Derleme
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 73 - 95, 31.12.2016
https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324

Öz

This study examines the actor’s role in institutional change on evolution of each conversion of economy and industrialization politics which was applied between the establishment years of Republic of Turkey and the date when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk died: 1938. Secondary data which focuses on the economy politics of foundation era is used in the analysis. Ideological tendency has critically changed three times by the changes in environmental conditions and predominantly by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s guidance, who was the institutional actor between these years. Characteristics and the causes of the institutional changes are also investigated inside the paper. After the readings, for each periodical change Saruhan and Özdemirci’s (2016) political tendency test is graded and the results are reported in this work.

This study examines the actor’s role in institutional change on evolution
of each conversion of economy and industrialization politics which was applied
between the establishment years of Republic of Turkey and the date when Mustafa
Kemal Atatürk died: 1938. Secondary data which focuses on the economy politics
of foundation era is used in the analysis. Ideological tendency has critically
changed three times by the changes in environmental conditions and
predominantly by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s guidance, who was the institutional
actor between these years. Characteristics and the causes of the institutional
changes are also investigated inside the paper. After the readings, for each
periodical change Saruhan and Özdemirci’s (2016) political tendency test is
graded and the results are reported in this work.


Kaynakça

  • Battilana, J., Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals’ social position, Organization, 13(5) 653-676, 2006. Battilana, J., Leca, B., The role of resources in institutional entrepreneurship: Insights for an approach to strategic management combining agency and institutions. In L.A. Costanzo & R.B. MacKay, Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight, Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 2008. Boratav, K., Türkiye İktisat Tarihi (1908-2009), İmge Yayınları, Ankara, 2015. Boxenbaum, E., Battilana, J., Importation as innovation: Transposing managerial practices across fields. Strategic Organization 3(4): 1-29, 2005. Bozoklu, D., Atatürk Döneminde Bankacılık Sistemine ve Gelişimine Genel Bir Bakış. Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, 55(9), 2003. DiMaggio, P.J., Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations. 3-22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988. DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:1750-1762, 1983. Eisenstadt, S.N., Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs and social change: Comparative analyses of traditional civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85: 840-869, 1980. Emirbayer, M., Mische, A., What is agency?, American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962-1023, 1998. Fligstein, N., Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397-405, 1997. Fligstein, N., Social skills and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2): 105-125, 2001. Garud, R., Jain, S., Kumaraswamy, A., Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196-214, 2002. Garud, R., Karnøe, P., Path creation as a process of mindful deviation, In Path dependence and creation, R. Garud and P. Karnøe (eds.) Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: 1-38, 2001. Greenwood, R, Suddaby, R., Hinings, C.R., Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80, 2002. Kazgan, G., Tanzimat’tan 21. Yüzyıla Türkiye Ekonomisi, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013. Koç, V., Hayat Hikâyem, Apa Ofset Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1973. Lawrence, T.B. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 281-290, 2002. Leblebici, H, Salancik, G.R., Copay, A., King, T., Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 333-363, 1991. Levy, D.L., Scully, M., The Institutional Entrepreneur as Modern Prince: The Strategic Face of Lewis, B., Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu, Arkadaş Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2015. Lounsbury, M., Crumley, E.T., New Practice Creation: An Institutional Perspective on Innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012, 2007. Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363, 1977. Milli Kütüphane Arşivi; http://www.cnnturk.com/fotogaleri/yasam/diger/turk-siyasetine-ait-unutulmaz-afisler (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2017) Oliver, C., Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of Management Review,(16), 145-179, 1991. Pamuk, Ş., Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016. Perkmann, M., Spicer, A, Healing the Scars of History: Projects, Skills and Field Strategy in Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1101-1122, 2007. Power in Contested Fields, Organization Studies, 28(7): 971-991, 2007. Rao, H., Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 912-961, 1998. Saruhan, Şadi Can; Özdemirci, Ata, Bilim, Felsefe ve Metodoloji, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016. Scott, W. R., Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003. Scott, W. R., Unpacking Institutional Arguments, W. W. Powell ve P. J. DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 164-182. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. Scott, W.R., Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Seo, M., Douglas Creed, W.E., Institutional contradictions, praxis and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247, 2002. Taşçı D., Erdemir, E., Örgüt Kuramı, Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2013. Tezel, S.Y., Cumhuriyet Döneminin İktisadi Tarihi (1923-1950), Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2015. TÜİK İstatistik Göstergeler 1923-2009, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara, 2010. Wijen, F., Ansari, S., Overcoming Inaction through Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1079-1100, 2007. Zilber, T.B., Stories and the Discursive Dynamics of Institutional Entrepreneurship: The Case of Israeli High-tech after the Bubble, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1035-1054, 2007. Zürcher, E.J., Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008.

