Hukuk ve Kalkınma Çalışmalarında Üç Dönem: Modernleşme, Piyasalaşma ve Piyasa-Sonrası
‘Hukuk ve Kalkınma Çalışmaları’ iktisadi kalkınmaya elverişli hukuki kural, kurum ve uygulamaları tespit etmeye yönelen bir araştırma alanıdır. 1950’lerde başlayan bu çalışmaların gelişimi üç döneme ayrılarak incelenebilir. Bu çalışmaların ilk yirmi yılını kapsayan ‘Modernleşme Dönemi’ni devlet eliyle sanayileşme ve ithal ikamecilik fikirleri şekillendirmiştir. 1970’lere gelindiğinde modernleşme dönemi çalışmalarının başarısızlıkları görünür olmuş ve hukuk ve kalkınma alanı metruk bir alana dönüşmüştür. 1980’lerde bu alanda yeniden bir hareketlenme gözlenmiştir. ‘Piyasalaşma Dönemi’ adını verdiğimiz bu ikinci dönemde Dünya Bankası ve Uluslararası Para Fonu gibi kuruluşların etkinliği artmıştır. Bu dönemde devletin iktisadi alandan tamamen çekilmesi ve serbest küresel ticaret savunulmuştur. 1990’lı yılların sonuna gelindiğinde bu yaklaşımın uygulandığı ülkelerin kalkınamadığı, aksine yoksulluğun ve gelir adaletsizliğinin arttığı görülmüş ve böylece piyasalaşma dönemi sona ermiştir. 2000’lerde başlayan ‘Piyasa-sonrası Dönem’de kalkınmakta olan ülkeler uluslararası finans kuruluşlarından uzaklaşmaya başlamışlardır. İktisadi alanda meşruluğunu kaybeden bu kuruluşlar etik alandan meşruluk devşirmeye yönelmişlerdir. Amartya Sen’in ‘özgürlük olarak kalkınma’ kuramı bu bakımdan işlevsel olmuştur. Dünya Bankası bu kuramdan esinlenen ‘Kapsayıcı Kalkınma Çerçevesi’ adlı bir bildiri yayımlamış ve bu çerçevede kalkınma, iktisadi büyümeden fazlasını kapsayacak şekilde yeniden tanımlanmış; eğitim, sağlık, çevre, eşitlik, demokrasi gibi birçok mesele bu alana dahil edilmiştir. Bu dönemde kalkınmanın iktisadi anlamına ağırlık veren yeni bir yaklaşım da ortaya çıkmıştır. ‘Yeni Kalkınmacı Devlet’ adlı bu yaklaşımda kalkınmada devlete ve piyasaya ayrı ayrı görevler düştüğü savunulmaktadır. Buna göre devlet, iktisadi yaşamı yönetmemeli ancak piyasa aktörlerinin bireysel olarak çözemeyecekleri sorunları çözmeli, yaygın etki vaat eden ilk girişimlerde riski paylaşmalı ve girişimcileri yenilikçiliğe özendirmelidir. Bu yaklaşımda bağlamsal, çoğulcu ve devingen kalkınma siyasaları öne çıkmaktadır.
Three Periods on Law and Development Studies: Modernization, Marketization and Post-Market
‘Law and Development Studies’ aim to identify legal rules, institutions, and practices that are conducive to development. The development of these studies, which started in the 1950s, can be divided into three periods. The ‘Modernization Period’, which covers the first twenty years, was shaped by the idea of state-led industrialization. These studies failed to produce positive results. The ‘Marketization Period’, which started in the 1980s the effectiveness of international finance institutions has increased; and the complete withdrawal of the state from the economic field were advocated. By the end of the 1990s, in the countries where this approach was implemented, development could not be achieved. In the ‘Post-Market Era’ that started in the 2000s, developing countries move away from international financial institutions. These institutions, which have lost their legitimacy in the economic f ield, have turned to the ethical field to regain legitimacy. Inspired by Amartya Sen, The World Bank published ‘The Comprehensive Development Framework’. Within this framework, development was redefined to mean more than economic growth; many issues such as education, health, equality, and democracy were entered to this notion. During this period, a new approach that focused on the economic meaning of development also emerged. In this approach called ‘New Developmental State’, it is argued that the state and the market both have duties in development processes. The state should not manage economic life but should solve problems that market actors cannot solve individually, share the risk in the initiatives that promise widespread impact, and encourage entrepreneurs to innovate.
‘Law and Development Studies' is a field of research that aims to identify legal rules, institutions, and practices that are conducive to economic development. The development process of these studies, which started in the 1950s, can be divided into three periods. In this article, these periods are named ‘Modernization’, ‘Marketization’, and ‘Post-Market’. In the ‘Modernization Period’, which covers the first twenty years of law and development studies, approaches inherited from the colonial period and the struggles against Soviet influence during the Cold War were decisive. During this period, law transfer programs were carried out in African and Latin American countries with the support of US public resources and organizations such as the Ford Foundation. The development programs of this period were shaped by the ideas of state-led industrialization and import substitution. During the modernization period, a -distorted- Weberian understanding of rational law and bureaucracy came to the fore and the law was instrumentalized with a pragmatist attitude. Also a legalist attitude, even reaching legal fetishism, was adopted. By the 1970s, the unsuccessful results of the studies carried out during the modernization period became visible and the field of law and development was abandoned. In the 1980s a new movement has been observed in this field within the framework of Friedrich A. v. Hayek's free market views and Douglass C. North's institutionalist approach, which emphasizes private property and contract law. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the second period of law and development studies, which we call the 'Marketization Period', has fully begun. During this period, the effectiveness of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund has increased. These organizations followed a neo-liberal economic policy called the Washington Consensus in their conditional loan agreements and structural adjustment programs. In this policy, the complete withdrawal of the state from the economic field and free global trade were advocated. Limiting state power and ensuring the ‘rule of law’ had seen as the basic condition for the country to receive foreign investment and thus ensure economic development. By the end of the 1990s, in countries that shrank their states, deregulated their markets, and opened up to global free trade, it was seen that poverty and income inequality increased exponentially, while development goals could not be achieved. On the other hand, tremendous development success has been observed in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which do not implement neoliberal policies. This situation has shaken the trust in the Washington Consensus and international financial institutions. Thus, the marketization period ended. In the ‘Post-Market Period’ that started in the 2000s, developing countries began to move away from international financial institutions. These institutions, which have lost their legitimacy in the economic field, have turned to the ethical f ield to regain legitimacy. Amartya Sen's theory of 'development as freedom' has been functional in this respect. The World Bank published a declaration called ‘The Comprehensive Development Framework’ inspired by this theory, and within this framework, development was redefined to mean more than economic growth. In this period, many issues such as education, health, environment, climate change, gender equality, and democratic participation are entered to the notion of development. In the post-market era, a new approach has also emerged that continues to emphasize the economic meaning of development. In this approach, which is called ‘New Developmental State’, it is argued that the state and the market both have duties in the development processes. The state should not manage economic life, but it should solve problems that market actors cannot solve individually, obtain and share information that they cannot obtain individually, assume the risks in the initiatives that promise success and widespread impact, and encourage entrepreneurs to innovate. In the New Developmental State approach, the one-size-fits-all approach observed in the previous two periods is criticized. Instead, it highlights pluralistic and dynamic development policies that center on each country's contextual conditions. It is advocated that national will should be decisive in the creation and implementation of these policies. For the New Developmental State approach to be successful, a legal framework suitable for participatory, flexible, and adaptable development policies must be established. In this regard, it is argued that soft law tools that are open to adaptation according to context are more convenient than strict regulations and sanctions.
