After 1953, DP started to canalize the commercial wealth to ISI. Investments in textile and food industry depending on agriculture increased. In addition, production of perishable goods was supported. However, production of perishable goods was required exported raw materials and intermediates. Due to the absence of foreign investment in the country, DP afforded this exports via foreign indebtment, short and long term credits. However, these credits were not productively benefitted and in 1958, DP took the measures of stabilization. Nevertheless, these measures did not mean the end of newly introduced ISI period in Turkey (Sunar, 1983). Under the coalition government of Republican People's Party, Justice Party and New Turkey Party during the …show more content…
Barr explains neoliberal populism or neopopulism as a “political phenomenon in which a leader attempts to build personalistic ties to the impoverished masses while pursuing neoliberal economic policies” (Barr, 2003, p. 1161). From the economic perspective, it is difficult that neoliberalism and populism coexist. Neoliberalism depends market-oriented globally competitive capitalism which is both hegemonic in region and outside while development model of classic period was based upon the potentiality of inward development via national industries. In classic period, wages increased and consumption was promoted whereas neoliberalism comprises structural adjustment packages and drastic austerity measures (freezing wages and subsidies etc.). Neopopulists carried out selectively allocated micro-level distribution tools consisting material awards or funds instead of Keynesian redistributive policies. Any administration respecting the restrictions set by capital regimes of accumulation or namely “populism of the dominant classes” should have needed to create a new synthesis in order to gain popular support of the masses (Cammack, 2000, p. 157). In this sense, neopopulist governments through micro-level redistribution mechanisms sought to attract support of those who were excluded from benefits of ISI process; particularly unorganized marginal mass. That although austerity measures deteriorated the living conditions of the masses, they continued to support the neopopulist leaders remains a major paradox of nepopulism. This paradox could be explained by the fact that the masses who suffered from financial crises hit in the previous periods were ready to experience hardships for the overall sake of the economy. Furthermore, when neopopulist leaders carried out risky economic strategies, they succeed to enhance their charisma in the eyes of the