A New Dawn: Turkey post July 2008

Now that the highly dramatic month of July has finally come to an end, the people of Istanbul can collectively turn a page and look to an immediate future, which appears considerably more certain, if not banal, in comparison to the recent past. The city's bourgeoisie will head to their summer houses in the greater Istanbul region, while the upper classes augment their social status and darker skin tones at exclusive seaside ghettos such as mythic Bodrum.


By mid-September, Istanbul and Turkish current affairs in general will most likely return to their more traditional frenetic cadence. The school year will have commenced, Istanbul traffic jams will be in full-force and the "deep state" Ergenekon trial will steadily gain momentum in the headlines. On the heels of the Turkish national team's truly remarkable and extremely lucky showing in the UEFA Euro 2008 tournament, one must also not forget the beginning of the new domestic football season; more Brazilians playing for Fenerbahce and greater promise for the eternal underdog and this observer's favorite team, Trabzonspor.

While all of the above is well-established on the country's active radar over the next three to four months, this observer is surprised by the relative lack of consideration being given to basic economic variables, which arguably hold the greatest potential to disrupt. It has been quite remarkable to observe how Turkish equities analysts, often quoted in the Western media, have been very quick point out that all of the political intrigue surrounding the country's economy has been "already priced into the market" with apparently great efficiency.

To their credit, the Istanbul Stock Exchange undertook an aggresive ascent during the hours leading up to the court's decision and barely flinched in reaction to the American Consulate shooting at the beginning of July and the more recent "double bombing" at the end of July. While both events were indeed tragic due to the loss of human life involved, both were also quite bewildering in terms of identifying a likely motivation or intended political message. Furthermore, the Turkish state's decisions to attribute the consulate bombing to "Al-Qaeda" and the Istanbul double bombing to the "PKK" were both predictable and unconvincing. The unfazed reactions of equities investors were a testament of the relative insignificance of both incidents.

The financial markets greeted the Turkish Constitutional Court's decision to not close the ruling AK Party with predictable enthusiasm. It was a highly pro-business decision, which this observer accurately predicted in April 2008. The recent sale of Akpet to Lukoil and the Istanbul Stock Exchange's rise from this year's doldrums, which have earned it the distinction of the world's worst performing emerging market exchange in 2008, will remain sparkling examples of Turkey's "new dawn" during the next few months. Nonetheless, certain extremely fundamental concerns, in addition to the slowing Eurozone economy, remain. They consequently demand adequate consideration in order to clearly assess the country's short and medium-term future.

The following are a series of economic issues, some new and others ongoing, that this observer has picked from the headlines over the past few weeks. It is highly likely that some combination of these issues will influence country's political and economic landscape through 2009.

Deutsche Bank AG, the world's biggest currency trader, raised its forecast for the lira against the dollar after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party escaped a constitutional ban. The currency will end the year at 1.20 per dollar, Arend Kapteyn, chief economist for Europe, Africa and the Middle East at Deutsche Bank in London, wrote in a report dated today. The bank's previous estimate was 1.41 per dollar.

Source: Bloomberg

Turkey's prime minister, defense minister and military commanders are meeting to appoint a new military chief of staff. The four-day gathering began Friday at the armed forces headquarters in Ankara...Gen. Ilker Basbug, the current commander of Turkey's army, is expected to succeed chief of staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, who retires this month.

Source: IHT

"Once the euphoria dies down, attention will again turn to run-of-the-mill issues, like global markets, oil prices, and the domestic macro situation," says economist Banu Tokali of Istanbul brokerage FinansInvest, citing "inflation and monetary policy, in particular, coupled with the still-gaping current account deficit."

Turkey's central bank raised rates a further 50 basis points in July, repeating identical hikes it made in May and June. The latest increase brings the overnight borrowing rate to 16.75%, with the lending rate unchanged at 20.25%. The bank has been cagey about projecting its future monetary course, given the uncertain outcome of the AKP case and the unknown duration of the recent drop in oil prices. But in its July inflation report, the bank hinted at a slowdown in rate hikes. The bank also revised upward its projected inflation rate for 2008, from 9.7% to 10.6%, and pegged next year's rate at 7.9%.