KURUMSAL DEĞİŞİMDE AKTÖRÜN ROLÜ: TÜRKİYE CUMHURİYETİ’NDE KURULUŞ DÖNEMİ SANAYİLEŞME POLİTİKALARI VE UYGULAMALARI (1920-1938)

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 73 - 95, 31.12.2016
https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324

Öz

Bu çalışmada kurumsal değişimde aktörün rolü, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kuruluş yıllarından Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün vefat ettiği 1938’e kadar geçen dönemde uygulanan iktisat ve sanayileşme politikalarının geçirdiği dönüşümler üzerinden incelenmiştir. Analizde Türkiye Cumhuriyeti kuruluş dönemi iktisat politikalarına odaklanmış yayınlar üzerinde çalışılmış, dolayısıyla ikincil veri kaynakları kullanılmıştır. İncelenen tarih aralığında ideolojik yönelim, çevresel koşullarda yaşanan değişimlerle ama ağırlıklı olarak Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün, yani dönemin kurumsal aktörünün yönlendirmesiyle üç kez ciddi bir değişime uğramıştır. İlgili kurumsal değişimler ve nedenleri, çalışmanın içinde incelenmiştir. Yapılan okumaların ardından her bir dönemsel değişim için Saruhan ve Özdemirci’nin (2016) politik eğilim testi puanlanmış ve ortaya çıkan sonuçlar da bu çalışmanın içinde raporlanmıştır.

Bu çalışmada kurumsal
değişimde aktörün rolü, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kuruluş yıllarından Mustafa
Kemal Atatürk’ün vefat ettiği 1938’e kadar geçen dönemde uygulanan iktisat ve sanayileşme
politikalarının geçirdiği dönüşümler üzerinden incelenmiştir. Analizde Türkiye
Cumhuriyeti kuruluş dönemi iktisat politikalarına odaklanmış yayınlar üzerinde
çalışılmış, dolayısıyla ikincil veri kaynakları kullanılmıştır. İncelenen tarih
aralığında ideolojik yönelim, çevresel koşullarda yaşanan değişimlerle ama
ağırlıklı olarak Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ün, yani dönemin kurumsal aktörünün
yönlendirmesiyle üç kez ciddi bir değişime uğramıştır. İlgili kurumsal
değişimler ve nedenleri, çalışmanın içinde incelenmiştir. Yapılan okumaların
ardından her bir dönemsel değişim için Saruhan ve Özdemirci’nin (2016) politik
eğilim testi puanlanmış ve ortaya çıkan sonuçlar da bu çalışmanın içinde
raporlanmıştır.


