A critically examine attempts of TÜSİAD to reconstruct the society through its discourse within the context of 24 th january and the following period

This PhD Dissertation critically examines TÜSİAD?s attempts to reconstruct economic policy instruments of state through its discourse within the context of 24th January Decisions and the following period. As it is known, economic activities are embedded in a social texture, which is composed of the task environment of the economic activity, the national business system and the interlocking institutions and network relations of the world system.In the first chapter of this study, the institutional structure of countries, which generates its own institutional logic, its historical patterns of authority and its national business systems are examined. The second part of this study examines the two restructuring periods in the World System and how Turkey was attached to that system and how the states were reconstructed in each period. The concept of `institutional entrepreneurship? was adopted to explain how TUSİAD attempted to reconstruct the state by breaking embedded institutional logic. Institutional entrepreneurship concept here is used in the sense of an actor who uses its resources to change embedded institutional arrangements when its interest is in contradiction with actual arrangements.In this study, Critical Theory of the Radical Humanist Paradigm was adopted as the investigation approach. Critical Discourse Analysis of Fairclough, which matched best with the basic assumptions of this study, is employed as the method of data analysis. As the research model, Benson?s dialectical perspective was adopted. The perspective was adapted into institutional theory as an investigation frame by Seo and Creed for overcoming ?embedded agency paradox?. This theoretical frame was tested in practice and was enlarged in away to include the change which was initiated by powerful actors.The results of the first part of the analysis showed that the discourse strategy of TUSİAD has been successful. It satisfies the pre-requisites of the concept of institutional entrepreneurship. It was evident that TÜSİAD, through its discourses, led to transformation of state?s economic policy instruments in Turkey. In the emergence of TÜSİAD as an institutional entrepreneur, it seems that its own position and various internal and external factors played a significant role. When the existing institutional arrangements were in contradiction with its interest, TÜSİAD resorted to such an attempt, with its institutional and social status helping it in materializing the change. TUSİAD did not manage this process alone. It was sort of a joint project with the political, military and international actors. The overlapping discourses of these actors support these findings. TÜSİAD also gained liberal intellectuals round in this attempt.TÜSİAD is a powerful actor embedded deeply in certain institutional arrangements and whose interest is aligned with existing rules, structures and practices. When it is exposed to various institutional contradictions, its hegemonic position is eroded in relation to other actors. Dialectic perspective proposes that actors with prestigious positions also may have been victimized under certain conditions. Continuous institutional contradictions triggered disengagement of TUSİAD from highly institutionalized norms and gave rise to its critical evaluations of current praksis and institutional arrangements.Strong institutional arrangements and tight coupling relations between international and national institutional structures and big bourgeoisie neither permitted gradual change nor enabled them to implement their own prescriptions. The burst of the crisis of world system deepened this crisis and triggered the collective action necessary for the change. TÜSİAD used the institutional contradictions exploitatively to mobilize the other actors and resources for change. The position of TÜSİAD in networks helped it in adopting the alternative institutional frame from heterogeneous contexts which was necessary for change, and in gaining supports of various actors.The results of the analysis of the second part showed that the issues appointed as problematical in TÜSİAD?s discourses have materialized as the new institutions and rules. The institutions of the new administrative structure were`Independent Regulatory Agencies? where the state shared power with market actors. In this way governance was centralized and personalized, the regulatory bodies were kept out of parliamentary control and the auditing of the state economic policy was handed over to the market mechanism.