We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 October 2013
This article examines the relations between the Turkish State Planning Organisation (SPO) and the Western economic system during the first two decades of national planning in Turkey (1960–1980). It traces how the SPO, established with the guidance and full endorsement of international economic institutions came to vehemently oppose Turkish participation in one of their pillars: the European Economic Community (EEC), the predecessor of the European Union. It argues that the shift in the SPO's world-view was founded upon two distinct understandings of the Turkish nation and its development, situates these understandings within the intellectual history of Turkey's past ambivalence towards the West, and, in doing so, provides a historical case-study of the ideological clash between modernisation and dependency theories of development.
Cet article porte sur les relations entre la Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (DTP), l’organisation de planification nationale turque, et le système économique occidental au cours des deux premières décennies de planification nationale en Turquie (1960–1980). Il montre comment la DTP, qui avait bénéficié pour sa création des conseils et de l’approbation totale des institutions économiques internationales, en est progressivement venue à s’opposer à la participation turque à l’un des piliers de ces institutions, la Communauté économique européenne (CEE), précurseur de l’Union européenne. Selon l’auteur, cette évolution dans la vision du monde de la DTP est due à deux conceptions différentes de la nation turque et de son développement; il replace ces conceptions dans le contexte de l’histoire intellectuelle de l’ambivalence de la Turquie vis-à-vis de l’Occident et fournit ainsi une étude de cas historique du conflit idéologique entre la théorie de la modernisation et celle de la dépendance en matière de développement.
Der Beitrag untersucht die Beziehungen zwischen dem türkischen staatlichen Planungsamt – dem Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (DPT) – und dem westlichen Wirtschaftssystem während der ersten beiden Jahrzehnte nach der Einführung der nationalen Planung in der Türkei (1960–80). Das DPT wurde ursprünglich mit Anleitung und Unterstützung internationaler Wirtschaftsinstitutionen ins Leben gerufen. In dem Beitrag wird untersucht, wie es schließlich dazu kam, dass sich das DPT einer Beteiligung der Türkei an der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (EWG), der Vorläuferorganisation der Europäischen Union, vehement widersetzte. Der Autor vertritt die These, dass die gewandelte Weltsicht des DPT auf zwei unterschiedlich ausgeprägte Wahrnehmungen der türkischen Nation und ihrer Entwicklung zurückzuführen war, und ordnet diese in die Geistesgeschichte der ambivalenten Haltung der Türkei gegenüber dem Westen ein. Der Beitrag liefert damit eine historische Fallstudie zu einem ideologischen Zusammenstoß zwischen Modernisierung und Dependenztheorien der Entwicklung.
1 For institutional analyses see Akçay, Ümit, Kapitalizmi Planlamak: Türkiye’de Planlama ve DPT’nin Dönüşümü (Istanbul: Sosyal Araştırmalar Vakfı, 2007)Google Scholar; Aral, Farhi, ed., Planlı Kalkınma Serüveni: 1960’larda Türkiye’de Planlama Deneyimi (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2003)Google Scholar; İlkin, Selim and İnanç, E., eds, Planning in Turkey (Ankara: METU, 1980)Google Scholar; Küçük, Yalcın, Planlama, Kalkınma, ve Türkiye (Istanbul: Tekin Yayınları, 1978)Google Scholar; Mortan, Kenan and Çakmaklı, Cemil, Geçmişten-Geleceğe Kalkınma Arayışları (Istanbul: Altın Kitaplar Yayınevei, 1987)Google Scholar; Sezen, Seriye, Devetçilikten Özelleştirmeye Türkiye’de Planlama (Ankara: TODAIE, 1999)Google Scholar; Türel, Octar, ed., Two Decades of Planned Development in Turkey (Ankara: METU, 1981)Google Scholar; Ünay, Sadık, Neoliberal Globalization and Institutional Reform: The Political Economy of Development Planning in Turkey (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2006)Google Scholar.
2 This is not least because many of the accounts have been produced by former SPO technocrats who resigned from the organisation after bitter political conflicts during the early 1960s. The list is long and includes the founding cadre of the SPO, who have widely published their views on the SPO beginning with their influence on the statist-socialist magazine Yön through involvement in the Socialist Culture Association (Sosyalist Kültür Derneği), into the 21st c. where they are still organising conferences on the subject. See Attila Sönmez, ‘Kalkınma Trenini Nasıl Kaçırdık?’, Turkishtime, 5 Mar. 2004; Arif, Planlı Kalkınma; Besim Üstünel, head of the Economic Planning Department of the SPO in 1963, Besim Üstünel, Cumhuriyet 14 Aug. 1976, 2.; Yalçın Küçük, head of Long-Term Planning in the SPO (1963–5), Küçük, Planlama.
