Turkish Crisis and Aftermath (2001–2016)

Kutlay, Mustafa

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92789-3_4

Turkish Crisis and Aftermath (2001–2016)

Mustafa Kutlay³

Chapter
First Online: 08 August 2018

348 Accesses

Part of the book series: International Political Economy Series ((IPES))

Abstract

The chapter sets out to explore the dynamics of change in Turkish political economy following the 2001 crisis. The February 2001 turmoil was a critical juncture for Turkey as it put the socio-political and economic life into severe disarray. Despite its long-lasting hazardous impacts, the crisis opened up an opportunity window to reform the deeply flawed economic regime of the reactive Turkish state. The depth of the crisis disturbed power balances and denounced well-entrenched rent-seeking coalitions. It, therefore, created room for reformist state agents to step through in, which was capitalized on to a significant extent. In the economic realm, regulatory state as a new paradigm was introduced. Based on the three-stage framework, Kutlay argues that crisis did invite a paradigmatic change due to the emergence of a dominant crisis narrative along domestic-external nexus. The chapter also offers an account as to why Turkey experienced major setbacks in economic and political realms in the post-2011.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 39.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The overnight interest rates had hiked to 2000 percent on February 21, following the public argument between Prime Minister and President, and skyrocketed to more than 4000 percent on February 21.
2.
The government securities were equivalent of 10 percent of total assets of deposit banks in 1990. The figure increased to 23 percent of total assets in 2000. In the same period, the share of loans to the private sector over total assets decreased from 36 percent to 24 percent.
3.
The foreign exchange deposits were composing 58.6 percent of total deposits in Turkish banks in 2000, which was just 25 percent in 1990. The ratio, in itself, demonstrates that “dollarization” became an increasing trend in Turkish economy during 1990s. Following the 2001 economic crisis, the devaluation in the currency severely hit banking sector accustomed to holding balance sheets with large share of domestic currency denominated treasury bills on the asset side, which was mainly financed by foreign currency denominated liabilities.
4.
DPT, Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı (2007–2013): Finansal Hizmetler Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu (Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı, 2007), 4.
5.
Undersecretariat of Treasury, Strengthening the Turkish Economy: Turkey’s Transition Program (Ankara: TCMB, 2001), 34.
6.
BDDK, Towards a Sound Turkish Banking Sector (Ankara: BDDK, 2001), 8.
7.
Emlak Bank, the third largest state bank at the time, was closed and assets were transferred to Ziraat Bank.
8.
This number covers the period between 1997 and 2003. 14 of them were taken over during 2000–2003.
9.
Letter of Intent of the Government of Turkey, May 3, 2001 http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2001/tur/02/ (arrived on September 14, 2016).
10.
Ibid., 18.
11.
Undersecretariat of Treasury, Strengthening the Turkish Economy, 34.
12.
Letter of Intent of the Government of Turkey, May 3, 2001, 9.
13.
Ibid., 5.
14.
Interview with senior official, Capital Markets Board of Turkey, September 11, 2014.
15.
Interview with member of the Economic Advisors Committee to Bülent Ecevit, September 10, 2014.
16.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
17.
Kemal Derviş, “Returning from the Brink: Turkey’s Efforts at Systemic Change and Structural Reform,” in Tim Besley and Roberto Zagha, eds., Development Challenges in the 1990s: Leading Policymakers Speak from Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 65.
18.
Caner Bakır, “Policy Entrepreneurship and Institutional Change: Multilevel Governance of Central Banking Reform,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 22, no. 4 (2009), 587.
19.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
20.
