Income distribution and artificial agendas

One of the most significant problems in Turkey is the issue of employment and livelihood resulting from the deterioration of income distribution; educated youth are leaving the country in a brain drain, yet the economic policy that creates this is not being addressed, and attempts are being made to brainwash the public with artificial agendas.

If you wish, let us look at income distribution, one of our most important issues.

WHAT IS THE STATE OF OUR INCOME DISTRIBUTION?

According to the "Income Distribution Statistics" for 2023 released by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), the share of total income received by the top 20 percent group with the highest income increased by 1.8 points compared to the previous year, reaching 49.8 percent in 2023.

The share received by the bottom 20 percent group with the lowest income decreased by 0.1 points, falling to 5.9 percent.

In other words, the share received by the top 20 percent is nearly 10 times that of the bottom 20 percent group. In the top and bottom 5 percent brackets, this ratio reaches much higher multiples.

One of the measures of income inequality is the "Gini coefficient." As the Gini coefficient approaches zero, it indicates equality in income distribution, while approaching 1 indicates a deterioration in income distribution. In 2023, it was estimated at 0.433, an increase of 0.018 points compared to the previous year. We have become one of the leading countries in the world in terms of income inequality.

WHY HAS OUR INCOME DISTRIBUTION DETERIORATED?

Is there not a necessity to see that the main factor in the deterioration of income distribution is the externally dependent neoliberal policies implemented since the 1980s? Could this be what is being overlooked?

Is the main factor not the result of restricting the wages and social expenditures of the working class and strata, and the transfer of resources to capital classes through privatizations?

Is the country's economy not organized according to the interests of the capital class?

Is it a coincidence that the inflation-adjusted profits of large capital groups and the banks under their control are increasing?

WHERE DID THE PRAISE FOR ACEMOĞLU COME FROM TO HIDE THE TRUE FACE OF INCOME DISTRIBUTION?

What did Daron Acemoğlu and James A. Robinson write together that earned them the Nobel Prize in Economics?

Acemoğlu and Robinson divided institutions into two categories: political and economic institutions; inclusive ones and extractive/exclusive ones. They argue that politically and economically inclusive institutions are the foundation of economic development and prosperity.

According to their globally recognized analysis, economic growth and wealth or impoverishment depend on institutions. According to them, one of the most inclusive institutions is the right to private property itself and the legal system that protects it.

In my opinion, Acemoğlu and Robinson make distortions in their work on two important issues.

First; they do not mention that what created the democratic openings in developed capitalist countries was not the institutions, but the organized resistance of the working classes; in other words, that it was the working classes who created democratic institutions. Moreover, they do not want to see, or they hide, the fact that a significant portion of the wealth of developed capitalist countries comes from the enslavement of the peoples of Africa, Asia, and South America and the transfer of resources from these countries.

Second; the distortion they make in their analysis regarding peripheral countries, especially Turkey. Is the fact that they overlook imperial economic relations, which are one of the reasons for relative underdevelopment, not an indicator of this? Furthermore, their reluctance to address the issue of resource transfer from the working class for capital accumulation, as mentioned above.

Interestingly, the fact that Acemoğlu spent part of his education in this country and also acted as an unofficial advisor to our main opposition party for a time caused some to feel proud. There was even praise on some opposition writers' platforms and even on TV channels(!).

In summary, there is praise for Anglo-American capitalism in the works of Acemoğlu and Robinson. They have sought to obscure the contradictions of capitalism between countries, societies, and fundamentally, classes. Who can deny that they received the Nobel Prize for providing a cover for these?(*)

WHAT ARE THE ARTIFICIAL AGENDAS CREATED TO MASK THE INJUSTICE IN INCOME DISTRIBUTION?

Among the artificial agendas created to mask the injustice in income distribution, issues such as the headscarf, coups, and the mutually confrontational and divisive harsh rhetoric that constitutes an attack on the personal rights of political figures can be listed as topics that immediately come to mind.

In addition to confrontational and divisive harsh rhetoric, the real agenda of the country and society is obscured by artificial agendas created by the political climate, sometimes stemming from a "rowing boat fight" style of politics. This situation creates a trend where increasingly severe economic and social problems, unemployment, and poverty continue to rise, and in essence, masks the injustice in income distribution.

Let us ask: to what extent is it possible for our people to access the most basic necessities, such as food? Are they not collecting vegetables and fruits from the trash in marketplaces? Is the vast majority of our farmers not tending toward abandoning production? Do our tradespeople not close their shops without making a single sale? What is the state of access to health services, especially for retirees? Are they not helpless in hospital queues?

(*) Moreover, it is known that in an interview, Acemoğlu repeated the baseless and distorted theses of the Second Republicans and political Islamists who are against Atatürk and the secular Republic: "Atatürk, despite having the option to open up the political system at that time, does the exact opposite. He tries to centralize power in his hands. So, was it really possible to have something more democratic? Maybe it was possible. Why? Because if you look at the parliaments starting from the Ottoman Empire, that is, before World War I, there is a more pluralistic system." To put it mildly, shouldn't this statement be called a "shallow and incorrect reading of history"?