Source: Business Week

Turkey, which could find funding from global markets more easily in the past, had to increase its interest rates to cope with the squeeze. The credit crunch process in the global markets has created a dramatic change in the financing of Turkey's current account deficit.

In the first five months of the year, current account deficit rose 33.3% from $16.16bn to $21.54bn while the total of foreign direct investments and portfolio investments dipped 73.3% from $18.87bn to $5.0bn. Meanwhile, foreign borrowing of banks and companies surged 116.2% from $10.39bn to $22.46bn, an indication that there may be a problem in financing the current account deficit.

Normally, the distress in financing the current account deficit results in a narrowing of imports for investments and production. Therefore, while the current account deficit is moderated, the economy starts to shrink. When companies are unable to find resources from abroad, they are obliged to knock at the door of banks for loans. This increase in loan demand results in the further increase of loan interests.

Source: Referans

Turkey raised its natural gas prices by nearly 20% on Friday in line with a new cost-based pricing mechanism, state pipeline company Botas said, announcing a move likely to increase already high inflation.

The gas price rise was fixed at 16.88% for residential properties and 18.77% for industry, Botas said. The cost-based pricing mechanism, introduced by the High Planning Board from the start of July, applies to all state energy companies and is seen as an important step before further privatisations of power distribution and production facilities.

Before the new system was introduced, electricity prices for industry were raised by 22% effective from July. Electricity companies have not applied to set new power tariffs this month. Rises in energy prices generally have been a major component in Turkey's double-digit inflation. The central bank, which has raised interest rates this year and said it could tighten further, has repeatedly cited energy prices as an inflation risk.

Source: Reuters

Turkey In Between: Syria-Israel & Georgia-Russia

Adding to its much coveted resume as "Europe's bridge to the Middle East", Turkey has now been officially recognized as the facilitator of talks between Israel and Syria. Whether or not the Israeli media agrees with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's motivations for publicizing the existence of talks, Turkey can at least shine in the warm spotlight of international recognition for a few weeks.

While most Turkish diplomatic activity in the Arab Middle East other than with Iraq follows a mechanical approach, Turkey's role as a mediator between Israel and Syria is uncharacteristically complex. There exists a very clear logic behind Turkey’s effort to mingle in the affairs of these two countries.

Compared to its relationship with neighbor Iran, Turkey's rapport with Syria is relatively underdeveloped. Perhaps the most significant reason for this is the incredible backwardness of Syria’s Baathist state-controlled economy, which is also responsible for the incredible backwardness of Syria’s regional foreign policy. Syria's problematic approach last affected Turkey in a dramatic way in 1998. Syria gave refuge to PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, much to the disgrace of Turkish public opinion that had designated Ocalan as a terrorist. Syria would ultimately harbor the Kurdish leader in Damascus until the threat of a Turkish invasion successfully forced his eviction.

In comparison, Turkey’s rapport with Israel has proved quite dynamic. Successive Turkish governments and the Turkish military have pursued a symbiotic relationship with Israel despite the risk of alienating Turkey even further in the eyes of the Arab World. Both countries, similarly focused on linking themselves with the West, have cooperated through military exchanges and natural resource transfers. In addition, Turkey hopes to court the sympathy of the Israeli lobby in Washington as a means of counter-balancing the influence of the Armenian lobby on American foreign policy.

While no observer could claim that Turkey’s efforts will actually make a significant difference in solving the issues that separate Israel and Syria, Turkey’s actions will help it acquire some additional credibility with pundits who influence EU opinion. This alone could be reason for Turkey to exert its diplomatic energy.

The highly involved nature of Turkey’s interest in affairs south of its border stands in tremendous contrast with its attitudes concerning the tumultuous political situation to its north-east. Turkey has chosen a relatively silent course as Georgia struggles to deal with breakaway Abkhazia and omnipresent Russia.

