Gelişme stratejileri ve gelişme ideolojileri

Abstract

SUMMARY 257 The work is a comparison of the Turkish experience of development with the Latin American case. It argues that they are similar in certain respects and tries to generalise from similarities as well as differences. The generalisations are with regard to the development strategies followed, their relationship with the model of accumulation in effect, and their political implications. Secondly, it deals with the currents of thought on development that have been most inflential in Latin America and Turkey, and presents a critique of them in the light of the previous discussion. These are the dependency theory in the case of Latin America and the 'Kadro1 thought in the case of Turkey. The study attempts to show the similarities between the two schools of thought and argues that they have similar ideological origins. The study begins with reference to the recent debates in Turkey con cerning the 'solution' to the economic crisis. One side to the debate is the traditional liberal view advocating the lifting of state-inter vention and the liberalisation of foreign trade, thereby effecting a closer integration with the world economy. The other side is the view that advocates statism and import- substitution. The latter being an allegedly 'left-wing' critique has, in fact, certain common aspects with the liberal view, the most important one being the treatment of the state as an entity distinct and independent from the class forces in society. The study is, in essence, concerned with the problems surrounding the latter view which is, as argued in the study, informed by a very interesting and still influential current of thought- ' Kad ro 'ism - which has originated in Turkey in the 1930' s and has antici pated, in almost every detail, the 'dependency theory'. It is argued that the origins of this view and its advocation of import-substituting industrialisation (ISI) together with 'statism' owes to a certain framework which can be summarised in the following two theses: (a) that development in the underdeveloped countries (UDCs) can only take place through independence from the 'world capitalist system', and (b) that there is no social class in the UDCs with either the aspiration or the power to accomplish this and therefore this is the task of the state.258 These two theses, in turn, theoretically inform the dominant interpre tation of Turkish history, especially the 'national revolution', which is as follows: the 'nationalist and progressive' bureaucrats carried out, in the 1920' s, a national revolution with the aim of setting the economy on the road of independent development. But they encounte red opposition from the big landowners and merchants the alliance of which later, in 19 50, succeeded in coming to power at the expense of the petty-bourgeois bureaucrats. Until then, however, the latter were, especially in the 1930' s, able to implement their project of national development through statism. In this argument, the statism of the 1930s is seen as an economic model favoured, and implemented, by the bureaucrats in power (by virtue of their being 'bureaucrats' rather than a 'class') and it is also seen as a 'nationalist' deve lopment model, thus an outcome of the national revolution. The study attempts to present an alternative 'interpretation' of Turkish history and criticise the above summarised version with the aim of analysing its theoretical and ideological originis.In doing this the study concentrates on two main problem areas that derive from the earlier mentioned two theses : (a) the changes in the situation of Turkey within the world division of labour through its history and, in relation to this, various models of capital accumulation it has experienced; (b) the situation of development strategies (and, by extension, of the state) in relation to these two phenomena. In attacking these two problem areas, the study utilises the Latin American case as a point of reference to reach certain generalisations. This applies both to the construction of the 'alternative interpreta tions' and to the 'critique', thus reaching general arguments con cerning the 'dependency' theory as well as the 'Kadro' theory. In the first two chapters Turkey's development history is surveyed, and, by comparison with the L. American case, it is argued that it can be periodised into phases very similar to those of L. America (implying the large countries of the continent: more specifically,259 Brazil, Argentina and Chile) as widely agreed in the literature : (a) export- economy phase, from the mid-19th century to the 1930s; (b) ISI phase, from the 1930s to the 1960s and 1970s; (c) the 'opening-up' or post-ISI phase. However, it is also shown that Turkey displays certain differences from this periodisation, and these are discussed with reference to the evolution of the internal class structure. Through this analysis the argument is developed that development strategies are not independent constructions but rather are deter mined by the requirements of each 'model of capital accumalation` corresponding to the above phases, which, in turn, are determined by the internal class structure and the specific pattern of integration into the international division of labour. This argument is spelt out in deail in the third chapter under three headings: (1) Each new strategy (defining a new model of accumula tion) is an outcome of the crisis of the former phase through which a 'restructuring' of the capital accumulation process takes place, entailing, therefore, a new class structure as well as a new position in the world division of labour. (2) If each phase is defined by a certain model of accumulation which is the outcome of `objective1 conditions, then the situation of the state, which designs and implements these strategies, is also to be understood by reference to these `objective1 conditions. This defines the limits of the 