257

Barif Karapmar, Fikret Adaman, and Gokhan Ozertan, eds. Rethinking *

Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank's *
Strategy. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2010, xiv + 401 pages. S
m
n
H
In recent years, there has been a proliferation ofjournalistic and academ- <
ic studies about the impact of globalization and neo-liberal policies on
the agricultural sector in Turkey. Despite their significant contributions, *
most of these accounts are problematic in terms of their conception of S
these processes. More often than not, neo-liberal globalization is viewed "
as a top-down, linear and coherent process that generates uniform rules,
institutions and practices across borders. Neither variegation and stra-
tegic shifts, nor ruptures and failures in the neo-liberal project receive
enough attention. 1
Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture aims to provide
a retrospective assessment of the Agricultural Reform Implementation
Project (ARIP) introduced in 2000-2001 as part of an I M F - and World
Bank-led structural adjustment program. Regarding the project as the
latest instance of attempts at restructuring Turkish agriculture along
neo-liberal lines, this edited volume asks whether the A R I P has fulfilled
its goal of reforming Turkish agriculture or whether it is "a failure of
the neoliberal doctrine" (p. 1). Moreover, the book claims to go beyond
a review of the A R I P to offer "a new, multidimensional policy agenda
encompassing the economic, environmental, technology, trade and law
aspects of agricultural and rural development" (p. 8).
In addition to the introduction and conclusion by the editors, the
book consists of six parts and eighteen chapters. T h e two chapters in
the first part explore the broader historical context within which the
A R I P was designed and put into practice. In Chapter 2, Caglar Keyder
and Zafer Yenal analyze rural transformation trends in Turkey in the
post-developmentalist era. They argue that the most important of these
trends is the rising prominence of non-agricultural incomes for rural
households. In addition, the authors maintain, labor-intensive and di-
versified agricultural production patterns have become more pervasive,
together with contract farming practices. Keyder and Yenal also note
that rural-to-urban migration has lost its pace, especially in the villages
of Western and Southern Anatolia where complex income-generating
activities, expanded transportation and communication services as well
as new consumption patterns have blurred the boundaries between ur-

1 For a powerful article that stresses the systematically uneven, contested and unstable character of
neo-liberal regulatory restructurings, see Neil Brenner et al., "Variegated Neoliberalization: Geogra-
phies, Modalities, Pathways," Global Networks: A Journal ofTransnational Affairs 10, no. 2 (2010).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Alabama, on 22 May 2017 at 14:23:36, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0896634600001412
 258 Book Reviews

ban and rural areas. Finally, the authors point out the necessity of new
= social policies addressing rural households, since the direct impact of
z agricultural support policies on rural livelihoods has decreased.
^ T h e only chapter in the third part, Chapter 7 by Ipek Ilkkaracan and
^ Insan Tunah deals with similar issues. They examine the effect of agri-
Si cultural transformation on the rural labor market over a period of five
5 decades, although they p u t emphasis on the A R I P era. Moreover, they
^ review the changes in the urban labor market in order to understand its
z capacity to absorb agricultural surplus labor. In this probably most in-
formative chapter, the authors show that in the A R I P period the decline
of agricultural employment quickened; the number of farms (mostly the
smallest ones) decreased while the average operational size increased;
and non-farm activities became more prevalent. However, they also draw
attention to the difficulties in the entry to non-agricultural employment
(especially for women), as evidenced by declining rural labor force par-
ticipation rates and rising rural non-agricultural unemployment.
If Chapter 2 is about rural restructuring, Chapter 3 by Fuat Keyman
is about state restructuring. Keyman argues that the process of global-
ization has weakened the role and effectiveness of the state in all areas,
including the agricultural sector, despite the long tradition of strong
state rhetoric. Unfortunately, he relates his discussion of the transforma-
tion of state-society relations only superficially to agriculture. H e does
not, for instance, analyze such vital aspects of state restructuring in ag-
riculture as public-private partnerships (PPPs), independent regulatory
bodies, and private standards. In addition. Part 1 also suffers from the
lack of a chapter offering a general account of the agricultural neo-lib-
eralization in Turkey with its successive but intermittent waves, failures
and turning points. 2
Part 2 (Chapters 4-6) focuses on the ARIP's political and economic
impacts on Turkish agriculture. Chapter 4 by Halis Akder is a good por-
trayal of how the A R I P was diluted in practice and failed to achieve its
objectives after the Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP, Justice and Devel-
opment Party) came to power. This is a valuable contribution since in
most studies on the neo-liberalization of agriculture in Turkey the usual
gap between reform plans on the one hand and actual government prac-
tices or the unintended consequences of reforms on the other is ignored.
Nevertheless, Akder seems to regard the contamination of techno-eco-
nomic rationality by politics as the reason for the failure of the ARIP,

2 For a fine account, see AN Burak Giiven, " R e f o r m i n g Sticky Institutions: Persistence and Change in
Turkish Agriculture," Studies in Comparative International Development 4 4 , no. 2 (2009).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Alabama, on 22 May 2017 at 14:23:36, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0896634600001412
 259

instead of acknowledging the political nature of all reform initiatives.

