Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Urban–Rural Pressures across Regime Types: The Case of Turkey

  • Cameron Ballard-Rosa, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book:
    Democracy, Dictatorship, and Default
    Published online:
    31 July 2020
    Print publication:
    13 August 2020, pp 157-170

  • Summary

    While earlier chapters have compared urban or rural biases across different countries, in this chapter I make use of a rare confluence of historical conditions in the Turkish case, in which an identical ruler---Turgut Ozal---presided over agricultural price policies under autocratic and democratic institutions.While serving as minister of finance under military rule, Ozal was a fierce critic of costly agricultural support programs that had developed under prior electoral competition between Turkish parties, and successfully removed many of these farm support programs. However, when competing for office following restoration of multiparty elections, Ozal discovered the necessity of winning rural support for electoral success, and subsequently reinstated costly farm subsidies.The Turkish case helps validate the broader expectations of urban or rural bias, within the same country, across differing institions of executive survival, and also demonstrates that the inability of elected leaders to remove costly subsidies was a key factor driving Turkey to default on its sovereign debt.