Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
FROM “SEMI-PERIPHERAL WELFARISM” TO NEO-LİBERAL SOLUTIONS: WHAT ABOUT NEW PERSPECTIVES?- DEVELOPING WORLD AND TURKEY Sinan Sönmez Atilim University Department of Economics 06 836 Incek-Ankara/Turkey Tel. + 90 (312) 586 86 17 Fax. + 90 (312) 586 90 91 e-mail. [email protected] Presentation for RC 19 Conference on “Social Policy in a Globalizing World” September 6-8, 2007, Firenze Abstract: The social policies compatible on theoritical grounds as well as in practice –in developed capitalist countries- with the traditional –keynesian- social welfare state were subject to a conversion in the neoliberal globalisation context. Compared to relatively welldefined concept, characteristic of the industrialized countries the capitalist welfare state had different characteristics in semi-periphery –so called emerging market economies- this is what we call “semi-peripheral welfarism” (SPW). It is not easy to give a precise and universal definition of SPW as it is rather a heterogenous concept; SPW varies according to regions and/or countries. But it is possible to point out the differences between the well-defined welfare state and the SPW. Nonetheless SPW is in conflict with the neoliberal arrangements. The aim of this paper is not only to explore the conflict between SPW and neoliberal policies but also to emphasize the conversion and convergence of the system under neoliberal rules. Within this framework social protection and modes of provision of public/social goods and services will be underlined by making special reference to Turkey. JEL Classification: H41, H44, H53, H55, I31 Key Words: Fordism, post-Fordism, peripheral-Fordism, semi-peripheral welfarism, social welfare, structural adjustment, post-peripheral fordism, market-led globalist welfarism,neoliberal(ism), globalisation, Turkey. 1 I. Introduction The term welfarism which was first introduced to economic literature by Hicks had been developed by Sen in the context of the debate on social justice. All of the theoritical approaches on welfarism deals with the welfare of the people or welfare of the society including the distribution of economic goods. Therefore a wide range of policies and arrangements must be taken into account in the measurement of the wellfare. In fact “a full consideration of taxes, subsidies, transfer programs, health care reform, regulation, environmental policy, the social security system and educational reform must ultimately address the question of how these policies affect the well-being of individuals” (Slesnick:1998: 2108). Moving from individual to societal level bring up the concept of social welfare and -social- welfare state. Social welfare encloses the welfare of the society but also the welfare of each individual.. The role of the state is primordial in formalizing the social welfare. Social welfare state in theory implies the provision of social or public goods by the public body at least regular quality as well as an equal consumption of these goods by the individuals This policy orientation implies a satisfying level of social expenditures which would be financed by the tax payers according to ability-to-pay principle. The idea and implementation of welfare state postulate and necessitate a certain compromise between antagonist classes and/or social groups by means of the political system which implements the social pact thereby social inclusion and cohesion But the sustainability of the welfare state depends on adequate demographic, economic and financial structures. The defect in financing the system could conduct to the collapse of the welfare state. In other words the problematic is to secure the coherence between social sustainability and fiscal sustainability. Behind the concepts of social pact, inclusion and cohesion stand the domestic as well as the external factors or mechanisms. İt means that the welfare state have been designed and implemented in the indusrialized world (Center) under specific economic, social and political conditions. The development and extension of welfarism during the keynesian demand management as from the end of the World War II to mid-1970s is not a coincidence (Arrighi, 1994). During this period. the fordist capital accumulation regime characterized by intensive accumulation and state intevention/regulation permitted the dominance of the welfare state in 2 the Center. Therefore rapid capital accumulation, high growth and the development of the social welfare was the case in “golden age” of capital accumulation. In the same period important differences occur between and among the developing countries, especially between Latin America –including Mexico- and Southeast Asia. This is due primordially to the nature of the industrialisation. In the first stage within the limits of the international divison of labour during the post-war period, the periphery was engaged to produce predominantly agriculture products and mineral extraction - primary commodities-. Neverthless during 1950s the developing countries, e.g. Latin America, have undertaken a process of import substitution industrialisation (ISI).. But later some peripheral countries adopted a new mode of industrialisation based on “export substitution strategy”; these economies were producing and exporting manufactured commodities. This transformation and new stategy are identified with a new regime known as “primitive” or “bloody Taylorism”. But later notably in the Southeast Asia the “bloody Taylorism” was replaced by the “peripheral Fordism”. Traditional ISI, “bloody Taylorism” and “peripheral Fordism” have an impact on the modeling of the social welfare system and policy. This model, despite the divergences between the countries, could be baptized as “semi-peripheral welfarism”(SPW). Towards the end of the period (end of 1970s or early 1980s) the peripheral fordism (capitalism) engendered an extreme inequity in income distribution, poverty, deficiency in the provision of public services, large budget/public deficits, heavy foreign debt burden which lead up at first to crisis, and then to stabilisation and structural adjustment policies under the auspices of the IMF and the support of World Bank. A large group of semiperipheral countries (Latin America and Turkey, etc) had been engaged to neoliberal policies by means of structural adjustment programs which are targeting the transformation of the economic-financial structures. In the neoliberal context strengthened by the Washington Concensus, the changing role of the state is concretized also by the transformation of the social policy and its convergence to neoliberal environment. The so-called“structural reforms” involve radical changes in social policies, i.e. social protection and mode of provision of public goods. Turkey among semi-peripheral economies represents a specific case. The economy is under the supervision of the IMF as from 1998, European Union and candidate for accession to negotiating the membership Turkish society is exposed both to “structural reforms” of the Bretton Woods institutions and the “reforms” of the EU. In Turkey the state is officially secular but the secularism is under risk because of the attitude of the islamic party holding the power. This party which has some reserves against the IMF 3 program and neoliberalism before accessing to power, showed no hesitation in adopting neoliberal policies after taking office. II. Fordism and Welfare State First remarque; the expression “relatively well-defined concept of welfare state” that we have used above do not exclude the different types of welfare regimes. Already EspingAndersen introduced the three types of welfare regimes for developed Western countries as corporatist/conservative, liberal and social-democratic. (Esping-Andersen, 1990; 1999). The corporatist one is work oriented and based on individual contribution. In this regime the public policy is reproducing the original social disparities (Germany, France, Austria) due to differences in class lines. Liberal regime is residualist; the public policy do not aimes to eliminate the economic disparities (USA, Canada, Australia). Social-democratic regime favours universalist values; adequate polices are formulated in order to eliminate economic and social disparaties (Scandinavian countries). By taking into consideration the crticisms to this approach, particularly the arguments supporting the different nature of the Southern European welfare regime, it would be reasonable to introduce a new category of welfare regime (Ferrara, 1996; Guillen and Marsaganis, 2000). Second remarque; the roles assigned to family, market, and state are different according to regimes. Therefore as pointed out by Esping-Andersen (1999, Table:5.4) in the welfare state the dominant locus as well as mode of solidarity shows important differences, and decommodification varies between a minimum and a maximum degree according regimes. Therefore the concept of welfare state may have different meaning, the content and the role designed to state vary; state production/provision/delivery of social goods and services or public-private mix in the provision of social protection, and dominance of the private solutions. In the criticisms to Esping-Andersen, the characteristics of the Southern European welfare regime are focused on the issues such as the extent of the social security coverage, the role of the state within the formal seurity syastem, the lack of social policies for combating the poverty, the structure of employment. By noting that the latter welfare regime is closed to “semi-peripheral welfarism”, we can confirm that the comparison between welfare systems could be done by making reference to; (i) Policy action of the governments. (ii) Resources used in the provision of welfare services but also the constraints. (iii) Rules and structures adopted by the states. (iv) The operation of benefits and services, (v) The final outcome. 