Economic Developments in Turkey According to British Annual Reports (1960-1970)

Öz

This article aims to reveal the economic developments occurring in Turkey between 1960 and 1970, as seen through the eyes of British diplomats. Its intended readership is non-specialists who want to understand more about Turkish economy in 1960s. As in any country, the transition from single-party rule to the practice of multi-party system was not an easy process in Turkey. In spite of their overwhelming victory in the 1950 general election, the leaders of the new Democrat Party still suspected, justifiably, that many of the senior bureaucrats and army officers would retain their historic loyalty to the People’s Republican Party (PRP) in opposition. Hence the increasingly strong measures that they took to try to curb their rival’s power and influence. For example, their proposal to establish a committee to investigate allegations that the PRP was engaging in subversive activities, a plan that was one of the major causes behind the anti-Democrat coup of 1960.

Politics before 1950 were limited to a small élite within the bureaucracy, and even smaller number of entrepreneurs and businessmen, almost all mutually known. However, after the first open elections in 1950, Turkey’s politicians were forced to respond to a large national constituency and to find ways short of maximizing the distribution of resources and rewards of office on a much wider scale. An exaggerated importance is often attributed to the Democrats’ rhetorical support for free enterprise. However, the period during which they tried to adopt liberal economic policies was relatively short and, as early as 1954, they were already returning to more overtly statist measures, involving a reinforcement of bureaucratic control over a significant proportion of economic activity.

The military coup of 1960 was clearly aimed at overthrowing an increasingly authoritarian Democrat Party government from power. Because this seemed to be the sole purpose of the military plotters, influential groups of intellectuals and officials took advantage of the situation to introduce their own programmes of reform. One of these was the effort to centralize previously erratic economic interventions within a new state planning organization with power to allocate cheap government credit and scarce foreign exchange. Such measures resulted both in a growth in administrative power and in the increase of interest groups with more pressing demands. They also helped to intensify a process of rapid economic and social change marked by an increase in industrialization, urbanization and labour migration abroad. The result was the creation of new classes, new relationships between interest groups and government and, at a national level, a new political and electoral geography.

Despite the lack of structural economic reform, the Turkish economy in the 1960s grew at the expected target rate set by the State Planning Organisation (SPO). This constituted almost an industrial revolution and a take-off of a kind which few other Third World states had yet managed. The economic climate in the world economy was favourable. More importantly, Turkish workers in Europe began to send home large sums of foreign exchange which enabled the country to import capital goods and raw materials for its industry and maintain an equilibrium in the balance of payments. Unfortunately, the expansion of the economy was uneven and unhealthy in the long run. Production in agriculture and industry increased only 75% as fast as the planners had hoped, while growth in the construction and service sector. Moreover, the economy became overly dependent on foreign exchange sent by Turks working abroad, a source that was unpredictable and dependent on the boom in Europe. When the downturn came in the early 1970s, the consequences for Turkey were severe. However, by the end of 1960s, the character of Turkey’s economy and society had changed almost beyond recognition. Before the 1960s, Turkey had been predominantly agrarian with a small industrial sector dominated by the state. By the end of the decade, a substantial private industrial sector had emerged so much so that industry’s contribution to the GNP almost equalled that of agriculture.  However, there was still a long distance to be covered before Turkish economy could recover.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkey,Turkish Economy,Democrat Party,Justice Party

İngiliz Yıllık Raporlarına Göre Türkiye’de Ekonomik Gelişmeler (1960-1970)

