https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4541-6686
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Turkey’s per capita income was nearly three times South Korea’s in 1962. Dramatic change has been observed since then. South Korea has transformed into an innovative economy approaching the global technology frontier in only a few decades. Turkey, on the other hand, has attained limited success with missed opportunities and has fallen behind. This article asks why this spectacular success was observed in South Korea, but not in Turkey. It seeks an answer by concentrating on certain variables that may explain this outcome. Assuming that primarily different types and capacities of societies and states explain the variations in economic performance, the article examines in particular, the institutional foundations of Turkish and Korean societies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 World Bank, World Bank National Accounts.
2 Lajčiak, “South Korean.”
3 See for instance, Ataç and Becker. “Turkey”; Sarfati, “How Turkey’s Slide”; Cagaptay, The New Sultan; and Yalman et al, “Introduction.”
4 İbid.
5 İbid.
6 Ahmad. The Making, 79.
7 Özdalga, The Veiling Issue, 3.
8 Hershlag, The Contemporary Turkish Economy, 17.
9 Kirkpatrick and Öniş, “Turkey,” 10.
10 The average annual growth rate of GNP was 7.0 per cent, while the average growth rate of industrial production was 9.0 per cent.
11 Zurcher, Turkey, 5.
12 Hershlag, The Contemporary Turkish Economy, 23.
13 Aşıkoğlu and Uçtum, “A Critical Evaluation,” 1501.
14 Kirkpatrick and Öniş, “Turkey.”
15 Şenses, “Structural Adjustment Policies,” 12.
16 Cizre and Yeldan, “The Turkish Encounter.”
17 Öniş and Şenses, “The New Phase,” 6-7.
18 Öniş and Kutlay, “The Anatomy.”
19 Ibid.
20 Cumings, “Korea, A Unique Colony.”
21 Mason, “The Economic and Social,”75.
22 Amsden, Asia’s Next Giant, 32.
23 Woo, Race to the Swift, 41.
24 Westphal et al., “Reflections,” 182.
25 Steinberg, The Republic of Korea, 126.
26 Cole and Lyman, Korean Development, 24.
27 Koo and Kim, “The Developmental State,” 24.
28 Overholt, “Park Chung Hee’s.”
29 Lajčiak, “South Korean.”
30 Overholt, “Park Chung Hee’s,” 4.
31 Guimaraes, “State Capacity.” 5.
32 Kang, “Bad Loans.”
33 Appelbaum and Henderson, States and Development, 115.
34 Gong, The Conflict, 31-41.
35 Erdoğdu, “The Developmental Capacity.”
36 Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism.
37 Amsden, Asia’s Next Giant, 38.
38 You, “Explaining Corruption.”
39 Sakong, Korea in the World, 9.
40 Hale, The Political, 259.
41 Ataç and Becker, “Turkey.”
42 Castells, “Four Asian Tigers,” 57.
43 Greif and Rubin, “Political Legitimacy.”
44 Levi, Sacks, and Tyler, “Conceptualizing Legitimacy.”
45 Weber, Basic Concepts, 71.
46 Ibid, 75.
47 Grabowski, “The Successful Development,” 414.
48 Kobayashi and Kobayashi, “Government Promotion,” 25.
49 Leudde-Neurath, “State Intervention.”
50 Dodd, Politics and Government, 32.
51 Castells, “Four Asian Tigers,” 56-57.
52 Ibid.
53 Turner and Hulme, Governance, 88-90.
54 Evans, Embedded Autonomy.
55 Rauch and Evans, “Bureaucratic Structure.”
56 Guimaraes, “State Capacity,” 51.
57 According to Robinson (High Level Manpower), there has not been a strict attention to selectivity in Turkey for the recruitment of public servants. Of the total 268,913 national government employees in 1964, 31.3 per cent entered without an examination, 29.4 percent by competitive examination, 7.4 percent by a qualifying examination, and 30.5 per cent by reason of obligatory service arising out of free government training (e.g., teachers).
58 Evans, Embedded Autonomy.
59 Robinson, High-Level Manpower, 108.
60 Kongar, 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye, 426.
61 Rueschemeyer and Evans, “The State,” 49.
62 Martinussen, Society, State & Market, 243.
63 Keyder, State and Class, 156.
64 Weiss, The Myth, 50.
65 Migdal, Strong Societies, 269-275.
66 Skocpol, “Bringing the State,” 9.
67 Trimberger, Revolution from Above.
68 Evans, Embedded Autonomy.12.
69 Dodd, Democracy and Development, 57.
70 Amsden, Asia’s Next Giant, 52.
71 You, “Explaining Corruption,” 39.
72 Erdoğdu, “Culture of Development.”
73 Auty, Patterns of Development:, 257.
74 Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol. “Introduction.”
75 Gerschenkron, Economic Backwardness, 29.
76 Tilly, “War Making,” 171.
77 In terms of income distribution a more progressive tax structure that places emphasis on direct taxation can be applied and tax base can be broaden by incorproting the informal sector.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
M. Mustafa Erdoğdu
M. Mustafa Erdoğdu is a Professor in the Faculty of Business and Administrative Sciences at Beykoz University, where he has also served as Dean since February 2023. He holds a PhD in Development Economics and an MA in Development Studies from Manchester University and an MA in Public Finance from Marmara University. He is co-chair of the International Conference of Political Economy; Associate Editor of The International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics; Editorial Board Member of Turkish Studies; and International Advisory Board member of International Journal of Sustainable Economies Management. He has written extensively on economic development and public finance. He is the author of one book, editor of twelve books, and author of over fifty journal articles and chapters. His major research areas are industrial policy, technological capability building, sustainable development, renewable energies, behavioral public finance, and financial crises.