(On Monday, the UN announced that a Russian jet did indeed shoot down a Georgian unmanned surveillance drone patrolling over Abkhazia.)

Other than its relations with Armenia, which are “very well” defined, Turkey's diplomatic intentions in the greater Caucasus region and Central Asia have been unclear ever since the failure of its Pan-Turkism initiative in the 1990s. While Turkish construction companies and textile producers have been keen to acquire contracts and conduct foreign direct investment projects, Turkey's main interest in the region has been its role as a conduit for Central Asian energy exports to Europe and beyond. Turkey's energy interests in Central Asia have understandably run counter to those of Russia, which are monopolistic by nature.

Turkey's concern for its trade relations with Russia must also not be overlooked. Roughly 70% of the country's natural gas supplies come from Russia, worth approximately $2bn. In addition, Turkish companies currently boast $4.5bn in foreign direct investments in Russia, while Russia companies have $3bn in Turkey. Therefore, the rather undefined character of Turkey's relations with the Caucasus and Central Asia is most likely due to its disinterest in provoking Russia's wrath.

In contrast, provoking Russia's wrath has been one of the main occupations of Georgia's second post-Soviet Union president, Mikhael Saakashvili. Saakashvili’s attempts to overhaul his country’s economy and mentality, often in brazen defiance of Russia, have won him a large following in the West. The US is widely believed to have provided the George Washington University Law School trained lawyer with the necessary moral support and financial backing to overcome considerable odds.

While Turkey has shown such great interest in helping Israel resolve its issues with Syria, it has comparatively neglected neighboring Georgia’s plight. Although comparing Georgia to Israel on a geopolitical scale is like weighing a bowling ball against a golf ball, it is nevertheless unfortunate that Turkey chooses not to more publicly support the Caucasus’ own geopolitical David against the Russian Goliath.

Turkey does in fact give military support to Georgia in the form of training and funding. While the monetary figure of this military support is dwarfed in comparison to that provided by the US, Turkey is probably Georgia’s second largest military donor state. The two countries have also successfully cooperated together on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project – the cornerstone of Turkey’s design to become an energy transfer hub. A new train connection between Azerbaijan, Georgian and Russia will also encourage closer trade relations.

Saakashvili is reputedly trying to transform his country into a fully-functional democracy and regional economic force, both of which would be beneficial to Turkish interests. While Georgia is still far from realizing this dream, Saakashvili’s goals are noble and most likely much more of a near-term reality than expecting Baathist Syria to dramatically evolve.

If Turkey wishes to demonstrate its constructive potential to influence the affairs of the surrounding regions, it would be well-served by addressing an issue that is clearly within its means and in its natural sphere of influence. Sadly for Georgia, Ankara is either too scared to compromise economic relations with Russia or too consumed by the international notoriety it receives from pursuing “peace in the Middle East” as opposed to in the Caucasus.

Considering the Likely Fate of the AKP

The drama surrounding the potential closure of the ruling AKP party acquired a significant nuance with the decision of Standard & Poor's to cut Turkey's credit rating to three increments below investment grade (BB-) last week. The credit agency attributed its sudden decision to "the increasingly challenging political and global environment that Turkey faces in the near term". Moody's, on the contrary, has decided to keep its rating unchanged, choosing to focus on more fiscal factors for its credit appraisal.

While S&P's credit rating cut was probably a bit rash, its verdict on the Turkish economy was nevertheless inevitable at some point in 2008. After multiple years of robust growth, it has become increasingly clear over the last nine months that the country's economic pendulum has begun to swing away from good fortune. Only the very brave, or ignorant, have argued that the Turkish economy could easily navigate the brewing global downturn. In this regard, S&P's announcement can be taken as the symbolic beginning of a new era of Turkish political-economic history; the good times will no longer roll like they once did.