4 These remarques point out that the use of a general and unique concept difficult and even bears some risques. Meanwhile is rather the common characteristic of the industrialised capitalist societies during the “golden age” of accumulation was the development –through different regimes- of the welfare state/social welfare. In a broader sense a social welfare program includes the provision of a wide range of social services by the public body such as: (a) Social insurance schemes, often based on income, to pay for the social welfare service being provided. These are often incorporated into the taxation systeme, i.e. income tax. (b) Pensions or other financial aid, including social security and tax relief, to those with low incomes or inability to meet basic living costs, especially those who are raising children, elderly, unemployed, injured, sick or disabled. (c) Health insurance, health and medical programs; hospital and medical care including child nutrition, welfare, protection; free or low nursing, and free natal and postnatal care. (d) Public employee retirement. (e) Free or low cost education – pre-school, elementary, secondary and higher education but also vocatonal and adult education-, scholarships or pensions, sometimes in the form of a suspensory loans to students attending academic institutions or undertaking vocational training. (f) Public housing to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly and persons disabled. Why the social welfare programs have been flourished, and/or developped, and implemented in the industrialized countries during the “golden age”? The nature and characteristics of the dominant Fordist capital accumulation regime and within this framework the appropriate domestic and external factors facilitated the engagement of the national economies to a growth path and converted the capitalist national states to welfare states. The dynamic synthesis of the domestic and external forces leads to the economic expansion and the governments adopt the appropriate social policy. But in this synthesis we can find the whole mechanism of imperialism i.e. transfer of surplus from periphery to central economies by means of trade, investment and financial policies Fordist regime signifies the combination of the intensive capital accumulation and mode of monopolistic regulation (whole range of procedures and institutions which insure the stability of the accumulation) under state guidance and control. In fact the state intervened both directly and indirectly in supporting capital accumulation As asserted by O’Connor (1973:6) –capitalist- state have to fulfill two basic but contradictory functions; to promote profit yielding capital accumulation and to legitimize the previous function by achieving 5 social cohesion.. Putting it differently the economic and technical requirements of the capital, i.e. necessity of an intensive capital accumulation and the political and social claims stipulating a certain social balance bring state interference.Therefore there is the possibility of reproducing the fundamental social relations of a given historical-institutional context. It means that the mode of monopolitic regulation reproduces the regime of intensive capital accumulation (Boyer and Saillard,1995: 546-547). Above all the rapid development of the productive forces, the nature of relations of production, the active state interventionism and the international economic relations are the main factors contributing to a rapid and sustainable capital accumulation. The periphery as a large market for the industrial goods produced in the center and acting as supplier of the primary commodities important contribution to accumulation of capital make an in the center. Another factor is the cooperation between USA, Western Europe and Japon concerning the diffusion and the control of the innovation. The Fordist accumulation regime was grounded upon a historically set of regulatory arrangements and political compromises that provisionally stabilised the conflicts and contradictions which are epidemic to capitalism (Aglietta, 1979; Boyer and Saillard, 1995). A historical compromise emerged between capital and labour in which wages were linked to gains in productivity and inflation. Simultaneously the eliminate the difficulties in valorization of capital. productivity gains permitted to The strong correlation between productivity and real wages prepared the permissive conditions for the growth . The working class benefitted from cooperation between capital and labour because of full employment and higher wages. In this context the institutionalized labour-management relations and the level of real wages allowed the labour force to become mass consumers of their mass production. The rise in purchasing power of working classs made easier to eliminate the constraints that the accumulation was subject under competitive markets Therefore mass production and mass consumption were effective by the transformation in the conditons of production and consumption. An important remark is to be done; all kind of welfare provisions combined with Keynesian demand management policies –including infrastructural investments and public employement- contributed considerably to this relatively autocentric mode of growth . In fact the social welfare state could not only considered as the outcome of the capitalism in a specific period of time but also necessary for the reproduction of the whole system (Sönmez, 2006) O’Connor points two categories of public expenditures; social capital spending and social expenses. Social capital-human capital is a form of social capital6 spending has two components, social investment and social consumption.. Therefore public expenditures can be classified in three groups (Gough,1979): (a) Social investment spending; the projects and services increasing or preventing a decrease in labour productivity. (b) Social consumption spending; projects and services reducing the cost of reproduction of the labour force. (c) Social expenses; projects and services contributing to social cohesion. Social capital spending makes a direct contribution to private capital by rising the rate of profit and accumulation. Social expenses have no effect on the production of surplus value but on the realization of value, therefore this categorie of expenses is corresponding to state’s legitimation function.(O’Connor, 1973:7; 2000:107) According to O’Connor as each public unit undertakes accumulation and legitimation, public expenditures involve both social capital spending and social expenses. Meanwhile the economic and political factors determine the scope of the state’s interference and therefrom the cıntent of the expenditures. Finally Fordist accumulation regime was characterised by the corporatist accomodations between capital, labour and leads to collective bargaining process. The monopolitic mode of regulation in which the state has a preponderant role enabled corporate concentration and centralization within major national industries, The governments were engaged in Keynesian demand management policies and social welfare programs. This accumulation process was impleemented in the context of a world economy guided by Bretton Woods institutions and dominated by the U.S. III. Path to Semi-peripheral Welfarism As emphasized above different welfare state regimes can be found within the developed countries, and “Europe is not homogenous and its lessons are plural. Indeed, Europe offers a natural and well-studied labouratory of differing social policy responses to broadly similar social problems” (Gough, 2005:18). But despite the differences in regimes, and social policies, the common denominator was the Fordist accumulation regime marked by state interventionism, strong protectionism with subsidies for domestic industries but also by the transfer of a surplus from periphery. III.1. Different Regimes of accumulation Concerning the semi-periphery –and periphery- there are considerable differences between countries concerning industrialisation, regime of accumulation, mode of regulation and social policies,. There is a risk in generalization as the semi-peripheral countries “looks 7 like a constellaton of special case.., the study of the economic and social history of each specific country, for the study of the modes of regulation, their forms of class alliance and their successive hegemonic sytems” (Lipietz, 1987:99). Before taking in hand the case of Turkey, it is necessary to capture the main properties of the regimes of accumulation in the semi-peripheral countries which would enable us to focus on the SPW. In fact the ISI, the“primitive” or “bloody Taylorism” and the “peripheral Fordism”. Have different aspects concerning accumalation. After the the big crisis of 1930s a large number of the developing countries (Latin America, Turkey) have already undertaken ISI. Especially during 