FİNANSALLAŞMA ÇAĞINDA EKONOMİK GELİŞME: GELİŞME POLİTİKALARININ SONU MU?

Öz

İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası yaşanan ‘altın çağ’ın ardından, 1970’li yıllara doğru gelişmiş ülkelerde kar oranları düşmeye başladı. Bunun yanı sıra 1970’lerde asıl olarak petrol fiyatlarındaki artıştan kaynaklanan ve mevcut finansal piyasalarn boyutlarını aşan finansal bir genişleme de söz konusuydu. Bu koşullar altında kar oranlarındaki düşmeyi telafi etmek ve uluslararası finansal sermayenin önündeki engelleri kaldırmak üzere finansal piyasaların küresel düzeyde deregülasyonu kaçınılmazdı. Daha sonra ‘finansallaşma’ olarak adlandırılacak bu dönüşüm süreci gelişmekte olan ülkeleri de içine aldı ve neoliberalizm ve küreselleşme ile birlikte bu ülkelerin ekonomilerinde ve izledikleri iktisadi politikalarda önemli ölçüde belirleyici oldu. Bu çalışmada, 1980’li yıllardan itibaren finansallaşma olgusunun gelişmekte olan ülkelerin ekonomik gelişme süreçlerine olan etkisi, söz konusu ülkelerin karşı karşıya olduğu ‘sanayisizleşme’ tehdidi açısından ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında gelişme olgusuna bakışın ve gelişme politikalarının neoliberalizmle birlikte nasıl değiştiği incelenmektedir. Gelişmekte olan ülkelerin pek çoğunun 1980’li ve 1990’lı yıllardaki deneyimleri, dış ticaret rejimlerinin ve uluslararası sermaye hareketlerinin serbestleştirilmesinin, içeride de finansal sistem üzerindeki her türlü denetim ve müdahalenin kaldırılmasıyla birlikte ilerleyen bir süreç olduğunu göstermektedir. Uluslararası finansal sermayenin etkisine açık hale gelerek kırılgan bir yapıya sahip olan pek çok gelişmekte olan ülkede mevcut sanayi altyapısının zayıflaması, sınai üretim ve istihdamın azalmasıyla kendisini gösteren sanayisizleşme olgusunun finansallaşmaya eşlik ettiği görülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Finansallaşma
• ekonomik gelişme
• sanayisizleşme

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE ERA OF FINANCIALISATION: THE END OF DEVELOPMENT POLICIES?

Öz

Following the ‘golden age’ of the post-Second World War era, the rates of profits in the developed world started to decline towards the 1970s. Beside that, there was a financial expansion mainly stemming from petro-dollars in the 1970s that could not be absorbed by then existing financial markets. Under these circumstances, deregulation of financial markets globally was inevitable in order to liberate international financial capital and compensate the decline in rates of profit. Along with neoliberalism and globalisation, this transformation process, which would be called ‘financialisation’, also comprised developing countries and had significant influence on those economies and economic policies they employed. This paper investigates the implications of financialisation for economic development processes of developing countries from the 1980s with a specific focus on the threat of ‘deindustrialisation’. It also considers how the idea of development and development policies have changed under the impact of neoliberalism. Most of the developing countries experienced the liberalisation of foreign trade regimes and international capital movements that went along with abolishment of all sort of intervention and control over domestic financial systems in the 1980s and 1990s. In many developing countries that became fragile to the impact of international financial capital, financialisation process has been accompanied by the phenomenon of deindustrialisation, which can be seen by weakening industrial structure, declining industrial production and employment

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Financialisation
• economic development
• deindustrialisation

Kaynakça

1. AKARÇAY GÜRBÜZ, A. “Comparing trajectories of structural Change”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.35, No.6, 2011, ss.1061–1085.
2. ARESTIS, P. “Washington consensus and financial liberalization”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.27, No.2, Winter 2004-05, ss.251-271.
3. ARRIGHI, G. The Long Twentieth Century, New York: Verso, 1994.
4. BAŞKAYA, F. Kalkınma İktisadının Yükselişi ve Düşüşü, İstanbul: İmge Yayınları, 1994.
5. BELLAMY FOSTER, J. “The Financialization of Capitalism”, Montly Review, Vol.58, No.11, 2007, ss.1-12.
6. CHANG, H-J ve I. GRABEL, “Reclaiming development from Washington Consensus”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.27, No.2, Winter 2004-05, ss.276-279.
7. CROTTY, J. “The Neoliberal Paradox: The Impact of Destructive Product Market Competition and ‘Modern’ Financial Markets on Nonfinancial Corporation Performance in the Neoliberal Era” in Gerald A. Epstein (ed.), Financialization and the World Economy, ss.77-110.
8. DASGUPTA, S. ve A. SINGH, “Manufacturing, Services and Premature Deindustrialization in Developing Countries”, United Nations University, Research Paper, No. 49, 2006. http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/rp2006-49.pdf

