Journals / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2011 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2

BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS AND TURKEY’S FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY: FROM THE ‘ÖZAL MODEL’ TO THE AKP PERIOD

İŞADAMI ÖRGÜTLERİ VE TÜRKİYE’NİN DIŞ EKONOMİK POLİTİKASI: ‘ÖZAL MODELİ’NDEN AKP DÖNEMİNE

Pages
171–188
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, the paper finds that while there are similarities between the two periods in the sense that in both cases business actors are actively taking part in foreign policy issues, there are also significant divergences

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Turgut Özal, former Prime Minister and President of Turkey, has without doubt left a lasting heritage on Turkish politics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The framework proposed in the paper incorporates the factors of state capability, business power and issue salience as determinants of policy influence at the domestic level, and within this context, a typology of roles assumed by business associations is referred to in order to identify the different policy areas where business is active.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, the paper finds that while there are similarities between the two periods in the sense that in both cases business actors are actively taking part in foreign policy issues, there are also significant divergences
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Turgut Özal, former Prime Minister and President of Turkey, has without doubt left a lasting heritage on Turkish politics. His pragmatic and dynamic approach to administrating the country’s affairs has been embraced by several later statesmen and politicians, giving rise to the notion of an “Özal model” that found application with respect to several issues in the political and economic realm. Focusing on foreign economic policy as one such issue area, and emphasizing the increasing participation of business actors in policy making process, this paper examines the main tenets of the Özal model, and deals with the question of to what extent Turkey’s foreign policy under the current government can be explained with this model. To that end, the paper compares the Özal period with the AKP period using an analytical framework that evaluates the foreign policy participation of business actors at different levels, i.e. structural level, domestic level, and the individual level. The framework proposed in the paper incorporates the factors of state capability, business power and issue salience as determinants of policy influence at the domestic level, and within this context, a typology of roles assumed by business associations is referred to in order to identify the different policy areas where business is active. As a result, the paper finds that while there are similarities between the two periods in the sense that in both cases business actors are actively taking part in foreign policy issues, there are also significant divergences

Özet

Türkiye'nin eski Başbakan ve Cumhurbaşkanı Turgut Özal'ın Türk siyaseti üzerinde şüphesiz kalıcı bir etkisi olmuştur. Birçok devlet adamı ve siyasetçi, Özal'ın devlet yönetimi konusundaki pragmatik ve dinamik yaklaşımını benimsemiş ve böylelikle ortaya siyasi ve ekonomik konularla ilgili birçok alanda uygulama bulan bir "Özal modeli" olgusu çıkmıştır. Bu alanlardan birisi olarak dış ekonomik politikaya odaklanan ve iş dünyasından aktörlerin politika yapım süreçlerine artan katılımını ön plana çıkartan bu çalışmada öncelikle Özal modelinin temel unsurları değerlendirilmekte ve daha sonra mevcut hükümetin uygulamakta olduğu dış politikanın bu açılardan Özal modeli ile ne ölçüde örtüştüğü tartışılmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda Özal dönemi ile AKP dönemi, iş dünyasından aktörlerin dış politikaya katılımlarını yapısal düzey, yerel düzey ve bireysel düzey olmak üzere üç farklı kademede ele alan bir analitik çerçeve içerisinde karşılaştırılmaktadır. Söz konusu çerçeve dahilinde devlet kapasitesi, iş dünyası gücü ve konu bilinirliği faktörleri yerel düzeydeki analizin temel unsurları olarak işlevleştirilmekte ve bu doğrultuda işadamı örgütlerinin üstlendikleri rolleri sınıflandıran bir tipoloji kullanılarak iş dünyasının aktif olarak yer aldığı farklı politika alanları tespit edilmektedir. Sonuç olarak çalışma, mercek altına alınan iki dönem arasında benzerlikler olduğunu, her iki dönemde de iş dünyasından aktörlerin dış politika yapım süreçlerine etkin bir şekilde katıldıklarını ortaya koymakta, ancak bununla birlikte söz konusu iki dönem arasında önemli farklılıkların da bulunduğunun altını çizmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

ATLI, A. (2011). BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS AND TURKEY’S FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY: FROM THE ‘ÖZAL MODEL’ TO THE AKP PERIOD. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 171–188. https://ajindex.com/articles/144759

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Atkinson M.M. and Coleman, W.D. (1989). “Strong States and Weak States: Sectoral Policy Networks in Advanced Capitalist Economies,” British Journal of Political Science, 19(1): 47-67.
  2. Axford, B. (2002). “Parties, Interest Groups and Public Opinion,” in B. Axford, G. Browning, R. Huggins, and B. Rosamond (eds.), Politics: An Introduction: 358-407. London: Routledge. Başkan, F. (2010). “The Rising Islamic Business Elite and Democratization in Turkey,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 12(4): 399-416.
  3. Bayer, R. and Öniş, Z. (2010). “Turkish Big Business in the Age of Democratic Consolidation: The Nature and Limits of its Influence,” South European Society and Politics, 15(2): 181-201.
  4. Bell, S. (1995). “Between the Market and the State: The Role of Australian Business Associations in Public Policy,” Comparative Politics, 28(1): 25-53.
  5. Bianchi, R. (1984). Interest Groups and Political Development in Turkey. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  6. Bora, T. (2000). “Professional Chambers and Non-Voluntary Organizations in Turkey: The Intersection of Public, Civil and National,” in S. Yerasimos, G. Seufert, and K. Vorhoff (eds.), Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism: 99-142, Istanbul: The Orient Institute. Buğra, A. (1994). State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study. Albany: State University of New York Press. ------, (1998). “Class, Culture, and State: An Analysis of Interest Representation by Two Turkish Business Associations,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 30(4): 521-539.
  7. Buğra, A. and Savaşkan, O. (2010). “Yerel Sanayi ve Bugünün Türkiyesi’nde İş Dünyası” (Local Industry and the Business Community in Today’s Turkey), Toplum ve Bilim, 118: 92-123.
  8. Byman, D.L. and Pollack, K.M. (2001). “Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In,” International Security, 25(4): 107-146.
  9. Cohen, B.J. (1968). American Foreign Economic Policy: Essays and Comments. New York: Harper and Row. Cooper, R.N. (1972). “Trade Policy is Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy, 9: 18-26.
  10. Culpepper, P.D. (2011). Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Cumes, J.W. (1951). Foreign Economic Policy: A Study of the Use of Economic Means to Promote Foreign-Policy Objectives Since 1918 with Special Reference to Australia. London: University of London. Davutoğlu, A. (2009). “Turkish Foreign Policy and the EU in 2010,” Turkish Policy Quarterly, 8(3): 11-17.
  12. Destler, I.M. (19