1950s but also 1960s the ISI was considered as the efficient industrialisation strategy managing the economic development.. The ISI entails substitution of commodities-in easier phase non durables and than consumer durables, finally intermediate and investment goods- previously imported with domestic production. Neverthless the ISI strategy didn’t keep the developing countries from being producer and exporter of the primary commodities. Compared to ISI of 1930s, the new mode of industrialisation based on substitution of imports was dependent on foreign capital and finance. In other words in the leading countries of the South the ISI strategy was sustained by direct foreign capital inflows. The protection and stimulation of the infant industries (emerging manufacuring sector) by tariff barriers and/or quotas, but also by means of exchange rate controls and multiple exchange rate regimes as well as other fiscal incentives given by the government are the main elements of attraction for foreign direct investment or joint venture with the local capital. Therefore the foreign capital can pass the tariff barriers by investing directly or jointly in the peripheral economy. But compared to “primitive Taylorism” representing “export substitution” process, the enterprises are producing for the domestic market. Another important difference is relatif to the production; technology.used in labour saving technology is predominant in ISI process but under “primitve Taylorism” rather obsolete labour-intensive technology is used in the industrial process. In the years marked by the ISI policies one of the striking features of the peripheral countries is the migration from rural zones to the urban centers. The migration is accelerated in the following decades. Given the number of the migrants, the capacity of employment and the type of technology used in the production, the industrial sector could not absorbe the labour surplus. The capital accumulation process was based on low wages. The labour force was not considered as a component of the domestic demand, the consumer durables were 8 accessible not only for high income groups but also for middle-classe – group of white collars workers and high skilled labour force- therefore large fractions of the population were excluded from mass consumption.. Before explaining briefly the involved regimes of accumulation let’s go back once more to the most simplest definition of Fordism: Fordism is Taylorism plus mechanization. Adopted to underdeveloped countries the terms are converted to “primitive” or “bloody Taylorism” and “peripheral Fordism”. “Primitive/bloody Taylorism” more concretely signifies the delocalization of certain Taylorist type industrial activities towards peripheral and semi-peripheral economies with very high rates of exploitation of the labour force. (with regard to wages, the length and intensity of work hours, etc.).Notably the industrial activities constraint by low rates of profit and rather obsolete labour-intensive technology in the central economies were transfered to developing countries. Therefore the search for high rates of profit led multinationale firms to transfer the concerned industrial activities to these countries and multinational banks to finance the production process (Lipietz, 1987). The products being exported to the industrialised economies. The nature of the industrialisation and the necessary regulations for the sake of the accumulation reveals concretely the social context and high degree of exploitation. The technology used in the production process is labour-intensive and the technical composition of the capital is low. A cheap female labour is largely employed and the strategy incorporates all domestic patriarchal and other direct and indirect methods of labour repression; deregulation of the labour markets, formation of official trade unions, absence of civil rights, imprisonnement and torture of opponents. ”This strategy is “bloody” in the sense that Marx spoke of “bloody legislation” at the outset of English capitalism” (Lipietz, 1997:10) “Bloody Taylorism” was replaced by the “peripheral Fordism” by 1970s in some semi-peripheral countries. Before explaining this concept lets go back rapidly to the properties of industrialisation under Fordism. The mechanized mass production production process which is transformed through the assembly line techniques implied the division of the activities in three main categories: The first, conception, organization and engineering; the second, skilled manufacturing; the third; unskilled or low- and/or semi-skilled assembly. “Peripheral Fordism” is characterised by intensive accumulation and the expansion of the 9 markets for the consumer durables. In fact the industrial structure was characterised by the priority given to mass-produced consumer goods for exports. Therefore Fordism in these developing economies “remains peripheral in the sense that, in the global circuits of production, skilled labour remains largely outside the country in question. In addition, outlets correspond to a specific combination of local middle-class consumption,the growing consumption of durable goods by the workers and the export of low-price goods to the central capitalist countries”.(Lipietz, 1997: 10-11). The domestic market is principally marked by the rising purchasing power of the urban middle class the impact of the working class is not important. The labour force in these export-oriented economies were subject to a very intensive exploitation. Export promotion policies within the context of “peripheral Fordism” engendered an increasing social cost. III. Permissive Conditions for Semi-peripheral Welfarism The characteristics of the SPW can be emphasized by making reference to the factors contributing to its formation. Above all we have already seen that in the developed countries the capitalist state played the main role in promoting capital accumulation and legitimizing the previous function by achieving a certain social cohesion.. Therefore by trying to establish and than to secure the social cohesion the authorities were trying to reproduce the fundamental social relations of a given historical-institutional context. In the background of the concerned Fordist accumulation regime are standing the regulatory arrangements and political compromises. The internal economic, social and political structures constituted the permissive conditions for a profitable capital accumulation. The historical compromise between capital and labour not only contributed to this relatively autocentric mode of growth but also facilitated the legitimation of the accumulation process by means of convenient social policies and provision of social welfare services. Keynesian demand management policies combined with the welfare provisions contributed to economic growth . But also as an external factor developing economies contribute to economic performance of the central economies In fact developing countries had taken an active part in the international capital accumulation process by means of ISI policies based on foreign capital inflows, “bloody Taylorism” and “peripheral Fordism”. The role played by may vary according to regimes of accumulation semi- and peripheral countries which are characterised by their dependency - both economic, financial and political - to capitalist centers. These economies are articulated to world capitalist system by means of the regimes of accumulation as well. 10 The dominant regime of accumulation in the developing countries, economic- financial structures, the nature of the economic policies and the market-based social policy as well as the politcal regime and the dependency on external actors within the limits of the new international division of labour were decisifs in the development of SPW. In this context the defect in fiscal sustainability, neverthless sine qua non condition for the social welfare, played an important role in poor performance of the social welfare state. This defect is due not only to the state of underdevelopment – relative absence of tax-handles - and low income level per capita compared to industrialised economies but also to the imbalance of power between social classes or strates, therefrom the partiality of the state vis-a-vis the social classes, absence of progressive systems of redistributive taxation and the economic policies in favour of dominant classes/groups or alliance of classes. Some specific problems relative to underdeveloped economies as ineffective tax administration, inefficiency in state audit of public expenditures and highly extended informal economy also intervenes . More concretely “bloody Taylorism” and “peripheral Fordism” prepared the basis for the SPW Compared to standart Taylorism and Fordism, the regimes adopted in developing countries could not contribute to the development of relatively “standardized” social welfare; a rather distorted social state occurs through the economic-social-political-cultural structures of the developing countries. The concept of SPW and its implementation vary according to social formations and the regimes of accumulation. Within this context the nature of the political regime- whether democratic or authoritarian or military - is of primordial importance. These remarques keep us perhaps to give a well-defined concept of the SPW, neverthless it is more easier to emphasize the main characteristics of the term. In