Derviş, “Returning from the Brink,” 66.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Ibid., 66.
23.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
24.
Interview with senior official, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, September 15, 2014.
25.
Stanley Fischer, “Remarks by Stanley Fischer, First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, April 25, 2001”, 7.
26.
Bakır, “Policy Entrepreneurship and Institutional Change,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 591.
27.
IMF, “Transcripts of a Press Briefing by Thomas Dawson, Director of External Relations Department of the IMF, March 12, 2001,” 6–7.
28.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
29.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
30.
Interview with senior advisor to Kemal Derviş, 26 September 2014.
31.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
32.
Interview with senior official, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, September 15, 2014.
33.
IMF, “IMF Approves Augmentation of Turkey’s Stand-By Credit to US$19 Billion,” Press Release no. 01/23, May 15, 2001.
34.
For a critical account of the IMF’s role in Turkey’s economic turmoil, see Yılmaz Akyüz and Korkut Boratav, “The Making of the Turkish Financial Crisis,” World Development 31, no. 9 (2003): 1549–1566.
35.
Interview with senior official, Undersecretary of Treasury, September 10, 2014.
36.
Ngarie Woods, “Understanding Pathways Thorough Financial Crises and the Impact of the IMF: An Introduction,” Global Governance 12, no. 4 (2006): 379, 384.
37.
Thomas Oatley and Jason Yackee, “American Interests and IMF Lending,” International Politics 41, no. 3 (2004): 415–429.
38.
Milliyet Gazetesi, “Bush’tan Ecevit’e Telefon,” February 24, 2001.
39.
Calum Miller, “Pathways Through Financial Crisis: Turkey,” Global Governance 12, no. 4 (2006): 458.
40.
For a comparative analysis with reference to diverging geopolitical significance of Turkey and Argentina, inter alia, see Ziya Öniş, “Varieties and Crises of Neoliberal Globalization: Argentina, Turkey and the IMF,” Third World Quarterly 27, no. 2 (2006): 252.
41.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
42.
Cizre and Yeldan, “The Turkish Encounter with Neo-liberalism,” Review of International Political Economy, footnote 16.
43.
Woods, “Understanding Pathways Through Financial Crises and the Impact of the IMF,” Global Governance, 384.
44.
Interview with senior official, MHP, September 4, 2014.
45.
Interview with member of the Economic Advisors Committee to Bülent Ecevit, September 10, 2014.
46.
For an early account and a set of policy proposals in line with the logic of the WC , see John Williamson, “What Washington Means by Policy Reform?” in John Williamson, ed., Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1990).
47.
For an in-depth analysis of this badly flawed logic, see Dani Rodrik, Has Globalization Gone Too Far? (Washington, DC: Institute of International Economics, 1997).
48.
Ziya Öniş and Fikret Şenses, “Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus,” Development and Change 36, no. 2 (2005): 264.
49.
Joseph Stiglitz, “More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus,” Revista de Economia Politica 19, no. 1 (1999): 106.
50.
Dani Rodrik, “How to Save Globalization from Its Cheerleaders,” The Journal of Trade and Diplomacy 1, no. 2 (2007): 3.
51.
Ibid.
52.
For a lucid analysis see Ben Thirkell-White, The IMF and the Politics of Financial Globalization: From the Asian Crisis to a New International Financial Architecture (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
53.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
54.
Interview with senior official, Undersecretary of Treasury, September 10, 2014; interview with senior official, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, September 16, 2014.
55.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
56.
Interview with senior official, Capital Markets Board of Turkey, September 11, 2014.
57.
Interview with senior official, Undersecretary of Treasury, September 10, 2014.
58.