Kaynakça

  • Battilana, J., Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals’ social position, Organization, 13(5) 653-676, 2006. Battilana, J., Leca, B., The role of resources in institutional entrepreneurship: Insights for an approach to strategic management combining agency and institutions. In L.A. Costanzo & R.B. MacKay, Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight, Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 2008. Boratav, K., Türkiye İktisat Tarihi (1908-2009), İmge Yayınları, Ankara, 2015. Boxenbaum, E., Battilana, J., Importation as innovation: Transposing managerial practices across fields. Strategic Organization 3(4): 1-29, 2005. Bozoklu, D., Atatürk Döneminde Bankacılık Sistemine ve Gelişimine Genel Bir Bakış. Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, 55(9), 2003. DiMaggio, P.J., Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations. 3-22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988. DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:1750-1762, 1983. Eisenstadt, S.N., Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs and social change: Comparative analyses of traditional civilizations. American Journal of Sociology, 85: 840-869, 1980. Emirbayer, M., Mische, A., What is agency?, American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962-1023, 1998. Fligstein, N., Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397-405, 1997. Fligstein, N., Social skills and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2): 105-125, 2001. Garud, R., Jain, S., Kumaraswamy, A., Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196-214, 2002. Garud, R., Karnøe, P., Path creation as a process of mindful deviation, In Path dependence and creation, R. Garud and P. Karnøe (eds.) Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: 1-38, 2001. Greenwood, R, Suddaby, R., Hinings, C.R., Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80, 2002. Kazgan, G., Tanzimat’tan 21. Yüzyıla Türkiye Ekonomisi, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013. Koç, V., Hayat Hikâyem, Apa Ofset Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1973. Lawrence, T.B. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 281-290, 2002. Leblebici, H, Salancik, G.R., Copay, A., King, T., Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 333-363, 1991. Levy, D.L., Scully, M., The Institutional Entrepreneur as Modern Prince: The Strategic Face of Lewis, B., Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu, Arkadaş Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2015. Lounsbury, M., Crumley, E.T., New Practice Creation: An Institutional Perspective on Innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012, 2007. Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363, 1977. Milli Kütüphane Arşivi; http://www.cnnturk.com/fotogaleri/yasam/diger/turk-siyasetine-ait-unutulmaz-afisler (Erişim Tarihi: 10.02.2017) Oliver, C., Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of Management Review,(16), 145-179, 1991. Pamuk, Ş., Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016. Perkmann, M., Spicer, A, Healing the Scars of History: Projects, Skills and Field Strategy in Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(7): 1101-1122, 2007. Power in Contested Fields, Organization Studies, 28(7): 971-991, 2007. Rao, H., Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 912-961, 1998. Saruhan, Şadi Can; Özdemirci, Ata, Bilim, Felsefe ve Metodoloji, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2016. Scott, W. R., Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003. Scott, W. R., Unpacking Institutional Arguments, W. W. Powell ve P. J. DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 164-182. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. Scott, W.R., Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Seo, M., Douglas Creed, W.E., Institutional contradictions, praxis and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247, 2002. Taşçı D., Erdemir, E., Örgüt Kuramı, Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2013. Tezel, S.Y., Cumhuriyet Döneminin İktisadi Tarihi (1923-1950), Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 2015. TÜİK İstatistik Göstergeler 1923-2009, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara, 2010. Wijen, F., Ansari, S., Overcoming Inaction through Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1079-1100, 2007. Zilber, T.B., Stories and the Discursive Dynamics of Institutional Entrepreneurship: The Case of Israeli High-tech after the Bubble, Organization Studies, 28(7): 1035-1054, 2007. Zürcher, E.J., Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008.
Toplam 1 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Konular İşletme
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ata Özdemirci

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Aralık 2016
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2016 Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Özdemirci, A. (2016). ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). Marmara Business Review, 1(2), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324
AMA Özdemirci A. ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). MBR. Aralık 2016;1(2):73-95. doi:10.23892/mbrev.2016128324
Chicago Özdemirci, Ata. “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”. Marmara Business Review 1, sy. 2 (Aralık 2016): 73-95. https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
EndNote Özdemirci A (01 Aralık 2016) ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). Marmara Business Review 1 2 73–95.
IEEE A. Özdemirci, “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”, MBR, c. 1, sy. 2, ss. 73–95, 2016, doi: 10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
ISNAD Özdemirci, Ata. “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”. Marmara Business Review 1/2 (Aralık 2016), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
JAMA Özdemirci A. ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). MBR. 2016;1:73–95.
MLA Özdemirci, Ata. “ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938)”. Marmara Business Review, c. 1, sy. 2, 2016, ss. 73-95, doi:10.23892/mbrev.2016128324.
Vancouver Özdemirci A. ACTOR’S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INDUSTRIALIZATION POLITICS AND PRACTICES IN THE FOUNDATION ERA OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY (1920-1938). MBR. 2016;1(2):73-95.