In the past, comparative advantages were based mainly on natural resources, national savings and specialization with a good division of labor. Although these are still quite important factors, their importance has been bypassed by new developments. For instance, free trade has allowed countries to overcome bottlenecks around natural resources. Second, as global funds have been greater than global demand, at least for the last two decades, inadequate national savings could be substituted by external savings to a certain extent. Finally, the globalization of the production paradigm has allowed countries to benefit from global expertise and to specialize.
However, these are potentials that developing countries were unable to derive benefits from. In other words, there is no automatic mechanism that would bring these new facilities to the service of developing countries. In order to derive benefit from the new positive external environment created by global dynamics, national capacity becomes crucial element. The capacity of the state apparatus to open channels so that national and global companies operating in the country can easily internalize the above-mentioned advantages is a key element. On the other hand, the capacity of the state is closely related to good governance on the basis of transparency and accountability. At this point, the reform of the state constitutes the focal point of discussions, as this process would create a proactive state, rather than a reactive one.
As poor governance was at the heart of Turkey's economic crises over the last 50 years, parallel to the reform of the state we will be able to shift our emphasis to the quality of "entrepreneurship."
The lack of an entrepreneurial class is one of the key disadvantages of developing countries, as this class is the only segment of society that can assimilate global advantages. Obviously, some part of the entrepreneurial deficiency could be supplemented by foreign entrepreneurship with the expectation that if there is a space for real profitability this will motivate foreigners to act and, therefore, supply the required entrepreneurship. This may be true in some sectors, but in our understanding entrepreneurship is not a function of pure profit motivations. It is related to dedication, national loyalty, identity and even some spiritual and religious elements. From this perspective, the desired entrepreneurial class must be cultivated from local resources.
When I think of the role culture plays in entrepreneurial activities in Turkey, the problem of legitimacy comes to the fore. The basic question is how to motivate businessmen to take upon themselves basic entrepreneurial responsibilities and roles. In an Islamic society, as in any other, we must find the basic motivation scheme that could be utilized so that people will be inclined toward good entrepreneurship.
Let me give an example from Japan to clarify my position here. The samurai class undertook the responsibility of national development in Japan after the Meiji Restoration. In accordance with the centuries of culture they inherited, samurai hated trade and almost all economic activities, seeing them as inappropriate to the idealism of a brave samurai, who fights and dies only for national pride.
However, they were convinced by the Meiji leadership that national pride would come from the economic and political independence of Japan. This required expelling barbarians by creating a strong army, which in the final analysis required industrialization and a strong economy. So this drive constituted the basic motivational scheme in shifting the samurai codes toward economic activities.
In the case of Turkey, in addition to profit motives and pressures coming from global competition, we must find new sources of legitimacy so that Turkish businessmen will awaken to the new age and take up the necessary responsibility and identity.
