A Critique of Dominant Development Tendency in the Context of Neoliberal Policies

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 2, 441 - 455, 23.10.2018

Fatih Buğra Erdem

Öz

This study is to explain why the dominant concept of development
should be rejected by examining their feasibility and applicability at national
and international scale. Development was regarded as a pure economic concept
and its social dimensions were ignored. Hence, insufficient evaluations were
made by International Organizations, such as the World Bank and the IMF through
economic criteria. Formerly, economic growth and development have been used as
concepts equivalent to each other even if there is no positive correlation
between them. Failure of development attempts were seen as a failure of
government, and neoliberal policies that have been always influential on this
issue were not questioned enough. Therefore, an economic system analysis will
also be included with general criticism. The problem of poverty and the fact
that there are still a lot of people who died in hunger confirms the inadequacy
of development concept and the necessity of rejecting this notion. Correspondingly,
instead of the narrow view that limits human needs to nutrition, shelter and
clothing, the capability approach of Amartya Sen will be examined in the
article.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

Refutation of development, Neoliberalism, Efficient Distribution of Resources, Politics of World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund’s, Poverty

Egemen Kalkınma Düşüncelerinin Neoliberalist Politikalar Ekseninde Eleştirisi

Öz

Bu çalışmada ulusal ve uluslararası boyutuyla
ülkelerin kabul ettikleri veya kendilerine dayatılmış olan kalkınma
politikalarının uygulanabilirliği ve verimliliği incelenerek, egemen kalkınma
kavramının neden reddedilmesi gerektiği açıklanacaktır. Kalkınma salt ekonomik
bir kavram olarak görülmüş ve sosyal boyutları göz ardı edilerek Dünya Bankası,
IMF gibi uluslararası kuruluşlar tarafından iktisadi kriterler vasıtasıyla
yetersiz değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Başlangıçta iktisadi büyüme ve kalkınma
birbirine eşdeğer kavramlar olarak kullanılmış fakat sonrasında doğru orantılı
dahi olmadıkları belirlenmiştir. Bu süreçte Dünya Bankası, IMF gibi kurumların
stratejileri doğrultusunda kalkınmak isteyen devletler de uygulanan kalkınma
politikalarının ekonomik ve sosyal maliyetlerine katlanmak zorunda
kalmışlardır. Tüm başarısız kalkınma girişimlerinde hükümetler hatalı görülmüş
ve bu hususta sürekli etkisini arttıran neoliberal politikalar genellikle daha
az sorgulanmıştır. Bu sebeple, neoliberal iktisadi düşünceler ekseninde
iktisadi bir sistem analizi de genel eleştrilerin beraberinde yer alacaktır.
Yapılan kalkınma hamlelerine rağmen yoksulluk probleminin ortadan
kaldırılamadığı ve hatta her gün on binlerce insanın açlık sebebiyle hayatını
kaybettiği gerçeği kalkınma kavramının yetersizliğini ve bu kavramın reddinin
gerekliliğini teyit etmektedir. Bu noktada, insan ihtiyaçlarını beslenme,
barınma ve giyinme ile sınırlayan dar görüşün yerine, Amartya Sen’in kapasite
yaklaşımı da çalışma içerisinde incelenecektir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kalkınmanın Reddi, Neoliberalizm, Kaynakların Etkin Dağılımı, Dünya Ticaret Örgütü ve Uluslararası Para Fonu Politikaları, Yoksulluk

