BEYOND PROTECTIONISM–FREE TRADE DICHOTOMY: THE “NATIONAL ECONOMY” AND THE 1908 BOYCOTT MOVEMENT IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Date

2024-1-25

Author

Sertkaya, Hazan

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

73
views

165
downloads

Cite This

This thesis questions the relationship between the 1908 Boycott and the National Economy that the literature regards as the historical opposite of the “liberal” economy. In this way, it aims to open to questioning the dichotomies existing in the history of Ottoman economic thought. The history of Ottoman economic thought is based on an oscillation between serbesti-i ticaret and usul-i himaye. Following 1908, it turns to a dualism between “liberal” economy/laissez-faire and “national” economy/ protectionism. Accordingly, scholars divide the 1908-18 period into two sections: the period of “liberal” economy (1908-1913/14) and the period of the National Economy (1913/14-1918). This thesis calls the scholars who apply a periodical and conceptual division between the “liberal” economy and the “national” economy and attribute specific qualities to the “national” that they do not attribute to the “liberal” the National Economy Thesis (NET), and it analyzes Zafer Toprak’s arguments as the pioneer of the NET. To question this dualism, it focuses on the 1908 Boycott that emerged at the dawn of the “liberal” economy period but that the existing literature regards as a manifestation of the “national” economy. Then, a discrepancy arises between the leitmotiv attributed to the 1908 Boycott and its timing. Interrogating this discrepancy, this study argues that the National Economy, in contrast to “liberal” economy/laissez- faire, does not present an appropriate economic framework to analyze the boycott. On the contrary, the boycott itself is related to liberal free-market economy at least in three respects. First, the boycott had a concern for free trade. Second, despite protectionist demands, they never intended a longstanding state intervention. The role of the state was limited to the equalization of competition between Ottoman merchants and foreign merchants. Third, there was a controlling attitude towards the lower classes due to the fear that the mobilized lower classes could destroy the free market.

Subject Keywords

national economy, economic thought, protectionism, laissez-faire, 1908 Ottoman Boycott

URI

https://hdl.handle.net/11511/108702

Collections

Graduate School of Social Sciences, Thesis