Controversies And Continuities Between 1950 And 1950-1980

1257 Words6 Pages
There are many discontinuities and continuities between 1930-1950 and 1950-1980 so this is very difficult to determine to whether continuities or discontinuities are more important between these periods. Noting that one might easily argue otherwise, I would like to claim that the discontinuities outweigh the continuities between these two periods for several reasons. First of all, despite some similarities in the protectionism, the DP government followed a more agriculture-oriented and liberal economic policy than that of the RPP governments of 1930s. On the other hand, although the main economic policy followed in 1930s governments and governments between 1960-1980 was import substituting industrialization, while the former one followed the…show more content…
More specifically, import substituting industrialization became the most adopted economic development strategy in Turkey. However, there were some discontinuities between the state led import substituting industrialization in the 1930s and the adopted import substituting industrialization model during the 1960-1980 era. Although the economy policies after 1962 were placed in the planning basis with the development plans, these economic policies carried more different features than that of 1930s in terms of the distribution of the investments, the priorities of the sectors and the content of the industrialization. While the Muslim-Turkish bourgeoisie was weak to lead the economy in the 1930, the state took the responsibility of the industrialization, investing in the various sectors. On the hand other, the import substituting industrialization model during the 1960s and 1970s was led by the private…show more content…
First, it is not possible to determine the exact beginning and ending of these periods. For example, a more liberal economy trend had begun in 1947 during the RPP period before Democrat Party came to the power. Also, the protectionist policies had begun to be implemented in the mid-50s. Therefore, one might argue that the continuities are more important than the discontinuities between these periods. In response to this, without ignoring the continuities, I argue that the economic policies implemented during these periods served the interests of the different classes and created the different distribution relationships. While the etatism policy of the 30s aimed to strengthen the Muslim-Turkish urban bourgeoisie, the DP’ economic policies mostly served the interest of the merchant-rural bourgeoisie and between 1960-1980s, the government policies in the economy were mostly shaped by the alliances of the urban industrialists. Another important discontinuity between these periods was the populist policies. While the DP and its successors followed the populist policies, we can make the claim for the RPP governments of the Interwar period. In short, although I argue that the discontinuities are more important the continuities between these periods, the continuities are not
Get Access