a broader sense the SPW do not present a well structured, large-scale social security system.. The pensions or other financial aids, including social security and tax relief are not developed and put in action in order to support those with low incomes or inability to meet basic living costs, especially those who are raising children, elderly, unemployed, injured, sick or disabled. Health insurance, health and medical programs; hospital and medical care including child nutrition, welfare, protection; free or low nursing, and free natal and postnatal care do not cover the whole population.. Neverthless the education is free and provided mainly by the state sector but the accesss to free and/or low cost education is controlled and/or restricted. . Public housing do not cover the low-income families, the elderly and persons disabled. but rather it is restricted to some public employees. Finally the accumulation regime(s) in developing countries do not allow for a social welfare 11 state but only to divers forms of SPW. In other words although the capitalist state takes an active part in the process of accumulation, there is no consistent social policy mix targeting the social cohesion but also rather coercive methods could be used for an “undemocratic legitimation”. The defective legitimation procedures as well as the coercive methods are the integral part of the SPW. By making reference to O’Connor and Gough it will be possible to argue that the social investment spending and the social expenses are not closedly coordinated and planified as well as the volume of the expenditures is far from the optimality in the developing world. Concerning the social expenses, even in a democratic context the defect in fiscality do not permits to mobilize the necessary resources necessary for sustaining a public policy consistent with the social cohesion. But in most of the cases, as already emphasized the social cohesion is not conceived as a target or an “undemocratic” persuasion of the working class is the case. As a matter of fact “bloody Taylorism” and “peripheral Fordism”, identified with the SPW, were implemented under undemocratic regimes, i.e. military junta or civil autoritarian govenments. In Latin America with a few notable exceptions, the number of military dictatorships climbed to ten in 1969, twelve in 1970, fourteen in 1972 and fifteen in 1973. Concerning Turkey we are observing the military intervention in March 1971, the formation of an authoritarian civil government under military control during 1971-1973 and the direct military take over in September 1980.. In Southeast Asia civil authoritarian regimes were frequent. Therefore during these years there is a precise shift from democracy and participation to authoritarianism and order. The case of post-1964 Brazil indicates that “the benefits of the new order accrued to a small alliance of domestic enterpreneurs and speculators supported by a techocratic-military middle class and their busines, political and military associates in the Northern core” (Nef, 2006). In this new order characterised successively by “bloody Taylorism” and “peripheral fordism” the bulk of the population- notably the working class- was demobilized and excluded. “Dictatorship became an intrinsec component of economic freedom” (Letelier, 1976:138). Dictatorship or authoritarian civil regimes or undenocratic governments in their discourse for “economic freedom” have eroded the civil, social and political rights. And adopted the market-based social policy. Finally some remarkable differences occur through the regimes of accumulation; the ISI could be outward-looking based on export promotion (Southeast Asia) or inward-looking without important links with international markets (Latin America, Turkey). But also the “semi-peripheral Fordism” also vary following the social formations. To a certain extent the 12 SPW is a more concret concept as it is characterised mainly by the defects in large-scale public provision of social insurance and the progressive sytems of redistributive taxation as well as by the defects in delivery of public utilities and deficiency in fiscal sustainability necessary for the development of social welfare services. Neverthless as from early 1950s and during 1960s the developing countries have been influenced by the Keynesian thought as well as the economic policies implemented in the central economies. Interventionist development policies entailed substantial public expenditures, expansion of the public sector as well as public services and social security system. But the end of well functioning Fordism or Keynesian capitalism precipitated by the negative supply shocks during 1970s du mainly to quadrupling of oil prices in the first half and than doubling in late 1970s implied the rise both in price level and unemployment. The stagfiation in the central economies as well as the oil shock had an important and negative impact on oil-importing developing countries. Their terms of trade being worsened and current account balance seriously deteriorated these economies had recourse to foreign loan lended mainly by the private multinational institutios/banks. The contraction of the world trade produced a new protectionism against developing countries’ exports and higher interest rates due partly to world inflation bring the developing countries to find credits with high costs. As a result the oil importing semiperipheral countries have been heavily undebted and they face the debt servicing difficulties and the loss of credibility. The end of fordism and transition to post-fordism in central economies, therefore engagement to neoliberal policies have an important impact on developing world. These economies by adopting economic stabilisation measures and neoliberal structural adjustment programs were engaged to market-based social policies and transforme gradually but rapidly the content of the social welfare programs. IV. Impact of Globalisation on Social Welfare Programs Globalisation studies can be categoried according to different study groups as worldsytems approach, global society approach, global society aproach and global capitalism approach (Sklair, 1999:143). There is no universal definition of globalisation. Globalisation colud be defined in terms of transition from nation-state to transnational hegemony (Robinson, 2005:1) Hegemony is identified to internartional domination” and/or “the latest stage of the Western form of dominance over the world’s economies: folowing the previous ones of slavery, mercantilism,colonialism and imperialism” (Amoroso and Galina, 2002:15). We can give a long list of definitions and/or the name of writers but our aim is not to explain in detail this concept. The turning point in our approach is the identification of globalisation 13 with post-fordism and neoliberal programs/policies. The impact of post-fordist accumulation regime and neoliberal policies on semi-peripheral economies could be underlined by making reference to Washington Concensus. The original list of Washington Concensus (Williamson, 1990) which seems to cover policy changes but not requiring profound institutional changes in fact produces an important impact on social welfare programs. Because on the original list figure, among the other measures, the fiscal discipline, reorientation of public expenditures, tax reform, privatisation, deregulation and secure property rights. The original list has been augmented by a second list of “institutional reforms”. On this list figure the flexible labour markets, social safety nets and targeted poverty reduction and also some other arrangements wich do not have direct link with social welfare programs (Williamson, 2000) These measures or policies figuring on the original and augmented list of Washington Concensus have a direct impact on social welfare programs. But also some of the other listed measures as financial liberalization, trade liberalization, openness to direct foreign investment, corporate governance, measures for anticorruption, WTO agreements produce an indirect impact on social welfare. For example financial liberalization affect income distribution to the disadvantage of low income group. As direct foreign investments of the multinational firms imply flexible labour markets, the working class would be negatively affected. It is not surprising to find out that the measures and/or policies introduced by the original and augmented Washington Concensus are those of short-run stabilisation packages and long-run structural adjustment programs or structural reforms introduced by IMF and supported by World Bank. It is not surprising no more to find that these policies are conform to neoliberal ideology and policy principles. Post-Fordism is characterised by the flexible production process based on flexible system and flexible labour force. Post-Fordism introduces a new accumulation regime and a socioeconomic sytem. The well-known features of post-Fordism are just-intime manufacturing- use of computer aided design and manufacturing-, fragmentation of the national bargaining process, both numerical and functional flexibility, deregulation or less regulatory state (labour laws, environmental standarts, advanced tax systems, minimum wage, etc). . These features indicate the structural transformation of the capitalist state. The elimination of the national mode of regulation or namely deregulation calls for