The current economic situation is not particularly dreary for most segments of the Turkish population other than inflationary pressures on food prices. However, as growth projections are revised due to the impending slowdown in foreign direct investment (FDI), the economy will increasingly experience more unpleasant realities. The mechanics of this impending economic malfunction are largely related to the Turkish economy's need to attract FDI in order to stave off the symptoms of its looming account deficit. In addition to the usual threat posed by cheap imports from China, one of the main causes of Turkey's robust account deficit has been the AKP's legacy of generous public spending. It should also be noted that this spending has made a significant contribution to the party's popularity in certain parts of the country.

Economic issues are perhaps of highest importance to Turkish voters and may have in fact been responsible for the AKP's resounding victory in the July 2007 referendum. It is therefore the opinion of this observer that any attempt to predict how the AKP will weather the current legal storm must be considered in the context of economic factors.

If Turkey's constitutional court decides to advocate the closure of the AKP on grounds of anti-secular activities, members of every single part of the Turkish political and religious spectrum will face a great economic punishment. The reasons for such a forecast are in fact quite simple.

1.) Any legitimate sympathy Turkey in fact has in the EU political universe vis a vis its EU candidacy will vanish over night. Without even the lingering possibility of EU membership, Turkey will become a much less attractive place to a certain breed of foreign investor. Whether Turkey truly needs the EU from an economic standpoint is separate question. What is certain is that "perceptions" of Turkey among investors will be damaged if the EU has reason to distance itself.

2.) While the AKP has probably been partly responsible for the considerable amount of Arab investment from Gulf sources that has poured into Turkey over the course of its political tenure, its actual skill for "economic management" can be isolated to a single issue: stability. As an emerging market prone to natural disasters, military coups, terrorism activity, and domestic turmoil of many kinds, the AKP has been very adept at keeping a lid on Turkey's eternally boiling pot. By Turkish standards, the political scene has progressed quite smoothly over the past couple of years and this has emboldened investors to make greater financial commitments.

3.) Closure of the AKP would require new elections and the creation of a new government. Assuming economic conditions slide as a result of the political turmoil and the EU chooses to take a step back from Turkey, it is quite likely that the Turkish public would turn inward. An introverted Turkish public might very likely gravitate towards the right-wing nationalist arms of one Devlet Bahçeli, the head of the MHP or Nationalist Movement Party. Having won 14.3% of the electorate in the July 2007 vote, MHP might prove to be the biggest beneficiary of a court ruling against the AKP. The social turmoil that this gravitation to the right would entail could become extremely unpleasant and would further stall the country's economic progress.

It is unlikely that the AKP will face closure or that any of these doomsday scenarios will see the light of day. Turkey can nonetheless grasp this moment in its political history as an opportunity to evolve its democratic institution to its next possible level of development.

It may indeed be true that the AKP is at fault for transgressions against secularism. However, Turkish proponents of secularism and other supposed "pro-Western" elements of society would be remiss for decisively terminating the life of a democratically elected political party. While Turkey is a democracy in practice, it remains reluctant to emotionally embrace the kind of pluralism that characterizes the world's strongest democracies. Very few people in Turkey seem to sufficiently trust their government in order to hold the expectation that government will protect the rights of individuals on any end of the political spectrum. It is for this reason that most secular Turks consider it unthinkable for the AKP to protect the rights of women who chose not to wear the headscarf. Conversely, religiously-observant Turks continue to fight for equality in Turkish society, as evidenced by the removal of the law against women wearing head scarves on the grounds of Turkish universities. It is quite unclear whether this particular reality concerning head scarves in universities will endure beyond the era of the AKP.

If the country's constitutional court were to decide to reprimand as opposed to ban the AKP, democracy in Turkey will have taken a giant step forward. By allowing the AKP to persist, albeit under certain constrictions that force it to better "respect" the secularist framework of society, Turkish politics would have gained an important new dynamic. Such a decision would help establish an environment in which the country's emerging religiously-minded values can coexist with its traditionally secular mores and legal framework. In the long term, this is something for which both the EU and foreign investors would enthusiastically cheer.