The credibility of the entire political system collapsed in the wake of the crisis. The majority of the public was in the opinion that political parties were corrupt and inept. In our interview, the senior official of the MHP, also admitted that the economy was “taken hostage by widespread corruption” at the time.
59.
Interview with senior official, Yapı Kredi Bank, September 28, 2014.
60.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
61.
Soli Özel, “Turkey at the Polls: After the Tsunami,” Journal of Democracy 14, no. 2 (2003): 90.
62.
During my interviews, I was told two different stories about the invitation process. First, some high level technocrats and political elites argued that Stanley Fischer of the IMF advised Prime Minister Ecevit to appoint Kemal Derviş . Second, I was also told that Ecevit did not receive any “advice” from external actors. He decided to call Derviş himself based on their previous connections. Derviş, himself, argued that the second explanation was the true one.
63.
Quoted in Mehmet Ali Birand, Son Darbe 28 Şubat (İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2012), 336–337.
64.
Interview with senior official of MHP, September 4, 2014; interview with member of the Economic Advisors Committee to Bülent Ecevit, September 10, 2014.
65.
Interview with Kemal Derviş quoted in Işın Çelebi, Türkiye”nin Dönüşüm Yılları: Yeniden Öğrenme Zamanı (İstanbul: Alfa, 2012), 372.
66.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
67.
Interview with senior advisor to President, TÜSİAD, September 24, 2014; interview with senior advisor to Kemal Derviş September 26, 2014.
68.
Derya Gültekin-Karakaş, Hem Hasımız Hem Hısımız: Türkiye”de Finans Kapitalin Dönüşümü ve Banka Reformu (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2009).
69.
E. Fuat Keyman and Berrin Koyuncu, “Globalization, Alternative Modernities, and the Political Economy of Turkey,” Review of International Political Economy 12, no. 1 (2005): 109.
70.
TÜSİAD, “TÜSİAD Yönetİm Kurulu Başkanı Tuncay Özİlhan’ın 5. SİAD Zirvesİ Konuşması,” May 9, 2001, 4–5.
71.
Ibid., 5.
72.
Interview with senior advisor to President, TÜSİAD, September 24, 2014.
73.
Milliyet Gazetesi, “Koç: Program Son Şansımız,” May 18, 2001.
74.
Rifat Hisarcıklıoğlu, “57. Genel Kurul Konuşması, 2 Mayıs 2002” in Nart Bozkurt, Başkanların Genel Kurul Konuşmaları, Volume 3 (Ankara: TOBB Yayınları, 2011), 645–646.
75.
Interview with senior official of MÜSİAD, September 16, 2014.
76.
Interview with senior official of MÜSİAD, September 16, 2014.
77.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
78.
Interview with senior official of TÜRK-İŞ, September 10, 2014; interview with senior official of DİSK, September 9, 2014.
79.
Interview with senior official of TÜRK-İŞ, September 10, 2014.
80.
Interview with senior official of DİSK, September 9, 2014.
81.
Interview with senior official of DİSK, September 9, 2014.
82.
Interview with senior official of DİSK, September 9, 2014.
83.
Interview with senior official of TÜRK-İŞ, September 10, 2014.
84.
Interview with senior official, Ministry of Economic Affairs, September 11, 2014.
85.
Interview with senior official of DİSK, September 9, 2014. Also, interview with senior official of TÜRK-İŞ, September 10, 2014.
86.
Paul Kubicek, “The Earthquake, the European Union, and Political Reform in Turkey,” Mediterranean Politics 7, no. 1 (2002): 2.
87.
Rifat Hisarcıklıoğlu, “57. Genel Kurul Konuşması, 2 Mayıs 2002,” 655.
88.
TÜSİAD, “Türkiye’nin AB Üyeliği: Doğrudan Yatırımlar ve Ekonomik Büyüme,” TÜSİAD Görüşler Dizisi, no. 8 (2002).
89.
TÜSİAD, “TÜSİAD Yönetİm Kurulu Başkanı Tuncay Özİlhan’ın 5. SİAD Zirvesİ Konuşması,” 2.
90.
Kubicek, “The Earthquake, the European Union, and Political Reform in Turkey,” Mediterranean Politics, 11.
91.
Undersecretariat of Treasury, Strengthening the Turkish Economy: Turkey’s Transition Program, 34.
92.
Interview with senior official of DİSK, September 9, 2014.
93.
European Commission, 1999 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Toward Accession (Brussels: European Commission, October 1999): 26, 39.
94.
European Commission, 2000 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Toward Accession (Brussels: European Commission, November, 2000): 31, 47.
95.
