2020
DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2020.1720891
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

AKP’s neoliberal populism and contradictions of new social policies in Turkey

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the countryside, the rural population also benefited from the reintroduction of agricultural subsidies, expansion of social assistance, and rapid infrastructural development (Gürel et al, 2019;Özdemir, 2020). Together with neoliberal reforms, social assistance distributed by the state rose from 0.3% of the GDP in 2002 to 1.4% in 2014.…”
Section: Economic Foundations Of Akp Hegemonymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In the countryside, the rural population also benefited from the reintroduction of agricultural subsidies, expansion of social assistance, and rapid infrastructural development (Gürel et al, 2019;Özdemir, 2020). Together with neoliberal reforms, social assistance distributed by the state rose from 0.3% of the GDP in 2002 to 1.4% in 2014.…”
Section: Economic Foundations Of Akp Hegemonymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Together with neoliberal reforms, social assistance distributed by the state rose from 0.3% of the GDP in 2002 to 1.4% in 2014. Consequently, something unusual happened during the first decade of the AKP's neoliberal era: Income inequality and poverty rates decreased (see Figures 3 and 4; also see Özdemir, 2020;Bahçe & Köse, 2017;Karatas ¸lı, 2015;Tu gal, 2016).…”
Section: Economic Foundations Of Akp Hegemonymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Only in the Turkish case can nonstate actors be involved in the CCT administration, exemplifying a path-dependent legacy regarding the Turkish (and Ottoman) state’s reliance on privatized, charity-based welfare (Özbek 2006). The opaque nature of private contributions (at both national and district levels) and the list of beneficiaries subject the system to probable clientelistic exchanges/patronage networks between firms or individuals (philanthropists included in the SASF boards) and municipalities or the central government (Özdemir 2020).…”
Section: Varieties Of Regulatory Regimesmentioning
confidence: 99%