3 Ünay, Neoliberal Globalization, 85.
4 Sezen, Türkiye’de Planlama, 45.
5 Preston, P.W., Development Theory: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 154Google Scholar and Ünay, Neoliberal Globalization, 10.
6 Tekeli, İlhan and İlkin, Selim, Türkiye ve Avrupa Topluluğu II (Ankara: Ümit Yayıncılık, 1993), 12–13Google Scholar.
7 Türkcan, Ergun, Türkiye’de Planlamanın Yükselişi ve Çöküşü: 1960–1980, (Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010), 230Google Scholar.
8 The first fruit of this shift in regard to Turkey was the visit of the West German economics minister, Professor Erhard, to Ankara in 1959. See Aral, Planlı Kalkınma, 23.
9 Sezen, Devetçilikten, 47.
10 United Nations, A Handbook of Public Administration, (New York: United Nations Press Office, 1961), 93Google Scholar.
11 Burçak Keskin Kozat, ‘Negotiating Modernization through U.S. Foreign Assistance: Turkey's Marshall Plan (1948–1952) Re-Interpreted’, PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 2007, 245.
12 Oğuz, Burhan, Yaşadıklarım, Dinlediklerim: Tarihi ve Toplumsal Anılar (Istanbul: Simurg, 2000), 448Google Scholar.
13 A trend also observed in other recipients of Marshall Aid, notably Italy and Ireland. Kozat, Negotiating, 264.
14 Boratav, Korkut, Türkiyeʾde Devletçilik 1923–1950: İktisadi Düşünceler ve İktisadi Mevzuat (Ankara: Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Maliye Enstitüsü, 1963)Google Scholar and http://discovery.lib.harvard.edu/?itemid=%7Clibrary/m/aleph%7C004504745 (accessed 23 July 2013).
15 Özbilgen, Erol, Pozitivizmin Kıskacında Türkiye (İstanbul: Ağaç Yayıncılık, 1994)Google Scholar and http://discovery.lib.harvard.edu/?itemid=%7Clibrary/m/aleph%7C007703285 (accessed 23 July 2013).
16 See Krueger, Anne, Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Turkey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.
17 Attila Sönmez, ‘The Reemergence of the Idea of Planning and the Scope of Targets of the 1963–1967 Plan’, in İlkin and İnanç, eds, Planning, 30.
18 Ahmad, Feroz, The Turkish Experiment in Democracy: 1950–1975 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1977), 123–40Google Scholar.
19 See Okyar, Osman, ‘Türkiye’de Devletçilik ve Liberalism’, Forum, 1, 8, (15 July 1954)Google Scholar; Okyar, Osman, ‘Planlı Iktisat Rejimi’, Forum, 2, 16, (15 Nov. 1954)Google Scholar.
20 Erdemir, M., ed., Muhalefette İsmet İnönü 1950–1956 (Istanbul: Sıralar Matbassı, 1956), 330Google Scholar.
21 Ahmad, Turkish Experiment, 163.
22 Mortan and Çakmaklı, Geçmişten-Geleceğe, 78.
23 Milli Birlik Komitesi, Constitution of the Turkish Republic: 1961, tr. S. Balkan and K. Karpat, Middle East Journal, (1962), 15–38.
24 The breath of reforms to be undertaken by the SPO is indicative of this modernising mission. The initial vision of the planners encompassed the complete reorganisation of state economic investments, a new tax code, and a hitherto elusive land reform, all with the intent of equalising income between regions and classes. In addition to these economic measures, the planners placed great emphasis on education, as the key to equal opportunity, as well as on the health sector, in which they called for the socialisation of health services and population policies such as birth control and family planning. See Necat Erder, in Aral, Planlı Kalkınma, 8–9.
25 Yalçın Küçük, ‘On the Development of the Concept of Planning in Turkey’, in Türel, ed., Two Decades of Planned Development.
26 See Vedat Milor, ‘The Genesis of Planning in Turkey’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 4 (Fall 1990), 11.