Kaynakça

• Alkire, S. (2010). Human Development: Definitions, Critiques, and Related Concepts. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative Working Paper No:36.
• Atkinson, A.B. (1998). The Contributions of Amartya Sen to Welfare Economics.
• Bayliss, K. (2005). Privatization Theory and Practice: A Critical Analysis of Policy Evolution in the Development Context. he New Development Economics: Post Washington Consensus Neoliberal Thinking
• Chang, H. (2003). Globalization, economic development and the role of the state. 1st ed. London: Zed Books.
• Chang, H. (2003). Rethinking development economics. 1st ed. London: Anthem Press.
• De Soto, H. (2001). The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Every. 1st ed. London: Bantam, pp.160-218.
• Frank, A. (1966). The development of underdevelopment.
• Harvey, D. (2013). The new imperialism. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Harvey, D., Kellard, N., Madsen, J. and Wohar, M. (2010). The Prebisch-Singer Hypothesis: Four Centuries of Evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), pp.367-377.
• Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row. International Monetary Fund. (1996). Confronting Budget Deficits, 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, pp. 13-15.
• Keynes, J. (2007). General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
• Lang, T. and Hines, C. (1995). The new protectionism : protecting the future against free trade. 1st ed. London: Earthscan.
• Levitt, K. P. (2005). Karl Polanyi as a development economist. The pioneers of development economics : Great economists on development, pp. 165-180.
• Marx, K. (2001). Capital. 1st ed. London: Electric Book Co.
• Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1967). The Communist manifesto. 1st ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesee: Penguin Books.
• Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A. and Hopenhayn, M. (1989). Human Scale Development. Development Dialogue.
• Mkandawire, T. (2001). The Need to Rethink Development Economics. Rethinking Development Economics. Cape Town: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, pp.1-12.
• Nussbaum, M. (2007). Human Rights and Human Capabilities. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 20, pp.21-24.
• Oliver-Smith, A. (2001). Displacement, Resistence and the Critique of Development: From the Grass Roots to the Global.
• Özdemir, Z. (2005). Japanese Development And The End Of Market Freedom. Marmara University Journal of Economic and Administrative Science, 20(1).
• Patnaik, P. (2005). Karl Marx as a development economist. The pioneers of development economics: Great economists on development, pp.62-73.
• Pogge, T. (2016). A Critique of the Sustainable Development Goals.
• Polanyi, K. (2014). The great transformation. 1st ed. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
• Rawls, J. (1996). 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Rey, P. (1982). Class Alliances. International Journal of Sociology, 12(2), pp.1-120.
• Rostow, W. (1960). The stages of economic growth. 1st ed. Cambridge: University Press, pp.4-16
• Seers, D. (1979). The birth, life and death of development economics. Development and Change, 10(4), pp.707-719.
• Selwyn, B. (2014). The global development crisis. 1st ed.
• Sen, A.K. (1999). Democracy as a Universal Value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), pp.3-17.
• Sen, A.K. (1989). Development as Capability Expansion. Journal of Development Planning, 19, pp.41-58.
• Sen, A.K. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A.K. (1977). Social Choice Theory: A Re-Examination. Econometrica, 45(1).
• Sen, A.K. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Srinivasan, T.N. (1977). Development, Poverty, and Basic Human Needs: Some Issues. Food Research Institute Studies, 16(2).
• Stiglitz, J. (2005). Development Policies in a World of Globalization. Putting Development First: The Importance of Policy Space in the WTO and International Financial Institutions, pp.15-32.
• Smith, A. (2009). The wealth of nations. 1st ed. [Lexington, Ky.]: Seven Treasures Publications.
• Şenses, F. (2004). Neoliberal küreselleşme ve kalkınma. 1st ed. Istanbul: Iletişim, pp.347-382.
• Tartanoğlu, Ş. (2011). Sosyal Dışlanma: Küreselleşme Perspektifinden Bir Kavramsallaştırma Çabası.
• Toye, J. and R. Toye (2005). “From New Era to Neoliberalism: US Strategy on Trade, Finance and Development in the United Nations, 1964–82.” Forum for Development Studies 1- 2005.
• Tucker, V. (1992). The Myth of Development. 1st ed.
• United Nations General Assembly (1975). What Now?: The 1975 Dag Hammarskjöld Report. New York: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation.
• Waeyenberge, E. (2006). From Washington to Post-Washington Consensus, Illusions of Development. The New Development Economics After the Washington Consensus, pp.21-45.
• Wolff, J. (2013). Robert Nozick. 1st ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.