Armenia's Presidential Election and its Ramifications for Relations with Turkey

Armenia's presidential election has finally passed after simmering for much of the month of March. For a synopsis of the events before and after the election, please refer to this article in the Diplomatic Courier, or read the following open to an article from the February 21st Economist.

ELECTIONS in former Soviet republics rarely yield surprises. The incumbent wins; the opposition cries foul; it takes to the streets. The presidential vote in Armenia on February 19th ran true to form. Serzh Sarkisian, the prime minister, won 53% of the vote, enough to avert a runoff with his main rival, Levon Ter-Petrossian, with 21%. Mr Ter-Petrossian, a former president, said Mr Sarkisian had stolen the vote even before ballots were counted. Independent observers talked of ballot stuffing and intimidation.

It will probably be some time before elections in the Caucasus shed their flair for the dramatic. Even neighboring Turkey, a "pillar of political stability" for over half a decade, is giving the region a run for its money. The possibility of dismantling a ruling party due to alleged anti-secular transgressions would make any intrigue from the Caucasus look like a cheap B-movie.

Whether fraudulent elections or economic concerns, Armenian political debate rarely ventures far from a number of issues related to the country's intimidating western neighbor. Optimists could argue that the newest selection of political personalities in Armenia may indeed prove to be the necessary ingredients for improving relations between Armenia and Turkey. Other than the long-standing quarrel surrounding the Armenian Genocide, one of the most important issues defining poor relations between the two countries is the contemporary dispute concerning Nagorno-Karabakh.

The current conflict that defines this small region dangling between Armenia and Azerbaijan has its origins in the early days of the Soviet Union, and includes an intriguing historical connection to Turkey. Before the Bolsheviks swept through the Caucasus in the early 1920s, the Nagorno-Karabakh region had been traditionally inhabited by both ethnic Armenian and Azerbaijani peoples. It had therefore been a point of contention during the short life-span of the newly minted states of Armenia and Azerbaijan. With the arrival of the communist era in the Caucasus, this conflict would be subsumed under the greater strategic affairs of the Soviet Union.

In 1923 Stalin, who was the Soviet commissar of nationalities at the time, decided to cede Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan as an "autonomous oblast". According to a biography of Georgia's most famous son by Robert Service, Stalin made this decision in order to curry favor with Ataturk's Turkish Republic, which apparently maintained a keen interest in "Turkic affairs" even at that early time.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh experienced a string of bloody conflicts between Azerbaijani and Aremenian military and paramilitary forces. While Armenia received the bulk of its military support from Russia, the comparatively ill-equipped Azerbaijani forces are believed to have been supported by non-Azerbaijani Muslim mercenaries. With Armenia emerging as the nominal victor of the conflict, Turkey has chosen to isolate Armenia politically and economically, possibly with the ulterior motive of deflecting attention away from the Armenian Genocide or inflicting punishment as a result of public-relations discomfort it has caused the Turkish state.

While the fall of the Soviet Union involved a very unpleasant reality check for all those involved in the communist market experiment, the last decade has seen many of these countries make economic progress quite often due to their energy reserves. Over 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the circumstance of the Armenian economy remain dire when compared to any of its neighbors. The financial and travel blockade imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan is largely responsible for its lack of economic progress. Like the economies of its neighbors, the Armenian market and political landscape is riddled with corruption. When considering the question of Armenian-Turkish relations in the near future, it appears that this issue of corruption, particularly as it relates Nagorno-Karabakh, is of great relevance.

The following Voice of America (VOA) article demonstrates the degree to which politicians hailing from Nagorno-Karabakh maintain a stranglehold on the Armenian political process.

Here is a selection of the article's most poignant ideas:

Aram Abramian, editor in chief of the Yerevan-based daily newspaper "Aravot" and who has roots in Nagorno-Karabakh, says Kocharian and Sarkisian brought in associates from the territory who took over state posts and dominated the business elite.

"There are 20, 30 families -- oligarchs -- people who, thanks to the opportunities that are provided to them by the authorities, became rich, and have wide possibilities of avoiding taxes and custom fees," Abramian says, adding that well-connected moguls were able to gain "monopolies" over fuel, sugar, and other commodities.

Among those identified by analysts as part of the Karabakh clan are Kocharian's son, Sedrak, who reportedly controls mobile-phone imports; Barsegh Beglarian, who dominates the gas-station market; Mika Bagdasarov, who controls oil imports and heads the national airline; and Karen Karapetian, head of the Armrusgazard gas company, a joint venture with Russia's Gazprom.

If the ideas advanced by the VOA article are indeed true, it is hard not to be pessimistic about the future of Nagorno-Karabakh issue and, as an extension, the future of Armenian-Turkish relations. The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh legitimates the political class currently running Armenia. In particular, it distracts the electorate away from the single biggest issue affecting their lives on a daily basis - a sickly economy. As the VOA article suggests, what motivation does Armenia's ruling Nagorno-Karabakh cabal have to resolve the conflict and further improve relations with Turkey in order to resuscitate the economy? A more free-market economic system, involving trade and investment with Turkey, would only undermine their current political and economic existence as it would empower potential opponents.

Turkey, for its part, should also be expected to engage the Nagorno-Karabakh with a more constructive attitude. This is especially the case in light of its role as the region's most important power broker after Russia and its aspirations to join the European Union as a valuable diplomatic partner. Prior to its construction, Turkey offered to route the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline through Armenia, allowing its neighbor to collect the lucrative transit fees, in exchange for recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan.

Such a swap would have merely fattened the wallets of the corrupt. More importantly, it would have done little to address the underlying issues stoking the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - disputes between two distinct ethno-religious groups wanting to living on the same plot of land. While a more constructive approach must be demonstrated on Turkey's part, such an expectation may prove foolish. The rising levels of ethno-nationalistic sentiment that could very well mark the post-AKP era of Turkish politics render the possibility of reconciliation with Armenia increasingly unlikely.

Regardless of Turkey's role, there is a much greater motivation for Armenia to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh compared to Turkey considering Armenia's desperate need to reintegrate itself into the regional economy of Eurasia. Armenia cannot afford to be locked in its current economic ice age and slip further behind its neighbors in terms of economic development. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a clear sign of when the country's democratic process will be capable of overcoming Armenia's suffocating political-economic corruption.

Further Reading: "Made in Turkey" - but for how long?

The following article from the Economist is as a very useful extension of this website's discussion of the Turkish economy's future. In particular, the article makes a number of revealing observations concerning foreign direct investment not necessarily creating as many jobs as one might expect, as well as outlining weaknesses in the country's widely championed manufacturing sector related to its emphasis on assembling components made in other countries and its labor costs.

Further Reading: Headscarves, generals, and Turkish democracy

The following article is an exhausting, yet extremely comprehensive, sketch of the most important issues in contemporary Turkish society. The author, Niels Kadritze, is the editor of the German edition of Le Monde Diplomatique. While Mr. Kadritze's essay is somewhat lacking in terms of the organization of ideas, the quality and range of his observations are absolutely first rate.

www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-02-01-kadritzke-en.html

"Made in Turkey" - but for how long?

During a flight from Istanbul to Europe, this observer had the great fortune to strike up a conversation with a gentleman named Mehmet. Mehmet and his wife, along with half of the economy section of the plane, were on their way to a two week tour of South America. All of the tour participants were of retirement age or older, wore gold watches and jewelery, and lived in some of the nicer residential areas of Istanbul. They collectively represent a sort of golden generation of Turks, who were born toward the beginning of the Turkish Republic. Ataturk's reforms have influenced the entirety of their personal and professional development. They are accordingly some of the staunchest defenders of secular and westernized Turkey, since it is they who largely realized Ataturk's vision and have been its greatest beneficiaries.

Mehmet began his career in the navy as a cadet at Turkey's naval academy and ultimately served as a electronics technician. He spoke with great pride about the technical training he received from the US Navy and also boasted that his daughter completed a masters in electrical engineering from a major American university. When Mehmet left the Turkish Navy, he started a manufacturing business with the technical expertise, which he had acquired during his career. His factory, which is located on the Asian side of Istanbul, has a vibrant business producing electronic components used in televisions made by Turkey's largest household electronic goods manufacturer, Vestel.

Mehmet's manufacturing business serves as a microcosm of Turkey's economic renaissance, which has particularly bloomed during the past few years of the AKP leadership. No longer dominated by state-owned businesses, agriculture and textiles, Turkey's economy emerged from a politically tumultuous period in the 1990s with an aggressive approach and strong support from foreign investors. According to the president of the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists, Rızanur Meral, 60% of Turkey's exports are purchased by European Union members. Turkey's historically weak currency, lower wage levels, emerging domestic economy, long-time NATO membership and proximity to Europe have made it a logical location for manufacturing growth.

While the lure of these conditions continues to prevail for the most part, Mehmet's forecast for the future of his business would appear to have great relevance to the prospects of the Turkish economy in general. "In three years I will have to close my production line," Mehmet predicted. In order to compete with Chinese manufacturers vying for Vestel's supply contracts, Mehmet's business has been forced to cut the price of its electronic components. These cuts will eventually render his domestic production operations completely unprofitable - a phenomenon that is relevant to many of the world's emerging market economies including Turkey.

Mehmet's story exposes one of the many vulnerabilities of the Turkish economy, which this observer views as an increasingly visible theme for 2008. While Turkey's labor costs may be low compared to Western Europe or even most of Eastern Europe, it offers little advantage when compared to India or China. Moreover, raw material costs in India and China benefit from substantial state subsidization. Due to Turkey's considerable trade with Europe, local Turkish suppliers of raw materials have raised their prices to European levels and the Turkish market furthermore does not feature nearly the same level of raw material subsidization.

Throughout 2007 the great strength of the Turkish lira, buoyed by record levels of foreign investment covering Turkey's growing deficit as well as by substantial foreign exchange trading, kept pace with the rising price of oil. Unlike in the US economy, which has felt the effects of higher energy costs, the Turkish economy was relatively buffered. Despite this situation, the following analysis from a Bloomberg article references a chronic fault in Turkey's manufacturing system.

“The essential problem for Turkey is the fact that manufacturers rely on imported goods to make products,” said Şengül Dağdeviren, economist for Oyak Bank in Istanbul. “Whenever exports increase, imports go up accordingly.” Exports rose 30 percent to $11.3 billion in November, a record for a single month, the statistics agency said Monday. Imports increased 29 percent to $16.6 billion in November from the year-earlier period, the agency said.

The Turkish government has responded to this situation by calling for Turkish manufacturers to pursue more value-added products. However, this observer wonders how moving up the value chain for manufactured products will alleviate Turkey's troublesome import-export cycle. Value-added products will make the country's exports worth more, but they will still require Turkey to import the necessary inputs - perhaps even at greater levels of cost.

The Turkish economy thrives on political stability and it appears unlikely that the magicians in the AKP will be able to ensure such conditions for 2008. The political calendar in 2008 will be marked by the inevitably heated battle over the series of constitutional reforms desired by the AKP. In addition, Prime Minister Erdoğan has demonstrated considerable resolve to overhaul the country's social security system, which is a key sticking point for Turkey's relationship with the IMF and with the European Union to a certain extent. At the moment, roughly 8m Turks directly receive social security payments and "90 percent of the Turkish population is directly or indirectly a part of the social security system" according to this article in Today's Zaman.

The legacy of last year's drought, the potential for military activity related to the PKK and interruptions in energy cooperation with Iran and Russia could also contribute to the brewing storm, which will hamper Turkey's economy in 2008. With slower levels of growth predicted for the coming year, Turkey and its AKP-led government must be extremely sensitive to the social and ethnic tensions that will most likely rise as the general climate of economic prosperity dissipates. It is this potential for unrest in Turkish society, which ultimately represents the greatest threat to the near-term progress of the Turkish economy, in addition to the nation at large.