27 Mıhçıoğlu, Cemal, Devlet Planlama Teşkilatının Kuruluş Günleri, (Ankara: AÜSBF Yayınları, 1983), 229–57Google Scholar.
28 Türkcan, Türkiye’de Planlamanın Yükselişi ve Çöküşü, 235.
29 Çilingiroğlu, in Aral, Planlı Kalkınma, 34.
30 Türkcan, Türkiye’de Planlamanın Yükselişi ve Çöküşü, 197, 235.
31 Türkcan, Türkiye’de Planlamanın Yükselişi ve Çöküşü, 229.
32 The Justice Party was founded in 1961 as the successor to the DP closed by the NUC.
33 Küçük, Planlama; Akçay, Kapitalizmi Planlamak; Ünay, Neoliberal Globalization, Mortan and Çakmaklı, Kalkınma Arayışı; Sezen, Devletçilikten.
34 See Yön, 6 Feb. 1963, 4 Mar. 1966; Forum, 1 Oct. 1963; Cumhuriyet 18 Nov. 1965. In 1967, Turgut Özal, appointed by the PM, Demirel of the JP, was brought in as the undersecretary of the SPO to oversee both the planners and the planning process.
35 Cumhuriyet, 4 Feb. 1966.
36 Mortan and Çakmaklı, Kalkınma Arayışı, 233.
37 European Economic Community: EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Protocols, and Other Basic Texts (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1992) and http://discovery.lib.harvard.edu/?itemid=%7Clibrary/m/aleph%7C002799273 (accessed 23 July 2013).
38 This reasoning, and reassurances of the possibility of withdrawal if Turkey was not economically competitive come accession, were largely responsible for the few lines allotted to EEC integration within the plan itself. See Karaosmanoğlu, in Aral, Planlı Kalkınma, 62 and DPT, Kalkınma Planı – Birinci Beş Yil (Ankara: Başbankanlık Devlet Matbaası, 1963).
39 From the viewpoint of post 1980s liberalisation, ISI seems like a conscious and often nationalistic policy choice in the face of globalisation. What this a-historical categorisation omits, however, are the material and ideational limits of policy options open to developing countries in the early 1960s. Turkey, like many other peripheral economies, was simply not manufacturing many goods, so it had little, if anything, to export. Additionally, advanced industrial countries, while removing barriers to trade among themselves, continued to maintain high tariff and quota systems towards imports from the developing world, effectively shutting off the most readily available demand for export-oriented growth. See Sönmez in Aral, Planlı Kalkınma, 38. Within the conditions of 1960 Turkey, the question of striking a balance between ISI and export-led growth was non-existent. As Ayhan Çilingiroğlu of the SPO put it, ‘in a country that has to import its picks and spades, and import them from Czechoslovakia no less, what were we going to sell?’ See Çilingiroğlu in Aral, Planlı Kalkınma, 36.
40 Barkey, Henri, The State and the Industrialization Crisis in Turkey (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press 1990), 70Google Scholar.
41 DPT, Turkiye’nin Ortak Pazar Tam Üyeliğini Hazırlayıcı Sanayileşme İhtiyacı, Gerekçe, DPT 538-İPD 211 (Ankara: DPT, 1968).
42 Döşemeci, Mehmet, Associating Turkey with Europe, PhD thesis, Columbia University, 2008, 30–79Google Scholar.
43 A. Cemal, Cumhurriyet, 22 Mar. 1974.
44 Keskin, Yildırım, Avrupa Yollarında Türkiye (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 2001), 89Google Scholar.
45 Çalış, Şaban, Türkiye – Avrupa Birligi İlişkileri (Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, 2003), 135Google Scholar.
46 Ürünlü, Çoşkun, Ortak Pazara Geçiş Dönemi Şartları (Ankara: DPT: 1970)Google Scholar.
47 Milliyet, 5 Mar. 1978.
48 Particularly the Latin American Structuralist school typified by the work of Raul Prebisch, Celso Furtado and Anibal Pinto at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America.
49 Ürünlü, Ortak Pazara, 17.
