In 2001 there was an existential economic crisis both in Turkey and in Argentina: According to Önis (2006) both countries are two important “emerging market countries” that experienced a major economic crisis during the same year, which had disastrous social and economic effects. But these two countries followed different paths for their recovery from the crisis. While Argentina recovered with a hard stand against the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Turkey has recovered by surrendering to the IMF. Turkey followed a strict structural adjustment program advised by the IMF while Argentina was abandoned by all creditors – including the IMF.
Several studies have analyzed the effects of Turkey’s and Argentina’s 2001 crisis upon the political, economic, social, and even the scientific system (see Benedetti 2003; Coiteux 2003). Yet I found no studies that show the reason why both countries differ in their approach towards funding and its conditions by the IMF during the economic crisis. Therefore, this paper tries to answer the following research question: Why did Argentina decide to decline the IMF loan while Turkey decided to accept it during their economic crises and what were the results? Both countries are chosen because they can be considered as the most similar cases. To explain this question, I decided to use the “Societal Approach” by Stefan Schirm as the theoretical framework, which tries to explain diverging governmental policies in cross-country comparison by looking at societal actors` ideas and interests within the countries.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- Theoretical Framework: Societal Approach
- Methodology
- Case Study: Argentina - An Introduction to the crisis
- Factors that led to the crisis
- Case Study: Turkey – An Introduction to the crisis
- Factors that led to the crisis
- Analysis Argentina: Ideas/ Values
- Analysis Argentina: Material Interests/ Lobbying
- Analysis Turkey: Ideas/ Values
- Analysis Turkey: Material Interests/ Lobbying
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This paper aims to investigate the divergent responses of Argentina and Turkey to the 2001 economic crisis, specifically focusing on their differing approaches to IMF loans. The study utilizes Stefan Schirm's Societal Approach as a theoretical framework to analyze the interplay of societal actors' ideas and interests in shaping governmental policies.
- The contrasting responses of Argentina and Turkey to the 2001 economic crisis.
- The role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the crisis and recovery of both countries.
- The application of the Societal Approach theory to explain diverging governmental policies.
- The influence of societal ideas and values on governmental decisions.
- The impact of material interests and lobbying groups on policy choices.
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
Introduction: This chapter introduces the 2001 economic crises in Argentina and Turkey, highlighting their significance as "emerging market countries" and their contrasting approaches to recovery – Argentina's resistance to IMF conditions versus Turkey's acceptance. The chapter establishes the research question: Why did Argentina reject IMF loans while Turkey accepted them? The Societal Approach by Stefan Schirm is presented as the theoretical framework, focusing on societal actors' ideas and interests as determinants of governmental policies, thereby explaining governmental positions as dependent variables. International institutions and negotiations are explicitly excluded from the immediate focus of the study.
Theoretical Framework: Societal Approach: This chapter details Schirm's Societal Approach, emphasizing its focus on societal interests and ideas in shaping governmental preferences in international relations. It contrasts this with other theories like Open Economy Politics (OEP), highlighting the Societal Approach's unique incorporation of both material interests and ideas as independent variables, and its consideration of their interaction and influence on governmental decisions. The chapter explains how societal ideas, institutions, and material interests interact and the conditions under which one might prevail over the others, rejecting the simplification found in other frameworks that prioritize one aspect over others. Key aspects such as the limitations of the approach and the innovations it introduced are also addressed.
Methodology: This chapter outlines the research methodology employed to answer the research question. It defines the dependent variable (government policies and preferences regarding IMF funding) and the independent variables: societal ideas and values (opinions on privatization, the role of government, and views on the IMF and domestic institutions), and material interests/lobbying (the role and preferences of labor unions). The chapter provides a framework for the following case studies and analysis.
Case Study: Argentina - An Introduction to the crisis: This chapter provides background on the Argentinean economic crisis of 2001, setting the stage for a deeper analysis of the country's decision regarding IMF loans. It lays the groundwork for understanding the internal factors contributing to the crisis and sets the context for further analysis of ideas and interests that shaped the Argentinean government's response.
Case Study: Turkey – An Introduction to the crisis: This chapter mirrors the previous one, providing contextual background for the Turkish economic crisis of 2001. It sets the scene for the analysis of the Turkish government's decisions related to the IMF and helps establish a basis for comparing the responses of both countries to the crisis.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Argentina, Turkey, 2001 economic crisis, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Societal Approach, societal interests, societal ideas, material interests, lobbying, governmental preferences, policy choices, comparative political economy.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comparative Analysis of Argentina and Turkey's Responses to the 2001 Economic Crisis
What is the main focus of this paper?
This paper investigates the contrasting responses of Argentina and Turkey to the 2001 economic crisis, particularly their differing approaches to IMF loans. It uses Stefan Schirm's Societal Approach to analyze how societal actors' ideas and interests influenced government policies.
What theoretical framework is used in this analysis?
The study employs Stefan Schirm's Societal Approach. This framework emphasizes the interplay of societal actors' ideas and material interests in shaping governmental policies in international relations. It contrasts with other theories like Open Economy Politics (OEP) by considering both material interests and ideas as independent variables and their interaction.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
Key themes include: the contrasting responses of Argentina and Turkey to the 2001 crisis; the IMF's role in both countries' crises and recoveries; the application of the Societal Approach to explain diverging government policies; the influence of societal ideas and values on government decisions; and the impact of material interests and lobbying groups on policy choices.
Which countries are examined in this comparative study?
The study focuses on a comparative analysis of Argentina and Turkey, examining their respective responses to the 2001 economic crisis.
What is the research question addressed in this paper?
The central research question is: Why did Argentina reject IMF loans while Turkey accepted them?
What is the methodology employed in the study?
The methodology identifies the dependent variable (government policies and preferences regarding IMF funding) and independent variables (societal ideas and values, and material interests/lobbying). Case studies of Argentina and Turkey are used to analyze these variables.
What aspects of Argentina's response to the 2001 crisis are examined?
The analysis explores Argentina's decision-making process regarding IMF loans, investigating the internal factors contributing to the crisis and the societal ideas and interests that shaped the government's response.
What aspects of Turkey's response to the 2001 crisis are examined?
Similar to the Argentina case study, the analysis examines Turkey's decision-making process regarding IMF loans, focusing on the internal factors that influenced the crisis and the role of societal ideas and interests in shaping the government's response.
What are the key findings or conclusions expected from this study?
The study aims to provide insights into how societal ideas and material interests interact to shape government policy choices in times of economic crisis, offering a comparative perspective on the divergent paths taken by Argentina and Turkey in their responses to the 2001 crisis.
What are the keywords associated with this research?
Keywords include: Argentina, Turkey, 2001 economic crisis, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Societal Approach, societal interests, societal ideas, material interests, lobbying, governmental preferences, policy choices, comparative political economy.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2021, Why did Argentina decide to decline the IMF loan while Turkey decided to accept it during their economic crises and what were the results?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1365951