European Commission, 2001 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Toward Accession, SEC (2001) 1756 (Brussels: European Commission, November 2001): 14, emphasis added.
96.
Undersecretariat of Treasury, Strengthening the Turkish Economy: Turkey’s Transition Program, 34.
97.
MHP leader vociferously criticized Kemal Derviş by stating, “it is by no means acceptable that Derviş threatens the government in every bottleneck with his resignation and cut-off of the IMF support.” Milliyet Gazetesi, “MHP: İstifa Etse Hiçbir Şey Olmaz,” June 29, 2001.
98.
IMF, “IMF Postpones Board Meeting on Turkey,” News Brief no. 01/51, July 2, 2001.
99.
IMF, “Statement on Turkey by IMF First Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer,” News Brief no. 01/66, July 28, 2001.
100.
Interview with senior official of MHP, September 4, 2014; interview with member of the Economic Advisors Committee to Bülent Ecevit, September 10, 2014.
101.
Özel, “After the Tsunami,” Journal of Democracy, 81.
102.
Ziya Öniş and E. Fuat Keyman, “Turkey at the Polls: A New Path Emerges,” Journal of Democracy 14, no. 2 (2003): 96.
103.
I should note at this point that the leading economic figures of the AKP government do argue that they made substantial revisions in the IMF-sponsored reform program. A former minister stated in our interview that AKP government added strong social and industrial policy components to the existing program during its first term in office. Interview with former Minister of Industry and Trade, September 12, 2014.
104.
Interview with senior official of MÜSİAD, September 16, 2014.
105.
Mustafa Kutlay, “Internationalization of Finance Capital in Spain and Turkey: Neoliberal Globalization and the Political Economy of State Policies,” New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 47 (2012): 115–137.
106.
Gerard Strange, Towards a New Political Economy of Development (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).
107.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, “Turkish Economy Meets EU Entry Criteria,” The Huffington Post, November 28, 2012.
108.
Mustafa Kutlay, “Economy as a Practical Hand in Turkish Foreign Policy: A Political Economy Explanation,” Insight Turkey 13, no. 1 (2011): 67–88.
109.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Industry and Trade, Turkish Industrial Strategy Document: Towards EU Membership (2011-2014), 2010.
110.
For an in-depth discussion, see Ziya Öniş and Mustafa Kutlay, “Rising Powers in a Changing Global Order: Political Economy of Turkey in the Age of BRICs,” Third World Quarterly 34, no 8 (2013): 1416–1417.
111.
Fuat Keyman, “The AKP: Dominant Party, New Turkey and Polarization,” Insight Turkey 16, no. 2 (2014): 23–24.
112.
Burak Bilgehan Özpek, “Constitution-Making in Turkey After the 2011 Elections,” Turkish Studies 13, no. 2 (2012): 153–167.
113.
Ergun Özbudun, “AKP at the Crossroads: Erdoğan’s Majoritarian Drift,” South European Society and Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 162.
114.
Ziya Öniş, “Monopolising the Centre: The AKP and the Uncertain Path of Turkish Democracy,” The International Spectator 50, no. 2 (2015): 26.
115.
Milliyet Gazetesi, “2.5 Milyon İnsan 79 İlde Sokağa İndi,” June 23, 2013.
116.
Erdem Yörük and Murat Yüksel, “Class and Politics in Turkey’s Gezi Protests,” New Left Review 89 (2014): 103–123.
117.
Ziya Öniş, “Turkey’s Two Elections: The AKP Comes Back,” Journal of Democracy 27, no. 2 (2016): 141–154.
118.
Daron Acemoğlu and Murat Üçer, “The Ups and Downs of Turkish Growth, 2002-2015: Political Dynamics, the European Union and the Institutional Slide,” NBER Working Paper, no. 21608 (2015): 15–16.
119.
World Bank, China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative High-Income Society (Washington, DC: World Bank Press, 2012), 13.
120.
For more on the relationship between inclusive institutions and economic development, see Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson, Why Nations Fail? (London: Profile Books, 2012).
121.
Ayşe Bugra and Osman Savaskan, New Capitalism in Turkey: The Relationship Between Politics, Religion and Business (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014).