50 See Dilik, S., ‘Piyasa Ekonomisi, Plan Ekonomisi, ve Geri Kalmiş Memleketler’, SBF Dergisi, 20/1 (1965), 35–62Google Scholar; N. Kaldor, Azgelişmiş Ülkelerde Endüstrileşme Sorunu’, T. Tayanç, tr., Planlama Dergisi, 9 July 1970; Hamitoğluları, B., ‘İktisaden Azgelişmiş Ülkeler İcin Nasıl Bir Plan Gerekir?’ SBF Dergisi, 21/3 (1966), 91–124Google Scholar; Kaya, A. Ö., ‘İktisaden Geri Kalmış Memleketlerde Planama’, SBF Dergisi, 15/1 (1961), 36–61Google Scholar.
51 Sezen, Devletçilikten, 152.
52 Türkeş, Mustafa, ‘The Ideology of the Kadro Movement: A Patriotic Leftist Movement in Turkey’, in Kedourie, S., ed., Turkey Before and After Atatürk (London: Frank Cass, 1999)Google Scholar.
53 DPT, Ortak Pazar Geçiş Dönemi Sorunları (Ankara: DPT, 1970)Google Scholar.
54 Ali Sait Yüksel, Ortak Pazar İle Münasebetlerimizin Durumu Hakkında Not, DPT archive 337.142 09561 YÜK, 1970.
55 Ölçen, Ali Nejat, Devletin Yokuşu (Ankara: Doruk Yayınları, 1996), 205Google Scholar.
56 Recent scholars, while admitting that Turkey was never colonised, have drawn parallels between the construction of Turkish nationalism and those of post-colonial states. See Akhisa, Meltem, ‘Occidentalism: The Historical Fantasy of the Modern’, The South Atlantic Quarterly, 102, 2–3 (2004), 351–79Google Scholar; Döşemeci, Associating Turkey; Moore-Gilbert, Bart, Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics (London: Verso, 1997)Google Scholar.
57 Chatterjee, Partha, The Nation and its Fragments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 206Google Scholar.
58 Ibid. 203.
59 DPT, Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı Hakında Bilgi, DPT archive 338.9’060’561 DEV b, 1961.
60 DPT, Uzun Vadeli Yeni Strateji, DPT archive 338.9’060’561 BAS d, 1974.
61 Ottoman foreign minister who presided over the Anglo-Turkish Trade Agreement
62 Çalış, Türkiye – Avrupa, 134.
63 Keskin, Avrupa Yollarında, 93.
64 Tekeli and İlkin, Türkiye ve Avrupa Topluluğu (Ankara: Ümit Yayıncılık, 1993), 15.
65 Sezer, Duygu, Kamu Oyu ve Dış Politika (Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1972)Google Scholar.
66 Ecevit, Bülent, Dış Politika (Ankara: Ajans-Türk Matbaacılık Sanayii, 1976), 83Google Scholar.
67 Yön, 6 Mar. 1963.
68 Yön, 6 Feb. 1963; 13 Feb. 1963; 6 Mar. 1963.
69 Aren, Sadun, TİP Olaylari, 1961–1971 (Istanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1993), 64–6Google Scholar.
70 Millet Meclisi Tutanak Dergisi D:2 T:4 C:34 19.12.1969, 51.
71 Soysal, Mümtaz, ‘Planlama ve Demokrasi’, Planlama, I (Fall 1961), 63–7Google Scholar.
72 Ceyhan, Hasan, Ortak Pazar ve Türkiye (Istanbul: DİSK Yayınları, 1974), 114Google Scholar.
73 Devlet, 22 Dec. 1969.
74 Birliği, Ülkü Ocakları, Ortak Pazara Hayir (Ankara: ÜOB Yayınları, 1969)Google Scholar.
75 Millet Meclisi Tutanak Dergisi D:3 T:4 C:1 15/5/1970, 737–53 and D:5 t:1 C:16 29/7/1980, 717–18.
76 İlkin, Selim, ‘A History of Turkey's Association with the European Community’, in Evin, A. and Denton, G., eds, Turkey and the European Community (Opladen: Leske and Budrich, 1990), 41Google Scholar.
77 Makina Mühendisler Odası Ortak Pazar Komisyonu, Ortak Pazar ve Turkiye (Istanbul: MMO Yayını, 1970).
78 Milliyet, 17 Mar. 1970.
79 Keyder, Çağlar, Ulusal Kalkınmacılığnın İflası (Istanbul: Metis Yayınları, 1993)Google Scholar.
80 Ünay, Neoliberal Globalization, 213.
81 Roxborough, Ian, Theories of Underdevelopment (London: Macmillan, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
