Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T13:24:17.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of the Environment in Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Fikret Adaman
Fikret Adaman*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Boğaziçi University, e-mail: adaman@boun.edu.tr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper aims to propose a political economy framework to analyze environmental problems in Turkey. A political economy approach seems to be the appropriate way of investigating environmental issues, as not only are economy and the environment interwoven entities, changes in one affecting the other, but also collective actions are almost always required in dealing with such problems. With this integrated approach one can thus better understand the causes of such a degradation and subsequently search for the economic and political conditions that are conducive to halt environmental degradation.

Despite its theoretical and implementational problems, conventional economic theory has a well developed body of tools for examining environmental degradation, i.e. pollution and overuse of natural resources. But the theory assumes the existence and competence of a rather sterile political authority which enforces corrective measures. The corollary of this assumption is that the enforceability of these measures will become lax should there exist various forms of government failures. This paper will focus on Turkey as an example of a country where such government failures have been a priori accepted.

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 17 , fall 1997 , pp. 129 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adaman, F. 1995. “Çevre İktisadında Temel Kavramlar ve Türkiye'de Çevre Mevzuatı”, mimeo, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Adaman, F. 1996. “The Socio-Economic Dimension of the Belek Coastal Zone Management Plan”, report prepared for the Association for the Protection of Nature, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Adaman, F. and Sertel, M.R. 1997. “The Changing Role of the State: the Turkish Case”, in Handoussa, H. (ed.), Economic Transition in the Middle East. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, pp. 167–182.Google Scholar
Aydın, Z. 1995. “Sustainable Development and Environment: A Theory in the Making”, Boğaziçi Journal, 9(2), pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
Avenell, S. and Thomson, H. 1997. “Competitive Markets and the Environment: A Critical Examination of Orthodox Economics”, Democracy and Nature, 3(3), pp. 106–128.Google Scholar
Beder, S. 1997. “The Environment Goes to Market”, Democracy and Nature, 3(3), pp. 90–105.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, N.J. 1982. “Directly-Unproductive Profit-Seeking (DUP) activities”, Journal of Political Economy, 90, pp. 988–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhagwati, N.J. 1987. “Directly-Unproductive Profit-Seeking (DUP) activities”, in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Braden, B.J. and Kolstad, C.D. (eds.). 1991. Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Brechin, R.S. and Kempten, W. 1994. “Global Environmentalism: A Challenge to the Postmaterialist Thesis?”, Social Science Quarterly, 75(2), pp. 245–269.Google Scholar
Buchanan, M.J. and Tollison, R.D. (eds.). 1984. Toward A Theory of Rent-Seeking Society. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Cadot, O. 1987. “Corruption as a Gamble”, Journal of Public Economics, 33, pp. 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çarkoğlu, A. 1996. “Turkish Data on Election Manifesto of Political Parties Represented in the Parliament”, report prepared for the Manifesto Research Group of the European Consortium for Political Research, at Science Center (Berlin).Google Scholar
Coase, R.H. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3, pp. 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, F.J and Van der Straaten, J. 1992. “Rethinking Environmental Economics: Missing Links between Economic Theory and Environmental Policy”, Journal of Economic Issues, 26(1), pp. 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., George, H.G. and Gallup, A.M. 1992. The Health of the Planet Survey: A Preliminary Report on Attitudes on the Environment and Economic Growth Measured by Surveys of Citizens in 22 Nations to Date. A George H. Gallup Memorial Survey, The George Gallup International Institute, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Ergüder, Ü., Esmer, Y. and Kalaycıoğlu, E. 1991. Türk Toplumunun Değerleri, Istanbul: TÜSİAD.Google Scholar
Environmental Profile of Turkey. 1995. Ankara: Türkiye Çevre Vakfı.Google Scholar
Geddes, B. 1994. Politician's Dilemma. Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, R.W. and Stavins, R. 1992. “Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection: Integrating Theory and Practice”, American Economic Review, 82(2), pp. 464–468.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. 1968. “The Tragedy of Commons”, Science, 162, pp. 11–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Hotelling, H. 1931. “The Economics of Exhaustible Resources”, Journal of Political Economy, 39, pp. 137–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keleş, R. and Hamamcı, C. 1993. Çevrebilim. Ankara: İmge.Google Scholar
Klingaard, R. 1988. Controlling Corruption. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, O.A. 1990. “Government Failures in Development”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), pp. 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, O.A. 1994. “Economists' Changing Perceptions of Government”, Weltwirtschaftliche Archive, 127, pp. 417–431.Google Scholar
Nalbant, A. 1993. “Çevre Hakkı”, in Haklarımız. Istanbul: Helsinki Yurttaşlar Derneği.Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1965. Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, D.W. 1993. Economic Values and the Natural World. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Pearce, D.W. and Turner, R.K 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Pigou, A.C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S. 1987. “Bribery”, in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
SIS: State Institute of Statistics. 1992. Belediye Katı Atık İstatistikleri 1991, Ankara.Google Scholar
SIS: State Institute of Statistics. 1997. Turkey in Statistics 1996, Ankara.Google Scholar
Somersan, S. 1993. Türkiye'de Çevre ve Siyaset, Istanbul: Metis.Google Scholar
Strateji, /Mori, 1997. “Türkiye'nin Nabzı: Aylık Siyasi ve Ekonomik İndikatörler Araştırması”, 5-15 July 1997.Google Scholar
Sunar, I. 1996. “State, Society, and Democracy in Turkey” in Mastny, V. and Nation, R.C. (eds.), Turkey between East and West. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Turner, R.K., Pearce, D., and Bateman, I. 1994. Environmental Economics. London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Volkens, A. 1990. “Content Analysis of Party Programmes in Comparative Perspective: Handbook and Coding Instructions”, mimeo, University of Exeter.Google Scholar