Öz

Bu makale, Türkiye’de 1960-1970 yılları arasında meydana gelen ekonomik gelişmeleri İngiliz diplomatların bakış açısına göre ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. 1960’lı yıllarda Türkiye ekonomisi hakkında daha fazla bilgi edinmek isteyen uzman olmayanlara da yöneliktir. Her ülkede olduğu gibi, tek partili sistemden çok partili sistem uygulamasına geçiş kolay değildi. 1950 genel seçimlerindeki ezici zaferlerine rağmen, Demokrat Parti liderleri, üst düzey bürokratların ve subaylarının birçoğunun muhalefetteki Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP) ile olan tarihi bağlılıklarını koruyacağına dair haklı bir şüphe uyandırdı. Bu, rakiplerinin güçlerini ve etkilerini azaltmak için aldıkları güçlü önlemleri, özellikle de CHP’nin yıkıcı faaliyetlerde bulunduğunu iddia ettiği soruşturmaları araştırmak üzere bir komite kurma önerilerini açıklamak için çok şey ifade etmektedir, 1960’taki demokrasi karşıtı darbenin ardında. 1950’den önce siyaset, bürokrasideki küçük bir elit ve hatta neredeyse tümü birbirleriyle tanışan daha az sayıda girişimciyi ve iş adamını korumaktı. Bununla birlikte, 1950’deki ilk açık seçimlerden sonra, Türkiye’nin politikacıları geniş bir ulusal seçmene cevap vermeye ve kaynakların dağılımını en üst düzeye çıkarmanın yollarını bulmaya zorlandılar. Bu fenomeni analiz etme girişimleri, Demokratların, özgür girişim anlayışı için genellikle retorik desteğine abartılı bir önem vermektedir. Bununla birlikte, aslında liberal ekonomik politikalar izlemeye çalıştıkları dönem nispeten kısaydı ve 1954 gibi erken bir tarihte, bürokratik kontrolün ekonomik aktivitenin önemli bir kısmı üzerinde güçlendirilmesini içeren daha açık bir şekilde devletçi önlemlere geri dönüyorlardı. 1960 askeri darbesi gittikçe daha otoriter bir Demokrat Parti hükümetini iktidardan indirmeyi açıkça hedefliyordu. Bununla birlikte, bunun ötesinde, askeri komplocular arasında çok az tutarlı bir amaç birliği vardı, ancak etkili entelektüel gruplar kendi reform programlarını tanıtmak için durumdan yararlandı. Bunlardan bir tanesi, ucuz devlet kredisi ve döviz kredisi tahsis etme yetkisine sahip, yeni bir devlet planlama teşkilatında daha önce meydana gelen ekonomik müdahaleleri merkezileştirme çabasıydı. Bu tür önlemler hem idari gücün artmasına, hem de daha acil talepleri olan çıkar gruplarının çoğalmasına neden oldu. Ayrıca, yurtdışında sanayileşme, kentleşme ve işgücü göçünde bir artış ile hızlı ekonomik ve sosyal değişim sürecinin yoğunlaştırılmasına yardımcı oldular. Sonuçta yeni sınıflar, çıkar grupları ve hükümet arasında yeni ilişkiler ve ulusal düzeyde yeni bir siyasi ve seçim coğrafyası yaratıldı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkiye,Türk Ekonomisi,Demokrat Parti,Adalet Partisi

Kaynakça

1. In order to write this article, the following documents at the National Archives (TNA) in the United Kingdom and secondary sources have been consulted. All references to sources prefixed by FO and FCO refer to documents held at the UK National Archives (TNA), formerly the Public Record Office (PRO). Archival Sources FCO9/1091, Turkey: Annual Review for 1968. FCO9/1308, Turkey: Annual Review for 1969. FCO9/1466, Turkey: Annual Review for 1970. FCO9/614, Turkey: Annual Review for 1967. FCO9/RK1011/1, Turkey: Annual Review for 1954. FO371/101848, Turkey: Annual Report for 1951. FO371/107547, Annual Report on Turkey for 1952. FO371/112921, Annual Report on Turkey for 1953. FO371/117717, Bowker to Eden, 28 February 1955. FO371/117717, Bowker to Macmillan, 19 July 1955. FO371/117717, Internal Affairs, Annex D. FO371/117717, Michael Stewart to Macmillan, 6 September 1955. FO371/117717, Minute by W. B. M. Johnston, 13 January 1956. FO371/123999, Annual Review for 1955. FO371/130174, Turkey: Annual Review for 1956. FO371/136450, Annual Report on Turkey for 1957. FO371/144739, Annual Report on Turkey for 1958. FO371/153030, Annual Political Review for Turkey 1959. FO371/160212, Annual Report on Turkey for 1960. FO371/160212, Annual Report on Turkey for 1960. FO371/163832, Annual Report on Turkey for 1961. FO371/169514, Annual Review of Turkey for 1962. FO371/174971, Annual Review for Turkey for 1963. FO371/180150, Annual Political Report for Turkey, 1964. FO371/185824, Turkey: Annual Review for 1965. FO371/185824, Turkey: Annual Review for 1966. FO371/95267, Turkey: Annual Review for 1950. Books & Articles Ahmad, Feroz (1993). The Making of Modern Turkey, London: Routledge. Akşin, Sina (ed.) (2002). Türkiye Tarihi: Çağdaş Türkiye, 1908-1980, İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi. Avcıoğlu, Doğan (1968), Türkiye’nin Düzeni, Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi. Boratav, Korkut (2012). Türkiye İktisat Tarihi, 1908-2009, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi. Eken, Nazif (2016). Türkiye Kısa İktisat Tarihi, Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık. Gerger, Haluk (1998), Türk Dış Politikası’nın Ekonomi Politiği, Soğuk Savaştan Yeni Dünya Düzenine, İstanbul: Belge Yayınları. Lenczowski, George (1990). The Middle East in World Affairs, 4th Edition, New York: Cornell University Pres. Oran, Baskın Oran (ed.) (2003), Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt-I: 1919-1980, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Owen, Roger (1992). State, Power & Politics in the making of the Modern Middle East, London: Routledge. Pamuk, Şevket (2018). Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Tezel, Yahya S. (2015). Cumhuriyet Döneminin İktisadi Tarihi, İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, (2011). İstatistik Göstergeler, 1923-2010, Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Yapp, M. E. (1996). The Near East since the First World War: A History to 1995, Second Edition, London: Longman. Yenal, Oktay (2018). Cumhuriyet’in İktisat Tarihi, İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.