L. M., J. A. Scholte, and J. Tallberg. 2019. Institutional Sources of Legitimacy for International Organisations: Beyond Procedure versus Performance. Review of International Studies 45, 4: 627– 646.
  • De Vries, C. E., S. B. Hobol, and S. Walter. 2021. Politicizing International Cooperation: The Mass Public, Political Entrepreneurs, and Political Opportunity Structures. International Organization 75, 2: 306- 332.
  • Dipama, S. and E. Parlar Dal. 2024. Assessing the Impact of Turkey’s Quest for Status Since the 2000s on Foreign Policy Change: Transformational or Transactional? Uluslararası İlişkiler, 21, 81: 77-93.
  • Dolan, L. R., and H. V. Milner. 2023. Low-Skilled Liberalizers: Support for Free Trade in Africa. International Organization, 77, 4: 848-870.
  • Dreher, A. 2006. Does Globalization Affect Growth? Evidence from a New Index of Globalization. Applied Economics 38, 10: 1091–1110.
  • Erdoğan, R. T.. 2017. The Vision of New Turkey: The World is Bigger than Five. Ankara: Cumhurbaşkanlığı Yayınları.
  • Efstathopoulos, C. 2021. Southern Middle Powers and the Liberal International Order: The Options for Brazil and South Africa. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 76, 3: 384–403.
  • Fagan, M. 2024. Most people in 35 countries see the UN favorably, but views have dipped in some places. Pew Research Center Short Reads. https://www.pewresearch.org/short- reads/2024/09/05/most-people-in-35-countries-see-the-un-favorably-but-views-have-dipped-in-some-places/.
  • German Marshall Fund of the United States and Bertelsmann Foundation. 2021. Transatlantic Trends 2021: Transatlantic Opinion on Global Challenges. https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/2021- 08/TT2021_Web_Version.pdf.
  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. 2022. Turkish Perceptions of the European Union https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/2022- 04/Turkish%20Perceptions%20of%20the%20EU%202022%20English.pdf.
  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. 2015. Turkish Perceptions https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/JULY_SURVEY_ToplineData_withSubtotals_final.pdf.
  • Gygli, S., F. Haelg, N. Potrafke, and J. E. Sturm. 2019. The KOF Globalization Index – Revisited. Review of International Organizations 14, 3: 543–574.
  • Hainmueller, J., and M. J. Hiscox. 2006. Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes toward International Trade. International Organization 60, 2: 469–498.
  • Handlin, S., A. Kaya, and H. Günaydın. Forthcoming. Sovereignty Intrusion: Populism and Attitudes Toward the International Monetary Fund. International Studies Quarterly 67, 4: sqad079.
  • Hurrell, A. 2018. Beyond the BRICS: Power, Pluralism, and the Future of Global Order. Ethics and International Affairs 32, 1: 89–101.
  • Ikenberry, G. J. 2020. A World Safe for Democracy: Liberal Internationalism and the Crises of Global Order. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
  • Inglehart, R. F., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin and B. Puranen (eds). 2022. World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid & Vienna: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. Dataset Version 3.0.0.
  • Isani, M., and B. Schlipphak. 2023. The Role of Societal Cues in Explaining Attitudes toward International Organizations: the Least Likely Case of Authoritarian Contexts. Political Research Exchange 2, 1: 1-18.
  • James, H. 2018. Deglobalization: The Rise of Disembedded Unilateralism. Annual Review of Financial Economics 10: 219–237.
  • Johnson, T. 2011. Guilt by Association: The Link between States’ Influence and the Legitimacy of Intergovernmental Organizations. Review of International Organizations 6, 1: 57–84.
  • Kaliber, A., and E. Kaliber. 2019. From De-Europeanisation to Anti-Western Populism: Turkish Foreign Policy in Flux. International Spectator 54, 4: 1–16.
  • Keohane, R. O., and J. S. Nye. 2000. Introduction. In Governance in a Globalizing World, ed. J. S. Nye and J. D. Donahue. Washington D.C., Brookings Institution.
  • Kıratlı, O. S. 2016. Türkiye’de Kamuoyunun Serbest Ticaret ve Küreselleşme Algısı ve Bu Algının Temel Dinamikleri. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar 53, 614: 83-94.
  • Kıratlı, O. S. 2018. To Fight or Not to Fight? A Multivariate Analysis of Turkish Public Opinion on the Use of Force. Turkish Studies 19, 3: 363–380.
  • Kıratlı, O. S., and B. Schlipphak. 2024. Populism and Public Attitudes toward International Organizations: Voting, Communication, and Education. The Review of International Organizations.
  • Kirişci, Kemal. 2013. Turkey and Its Post-Soviet Neighborhood. Current History 11, 756: 271–256.
  • Lamprianou, I., and G. Charalambous. 2018. Cue Theory and International Trust in Europe: The EU as a Proxy for Trust in the UN. Refugee Survey Quarterly 37, 3: 463–488.
  • Mansfield, E. D., and D. C. Mutz. 2009. Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety. International Organization 63, 3: 425–457.
  • Mansfield, E. D., H. V. Milner, and N. Rudra. 2021. The Globalization Backlash: Exploring New Perspectives. Comparative Political Studies 54, 13: 2267–2285.
  • Mayda, A. M., and D. Rodrik. 2005. Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist than Others? European Economic Review 49, 6: 1393–1430.
  • Milner, H. V., and K. Kubota. 2005. Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries. International Organization 59, 1: 107–143.
  • Müftüler-Baç, M. 2005. Turkey’s Political Reforms and the Impact of the European Union. South European Society and Politics 10, 1: 16–30.
  • O’Rouke, K. H., and R. Sinnott. 2001. “The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence.” Brookings Trade Forum, January: 157–206.
  • Öniş, Z., and M. Kutlay. 2020. The New Age of Hybridity and Clash of Norms: China, BRICS, and Challenges of Global Governance in a Postliberal International Order Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 45, 3: 123-142.
  • Öniş, Z. and Y. Uluyol. 2024. Middle Powers Between the West and the ‘Rest’: Turkey During the Russian War on Ukraine. Uluslararsaı İlişkiler, Advanced Online Publication: 1-21.
  • Özdamar, Ö. 2023. Role Theory in Practice: US-Turkey Relations in Their Worst Decade. International Studies Perspectives: 1–19.
  • Özpek, B. B., and N. Tanrıverdi Yaşar. 2018. Populism and Foreign Policy in Turkey under the AKP Rule. Turkish Studies 19, 2: 198-216.
  • PEW Research Center. 2023. Global Attitudes and Trends. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/datasets/.
  • PEW Research Center. 2024. NATO Seen Favorably in Member States; Confidence in Zelenskyy Down in Europe, U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/07/02/nato-seen-favorably-in- member-states-confidence-in-zelenskyy-down-in-europe-us/.
  • Plagemann, J., and S. Destradi. 2019. Populism and Foreign Policy: The Case of India. Foreign Policy Analysis 15, 2: 283–301.
  • Rodrik, D. 2022. A Better Globalization Might Rise from Hyper-Globalization’s Ashes. Project Syndicate, May 9.
  • Rogowski, R. 1989. Commerce and Coalitions. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Scharpf, F. W. 1997. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Schlipphak, B., P. Meiners, and O. S. Kıratlı. 2022. Crisis Affectedness, Elite Cues, and IO Public Legitimacy. Review of International Organizations 17, 4: 877–898.
  • Şenses, F. 2012. Turkey’s Experience with Neoliberal Policies since 1980 in Retrospect and Prospect. New Perspectives on Turkey 47: 11–31.
  • Spandler, K., and F. Söderbaum. 2023. Populist (de)legitimation of International Organizations. International Affairs 99, 3: 1023–1041.
  • Teney, C., O. P. Lacewell, and P. De Wilde. 2013. Winners and Losers of Globalization in Europe: Attitudes and Ideologies. European Political Science Review 6, 4: 575–595.
  • Walter, S. 2021. The Backlash against Globalization. Annual Review of Political Science 24: 421–442.
  • World Bank. 2023. Trade % of GDP: World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
  • YouGov-Cambridge Center for Public Opinion Research. 2021. YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project 2020. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/yougov-cambridge/home.
  • Zerka, P. 2021. Why Should Anyone Care? Foreign Policy and Public Opinion. European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/article/why-should-anyone-care-foreign-policy-and-public- opinion/.
There are 79 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Political Science (Other), International Relations (Other)
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Umut Aydın This is me 0000-0001-7101-6825