References

Acemoğlu, Daron and James Robinson. Why Nations Fail? London: Profile Books, 2012.
Google Scholar
Acemoğlu, Daron and Murat Üçer. “The Ups and Downs of Turkish Growth, 2002–2015: Political Dynamics, the European Union and the Institutional Slide.” NBER Working Paper, No. 21608 (2015).
Google Scholar
Akyüz, Yılmaz, and Korkut Boratav. “The Making of the Turkish Financial Crisis.” World Development 31, no. 9 (2003): 1549–1566.
Google Scholar
Bakır, Caner. “Policy Entrepreneurship and Institutional Change: Multilevel Governance of Central Banking Reform.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 22, no. 4 (2009): 571–598.
Google Scholar
BDDK. Towards a Sound Turkish Banking Sector. Ankara: BDDK. May 2001.
Google Scholar
Birand, Mehmet Ali. Son Darbe 28 Şubat. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2012.
Google Scholar
Bugra, Ayşe and Osman Savaskan. New Capitalism in Turkey: The Relationship between Politics, Religion and Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014.
Google Scholar
Çelebi, Işın. Türkiye’nin Dönüşüm Yılları: Yeniden Öğrenme Zamanı. İstanbul: Alfa, 2012.
Google Scholar
Derviş, Kemal. “Returning From the Brink: Turkey’s Efforts at Systemic Change and Structural Reform.” In Development Challenges in the 1990s: Leading Policymakers Speak from Experience, edited by Tim Besley, and Roberto Zagha, 62–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Google Scholar
DPT. Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı (2007–2013): Finansal Hizmetler Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu. Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı. 2007.
Google Scholar
Erdoğan, Recep Tayyip. “Turkish Economy meets EU Entry Criteria.” The Huffington Post, November 28, 2012.
Google Scholar
European Commission. 1999 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Toward Accession. Brussels: European Commission, October 1999.
Google Scholar
European Commission. 2000 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Toward Accession. Brussels: European Commission, November, 2000.
Google Scholar
European Commission. 2001 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Toward Accession, SEC (2001) 1756. Brussels: European Commission, November 2001.
Google Scholar
Fischer, Stanley. “Remarks by Stanley Fischer, First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF,” April 25, 2001.
Google Scholar
Gültekin-KarakaŞ, Derya. Hem Hasımız Hem Hısımız: Türkiye’de Finans Kapitalin DönüŞümü ve Banka Reformu. İstanbul: İletiŞim Yayınları, 2009.
Google Scholar
Hisarcıklıoğlu, Rifat. “57. Genel Kurul Konuşması, 2 Mayıs 2002” in Nart Bozkurt, Başkanların Genel Kurul Konuşmaları, volume 3. Ankara: TOBB Yayınları, 2011.
Google Scholar
IMF. IMF Postpones Board Meeting on Turkey, News Brief no. 01/51. Washington, DC: IMF Publication Services, 2001.
Google Scholar
IMF. Statement on Turkey by IMF First Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer, News Brief no. 01/66. Washington, DC: IMF Publication Services, 2001.
Google Scholar
Keyman, E. Fuat, and Berrin Koyuncu. “Globalization, Alternative Modernities, and the Political Economy of Turkey.” Review of International Political Economy 12, no. 1 (2005): 105–128.
Google Scholar
Keyman, E. Fuat. “The AK Party: Dominant Party, New Turkey, and Polarization.” Insight Turkey 16, no. 2 (2014): 19–31.
Google Scholar
Kubicek, Paul. “The Earthquake, the European Union, and Political Reform in Turkey.” Mediterranean Politics 7, no. 1 (2002): 1–18.
Google Scholar
Kutlay, Mustafa. “Economy as a Practical Hand in Turkish Foreign Policy: A Political Economy Explanation.” Insight Turkey 13, no. 1 (2011): 67–88.
Google Scholar
Kutlay, Mustafa. “Internationalization of Finance Capital in Spain and Turkey: Neoliberal Globalization and the Political Economy of State Strategies.” New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 47 (2012): 115–137.
Google Scholar
Miller, Calum. “Pathways Through Financial Crisis: Turkey.” Global Governance 12, no. 4 (2006): 449–464.
Google Scholar
Milliyet Gazetesi. “2.5 Milyon İnsan 79 İlde Sokağa İndi.” June 23, 2013.
Google Scholar
Milliyet Gazetesi. “Koç: Program Son Şansımız.” May 18, 2001.
Google Scholar
Milliyet Gazetesi. “MHP: İstifa Etse Hiçbir Şey Olmaz,” June 29, 2001.
Google Scholar