the support of the globalisation activities; development and expansion of the transnational corporations and global commodity chains as well as the international capital flows and international trade in goods and services. Therefore post-fordist accumulation regime brings out the globalisation of 14 the economic and financial activities, erosion of the social welfare state, denationalization of the state, growth of supranational regimes and internationalization of political regimes (Jessop, 2003b). But also good governance and/or regional/local governance as well as global governance are giving the neoliberal guidelines for public policy parallel to internationalisation of economic activities and globalisation of the world economy . Semi-peripheral countries are subject to a profound transformation by means of globalisation. Put it differently the transition to post-fordism and the policies in favour of globalisation produced an important impact on the economic, social and even political structures and systems. The semi-peripheral economies faced with the foreign debt crisis in early 1980s adopted the macro-economic stability as the main target. The neo-orthodox stabilisation policies had been implemented under the auspices of the IMF and with the support of the World Bank. The stand-by arrangements signed with IMF permit the conduct of tight monetary policy, fiscal disciplin and budgetary austerity, strict control of both social expenses and wage increase. These measures having the objectives of inflationary spiral, promoting the exportation and breaking the making the external debt-service payments. are based on the contraction of the domestic demand. Therefore the erosion of the economic and social rights and acquisitions are inevitablr The conditionality –rule- introduced by stand-by arrangements are conform to original Washington Concensus inspired by the neoliberalism. The macroeconomic stability is the basic requirement in the process of articulation of the semi-peripheral economies to global economic order. The next step is the implementation of the so-called “structural reforms” integrated in structural adjustment policies in accordance with the augmented Washington Concensus. Various lending facilities were used by the IMF and the World Bank in support of macro-economic stabilisation and structural adjustment programs (Sönmez, 2005) These policies consist in considerable cuts to social programs especially in the fields of education, health, housing and imply privatization of the public service sector. The deep cutbacks in social programs/social services, privatization of public services and also imposition of high user fees in a wide range of public services as education, health, tranasportation, i.e. public utilities and even public school and hospital closures are the widespread practices in the context of a systematic neoliberal policy. The so-called neoliberal reforms are market-based solutions as it is the case for health-care, education, health insurance, the system of social security as well. The policies for stabilisation and structural adjustment modify gradually the SPW and impose a market-led welfare system. 15 The peripheral countries have undergone economic and financial crisis and/or bottlenecks during the period marked by the transition from fordism to post-fordism in the central economies. The “necessary” neoliberal solutions and structural transformation of the economy and socioeconomic system imposed by means of IMF and World Bank programs signify the transformation of peripheral-Fordism and SPW. We’ll baptize the new accumulation regime simply as “post-peripheral Fordism” (PPF) and the welfarism related to this regime as “market-led globalist welfarism” (MLGW). As it was the case for semiperiphal Fordism, the PPF is a broder concept covering large range of “emerging-market economies”. Instead of giving a precise definition-which seems to be impossible- of the term it is preferable to refer briefly to its main features. The PPF occurs in the context of the internationalisation/globalisation of the capital at three main levels: foreign trade, allocation of money capital or financial capital and investment/production by means of transnational firms and banks/financial institutions. The production, realisation and reinvestment circuits of the capital have to be articulated in the context of internationalisation/globalisation. The circuits of capital are internationalized i.e. the international/global economic and social space intervenes, not only in the earlier stages of integration of the semi-peripheral economies to global world order by means of stabilisation programs but even more intensively during the recent adjustment process. This tendency represents the development-overshootingtransformation of the peripheral-Fordism. More concretely internationalization of capital, politics and ideology is interiorized, internationalization do not exert an effect from exteriour, could not be considered as an exogenous factor. Neverthless the regime of accumulation in semi-peripheral countries is extraverted, the dominant accumulation regime PPF is a link or a part of the post-fordist accumulation. This is not somewhat in contradiction with the previous remarque; the interiorization of the intenationalization of capital and extraversion of the regime of accumulation is the outcome of the dialectic approach. Concerning the mode of regulation the competitiveness at international level must be taken into consideration.Therefore “in a tripartite economic-political-ideological space, the mode of global connection typically involves contingent internal-external linkages between a complex, nested internal formation (that, depending on the precise analytical focus, could be a local/regional/national space) and a more encompassing economic-political-ideological space organized under the dominance of a hegemonic power. Thus the mode of global connection can be defined as a spatially-specified form of internal-external structuration whic expresses the distinctive, contingent articulation of an domestic social formation to the 16 processes of the internationalizaion of capital, politics (the global power of capital), and ideology” (Sum, 2001) . As in the new regime of accumulation the growth process is articulated to international context, production and investment at local level is closely linked to exteriour, strategies are based on competition but neverthless mass production and the objective of mass consumption for middle-classes is maintained.. This is due to hybrid nature of the semi-peripheral economies in the era of globalisation; compared to SPW which is impregnated by the Keynesian welfarism, PPW is closed to Ricardian and Schumpeterian workfare regimes. The differences between Ricardian and Schumpeterian regimes do not keep us to use the term of PPW. Neverthless the PPW is not the synthesis of two different regimes. In fact under Schumpeterian workfare regime “(1) domestic full employment is deprioritized in favour of international competitiveness, (2) redistributive welfare rights take second place to a productrivist reordering of social policy; (3) the primary role of the social state is deprivileged in favour of governance mechanisms operating on various levels. At the same time, a growing trend to the internationalization of policy regimes reflects a perceived need for coordination of policy and policy contexts across scales of eonomic and political action” (Jessop, 2003a:10). Especially the international competitiveness requires permanent innovation and re-skilling. On the contrary one of the basic features of the Ricardian workfare regime is the effort of obtening competitive advantages by exploiting intensively the abundant labour force. These remarques shows that the Schumpeterian workfare regime is dominating in some semi-peripheral countries (East and Southeast Asia) whilst Ricardian workfare regime is the dominant one in other parts of the world (Latin America, Turkey). In fact there are variations within each regime as well as a semi-peripheral country can combine the particularities of Ricardian and Schumpeterian regimes, i.e. following the sectors and subsectors. The crucial point is the common characteristics of these two regimes concerning the valorization of the capital and the social reproduction of the labour-force. These regimes are characterised by the outward oriented economy, supply-side orientation which determines also the market-based social policy. The characteristics and fragility of the SPW, particuliarly the deficiency of both the social security system in covering the whole population and the public body to respond to growing collective needs could be considered as the flexibilities for the transformation or conversion of the system. Finally post-Fordism dominating in the era of globalisation is characterised by the post-peripheral Fordism in the semi-peripheral sphere. The PPF is a broader and rather heterogenous concept related to Ricardian and Schumpeterian workfare regimes. But PPF 17 marks its difference from semi-peripheral Fordism which is impregnated with Keynesian welfarism. As the circuits of capital are internationalised and the mode of regulation is based on promoting the competitivity on international markets, the social policy and social welfarism have been transformed and modified; the new structures do not permit even the implementation