Oya Yeğen 0000-0003-4896-3538

Early Pub Date April 21, 2025
Publication Date June 6, 2025
Submission Date July 18, 2024
Acceptance Date April 11, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 22 Issue: 86

Cite

APA Aydın, U., & Yeğen, O. (2025). Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 22(86), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1675144
AMA Aydın U, Yeğen O. Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi. June 2025;22(86):27-48. doi:10.33458/uidergisi.1675144
Chicago Aydın, Umut, and Oya Yeğen. “Popular (Dis)content With Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey”. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 22, no. 86 (June 2025): 27-48. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1675144.
EndNote Aydın U, Yeğen O (June 1, 2025) Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 22 86 27–48.
IEEE U. Aydın and O. Yeğen, “Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey”, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, vol. 22, no. 86, pp. 27–48, 2025, doi: 10.33458/uidergisi.1675144.
ISNAD Aydın, Umut - Yeğen, Oya. “Popular (Dis)content With Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey”. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 22/86 (June2025), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1675144.
JAMA Aydın U, Yeğen O. Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi. 2025;22:27–48.
MLA Aydın, Umut and Oya Yeğen. “Popular (Dis)content With Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey”. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, vol. 22, no. 86, 2025, pp. 27-48, doi:10.33458/uidergisi.1675144.
Vancouver Aydın U, Yeğen O. Popular (Dis)content with Economic and Political Globalization in Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi. 2025;22(86):27-48.