PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

cept in the midst of the most serious crises. Professor Szyliowicz recentlyattempted to explain the "stubborn adherence" of political decision makersin Turkey to misguided policies by emphasizing the strength of theirbelief systems 31 . In a similar manner, Professor Kedourie recently cautionedon the stability of the political system in Turkey by saying that"the tension between secularism and islam present in Turkish politicsfrom the foundation of the Republic, is ...far from subsiding, let alone disappearing,and in certain circumstances might prove too strong for a stillfragileconstitutionalism" 32 . Unfortunately, virtually none of the vvholenevv body of literatüre, that has developed in the last few years dealingprecisely vvith the kinds of issues involved in these case studies, particularlythe vvhole range of questions relating to the process of economic developmentand relations betvveen the state and other societal actors in thatprocess, is reflected in the vvorks of Professors Szyliovvicz and Kedourie.Concerning the casual link betvveen the policy change and economiccrisis in the four episodes outlined above, economic historians are ofteninclined to ignore the fact that the policy change in each of these episodesvvas not a mere passive reaction of the Turkish decision-makers to thecurrent crises, but a creative and successful act of effıcient adaptation ofthe political and economic system to the domestic and external developmentsvvhich caused those crises. In each of these cases, the policychange in Turkey vvas autochtonous and has been emulated by many othercountries as a successful model. This applies not only to the introductionof etatism after 1929 vvhich vvas, as mentioned before, one of the firstexamples among developing countries of an invvard-looking, importsubstitutingstrategy vvith economic planning. The peaceful transitionfrom a one-party to a multi-party system in 1946 and the economic liberalizationcoupled vvith this process has been unanimously referred to as amodel for the Third World. The liberal and democratic Constitution of1961 vvhich explicitly dealt vvith the state's obligations to promote socialequity has also often been referred to as a model of institutional foundationof the "social state" in a middle income country. And the Turkishcase of coping vvith the international debt crisis by the end of the 1970svvas a unique experiment that, as Professor Waterbury put it, "the donorcommunity touted as a model of adjustment, particularly regarding exportperformance" 33 .31. Joseph S. Szyliowicz, Politics, Technology and Development: Decision-Making inthe Turkish Iron and Steel industry. London: Macmillan Press, 1991.32. Elie Kedourie, Politics in the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992, p.15 İf.• 33. John VVaterbury, Exposed To Innumerable Delusions. Public Enterprise and Statepower in Egypt, India, Mexico, and Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press,1993, p. 79: see also Bela Balassa, "Outward Orientation and Exchange Rate Policyin Developing Countries: The Turkish Experience", Middle East Journal, Vol. 37,No. 3 (1983), pp. 429-447.770