of the semi-peripheral welfarism. It is substituting rapidly by the market-led globalist welfarism. The interests of the transnational capital is the main facteur which determines this new welfarism in the semi-peripheral sphere. V. Case of Turkey: Neoliberalism, Islam and Social Welfare In the current constitution-as it is the case in the previous one- which became effective in 1981, Article 2 stipulates that “ The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state,…” Article 5 is pointing out that “The fundamental aims and and duties of the state are...,… to ensure the welfare, peace, and happiness of the individual and the society; to strive for the removal of political, social and economic obstacles which restrict the fundanmental rights and freedoms of the individual in a manner incompatible with the principes of justice and of social state…”.. The terms as “secularism”, “justice and social state” “welfare”, “fundamental rights and freedoms” are the key concepts and/or basic principles of the state. In fact the Article 4 stipulates that the provisions of the first three articles (including Article 2) “may not be amended, nor may trheir amendement be proposed” . Article 5 is the complementary of the previous one. Therefore it is expected that whatever the ideology of the political parties, the objective is performing the welfare of the individuals and the society by means of the social state in a democratic, secular regime . Without returning back to very old times, just the examen of the economic-social-political structures in Turkey as from 1980 reveals that the nature of the welfare regime is not conform to the “wishful” thinking emphasized in the constitution but also the political regime bear some risks concerning the secularism. Many of the properties of the Southern European welfare regimes could be found in Turkey.That is why some eminent writers as Gough (1996) and Saraceno (2002) have considered the Turkish case as a part of the Southern European welfare system. In fact small employers, self-employment and unpaid family workers have an considerable weight in employment, the dimensions of the informal economy and informal employment are very extended, social rights are inequally distributed and universal health insurance is absent. The 18 whole social security system is linked to holding a formal job, therefore those without any connection to formal labour market are excluded from social protection. The social protection system is excluding the sesasonal and casual workers which represent an important percentage among workers. The formal heterogenous social security system covering the working class combines both retirement and health insurance implies inequalities in the access to medical care and also allocation of pensions. As by the end of 1990s 55 % of the population is not registered to one of the social security institutions (Retirement Chest covering the civil servants; Social Seecurıty Institıtion covering workers employed in public and private sectors; Bağ-Kur covering the self-employed and small artiasans and various other small insurance funds) is not covered also by the official health insurance system (DİE, 2001:200). Turkey’s social assistance is characterised by ad hoc assistance through Social Solidarity Fund as well as by limited programs to elderly and disabled people, but also by an institutional care for children and elderly administrated by specifed institutions. But there is no other sytematic cash transfers that would help the vulnerable, unlike many neighboring countries of Western and Eastern Europe, which have universal child allowances (World Bank, 2001). In the absence of a social policy combating the poverty and exclusion, the state intervenes not directly and systematically but through particuliar mechanisms. As well “...the importance of the family, local government and religious local institutions in promoting the welfare of the individual and helping individuals to deal with risk situations” (Buğra and Keyder, 2003:14) is an important particularity. But in spite of the commun characteristics with Southeastern European countries, the welfare regime in Turkey has her own particularities. The characteristics of the welfare regime which is labelled in this paper as the semi-peripheral welfarism reveal the changing nature of the regime according to social formations but also to the regime of accumulation. From this point of view Turkey is a meaningful and an interesting case concerning the societal impact of the populist and the neoliberal policies. The neo-orthodox stabilisation program adopted in January 1980 by the civil government had been strengthened after the military putsch in September of the same year. Under an undemocratic regime the wages had been depressed during the decade of 1980s. The negative distibutional shock have been partly corrected by new populist policies implemented by means of the liberalization of the capital account in balance of payments (external financial liberalization) in August 1989. Capital inflows being accelerated after the financial liberalization, introduced very high arbitrage gains for banks and high mark-up 19 rates for large-scale manufacturing firms (Sönmez, 2004) but at the same time sustained the growth of private and public consumption. The government concede an important rise in the wages of the public sector workers and in the salaries of civil servants, increased social spending and the subsidies given to agriculrural sector. A considerable wage rise took place also in the private sector. Leaving a side the crisis management policy implemented during 1994-1995 as an orthodox treatment in response to the crisis of 1994, the populist policies marked the whole period. However populist policies could not be qualified “corrective” in the proper sens of the word because the erosion of the wages and salaries during 1980s and the extreme inequity in distribution were not corrected. As the logic of the populist adjustment operated by the government was “giving to labour/the poor without taking from capital/from the rich” (Boratav,Yeldan, Köse, 2000:28). The outcome could be reduced to large public deficits, increasing public borrowing and growth in public debt. Faced with economic bottlenecks and difficulties in adopting the economy to golbal economic order the ruling coalition of the time opened the economy to IMF control in 1998 by means of the Staff Monitored Program. The intervention of the IMF and World Bank became direct and more official by means of a stand-by arrangement which became effective in year 2000. Despite two major crisis (November 1998 and February 2000) the government maintained their engagement to IMF program. Even the stabilisation program is strengthened and the structural adjustment process is accelerated by means of two new stand-by arrangements contracted in 2002 and 2005. Therefore particularly as from the year 2000 IMF-in accordance with the World Bank- started to intervene directly and play the decisive role in modeling the economic and social policies. This is not specific to Turkey; since 1980s developing countries are constraint to adopt their economic structures to the global restructuring of capitalism. Within this context economic, social and political adjustment/transformation have been imposed to peripheral countries Neoliberal policies do not aim only to stabilise the economy but also to transforme or alter the social structure. But compared to Latin American countries such as Brasil and Argentine which had undergone economic crisis almost at the same period of time, Turkey stayed the sole country entirely engaged to IMF prescriptions. On the contrary of the Latin American world there is no evident sign of neo-developmentalist welfarism in Turkey. Despite the structural adjustment process the dismantling of the SPW have not been completed; concerning privatisation, the divestiture of the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has the priority compared to public services sector. The gouvernmental authorities have emphasized several times that the state will no longer deal with economic, financial and 20 commercial activites but focuse on the provision of public utilites; especially health care and education will have the priority in public sector. Neverthless transformation of the social security system, privatisation and commercialization of the health and education system was on the agenda. The strategy adopted by different governments in Turkey is conform to the prescriptions of the original and augmented Washington Concensus. The first-generation policies is focused on economic stabilisation in a context marked by the liberalization of trade as well as the development and liberalization of the domestic financial markets and full liberalization of the capital account in balance of payments. The last measure consists in opening of the national economy to international captal flows. The necessary deregulation and privatisation policies will be adopted for completing and strengthening the structural adjustment process. Therefore the axis of privatisation is turned gradually but rapidly from SOEs and partially state banks to public services sector with the second-generation reforms. The new wave of “reforms” though completing the preceding ones, in fact are assigning a new role to the state; restructuration of the institutions and the legislation in order to adopt the domestic economy to global economy and/or markets. More concretely, “…while the first-generation of reforms placed the state in apassive position vis-á-vis market rules, the second generation reforms envisage an active-regulating state (re-regulation) undertaking the mission of expanding the influence of the market to all social spheres. Consequently, nation-states are charged with the task of redefining and rearranging their insrtitutional and legal structure, which have been shaped by their historical and social relations, in line with what global global law and institutions ask for” (Independant Social Scientists’Alliance of Turkey, 2006:21) .Engagement to “de-politicization” of the distributional process advocated systematically by the Turkish bourgeosie and the international circles representing the Washington Concensus and the policies of dismantling of the SPW have been emphasized particularly during the second-generation reforms. Within this context the gradual marketbased provision of the public goods as health-care, education and social security as well as the necessary legal and institutional changes take place. Almost the final act is played in 2006: The social security system is radically transformed with the enactment of the Social Security and General Health Insurance Law and the Social Security Instıtution Law. