International Political Economy (IPE), from the very beginning of its emergence as an academic field in the 1970s, have constantly tried to close the gap between economics and other social disciplines in general, and between economics and politics in particular. As the time passes, even different schools have developed different methodologies regarding the epistemology and ontology in IPE, the state-centric analysis has dominated the field during the Cold War period.[i]
In line with the developments in world political economy, the limited analytical capability of state-centric approach has started to be criticized. Accordingly, alternative approaches employed new research methods to include other societal actors like firms and NGOs into the state-market interaction. One of the leading IPE scholars who helped to enlarge the narrow analytical scope of state-centric analysis, in this regard, is Susan Strange.
In one of her articles written in 1991, Susan Strange challenged conventional wisdom of diplomacy in world affairs on the ground that relations between states are regarded as if they are being conducted in one dimensional (state-state relations) and with a limited number of actors (state representatives). Strange went on to argue that this one-sided approach to world political economy ignores the ‘dynamic’ nature of state-market nexus and regards the interaction as ‘mechanic’ and ‘static’. In fact, according to the British scholar, significant structural transformations occurred within the inter-state system and regarding the market dynamics after the second half of the 20th century. One of the most striking developments, in this context, was the emergence of firms (multinational, supranational, international, whatever) as important actors in world diplomacy. The firms have increased their power after 1970s, and they dilated their contacts towards the ex-Communist countries especially thanks to the capitalist transformation took part after the collapse of USSR.
Today, it is an indubitable fact that, the multinational firms have supply chains that go beyond the national boundaries and they have customer portfolios in almost every corner of the world. Parallel to the increase in their economic power, they also started to gain political clout in the sense that their capabilities in shaping the decisions taken by politicians have turned out to be an important field of inquiry.
As a result of all these developments, the classical one dimensional state-state diplomacy have become inadequate in understanding the complex nature of ‘who-gets-what’ game in the contemporary IPE. Instead, two new forms of diplomacy have emerged in the world political economy which Strange named as state-firm and firm-firm diplomacies.[ii]
In short, going beyond the classical bureaucratic-statist framework and incorporating new types of diplomacy is sine qua non to understand the 21st century world, and to conceptualize global transformations. This situation is valid for all countries in the world. From this point of view, Turkey and Turkey-EU relations is not an exception as well.
‘New Diplomacy’ and its Gravity for Turkey-EU Relations
Although the ‘new diplomacy’ discussions started at the beginning of the 1990s, neither the political leaders nor the scholars in Turkey paid enough attention to the issue. In other words, new dimensions of the global diplomacy were not scrutinized systematically. Not surprisingly, as a result, Turkey-EU relations were not reconceptualised from this point of view.
When the nature of EU-Turkey relations is examined, it becomes apparent that Turkish governments have almost always approached the relations from a bureaucratic-statist perspective and have not paid enough attention and effort to integrate the broader parts of the society into the process. This fact is most obvious from the businessmen’s point of view. Since economic elites in Turkey were not involved in the process, many turning points have been missed over the 46 years long history of Turkey-EU relations.
What Next?
Notwithstanding the Turkey-EU relations have lost its momentum partially thanks to the global financial crisis, the relations would most probably be repaired after the financial storm. Therefore, it is of vital importance for Turkey to develop a strategy for post-2009 period which takes the abovementioned transformation in the world political economy into consideration.
Integrating businessmen/firms into the process would make two important contributions to Turkey-EU relations, first one of which was explained within the context of ‘new diplomacy’ above. The second contribution would be in stabilizing the fragile nature of the relations. As known, EU’s approach to Turkey, and vice versa, is highly political and sometimes ‘irrational’ in the sense that the relations are heavily influenced from the emotions and motivations of the political figures. This makes the relations fragile and flimsy against the conjunctural fluctuations. Yet, the economic relations are most of the time based on the ‘cost-benefit analysis’ and stand on a relatively solid ground. In other words, the links established by the economic elites tend to be more ‘rational’ and sustainable vis-a-vis the patchy political relations. Moreover, the expansive logic of economic relations has the potential to pave the way for deeper integration opportunities. Given that the economic potential between Turkey and the EU member states is considerable and promising for the future, incorporating the firms into the EU membership process should be one of the primary concerns of Turkish governments.
In summary, the political economy of our world has gone underway of a significant transformation within the last three decades. Over this period, it became apparent that the classical state centric diplomacy and static analysis of the interstate system turned out to be obsolete. The firm-firm and state-firm relations have increased their gravity in the world political economy. In the same vein, this situation is also the case for Turkey-EU relations. Integrating the firms/businessmen into the process is not only beneficial for Turkey for smooth functioning and strengthening the relations, but also it is a necessity for the Turkish political elites in implementing a comprehensive strategy for Turkey-EU relations for the post-2009 period.
Mustafa Kutlay,
USAK Center for EU Studies
mkutlay@usak.org.tr
Footnotes
[i] For details, see: Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “An Introduction”, in Transnational Relations and World Politics, Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (eds.), Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973; John Stopford and Susan Strange, Rival States, Rival Firms: Competition for World Market Shares, Cambridge Studies in International Relations: 18, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Susan Strange, States and Markets, London: Pinter Publishers, 1988; Benjamin Cohen, International Political Economy: An Intellectual History, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008; Richard Higgott, “International Political Economy”, in Groom, AJR., and Light, M. (eds.), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, Pinter Pub Ltd, 1994.
[ii] Susan Strange, “An Eclectic Approach”, In Craig N. Murphy and Roger Tooze (eds.), The New International Political Economy, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1991, ss.13–14.