9. DEMİR, F. “Financial liberalization, private investment and portfolio choice: Financialization of real sectors in emerging markets”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol.88, 2009, ss.314-324.
10. DUMENIL, G. ve D. LEVY, “The Real and Financial Components of Profitability (United States, 1952-2000)”, Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol.36, No.1, 2004, ss.82-100.
11. EPSTEIN, G.A. (ed.) Financialization and the World Economy, Cheltenham, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar, 2005.
12. EPSTEIN, G.A. “Introduction” in G.A. Epstein (ed.), Financialization and the World Economy, ss.3-16.
13. FINE, B., C. LAPAVITSAS ve J. PINCUS (eds), Devolepment Policy in the Twentyfırst Century: Beyond the Post-Washington Consensus, London: Routledge, 2001.
14. FINE, B. “The New Development Economics” in J. KS and B. FINE (eds), pp.1-20.
15. FRENKEL, R. ve M. RAPETTI, “External Fragility or Deindustrialization: What is the Main Threat to Latin American Countries in the 2010s?”, World Economic Review, Vol.1, No.1, 2012, ss.37-57.
16. GOLDSTEIN, J.P. “Introduction: The Political Economy of Financialization”, Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol.41, No.4, 2009, ss.453-457.
17. GÜLALP, H. Gelişme Stratejileri ve Gelişme İdeolojileri, Ankara: Yurt Yayınları, 1987.
18. HILFERDING, R. Finance Capital: A Study of he Latest Phase of Capitalist Development, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981 [1910].
19. IMF, Regional Economic Outlook, Western Hemisphere, Washington DC, April 2011.
20. İSTANBUL SANAYİ ODASI, 500 Büyük Sanayi Kuruluşu, İstanbul: ISO Yayını, 2002.
21. KEYDER, Ç. Ulusal Kalkınmacılığın İflası, İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2.b., 1996.
22. KREGEL, J. “The dicrete charm of the Washington consensus”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.30, No.4, Summer 2008, ss.541-560.
23. KRIPPNER, G “The Financialization of the American Economy”, Socio-Economic Review, Vol.3, No.2, 2005, ss.173-208.
24. KS, J and B. FINE (eds) The New Development Economics: After the Washington Consensus, New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2006.
25. LAL, D. The Poverty of Development Economics, Instıtute of Economic Affairs, 1983.
26. LAPAVITSAS, C. “Financialised Capitalism: Crisis and Financial Expropriation”, Research on Money and Finance Discussion Papers, No.1, 2009.
27. LAPAVITSAS, C. “Theorizing Financialization”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol.25, No.4, 2011, ss.611-626.
28. MCKINNON, R.I. Money and Capital in Economic Development, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1973.
29. MORENO-BRID, J.C., E. PEREZ CALDENTEY ve P. RUIZ NAPOLES “The Washington consensus: a Latin American perspective fifteen years later”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.27, No.2, Winter 2004-05, ss.345- 365.
30. OCAMPO, J.A. “Beyond the Washington Consensus: what do we mean?”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.27, No.2, Winter 2004-05, ss.293-314.
31. ORHANGAZI, Ö. Financialization and the US Economy, Cheltenham, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar, 2008 . ÖNIŞ, Z. ve F. ŞENSES, “Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus”, Development and Change, Vol.36, No.2, 2005, ss.263–290.
32. PALLEY, T. “Financialization: What It Is and Why It Matters”, The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper, No.525, 2007.
33. PALMA, G. “ De-industrialization, ‘Premature’ De-industrialization and the Dutch Disease “, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
34. PIEPER, U. “Deindustrialisation and the social and economic sustainability nexus in developing countries: Cross-country evidence on productivity and employment”, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.36, No.4, 2000, ss.66-99.
35. ROWTHORN, R. ve K. COUTTS, “De-industrialization and the Balance of Payments in Advanced Economies”, UNCTAD/OSG/DP/2004/4, No.170, 2004.
36. ROWTHORN, R. ve R. RAMASWAMY, “Deindustrialization: Causes and Implications”, IMF Working Paper, Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, WP/97/42, 1997.
37. ROWTHORN, R. ve R. RAMASWAMY, “Growth, Trade, and Deindustrialization”, IMF Working Paper, Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, WP/98/60, 1998.
38. SHAW, E. Financial Deepening in Economic Development, New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.
39. STIGLITZ, J. “More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus”, Speech, 7 January 1998, Helsinki-Finland. http://www. globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/209/43245.html (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2013)
40. STOCKHAMMER, E. “Financialization and the Slowdown of Accumulation”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.28, No.5, 2004, ss.719-741.
41. SWEEZY, P. “More (or Less) on Globalization”, Monthly Review, Vol.49, No.4, 1997, ss.1-4.
42. TREGENNA, F. “Characterising deindustrialisation: An analysis of changes in manufacturing employment and output internationally”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.33, No.3, 2009, ss.433-466.
43. TÜRKAY, M. Sermaye Birikimi, Kalkınma, Azgelişmişlik, İstanbul: Sosyal Araş- tırmalar Vakfı Yayını, 2009.
44. UNCTAD. “Development Strategies in a Globalizing World”, UNCTAD/GDS/
45. MDPB/Misc.15, Geneva: United Nations, 2003. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ gdsmdpbmisc15_en.pdf (Erişim tarihi 26.10.2013)
46. UNCTAD. Trade and Development Report, Geneva, UNCTAD, 2003.
47. UNCTAD. Trade and Development Report, Geneva, UNCTAD, 2013.
48. UNCTAD, “The Paradox of Finance-Driven Globalization”, Policy Brief, No.1, January 2012.
49. WELLER, J. “Tertiary sector employment in Latin America: between modernity and survival”, CEPAL Review, No.84, December 2004, ss.157-174. http://www. eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/7/22347/G2258iWeller.pdf
50. WILLIAMSON, J. “What Washington Means by Policy Reform”, in John Williamson (ed.), Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened?, Washington DC: Institute for International Economics, 1990, ss.5-20.
51. WILLIAMSON, J. “Did the Washington Consensus Fail?”, Outline of Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC, 6 November 2002. http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/print.cfm?ResearchId=488&- doc=pub (Erişim Tarihi 26.10.2013).