In recent years the Turkish political domain has witnessed a multitude of solidarity initiatives such as consumer cooperatives, women-owned producer cooperatives and neighbourhood assemblies formed by citizens in an effort to express their discontent with the hegemonic neo-liberal project and the tone of its implementation. These initiatives, in response to full-blown neo-liberalism and the increasing drift towards authoritarianism, can be taken as enclaves of ‘hope’ where, through direct democracy and solidarity among various constituencies, excluded groups can be repositioned within the political and economic realm and citizens can have a voice in politics. Activists involved in these initiatives demand a ‘just’ distribution of resources within society and claim that by realizing their capabilities, by pursuing their ideals and by offering their time and labour they can shape power relations at the local level. Participants from diverse social and economic backgrounds – workers, professionals, university students, the unemployed – question the predominant norms of the existing political system and develop alternatives that can lead to change. In this book we focus on one of these initiatives: the alternative consumer cooperatives (ACCs) as spaces for prefigurative food politics.

In Turkey, the ACCs are different to conventional consumer cooperatives (CCCs), which have been instrumentalized either by the state or by companies for private gain. The ACCs proliferated after the 2013 Gezi Park protests as a reaction to the hegemony of capitalist relationships in the production and distribution of foodstuff. They are governed by activists who disregard managerialist logic and experiment with alternative ways of governance such as a zero hierarchy and consensus-based decision-making. The daily activities of the ACCs are carried out by consumers who offer their labour voluntarily and who provide examples of non-marketable forms of economic transactions such as reciprocity and social obligation. Given all these features, in this book we view ACCs as spaces of prefigurative politics where politically positioned consumers not only experiment with and gain insight into alternatives to the capitalist logic, but also reshape the existing power relations in and around the ACCs. In so doing, we expose the strategies employed by the government in the construction of a globally oriented capitalist production/consumption nexus in agriculture and explore how ACCs develop counter-strategies to resist and challenge the status quo.

Introduction

In recent years, following the 2013 Gezi protests, citizens across Turkey have expressed their discontent with the prevailing neo-liberal system and political regime by establishing various forms of solidarity initiatives – consumer cooperatives, producer cooperatives and neighbourhood solidarity initiatives. These initiatives, while adhering to the spirit of Gezi, were driven by a claim to take an active role in issues concerning all the citizens in a specific locality. Gezi protesters, while responding to ‘the institutionalization of neo-liberalism and centralization of powers’ (Akçay, 2021, p 93), also developed a hope that through direct democracy, resistance and solidarity, citizens could have a voice in politics (Öztan, 2013; Parlak, 2013; Sevinç, 2022). In the local initiatives that proliferated after Gezi, through forums and neighbourhood assemblies (Mahalle Meclisleri), public opinion on issues such as food, child abuse, violence against women, betterment of labour conditions and collective action for resolving persistent problems was developed (Doğançayır, 2022; Kahraman, 2022). Mahalle Meclisleri (Olcan, 2020), were later named as district solidarity initiatives and, as noted by Fırat (2022), proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic. After the announcement of the Coronavirus Support Programme by the government, 17 new solidarity initiatives were established in İstanbul, Ankara, Bursa, Ayvalık and Mersin. In this chapter we focus on one of these initiatives, the alternative consumer cooperatives (ACCs) and elaborate on their work in reclaiming the public sphere with a transformative potential that is shaped through the politicization of consumers and petty commodity producers. In so doing, we investigate how a public sphere concerning food politics in Turkey has been developed, who the main actors are, what types of media they use, and which other constituencies have been drawn in.

Borrowing on the Habermasian (1981, 1987, 1989) concept of the public sphere we see the ACCs as a space for the development and articulation of a special discourse. We consider the public sphere as a formation where groups of activists come together and question normative arrangements. We focus on the discourse, that is, how activists reflexively negate and question prevailing habits, practices and assumptions, and how the ACCs try to re-moralize everyday activities (for example as consumers, as volunteers), re-politicize the politics of food and build awareness for an ‘alternative’.

Introduction

The impact of globalization and neo-liberal policies in Turkish agriculture has been marked by the subordination of the petty commodity producers to market forces and their displacement from land and farming tradition. After the 1980 structural adjustment programme, governments with legislative reforms withdrew subsidies, reduced price supports and privatized parastatal organizations which in turn compelled small producers of agricultural products to rely on their own resources in their struggle within local and international markets. The pervasive implementation of neo-liberal policies, especially after 2002, transformed both production and consumption in agriculture.

On the production side, with the increasing dominance of agro-food companies and the commodification of foodstuff, petty commodity producers were driven out of the market. According to the official data of the Social Security Institute (SGK), in the last twelve years the number of insured farmers has dropped by 48.6 per cent (see Figure 6.1) and, in the last eighteen years, the amount of arable land has decreased by 3.150 million hectares (Tuncer, 2019). Small farmers deprived of government subsidies became more reliant on bank loans for the provision of their seeds, pesticides and machinery. As explained by the president of Çiftçi-Sen (the Farmers’ Union), the petty commodity producers’ debts for agriculture to the banks and credit cooperatives increased 53 times between 2002 and 2020 (Çameli, 2021), while subsidies were reduced by 48 per cent. In this transformation process, as well as increases in input prices, petty commodity producers faced stiff competition from imported foodstuff. However, it is worth noting that, currently, due to foreign currency fluctuations and the Turkish lira losing its value drastically, lowering trade barriers does not work as a viable strategy. In such an economic and political milieu, the petty commodity producers are left with a choice between leaving their farm and/or negotiating contracts with the agro-food companies.