'relative autonomy' of the state from the class structure and the international division of labour. (3) The same framework also applies to the analysis of political regimes. In this section the Latin American B.A (bureaucratic-authoritarian state) theories, which argue for a relationship between ISI and populist regimes and 'opening-up* and authoritarian regimes, are utilised. However, they are utilised with a critical approach, laying more emphasis on internal factors than the imperatives of foreign capital presence as the B.A. theories would have it. Thus, specifically the relationship between the model of capital accumulation (via the internal class conflicts and alliances) and the recent establishment of the military regime in Turkey is analysed.260 The 'critique' in the second part of the study, especially chapter 4, also serves the purpose of 'indirectly* substantiating the above ar guments. Thus, first, a critique of the earlier summarised version of the Turkish revolution based on the concept of the 'progressive bureaucracy' is presented. It is argued that the main weakness of this line of interpretation lies in its treatment of the class structure in the early periods of Republican Turkey and the situation of the state within the then existing class configuration Because it treats the 'state1 in general, or the 'bureaucrats' in particular, as an entity distinct from and even opposed to the actual class forces in society and also attributes to this category nationalist and developmeritist aspirations, it has difficulty in explaining why no significant industrialisation took place in the 19 20s and why instead it did take place in the 1930s. It fails to see that at the end of the liberation war neither the internal class structure of the society nor the place it had within the international division of labour had changed to any great extent. It fails to see that the turning point, in terms of 'development', was the period of the Great Depression which was, at the same time, necessarily a crisis of the traditionally dominant classes (landowners and merchant capital) and thus the 'statist' industrialisation policies of the 1930s was a response to that crisis. Finally, it has diffficulty in explaining the process of transition to the specific-pattern of Turkey's integration with the post-war 'world system' It fails to see that the end of the Second World War had already meant the end of 'statism' and that it did not take until 1950 for the 'transition' to begin. Through this critique the argument is developed that this line of interpretation is based on two theoretical pillars: the theory of.revolution from above' and the theory of 'centre and periphery'. These two theoretical foundations are criticised and analysed with the aim of showing that they converge in the 'Kadro' theory. It is shown that these are necessary complementary aspects of the latter theory and it is argued that the theory is based on an unwarranted generalisation (and idealisation) of the experience of 1930s when 'statism' was seen as 'progressive' and 'ISI' as 'anti-imperalist '. The critical evaluation of the 'Kadro' theory also serves to uncover261 its 'petty bourgeois1 ideological origins where statism and nationa lism derive from an underlying theme of 'development ism' and which, in terms of its political conclusions, can be defined as 'voluntarism'. In the final section of Chapter 4 the contemporary arguments in favour of ISI in relation to the debate on development strategies are traced to their `Kadro 'ist origins,. The same ideological features can, however, be also detected in 'dependency theory' except for 'statism' which in the case of the latter theory takes the form of preaching 'socialism'. This difference, it is argued, originates from the difference in the circumstances under which the respective theories were developed, The Kadro theory was developed in a period when it was thought the ' anti-imperalist' national revolution was completed and the country already set on the road of 'independent' development. The dependency theory on the other hand, was developed in a period when the r national development model` had failed and the -nly alternative was seen as 'socialism'. This argument is developed in Chapter 5 through a survey of the 'structuralist' origins of the dependency theory. It is argued that the original theorisation of the structuralists in favour of ISI through the utilisation of the concept of 'surplus transfer' has been vulgarised by the dependency theorists to reach a conclusion in favour of autarchy, which was, moreover, confused with socialism. This 'vulgarisation' is analysed within the context of the ' deve- lopmentist reaction' to the crisis of ISI and populism. This is followed by a critical analysis of the concept of dependency, laying emphasis on its neglect of the internal class structures and class alliances across national boundaries in the theorisation of the world system. Finally, in a comparison of the dependency and Kadro theories, it is argued that the latter theory has more internal consistency in terms of situating itself in relation to Marxism and in terms of its policy prescriptions. One of the main themes in the whole study is the weakness of 'deve- lopmentism' in its critique of capitalism. The study ends by reaf firming the general point that it is wrong to criticise capitalism262 from a 'developmentist' perspective and that the dynamic of 'deve lopment' in capitalism is not based on the metropolis-satellite relationship but on its internal mechanism of capital accumulation which derives from its peculiar class structure. A statistical appendix, at the end of the work, does not only contain the main economic indicators covering the Republican period in Turkey but also includes an analysis of how the suggested periodisation, in the text, of Turkish development in terms of strategieSL is substan tiated by these indicators. ^* ^^ «J.P