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, the effective date of these legal arrangements is postponed to 1.01.2008. It is remarkable that as a part of the structural reforms the authorities present these changes as indispensable not only for the economic.efficiency but also for the “democratisation” and “modernisation” . 21 The islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power following the general elections of October 2002 . The AKP has a discourse against the IMF and the neoliberal policies during the electoral campaign and presented somewhat a program involving some islamic motifs particularly in the field of social policy. It is possible to find some traces of a “islamic inspired” social policy in this program. But there is no reference to “social welfare state” and the content of the social policy is not well defined. After taking office the AKP government has adopted the IMF control and the neoliberal policies. It is interesting somewhat instructive to find out that the AKP government has fully undertaken the mission of executing the neoliberal policies but continue to “islamic” discourse. The direct allowance-in-kind given to people living in shanty towns, the effective and potantial supporters of the AKP, could not be considered as a deviation from the neoliberal program. The AKP government is more determined compared to previous governments in managing rapidly the second-generation reforms. The market-based provision of education and health already started in the previous years of structural adjustment has been accelerated under AKP government. The privatisation as well as the commercialization of the education and health is supported by generous incentives given to private investors.. In education the number of the private high schools is rapidly increasing and the private universities is flourishing. The users’ fees are high and the scholarships do not cover a significant portion of the students. A modern and luxurious but expensive health care system is rapidly instaured. The high income groups are using this this health care system by means of private health insurance schemes. But the private hospitals have extended their services to new fractions of the population, i.e. the middle income group, by means of contracts made with the formal social security institutions. The cost of the private health care is paid partially or in some cases entierly by these institutions. The cost of this new practice is high for the social security funds as the private health care is very expensive and even the misuse of the system is sometimes the case. These practices in education and health risk to induce a dual system in human capital formation and to polarization between the upper and lower income groups (Boratav, Yeldan and Köse,200: 30). The “market analogy” approach adopted in public sector permit the authorites to impose higher users’ fees in state universities. The public hospitals do the same by commercializing their health care services. It is not surprising that the AKP government trying to accelerate the neoliberal reforms and even to turn the page -under the auspices of the IMF and the World Bank-, has focused on the social security system - - with enactment of The Social Security Institution Law and the Social Security and General Insurance Health Law. 22 According to the official view the “reform” in social security system is necessary in the context of the membership negotiations of Turkey with EU opened formally on 3rd October 2005. In principle the EU is committed to modernising its social model, based on the shared values of social justice and the active participation of all citizens in economic and social life. The rules of the –revised- European Social Charter are the important factors in modelling the Turkish social policy and welfarism.. On theoritical grounds EU policy in the field of social inclusion and social protection is stipulating the promotion of social cohesion and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adoptable and efficient social protection system and social inclusion.. Therefore the task is to produce a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion. In fact the remark above is corresponding to one of the objectives in the streamlined OMC (Open Method of Coordination) in the field of pensions and health. Two other objectives are to establish the interaction “ with the Lisbon objectives on achieving greater economic growth and more and better jobs with the EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy” and also to strengthen “governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy” . Consequently Turkey has to adjust the social security system and the social policy. The “screening” process and reports indicating Turkey’s present state of readiness to meet the obligations flowing from EU membership ought to be considered as the basic guideline for the neceassary adjustment and/or transformation. In other words Turkey must make the necessary adjustments to acquis communautaire. The screening chapter 19 “social policy and employment” in the acquis has been already evaluated at the bilateral meeting in 20-22 March 2006 and the screening report is approved at the Council of the EU with benchmarks (EU Turkey Review, 2006)1 . Within this context it could be possible to argue, as it is the case in screening chapter 19, that the social security reform consists in;. (a) Setting up single retirement insurance for all employees, employers, self-employed and civil servants other than health. (b) Creating a General Health Insurance . (c) Gathering a social benefits and services that are currently being carried out in a dispersed manner. (d) Establishing a new institutional structure for providing the services mentioned above. Neverthless the so-called reform process has been initiated under the pressures of the IMF and World Bank. All the arrangements introduced by the new law on social security and general insurance (2006) has been anticipated in the Staff Monitored Program (1998) as well as in the three successive stand-by arrangements (1999-2000, 2002, 2005) and in some 1 For more information on the Accession Partnership: http://europa.eu.int/comm./enlargement/turkey/ For more information on Turkey’s screening process http://www.abgs.gov.tr 23 eighteen revision rounds of the stand-by arrangements between 2000-2007 (spring). For example in the Letter of Intent of 17 th Stand-by arrangement (December 9th, 1999) the authorities are underlining the big deficit in the social security system and propose a reform in the system in order to have a more sound public finances. The Letter of Intent of the 19th Stand-by arrrangement (April 26th, 2005) is insisting on the necessity of a comprehensive social security reform for the improvement of public finances. The proposed reform package.is composed by three laws:; “... a pension and health reform law introduces parametric changes while harmonizing the pension formula across occupational groups and establishes universal health insurance with additional costs largely ofset through measures under the health transformation program. The reform also reorganizes the fragmented system into one unified pension fund and one unified health fund. Legislation on social aid consolidates a multtude of existing programs. Finally an administrative reform law unifies the governance structure of pensions,health and social assistance programs.” (p.8). One of the reasons of the reform in social security regime is the rising deficit of the social security. But this deficit is du to the defects of the dominant capitalist sytem in Turkey. (a) State has no contribution to social security; the sustainability of the social security system without the financial support of the state is not possible. (b) The rate of participation to labour force in Turkey is very low (48 to 49 %).. (c) Defects in collecting the social security premiums, the use of the funds accumulated in the social securiy institutions in financing public deficit as well as some other political