Leaman summarizes what neopopulism emphasizes: (i) leadership instead of institutions, (ii) transformative change rather than a gradual one, (iii) politicians’ focus on economic efficacy rather than political representation, (iv) economic liberty more than equality. The first element is a continuation of Perónism, the second one represents a different approach to economic development but the latter two elements are greatly opposed to what Perón government imposed in Argentina. First, apart from his assertive promises, people apparently voted for Menem for his charisma (Leaman, 1999, p. 99). As mentioned above as a populist leader, he had direct relations with the people and sought to create a kind of intimacy with them. Depending on this charisma,
…show more content…
However, Ozal’s neo-liberalist program included a gradualist program instead of a radical one. Privatization in Ozal era remained much more restricted than in Menem era in Argentina. Additionally, Ozal gave relatively less importance to the inflation. He believed that inflation is a cost of economic growth (Onis, 2004, pp. 113-114). In the aftermath of 1983, Ozal implemented a variety of economic decisions via laws and decrees in accordance with the 24 January Decisions. 24 January Decisions was introduced by Demirel government in 1980 and Ozal as the Acting Head of the State Planning Organization (SPO) and the Deputy Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister, was appointed as the key figure to implement the decisions (Onis, 2004, p. 116). 24 January Decisions aimed “to attain domestic and foreign equilibrium, reduce public sector deficits, combat inflation, maintain a free-market economy and accomplish the outward orientation of the economy with significant emphasis attached to export promotion” (Ilkin, 1991, pp. 89-90). In addition, Ozal gave a quite emphasis on enhancing the outward orientation of the economy (Onis, 1991, pp. 29-30). In the 5-year period between 1980 and 1985, Turkey experienced an export boom accompanied by a recovery in growth. There were both winners and losers of the Ozal’s economic model: exporters, financial capital and big family holdings were the major advantageous groups while urban workers and agricultural producers were the main disadvantageous groups of Ozal’s neopoulism in Turkey. considering decreasing in agricultural subsidies, Ozal’s neopopulism obviously favored the urban and ignored the rural
However, Ozal’s neo-liberalist program included a gradualist program instead of a radical one. Privatization in Ozal era remained much more restricted than in Menem era in Argentina. Additionally, Ozal gave relatively less importance to the inflation. He believed that inflation is a cost of economic growth (Onis, 2004, pp. 113-114). In the aftermath of 1983, Ozal implemented a variety of economic decisions via laws and decrees in accordance with the 24 January Decisions. 24 January Decisions was introduced by Demirel government in 1980 and Ozal as the Acting Head of the State Planning Organization (SPO) and the Deputy Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister, was appointed as the key figure to implement the decisions (Onis, 2004, p. 116). 24 January Decisions aimed “to attain domestic and foreign equilibrium, reduce public sector deficits, combat inflation, maintain a free-market economy and accomplish the outward orientation of the economy with significant emphasis attached to export promotion” (Ilkin, 1991, pp. 89-90). In addition, Ozal gave a quite emphasis on enhancing the outward orientation of the economy (Onis, 1991, pp. 29-30). In the 5-year period between 1980 and 1985, Turkey experienced an export boom accompanied by a recovery in growth. There were both winners and losers of the Ozal’s economic model: exporters, financial capital and big family holdings were the major advantageous groups while urban workers and agricultural producers were the main disadvantageous groups of Ozal’s neopoulism in Turkey. considering decreasing in agricultural subsidies, Ozal’s neopopulism obviously favored the urban and ignored the rural