Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:15:58.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modernization and Commercialization in the Tanzimat Period: 1838-1875

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Zafer Toprak
Zafer Toprak*
Affiliation:
Bosphorus University, Istanbul, Department of History
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The aim of the present study is to reconsider and reconstruct the economic history of the “decaying” Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat period. Scores of scholars have already interpreted the decay in terms of imperial expansion. The decay paradigm is part of empire histories. Therefore, it is strongly imprinted with political discourse.

Below, I will argue that the Ottoman case would be better understood if viewed within the context of a more dynamic process of change versus inertia rather than decay, and that such an approach to Ottoman economic and social history would be less tainted with political concerns.

The ultra-nationalist approach to Ottoman economic history, has always blamed the 1838 Anglo-Ottoman Commercial Treaty for the “under-development” or “dependency” of the late Ottoman Empire. This scenario with a xenophobic hint and backed by Marxist as well as nationalist historiographies, finds the main scapegoat of modern Ottoman-Turkish economic history in the 1838 Treaty.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 7: Special Issue Title: The 1838 Convention and Its Impact , spring 1992 , pp. 57 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1992

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

Ahmed, Muhtar. 1316. Rehber-i Ümran. Konstantiniye: Tahir Bey'in 40 Nu¨merolu Matbaasi.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Reşit. 1311. Hukuk-i Ticaret. Istanbul: Dersaadet Ticaret Odasi Gazetesi Matbaasi.Google Scholar
Eldem, Vedat. 1970. Osmanli Imparatorluğunun Iktisadi Şartlari Hakkinda Bir Tetkik. Ankara: Iş Bankasi Kültür Yaymlari.Google Scholar
M., Zühtü. “Istanbul Deri Imalatçhği,” Ticaret Vekaleti Mecmuasi, I(2), October 1340/1924, pp. 50–100.Google Scholar
Maliye, Nezareti. 1327. Ihsaiyyat-i Maliye: Varidat de Mesarif-i Umumiyyeyi Muhtevidir. Istanbul; Matbaa-i Amire.Google Scholar
Pamuk, Şevket. 1987. The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820-1913. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tevfik, Nevzat. 1926a. “Gaziantep Vilayetinin Vaziyet-i Iktisadiyyesi,” Istanbul Ticaret ve Sanayi Odasi Gazetesi, 1926/10, June, pp. 311–12.Google Scholar
Tevfik, Nevzat. 1926b. “Gaziantep Vilayetinin Vaziyet-i Iktisadiyyesi,” Ticaret Vekaleti Mecmuasi, II (21-24), May-August, pp. 9–19.Google Scholar
Toprak, Zafer. 1982. Türkiye 'de “Milli Iktisat” (1908-1918). Ankara: Yurt Yaymlari.Google Scholar
Toprak, Zafer. 1988/2. “Tanzimat'tan Cumhuriyet'e Reklamcihk,” Boğaziçi, pp. 22–29.Google Scholar
Toprak, Zafer. 1988. “Iktisat Tarihi,” in Akşin, Sina (ed.) Türkiye Tarihi -3- Osmanli Devleti 1600-1908. Istanbul: Cem Yaymevi, pp. 191–246.Google Scholar
Toprak, Zafer. 1990/1. “Osmanli Kambiyolari,” Finans Dûnyast, pp. 67–71.Google Scholar
Toprak, Zafer. 1990/2 “Osmanh'da ‘Ecnebi’ Ticaret Odalari,” Finans Dünyasi, pp. 78–81.Google Scholar