Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Investigating The Consequences Of A Success Story

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Investigating The Consequences Of A Success Story

    INVESTIGATING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A SUCCESS STORY

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    Dec 17 2007

    The policies of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government
    on issues like EU-Turkey relations, Turkey's Iraq policy and the
    visibility of Islam in the public sphere have been closely followed
    and documented by local and international media.

    However, the impact of AK Party policies on Turkish political
    economy has received less public attention, despite its enormous
    significance. The AK Party has silently undermined the economic
    underpinnings of Kemalist statism by facilitating the exponential
    rise of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Turkey. By doing so the AK
    Party has changed beyond recognition the country's informal economic
    constitution, premised on a historically state-created and subsequently
    state-dependent business class of exclusively Turkish origin.

    Under AK Party rule, Turkey has attracted approximately $50 billion in
    FDI, far more than since the republic's foundation by Mustafa Kemal
    Ataturk in 1923 up to 2002. Significantly, this has been welcomed
    by the country's corporate elite, who fill the ranks of Turkey's top
    employers association, the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's
    Association (TUSÝAD). The 2001 crisis separated the wheat from the
    chaff in the Turkish corporate scene. The less reputable conglomerates,
    whose success was solely based on incestuous relationships with the
    state, were driven to the wall. Turkish economic nationalism, of
    Kemalist vintage, lost its most vociferous corporate representatives.

    The conglomerates left standing benefited from the post-2001
    consolidation and were in position to expand partnerships with foreign
    multinationals due to their best-of-breed characteristics.

    They also recognized that FDI inflows were indispensable for
    the country's overall stability and, consequently, for their own
    future survival domestically and internationally. Moreover, they
    realized significant capital gains by the rise of valuations in the
    Ýstanbul Stock Exchange (ÝMKB) or by selling non-core operations to
    foreigners. Cumulatively these factors have led Turkey's corporate
    elite to effect a remarkably coherent shift in favor of an open,
    well-regulated Turkish market place; a market place capable both of
    welcoming FDI, even if that means increased competition in their home
    turf, and also of generating ever-increasing amounts of capital flows
    from international investors abroad to which they could have access to.

    Rising FDI has also been instrumental in the AK Party's political
    dominance. By contributing to macroeconomic stability, FDI helped
    remove one of the key threats to its rule, a recurrence of the
    2001 economic crisis which would give an opening to the Kemalist
    establishment. Equally important was the reinforcement of the AK
    Party's Western credentials. The vote of confidence, expressed
    in billions of dollars by such names as Vodafone, Fortis and BNP,
    speaks of an AK Party-led Turkey becoming increasingly integrated
    into the world economy and with Europe in particular, rather than
    one unmoored and drifting to an Islamic hinterland. And despite
    the setbacks in the country's EU accession process, FDI flows have
    maintained the confidence of international portfolio investors that
    Turkey is indeed a strong convergence story, just as much as other
    EU pre-accession countries, featuring an accessible market place,
    improved governance and rising incomes.

    The alliance between the AK Party and Turkey's corporate elite in
    welcoming FDI has challenged the Kemalists' economic modernization
    monopoly. This classic expression of Ataturk that Turkey should always
    strive to "reach contemporary levels of civilization" has now become
    fully appropriated by the AK Party. Turkey has -- by dint of its
    economic growth and stability, its welcoming of foreign investors,
    as well as its own increasingly confident business class -- become
    stereotypical under the AK Party's rule as opposed to unorthodox,
    of what it is to be a modern and contemporary country. By the same
    token, the secularist establishment no longer has a positive economic
    agenda. Historically it was the determination of the Kemalist
    elite to replace the Ottoman minority bourgeoisie -- the Greeks,
    the Armenians and the Jews -- with a Turkish business class that
    underlay its success and wider societal acceptance. It has been a
    long time since this project has been exhausted. And the corporate
    names that this project has given birth to have themselves spelled
    out its demise by essentially saying that we are strong enough to
    accept foreigners in prominent positions in Turkey's economic life.

    Where does that leave the Kemalist establishment? Devoid of a
    comprehensive agenda for the country's future, it has been reduced
    from the nation's vanguard to a guardian of its privileged position.

    Admittedly the establishment still attracts the support of a large
    part of the country's professional, secular middle class. Although
    they have been among the primary beneficiaries of the AK Party-led
    economic growth, they fear that the consolidation of AK Party rule
    could lead to irretrievable regression in Turkey's social life.

    Important as these pillars of support are, they cannot camouflage the
    absence of a realistic alternative. Barring a major international
    economic crisis, the AK Party will continue to monopolize with the
    vital support of the country's corporate elite and of foreign direct
    investors, the country's only viable option for the future.

    * Ioannis N. Grigoriadis is a lecturer at the Department of Turkish
    and Modern Asian Studies at the University of Athens and a research
    fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy
    (ELIAMEP). Antonis Kamaras has worked as investment banker in Ýstanbul
    for the past three years and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the
    London School of Economics and Political Science. This article is
    based on a study which will appear in the upcoming issue of the
    academic journal Middle Eastern Studies.

    17.12.2007

    Ioannis N. Grigoriadis & Antonis Kamaras* TODAY'S ZAMAN

    --Boundary_(ID_d1hEiH6t99sqZnkruwi1TQ)--
Working...
X