solutions to the problems relatives to social security. (d) Markedbased provision of the health care, i.e. commercialiasation and privatisation of the services contributed to deficit of the social security system (Erdoğdu, 2006) The last remarque is of crucial importance because as we have already emphasized the privatisation of the health care is concretized by means of allocation of the public funds to private sector. By substituting rapidly the public units in the health sector, the private sector in a larger extent is providing the health care. But the high cost of provision is financed by means of social security institutions, i.e. public funds. On the other hand the proponderant private pension companies are “ sponsored” by public pension funds which in turn invest these funds in financial markets. This mechanism is supported by the World Bank and large-scale corporations. VI. Conclusion Parallel to restructuring of the world capitalist system the social welfare systems are subject to readjustment and transformation. The transition from Fordism to post-Fordism lead the developed countries to change also the social welfare regimes. The dominance of the 24 neoliberal policies in the era of globalisation changed the role of the capitalist state not only in the field of economic and financial activities but also in the social sphere. The neoliberalism has radically modified the social welfare regimes in the central eonomies. The big project is to liquidate for a major part the “social” essence of the regimes and establish a “welfarism” based on individualism. Divers governments in different countries in coalition with the holdings of capitalist power as transnational firms, transnational financial corporations and banks, IMF, World Bank, G-5, G-7, Davos Summit, etc., are engaged to neoliberal restructuration of the soceties. Concerning the developing countries the transition from “bloody Taylorism” and “peripheral Fordism” to “post-peripheral Fordism” engendered also the transformation of the social welfare regime. The semi-peripheral welfarism far from responding the social needs and inapt for eliminating the poverty has been also adjusted by the neoliberal policies. The market-led globalist welfarism which is characterized by reduced social rights and social protection, is conform to the needs of the dominant transnational and –associated- domestic classes and/or capital. Turkey engaged to neoliberal adjustment policies for almost a decade under the auspices of the Bretton Woods institutions is advanced in completing the second-generation reforms. The public services sector and the social security regime are subject to re-adjustment which wiould manage the compatibility with market solutions . Just to the contrary of the arguments in favour of the so-called reforms, this re-adjustment and/or conversion would not be advantageous to the majority of the population. The compatibility with the European Social Model is not a concrete target;on the one hand this model is not so clear and definite, (EuromeMemorandum, 2004), on the other hand the government engaged to neoliberal solutions has already lost her perspectives on social welfare. Given the problems occured in Washington Concensus (Rodrik, 2006) and new engagements in several countries (Latin America) Turkey has to break her engagement to neoliberal policies and to create the necessary conditions for a new social welfare state. REFERENCES … Aglietta, M. (1976), Regulation et Crise du Capitalisme, Partis:Callman-Levy. Amaroso, B and Gallina, A. (2002), “Globalisation: An Introduction” in B. Amaroso and A. Gallina (eds.), Essays on Regional Integration and Globalisation, Roskilde. Federico Caffė Centre Publisher, 15-29. 25 Arrighi,G. (1994), The Long Twentieth Century,: London: Verso Boratav, K., Yeldan, E. And Köse, A.H. (2000), Globalisation, Distribution and Social Policy: Turkey, 1980-1998, CEPA Working Paper Series I, Working Paper no.20, February. Boyer, R. and Saillard,Y. (1995), Theorie de la Regulation: L’etat des Savoirs, Paris: Editions La Decouverte Buğra, A. and Keyder, Ç. ( 2003) New Poverty and The Changing Welfare Regime of Turkey, Report prepared for the Unted Nations development Programme, Ankara: UNDP. Delegation of the European Commission To Turkey (2006), EU Turkey Review, MarchApril, (2). DIE (2001), Çalışma İstatistikleri 1998-1999, Ankara: DİE: Erdoğdu, S. (2006), “Change in Social Policy and Social Security Reform” (Sosyal Politikada Değişim ve Sosyal Güvenlik Reformu”, Mülkiye, XXX (252):211-236. European Commission, Screening Report Turkey, Chapter 19-Social Policy and Employment, Explanatory Meeting: 8-10 February 2006; Bilateral Meeting: 20-22 March 2006. Euromemorandum Group (2004), Beyond Lisbon, Economic and Social Policy Orientations and Constitutional Cornerstones for the European Social Model,The memorandum formulated at the 10th workshop of the working group “Euro Memorandum Group” on September 26-28, 2004 in Brussels. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Policy Press . Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferrara, M. (1996), “The ‘Southern Model’ of Welfare in Social Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1):17-37 Gough, I. (1979), The Political Economy of the Welfare State, London: Macmillan. Gough, I. (1996), “Social Assistance in Southern Europe”, South European Society and Politics, 1(1): 1-23. Gough, I. (2005), “European Welfare States: Explanations and Lessons for Developi,ng Countries”, Draft Working Paper, Arusha Conference, New Frontiers of Social Policy, December 12-15. Guillen, A. M. and Matsaganis, M. (2000), “Testing the ‘Social Dumping’ Hypothesis in Southern Europe: Welfare Policies in Greece and Spain During the Last 20 Years”, Journal of European Social Policy, 10 (2):120-145. 26 Independant Social Scientists’ Alliance of Turkey (2006), IMF and the Turkey -Macroeconomic Policy, Patterns off Growth and Persistent FragilitiesPenang:Third World Network Jessop, B. (2003a), “”Narrating the Future of the national Economy and the National state? Remarks on Remapping Regulation and Reinventing Governance”, published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, at http://www.comp.lanc.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Jessop-Narrating-the-Future.pdf Jessop, B. (2003b), “Reflections on Globalisation and Its (Il)logic(s)”, published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, at http://www.comp.lanc.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Jessop-Reflections-on-Globalisation.pdf Lipietz, A. (1984), “How Monetarizm Has Choked Third World Indusrialisation?”, New Left Review, I(145):.71-87, May-June. Lipietz, A. (1987), Mirages and Miracles: The Crises of Global Fordism, London: Verso. Lipietz, A. (1997), “The Post Fordist World”, Review of International Political Economy, 4(1): 1-41. Nef, J. (2006), “Development and Political Conflicts in Contemporary Latin America: A Pan American Perspective”, 75th Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences sponsored by the IDRC and York University’s IDRC, The Political Economy of the Social (In) Justice in Latin America; panels in the Honor of Liisa North, June 1-3. Letelier, O. (1976), “The Chicago Boys in Chile: Economic ‘Freedom’s Awful Toll’, The Nation, August 28, 138-142; Review of Radical Political Economics, 1976, 8 (3) 4452 Sum,N-S. (2001) “Theorizing Export-Orienred Economic Development in East Asian Newly-Industrializing Countries: A Regulationist Aspect”, in B. Jessop (ed.) Regulation Theory and the Crisis of Capitalism, 4, Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar: 354390. O’Connor, James (1973), The Fiscal Crisis of the State, NewYork: St. Martins Press. O’Connor, James (2000), “Introduction to 2001 Edition of Fiscal Crisis of State”, CNS, 12(1): 99-114 Robinson, W. I. (2005), “Gramsci and Globalisation: From Nation-Sate to Transnational Hegemony”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8 (4): 1-16, December. Saraceno, C. (20029 (ed.) Social Assistance Dynamics in Europe: National and Local Poverty Regimes, Bristol: The Policy Pres. Sklair, L. (1999), “Competing Conceps of Globalisation”, Journal of World Systems 27 Research, V (2), 143-163, Summer. Slesnick, D. T. (1998) “Empirical Approachs to the Measurement of Welfare”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (4), December: 2108-2165. Sönmez, S. (2004), “Pornographic Esence, Dimensions and Impact of the Financial Accumulation Model: The Turkish Case”, İşletme ve Finans, 223, October:.53-70. Sönmez, S.(2005), Transformation in the World Economy (Dünya Ekonomisinde Dönüşüm). 2nd revised edition, Ankara: İmge Sönmez, S. (2006), “Global Capiitalism and Keynes: What Kind of a Harmony?”, paper Presentation to the Conference on Seventy Years after The General Theory, organised by the Turkish Social Science Association, Ankara, September.1-2. Williamson, J. (1990),”What Washington Means by Policy Reform”, in J. Williamson (ed.) Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has It Happened?, Washington D.C.: Institue for International Economics. Williamson, J. (2000), “What Should the World bank Think about the Washington Concensus?”, World Bank Research Observer, 15 (2):251-264. World Bank (2001), Document of the World Bank, Report No: 22510-TU, Washington D.C.: Human Development Unit, Country Department VI, Europe and Central Asian Region, August 17 . 28