To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Prioritarianism is the moral view that a fixed improvement in someone's well-being matters more the worse off they are. Its supporters argue that it best captures our intuitions about unequal distributions of well-being. I show that prioritarianism sometimes recommends acts that will make things more unequal while simultaneously lowering the total well-being and making things worse for everyone ex ante. Intuitively, there is little to recommend such acts and I take this to be a serious counterexample for prioritarianism.
The issue of regional connections and cooperation among the rural population in different parts of Palestine at the end of the nineteenth century has thus far not received adequate attention. This article presents case-studies of several villages in the sub-district of Gaza, which submitted joint petitions about common concerns to the Grand Vizier in İstanbul. It examines the significance of these petitions and discusses their characteristics, uniqueness, and historical context. It then moves on to discuss other forms of regional cooperation and nuclei of regional identification among the rural population, which in part had previous roots, and explores their repercussions for the development of regional identity alongside more commonly known identities concomitantly held by Palestine's population at the time. The submission of joint petitions to İstanbul, it is argued, was one of the key manifestations of a tendency toward greater regionalism in some regions of Palestine at the end of the nineteenth century, an occurrence which was less likely to happen prior to the Tanzimat reforms. While the literature has primarily focused on the activity of the urban educated circles in the process of regionalization, this article presents a unique bottom-up perspective that underscores the everyday experiences, practices and mechanisms of cooperation in a rural region which is rarely investigated.
Turkey's activism in Africa has been extensively noted. It has been argued that non-state actors like business and civil society organizations take part in Turkeys Africa initiative. Nevertheless, state/non-state interaction in Turkey's foreign policy implementation has not been accounted for in theoretical terms in Turkish foreign policy literature. This paper combines post-international theory and foreign policy implementation in looking at Turkey's foreign policy towards sub-Saharan Africa. We argue that adapting to the multi-centric world, the Turkish government has moved beyond conventional state-to-state dealings in implementing its foreign policy and increasingly relies on the cooperation of non-state actors.
In the process of neoliberal transformation in Turkey, what differentiated the 2000s from the previous two decades were the block sale privatizations of large-scale state enterprises such as PETKİM, Türk Telekom, TÜPRAŞ, and ERDEMİR. These block sales, the conditions of which were shaped by political struggles at different levels, were also constitutive political and ideological moments per se, helping to reproduce a particular perception of social reality at the expense of others. This paper will overview and critically problematize the privatization processes of these four enterprises, all completed under the successive AKP governments in power since 2002. By focusing on the apparently technical and economic aspects of the block-sale processes, such as valuation, efficiency enhancement and marketing, the paper calls into question the increased concerns over their transparency, and wonders whether such concerns can be understood as attempts to mask the substantially corrupt nature of capitalist relations of production, which inescapably makes itself felt during these processes.
This paper frames the GM cotton approval debate in Turkey in the context of a socio-political process in which conflicts must be resolved between competing interests and among people who hold different value systems and have different priorities. Four different cotton farming alternatives— business as usual (BAU), ecological farming (ECO), GM farming (GM), and good agricultural practices (GAP)—are assessed and evaluated via a set of environmental, social, and economic criteria chosen on the basis of an extensive review of the cotton production and genetically modified organism (GMO) literatures, and in-depth interviews with several key stakeholders and experts in Turkey. The results show that when economic concerns are considered primary, GM farming is the preferred practice. In contrast, when only the social dimension is prioritised, the ECO alternative performs best. Finally, when the economic and social dimensions are appraised together, GAP emerges as a compromise solution. This study reveals that the decision to approve GM farming is not only complex but also value-laden and interest-based.
This paper reflects on a decade and a half of ethnographic research on five different topics: patronage politics, the intricate relationship between clientelism and collective action, the role of clandestine connections in politics, urban marginality and environmental suffering, and poor people's waiting as a way of experiencing political domination. The paper examines the contributions that political ethnography can make to a better understanding of these themes and highlights areas for further empirical and theoretical work.