PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

tions of 1950, aimed at carrying reform even further. Yet considering thevery substantial revisions of the ideology of etatism in the second half of1940s, from a development point of view the change of regime in 1950stands out as a matter of degree more than of kind.A third round of institutional change, codified in the new constitutionof 1961, was an efficient adaptation of the economic policy in Turkeyto changing internal and external requirements of economic grovvth.From the economic perspective, the constitution vvas important in attemptingto block the inflationary budget fınancing of the late 1950s, requiringcomprehensive planning, and making unionization a right of laborfor the first time in the Republic. The constitution provided the institutionalconditions for continuation of the etatist, invvard-looking developmentpolicy, vvhich lasted until 1980. Investment volumes and patternsvvere determined by successive fıve-year development plans, investmentlicensing, credit rationing, and import licensing, and Turkey experiencedher second high-grovvth period. From 1965 to 1980, Turkey achievedvvith 6.2 percent the highest average annual grovvth rate of GDP amongthe OECD countries 27 .A fourth round of institutional change, triggered by the global debtcrisis of late 1970s, began 1980 vvith a reform program aimed at stabilizingand liberalizing the economy. The program included liberalization offoreign trade and domestic fınancial markets, abolishment of most pricecontrols, and reform of public enterprises and taxation. The invvardlookingimport-substitution strategy vvas partly replaced by an exportpromotionstrategy. The result of this "fundamental economic transformation"28 , as George Kopits of the IMF called it, vvas a huge expansion offoreign trade and sustained economic grovvth. From 1980 to 1990, the exportvolume of Turkey increased vvith an average annual rate of 9.1 percent,and Turkey attained the 1 lth rank of export performance among the120 countries reported by the World Bank 29 . In this period, Turkey had,again, the highest average annual rate of grovvth among the 24 OECDcountries 30 .These four episodes of successful economic regime change displayvery impressively the high degree of adaptive efficiency of the Turkisheconomy and society. The banal fact that each of these rounds of successfulpolicy change follovved a deep economic crisis led, hovvever, someobservers of the Turkish economy to the pessimistic conclusion thatTurkish governments vvere incapable of learning from past experience ex-27. World Bank, World Development Report 1992. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press (publishedfor the VVorld Bank), 1992, p. 220, Table 2.28. George Kopits, Structural Reform, Stabilisation, and Grovvth in Turkey, IMF OccasionalPaper 52. Washington, D.C.: IMF, May 1987, p. 9.29. ibid., p. 224f„ Table 14.30. OECD, OECD Economic Outlook, Historical Statistics. 1960-1990, Paris: OECD,1992, p. 48, Table 3.1.769