Such a problematic view of politics is also implicit in the next chapter -o
where Erol H . Cakmak and Hasan D u d u aim to estimate the quantifi- "
able impact of the A R I P through various transfer and agro-food indica- n
tors. In Chapter 6, Koray Caliskan and Fikret Adaman probe the logic <
of neo-liberal agricultural reform initiatives. In particular, they address
the weakness of the neo-liberal conception of the market. Considering *
its theoretical focus, this essay should have been given a higher rank in %
the sequence of chapters. Furthermore, it would have been better if the "
editors had included in this part an on-the-ground account of the ways
in which the A R I P affected rural livelihoods and farmers' survival strate-
gies.
Part 4 (Chapters 8-11) looks at the environmental dimension of rural
development. In Chapter 8, Ali Kerem Saysel delves into the projected
patterns of climate change and their impact on the agricultural sector
in Turkey. In Chapter 9, Zeynep Kadirbeyoglu and Gokhan Ozertan
study the devolution of water management to users through the Water
User Associations and its consequences for water use and farmers' live-
lihoods. In Chapter 10, Bans Karapinar examines how various stake-
holders in Turkey define sustainability and set their priorities when they
face trade-offs. Finally, Ziihre Aksoy analyzes the legal and institutional
framework in Turkey with regard to on-farm agrobiodiversity conserva-
tion.
O n e of the main arguments of this part is that policy-makers are
influenced by an economic bias, since they focus on narrow economic
goals, and neglect social and environmental concerns. T h e authors in
this part also problematize the neo-liberal vision of resource conser-
vation, which rests on the formation of private property rights and a
well-functioning market for natural resources. However, the positions
that they take on this matter differ. While Saysel and Aksoy criticize
policy choices that favor commodification and privatization instead of
enhancing the capacity of public institutions and empowering farmers,
Kadirbeyoglu and Ozertan suggest a combination of market formation
and decentralization together with state monitoring.
Consisting of six chapters, the fifth part (Chapters 12-17) is the lon-
gest section of the book. T h e writers in this part are concerned with
integrating Turkish agriculture into the global knowledge economy
through investments in new technologies (especially biotechnology and
information and communication technologies) and human capital. Us-
ing technology for social empowerment is, no doubt, a noble purpose.
Nonetheless, most chapters in this part are questionable in that they

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Alabama, on 22 May 2017 at 14:23:36, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0896634600001412
 26o Book Reviews

propose technological fixes to various social and environmental chal-

= lenges faced by Turkish agriculture, rather than radically transforming
z
the ways in which we produce and consume our foods. They do not ana-
2 lyze the socio-economic and political context within which technology
p is produced and distributed, and how this affects its uses and further
development.
2 An exception is Chapter 13 by Bans Karapinar and Michelangelo
^ Temmerman who draw attention to the growing knowledge gap be-
z tween developed and developing countries on the one hand and the pub-
lic and private sector on the other. They also highlight the domination
of intellectual property rights (IPRs) by big multinational corporations.
Yet, the authors do not really transcend the policy recommendations
of other chapters. They uncritically embrace P P P s as a solution to the
deficiencies of both the state and the market. T h e suggestion that poli-
cy-makers in Turkey should take advantage of the flexibilities provided
by the World Trade Organization ( W T O ) and the European Patent
Convention in order to tailor I P R s to local circumstances is important,
but the authors do not discuss in detail what this new model of IPRs
would actually look like. In this part, Zeynep Kivilcim's essay on the
legal framework for agrobiotechnology in Turkey (Chapter 14) and Mi-
chael Burkard's article about the regulation of biotechnology products at
the international level (Chapter 15) are instructive, although the former
has been outdated by the enactment of the Biosafety Law in Turkey in
March 2010.
T h e final part (Chapters 18 and 19) examines the international legal
framework for agricultural trade in regard to Turkey's obligations to the
W T O and the European Union ( E U ) . Chapter 18 by Christian H a e -
berli aims to shed light on the potential impact of the Doha Round on
Turkeys agricultural sector. Haeberli maintains that the likely outcome
of the Doha Round negotiations, as signaled in the "modalities" issued in
December 2008, would improve Turkey's agricultural export opportuni-
ties. However, the author holds, it would also necessitate substantial im-
port tariff reductions and result in further contraction of the domestic
policy space. In general, the chapter is a classic tale about the virtues of
trade liberalization and the gains from enhanced international competi-
tiveness, ignoring the potential social inequalities that would arise from
these processes. Sufian Jusoh's discussion (Chapter 19) of public and
private standards and how they influence farmers in developing coun-
tries (particularly horticultural producers in Turkey) is more sophisti-
cated and to some extent more critical. Felicitously, Jusoh points out the
fact that the proliferation of stringent food safety and other standards

