İkinci dünya savaşı sonrasında ABD`nin dış yardım politikası ve çevrede bağımlılığın kurumsallaşması: Türkiye ve Hindistan karşılaştırması (1947-73)

the US Foreign Aid Policy and The Institutionalization of Dependency in the Periphery:Turkey and India Compared(1947-73)Leyla ŞENDepartment of HistorySupervisor: Asst. Prof. Oktay OzelFebruary 2003The US Foreign Aid Policy and the Institutionalization of Dependency in the Periphery:Turkey and India Compared (1947-73) analyzes the socio-political determinants in Turkeyand India those led to unattainment of the ultimate objective of the development policies inthe post-WW2 era. In both countries, development endeavors are regarded as successconcerning the realized growth levels, but as failures with respect to equality in incomedistribution, welfare at grassroots and the degree of self-reliance, that is the ability to developalternatives when facing with various kinds of obstacles impeding full-capacity functioning ofthe sectors. Despite their differences in natural resources, class dynamics and industrializationlevels Turkey and India faced similar deficiencies in their development endeavors. Thediagnosed prevailing deficiencies can be explained by the disguised forces of politicaleconomy.In the scope of the study, these disguised forces are defined as inner and external dynamics.While the inner dynamics indicate the ruling elite coalition of Turkey and India, the externaldynamics refer to the center countries, particularly to the superpower of the `free world? bloc,the USA and the main mechanisms of the capitalist economic order that the center countriescreated in the post-WW2 era. Categorization of these dynamics is done with respect tostrategic considerations rather than technical ones in accordance to the key hypothesis of thestudy, which argues the unsatisfying outcomes of the development endeavors, are due to theinterplay of inner and external dynamics.As the problematic aspect of the process is related to resource allocation, capital accumulationand divergences in the national development priorities, inner dynamics are limited to theruling elite coalition. In both countries the ruling elite coalitions had a considerable success inemasculating the policies challenging their interests, led divergences in the nationaldevelopment objectives by their interest-orientation, and launched strategies for their ownwellbeing. Inefficient tax systems, failing land reform policies, sabotaged communitydevelopment attempts in rural areas, allocation of scarce resources to unproductive but quickprofit earning sectors, ceaseless flow of public resources in various forms are among theprimary strategies of the ruling elite coalition.The external dynamics are restricted to the superpower of the `free world? bloc due to itshegemony in the immediate post-WW2 era, its policies such as foreign aid which wasdesigned to reinforce its stance in the international arena and its being one of the arch shaperof the course of the Cold war. By these, the USA, in one way or another, contributed greatlyto the unattained development objectives, at least in the case of Turkey and India. In contrastto the claim of breaking the `vicious circle of poverty` in the less developed countries throughforeign aid, the USA and main instruments of the capitalist economic order by theirmechanical approach contributed to the reinforcement of the `vicious circle of dependency`.Keywords: Cold War, Foreign Aid, Underdevelopment, Dependency, Center-Periphery,Development, Political Economy, Ruling Elite Coalition, Superpower