On the consumption side, after 1980, with the implementation of free-market operations and the deregulation of agriculture, a major transformation in the food industry took place; the number of foreign companies increased and major international food processors and retailers entered the Turkish market either as greenfield operations or as joint ventures with local big capital (Yenal, 1999; Atasoy, 2013; Değirmenci, 2021).

Introduction

During the last two decades, with the implementation of populist neo-liberal policies, Turkish agriculture has gone through a comprehensive restructuring which has led to economic and social transformations. Petty commodity producers have become distanced from agriculture, the peasantry has declined, and a majority of the young rural population has moved to the cities, and comprise an informal labour force. Those who stayed in the rural areas have became proletariat on their own land with the pervasive implementation of contract farming by the agro-food companies. These transformations on the production side are coupled with the food crises, namely price rises and low-quality foodstuff, in the cities. Alternative consumer cooperatives, (ACCs) with their alternative provisioning system, governance model shaped by direct democracy and a commitment to the premises of the food sovereignty movement, can provide a solution in reconfiguring the prevalent production– consumption nexus. Especially after 2013, as awareness of the social, political and economic effects of capitalism grew, we began to witness the progression of alternative cooperatives in Turkey. In the Turkish context, alternative consumer cooperatives, besides forming a site for the development of an alternative to the capitalist forms of organizing, provide a remarkable example in terms of divergence from the conventional consumer cooperatives (CCCs).

The cooperative movement in Turkey is rooted in the examples that were developed during the decline of the Ottoman Empire. These early examples provide the background to understanding the evolution of the CCCs; they were established by the deliberate efforts of statesmen in an effort to provide a solution to the problems faced by villagers. Secondly, although there were some initiatives for a cooperative model based on the example in Rochdale, their operations were terminated by the ruling party. These grassroots initiatives, shaped by the ideas of the intellectuals Mustafa Suphi, Ethem Nejat and Ahmet Cevat, were expected to by-pass the middlemen and support the consumers to be their own producer. These experiences are important in underlining the dominant role of the state and the tensions between the ruling cadres and the intellectuals, and provide an explanation of how cooperatives are instrumentalized by the state. Similar tendencies shaped the cooperative movement in the early days of the Republic; cooperatives were mainly initiated by a state-owned organization (for example, a bank or factory) with the aim of providing affordable foodstuff to their members and to control price rises.

This chapter provides an overview of macroeconomics, which is the study of the economy as a whole. We first discuss what macroeconomics is about. Then we describe how different types of economies (market economy, planned economy, and mixed economy) work to solve economic problems in human society. Then we discuss how economic modeling helps to understand economic phenomena. Finally, the chapter provides a brief history of macroeconomic thought.

There is a possibility that the next great military conflict could be fought over Taiwan. As we write this book, the likelihood of militarized conflict involving the United States and the PRC is higher than it has been for many decades. The sense of heightened “tensions” and looming conflict in the Taiwan Strait1 has become global news broadcasts. Some readers’ interest in Taiwan may have been prompted by news coverage of House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taipei in August 2022 and the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) live-fire military exercises that immediately followed it, or from commentators and some elected officials comparing the situation in Taiwan to Russia's invasion and war against Ukraine. But the situation in the Taiwan Strait is complex, nuanced and defies simple analogies. Peace in the Taiwan Strait is a product not just of Taiwan's own actions, but those of the PRC and the US. The preferences and actions of China and the US, and the conduct of relations between these two superpowers, have an inescapable impact on Taiwanese security, prosperity, and even Taiwan's continued existence as an autonomous polity and society. A militarized superpower conflict would be devastating for the people who call Taiwan home. It would destroy peace in the Asian region, fundamentally alter the global order and wreak havoc on the global economy. While the dire consequences of a hypothetical war are largely agreed on – including in the PRC – there is much more to the Taiwan story than conflict.

Taiwan is home to almost 24 million people, living in a hard-won liberal democratic society. Taiwan's diverse peoples – Indigenous Austronesian Taiwanese, transnational Hakka, immigrants from all over Southeast Asia, and different generations of Han Chinese – constitute a unique hybrid culture and society. Taiwan has been shaped by numerous colonizing powers and persevered through Kuomintang (KMT) one-party authoritarian rule to become one of the most economically vibrant and progressive societies in Asia.

It is an accepted heuristic to describe Taiwan as marginalized. That description is not entirely accurate, since it conflates several aspects of international interactions. Taiwan is marginalized in the sense that it has a mere 13 formal diplomatic allies and is barred from participation in many international organizations as a result of PRC opposition. This situation continues despite growing international support for Taiwan's participation in organizations that affect the material well-being of Taiwan's 24 million people, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), or the safety of Taiwanese and others, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Since both of these examples are specialized organizations under the United Nations, the PRC's veto power means Taiwan's participation is entirely by the PRC's grace.

During the period of Ma's China-friendly policies, the PRC allowed Taiwan to participate as an observer, only to retract this favour when Tsai Ing-wen won the presidency. There are other organizations that Taiwan can participate in where statehood is not a precondition for membership. But participation is still usually contingent on doing so under a name that meets the PRC's demand that it does not hint at recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty. Taiwanese representative teams can only compete at the Olympics and other international sporting competitions under the otherwise meaningless name of “Chinese Taipei” (there is no such place or entity). Taiwan participates in the WTO as the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and appears in WTO communications as Chinese Taipei. Taiwan is represented in some other organizations, but the indignities it suffers to do so are incongruous given its standing as a major global economy, technology powerhouse and successful liberal democracy. It is a loss to the international community, as demonstrated during the Covid-19 pandemic when Taiwan was excluded from receiving guidance from the WHO – and from contributing its expertise. For Taiwanese people it is also a matter of national dignity and pride. However, this does not mean that Taiwan should only be seen as marginalized.