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Alabama, on 22 May 2017 at 14:23:36, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0896634600001412
 26l

may harm and even eliminate small farmers in developing countries, "
who lack the necessary capital and information to adapt to them. Ac- <
cording to the author, "this is where the government may have to come "
in with assistance" (p. 368). These arguments apply also to Turkey, as n
it is an important exporter of horticultural products to Europe where <
standards become increasingly demanding and complicated.
O n the whole, Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture is *
an illuminating book with chapters on a wide range of issues, includ-
ing rural transformation trends, climate change, agrobiodiversity, biofu- "
els, and public and private standards. However, the book surfers from a
number of weaknesses. First of all, there is a significant disproportion
between the chapters devoted to the assessment of the A R I P itself and
those that claim to go beyond the A R I P to offer a new policy agenda.
While only three chapters (Chapters 4, 5, and 7) seriously look into the
practice and socio-economic consequences of the ARIP, twelve chapters
explore environmental, technological and commercial aspects of Turk-
ish agriculture, which are not directly related to the A R I P experience.
In other words, the book does not provide the readers with an adequate
evaluation of the A R I P itself.
Second, in contrast to its stated aims, the book does not satisfactorily
discuss what neo-liberalism is, what its varieties are, in what sense the
A R I P qualifies as a neo-liberal project, and in which aspects the poli-
cy proposals of the book go beyond neo-liberalism. T h e only chapter
explicitly defining neo-liberalism is the one by Caliskan and Adaman.
However, Caliskan and Adaman focus on the philosophical basis of or-
thodox neo-liberalism, overlooking the dramatic changes it has under-
gone since the late 1990s. These changes have been discussed by many
scholars under the banner of "Post-Washington Consensus" ( P W C ) . 3
T h e P W C agenda which took effect especially in the 2000s was a re-
sponse to the failures of prior market fundamentalism. T h u s , unlike
the crude neo-liberalism of the previous period, it gave strong emphasis
to the importance of building market-supporting institutions and on a
broad range of development goals such as sustainable growth, poverty
reduction, and participatory governance. 4

3 For instance, see Joseph Stiglitz, "The Post-Washington Consensus," in Initiative for Policy Dialogue
Working Paper (Columbia University, 2004); Erlend Krogstad, "The Post-Washington Consensus:
Brand New Agenda or Old Wine in a New Bottle?," Challenge 50, no. 2 (2007); Ziya Onis and Fikret
Senses, "Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus," Development and Change 36, no. 2
(2005).
4 Ali Burak Giiven, "Post-Washington Consensus in Action: Lessons from Turkey" (paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Political Science, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, June 4, 2008).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Alabama, on 22 May 2017 at 14:23:36, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0896634600001412
 262 Book Reviews

This brings us to my final point of criticism. As its subtitle suggests,

= the book claims to go beyond the World Bank's strategy and to offer a
z multi-dimensional policy framework for rural and agricultural develop-
2 ment in Turkey. Yet, neither the emphasis that the book puts on concerns
j:such as environmental sustainability, technological progress and the vi-
ability of small farmers, nor the neo-institutionalist position it takes in
5 order to realize these goals can be said to surpass the policy agenda of the
9 World Bank. 5 Thus, apart from a few truly critical chapters, Rethinking
z Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture is unable to go beyond the new
neo-liberal orthodoxy, although it endeavors to complement economic
goals with social and environmental concerns, and decries an excessive
belief in the so-called self-regulating market mechanism.

Kerem Morgiil
Bogazici University

Kerem Oktem. Angry Nation: Turkey since 1989. London: Zed Books,
2011

W h e n M a o was asked in the 1950s what the lessons of the French

Revolution were, he responded that "it was far too early to tell." Mao's
exaggerated answer indicates the difficulty of studying recent history.
T h e on-going historical process makes it rather difficult for social scien-
tists to comprehend the what is social. Kerem O k t e m tries to overcome
this difficulty with his comprehensive book Angry Nation: Turkey since
1989. In this study, he examines Turkey's recent history in terms of its
current political developments.
O k t e m asserts that there have been three key historic moments
in Turkish history since 1980, which are all intertwined with global
historical transformations. T h e first moment is the military coup of
1980; the second is the year 1989 when the election of Turgut Ozal as
civil president coincided with the collapse of the Eastern block; and the
third is 9 / 1 1 , which created a discursive polarization between Islam

5 The growing interest by the mainstream development thinking in the importance of institutions for
the effective functioning of markets and in new development goals can be observed, for instance, in
World Bank, "World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World," (Washington, D.C.:
World Bank, 1997); World Bank, "World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets,"
(Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2001); World Bank, "World Development Report 2003: Sustainable
Development in a Dynamic World," (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2002); World Bank, "World De-
velopment Report 2008: Agriculture for Development," (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2007).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Alabama, on 22 May 2017 at 14:23:36, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0896634600001412