Growth regimes, dominant social blocs and growth strategies: towards varieties of export-led growth regimes and strategies in Turkey and Poland

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute to the literature on growth regimes by combining an operationalization of growth regimes based on growth contributions and sectoral financial balances with an analysis of dominant social blocs (DSBs). We propose the concept of a growth strategy to bridge the political and actor-oriented sphere with the macroeconomic sphere. We employ this framework to analyze the cases of Poland and Turkey. The study identifies a transition from a domestic demand-led regime to a weakly export-led regime in Poland, while Turkey experienced a shift from a domestic demand-led regime to a debt-led private demand regime and subsequently towards a weakly export-led regime, too. Both countries’ new DSBs pursue export-led growth strategies, but Poland’s strategy focuses on non-price competitiveness while Turkey relies on price competitiveness. We lay out the differences between the strategies in terms of policies and the capital fractions supporting them.

Growth models, growth strategies, and power blocs in Turkey and Egypt in the twenty-first century

“…As for the latter aspect, which pertains to the competition between growth strategies, we concur with Hassel/Palier (2020) who introduced the concept of 'growth strategy' as a valuable tool for comprehending changes in growth models. Similarly, Akçay/Jungmann (2023) also proposed that we should analyze growth strategies because they reflect the economic and political initiatives of power blocs. This kind of analysis can help us uncover the different approaches employed by various sections of capital-or sector-specific interests.…”

“…These structural differences among capital fractions determine their growth strategies. While core capitalists prefer non-price competitiveness, peripheral capitalists demand price competitiveness as part of a growth strategy (Akçay 2023b;Akçay/Jungmann 2023;Deniz 2019). In short, the depoliticized mode of macroeconomic management of the early 2000s was compatible with the core capitalists' interests.…”

“…Third, we introduce and expand on intermediary concepts, such as growth strategy (see also Akçay/Jungmann 2023;Hessel et al 2020), to trace the gradual and contested changes in growth models. Growth strategies are the political-economic projects of the power blocs for increasing the tempo of accumulation.…”

“…The components of these projects are unified and gain a systematic character against the background of struggles within the unstable compromise among different capital fractions. Thus, the growth strategy can be conceived as a concept useful to strengthen links between critical comparative political economy analyses and post-Keynesian macroeconomics (Akçay/Jungmann 2023).…”