Oatley, Thomas, and Jason Yackee. “American Interests and IMF Lending.” International Politics 41, no. 3 (2004): 415–429.
Google Scholar
Öniş, Ziya, and Fikret Şenses. “Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus.” Development and Change 36, no. 2 (2005): 263–290.
Google Scholar
Öniş, Ziya, and Fuat Keyman. “Turkey at the Polls: A New Path Emerges.” Journal of Democracy 14, no. 2 (2003): 95–107.
Google Scholar
Öniş, Ziya, and Mustafa Kutlay. “Rising Powers in a Changing Global Order: The Political Economy of Turkey in the Age of BRICs.” Third World Quarterly 34, no. 8 (2013): 1409–1426.
Google Scholar
Öniş, Ziya. “Monopolising the Centre: The AKP and the Uncertain Path of Turkish Democracy.” The International Spectator 50, no. 2 (2015): 22–41.
Google Scholar
Öniş, Ziya. “Turkey’s Two Elections: The AKP Comes Back.” Journal of Democracy 27, no. 2 (2016): 141–154.
Google Scholar
Öniş, Ziya. “Varieties and Crises of Neoliberal Globalization: Argentina, Turkey and the IMF.” Third World Quarterly 27, no. 2 (2006): 239–263.
Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun. “AKP at the Crossroads: Erdoğan’s Majoritarian Drift.” South European Society and Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 155–167.
Google Scholar
Özilhan, Tuncay. “TÜSİAD Yönetim Kurulu Başkanı Tuncay Özilhan’ın 5. SİAD Zirvesi Konuşması.” May 9, 2001.
Google Scholar
Özpek, Burak Bilgehan. “Constitution-Making in Turkey After the 2011 Elections.” Turkish Studies 13, no. 2 (2012): 153–167.
Google Scholar
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Industry and Trade, Turkish Industrial Strategy Document: Towards EU Membership (2011–2014), 2010.
Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. “How to Save Globalization From its Cheerleaders.” The Journal of Trade and Diplomacy 1, no. 2 (2007): 1–33.
Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington D.C.: Institute of International Economics, 1997.
Google Scholar
Soli Özel, “Turkey at the Polls: After the Tsunami.” Journal of Democracy 14, no. 2 (2003): 80–94.
Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph E. “More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus.” Revista de Economia Politica 19, no. 1 (1999): 94–120.
Google Scholar
Strange, Gerard. Towards a New Political Economy of Development. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2014.
Google Scholar
Thirkell-White, Ben. The IMF and the Politics of Financial Globalization: From the Asian Crisis to a New International Financial Architecture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Google Scholar
TÜSİAD. Türkiye’nin AB Üyeliği: Doğrudan Yatırımlar ve Ekonomik Büyüme. TÜSİAD Görüşler Dizisi, no. 8, 2002.
Google Scholar
Ümit, Cizre, and Erinç Yeldan. “The Turkish Encounter with Neo-Liberalism: Economics and Politics in the 2000/2001 Crisis.” Review of International Political Economy 12, no. 3 (2005): 387–408.
Google Scholar
Undersecretariat of Treasury, Strengthening the Turkish Economy: Turkey’s Transition Program. Ankara: TCMB. 2001.
Google Scholar
Williamson, John. “What Washington Means by Policy Reform?” In Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened?, edited by John Williamson. Washington DC: Institute for International Economics, 1990.
Google Scholar
Woods, Ngarie. “Understanding Pathways Thorough Financial Crises and the Impact of the IMF: An Introduction.” Global Governance 12, no. 4 (2006): 373–393.
Google Scholar
World Bank, China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative High-Income Society (Washington, DC: World Bank Press, 2012), 13.
Google Scholar
Yörük, Erdem and Murat Yüksel. “Class and Politics in Turkey’s Gezi Protests.” New Left Review 89 (2014): 103–123.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

City University of London, London, UK
Mustafa Kutlay

Authors

Mustafa Kutlay
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kutlay, M. (2019). Turkish Crisis and Aftermath (2001–2016). In: The Political Economies of Turkey and Greece. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92789-3_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92789-3_4
Published: 08 August 2018
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92788-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92789-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics