This is how many new Turkish millionaires there are since 2007

The troubling stats under the protests.

The world’s eyes are on Turkey this week. While we see images of tear gas drenched streets, armoured policemen, headscarfed protestors, charred vehicles, banners and flags and a humiliated president, the world thinks “Arab Spring”. Such are the parallels that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was forced to announce this morning that the protests that stopped Turkey over the weekend were "not Turkish Spring".

But comparing protest with protest is not really very helpful. Turkey’s Taksim Square, where protesters gathered last week, is not Tahrir in Egypt and neither is it Deraa in Syria (where the Syrian uprising began), Syntagma in Athens nor Wall Street, where Occupy emerged. These comparisons can be dismantled by their causes – Turkey is not a dictatorship, children were not imprisoned for anti-government graffiti, the country is not going bankrupt and nor is it symbolic of greed and capitalism.

Actually, it appears that one uniting current of all these protests is absent from Turkey’s – employment. Turkey’s protests are strange enough when you think that they arose out of an opposition to the development of Taksim Square into a shopping mall. But throw in a few stats about the Turkish economy and they seem even more incomprehensible: Since Erdoğan was elected ten years ago in 2003, per capita income and GDP have both at least doubled. Infrastructure, schools and healthcare have weaved their way out of Istanbul and Ankara and wealth has risen too – the number of millionaires in Turkey has risen by 7.4 per cent since 2007 and Istanbul is the world’s seventh most popular city for billionaires according to WealthInsight.  All this has been achieved despite problematic neighbours in Syria, Greece, Iraq, Georgia and Iran. 

You would think Erdoğan’s achievements deserve national applaud, but people abhor him instead. Progress, it seems, is not progress in everyone’s eyes and Istanbul’s controversial shopping centre is not the only symbol of this. Plans for a new airport, a new bridge spanning the Bosporus and an immense hilltop mosque to shadow Istanbul’s ancient minarets are other projects of hullabaloo. This is not to mention anger about new alcohol restrictions and associated Islamic laws.

So, although Turkey’s protests appear similar to the Arab Spring in image (nearly all modern protests seem visually unanimous), it appears to be oppositely motivated. Rather than protest against the incompetence of their leader, many in Turkey’s cities today are calling for an end to over competence. As David Gardener writes in today’s FT, “Mr Erdogan’s critics insistently accuse him of aspiring to become a neo-Ottoman sultan, but Pharaoh would be just as near the mark”.

Protesters in Turkey. Photograph: Getty Images

Oliver Williams is an analyst at WealthInsight and writes for VRL Financial News

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Future of the Left: A new start requires a new economy

Creating a "sharing economy" can get the left out of its post-crunch malaise, says Stewart Lansley.

Despite the opportunity created by the 2008 crisis, British social democracy is today largely directionless. Post-2010 governments have filled this political void by imposing policies – from austerity to a shrinking state - that have been as economically damaging as they have been socially divisive.

Excessive freedom for markets has brought a society ever more divided between super-affluence and impoverishment, but also an increasingly fragile economy, and too often, as in housing, complete dysfunction.   Productivity is stagnating, undermined by a model of capitalism that can make big money for its owners and managers without the wealth creation essential for future economic health. The lessons of the meltdown have too often been ignored, with the balance of power – economic and political – even more entrenched in favour of a small, unaccountable and self-serving financial elite.

In response, the left should be building an alliance for a new political economy, with new goals and instruments that provide an alternative to austerity, that tackle the root causes of ever-growing inequality and poverty and strengthen a weakening productive base. Central to this strategy should be the idea of a “sharing economy”, one that disperses capital ownership, power and wealth, and ensures that the fruits of growth are more equally divided. This is not just a matter of fairness, it is an economic imperative. The evidence is clear: allowing the fruits of growth to be colonised by the few has weakened growth and made the economy much more prone to crisis.

To deliver a new sharing political economy, major shifts in direction are needed. First, with measures that tackle, directly, the over-dominance of private capital. This could best be achieved by the creation of one or more social wealth funds, collectively held financial funds, created from the pooling of existing resources and fully owned by the public. Such funds are a potentially powerful new tool in the progressive policy armoury and would ensure that a higher proportion of the national wealth is held in common and used for public benefit and not for the interests of the few.

Britain’s first social wealth fund should be created by pooling all publicly owned assets,  including land and property , estimated to be worth some £1.2 trillion, into a single ring-fenced fund to form a giant pool of commonly held wealth. This move - offering a compromise between nationalisation and privatization - would bring an end to today’s politically expedient sell-off of public assets, preserve what remains of the family silver and ensure that the revenue from the better management of such assets is used to boost essential economic and social investment.

A new book, A Sharing Economy, shows how such funds could reduce inequality, tackle austerity and, by strengthening the public asset base, rebalance the public finances.

Secondly, we need a new fail safe system of social security with a guaranteed income floor in an age of deepening economic and job insecurity. A universal basic income, a guaranteed weekly, unconditional income for all as a right of citizenship, would replace much of the existing and increasingly means-tested, punitive and authoritarian model of income support. . By restoring universality as a core principle, such a scheme would offer much greater security in what is set to become an increasingly fragile labour market. A basic income, buttressed by a social wealth fund, would be key instruments for ensuring that the potential productivity gains from the gathering automation revolution, with machines displacing jobs, are shared by all.  

Thirdly, a new political economy needs a radical shift in wider economic management. The mix of monetary expansion and fiscal contraction has proved a blunderbuss strategy that has missed its target while benefitting the rich and affluent at the expense of the poor. By failing to tackle the central problem  – a gaping deficit of demand (one inflamed by the long wage squeeze and sliding investment)  - the strategy has slowed recovery.  The mass printing of money (quantitative easing) may have helped prevent a second great depression, but has also  created new and unsustainable asset bubbles, while austerity has added to the drag on the economy. Meanwhile, record low interest rates have failed to boost private investment and productivity, but by hiking house prices, have handed a great bonanza to home owners at the expense of renters.

Building economic resilience will require a more central role for the state in boosting and steering investment programmes, in part through the creation of a state investment bank (which could be partially financed from the proposed new social wealth fund) aimed at steering more resources into the wealth creating activities private capital has failed to fund.

With too much private credit used for financial speculation and property, and too little to small companies and infrastructure, government needs to play a much more direct role in creating credit, while restricting the almost total freedom currently handed to private banks.  Tackling the next downturn, widely predicted to land within the next 2-3 years, will need a very different approach, including a more active fiscal policy. To ensure a speedier recovery from recessions, future rounds of quantitative easing should, within clear constraints, boost the economy directly by financing public investment programmes and cash handouts (‘helicopter money’).  Such a police mix – on investment, credit and stimulus - would be more effective in boosting the real economic base, and would be much less pro-rich and anti-poor in its consequences.

These core changes would greatly reform the existing Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism and provide the foundations for building support for a new direction for progressive politics. They would pioneer new tools for building a fairer, more dynamic and more stable economy. They could draw on experience elsewhere such as the Alaskan annual citizen’s dividend (financed by a sovereign wealth fund) and the pilot basic income schemes launching in the Netherlands, Finland and France.  Even mainstream economists, including Adair Turner, former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, are now talking up the principle of ‘helicopter money’. For these reasons, parts of the package are likely to prove publicly popular and command support across the political divide. Together they would contribute to a more stable economy, less inequality, and a more even balance of power and opportunity.

 

Stewart Lansley is the author of A Sharing Economy, published in March by Policy Press and of Breadline Britain, The Rise of Mass Impoverishment (with Joanna Mack).