Response to earthquake budget debate on social media with spending chart: “In the past, state spending was increased during crises”

Statements regarding the impact of the earthquake on the public budget have sparked a new debate on social media. Economist İnan Mutlu reacted to the remarks attributed to the Minister of Trade, which stated, “If it weren't for the 105 billion dollar burden, the government could have provided greater opportunities to retirees, tradespeople, farmers, workers, civil servants, youth, and women.”

In his post, Mutlu countered this assessment by calling it “an absolute lie.” Arguing that the ratio of state spending to national income was already at low levels before the earthquake, Mutlu claimed that fiscal tightening targeting segments such as retirees and civil servants had begun before the earthquake.

The chart in the post covers the period from 1999 to 2025 under the heading “Total General Government Spending / National Income (%).” While the ratio for 1999 is marked as 34.5, it is shown to have declined to 28.06 in 2022 and is indicated as 34.59 in 2025. The SBB (Strategy and Budget Presidency) is cited as the source in the chart.

2001 CRISIS COMMENTARY

The response Mutlu gave to the question, “Isn't 2001 a crisis year, why is it so high?” also defined the direction of the debate. Mutlu argued that in past crisis periods, public spending was increased to mitigate the effects of the crisis.

Good question. In the past, the state would increase spending during crisis periods to alleviate the crisis. It wouldn't send an IBAN and request aid like the AKP.

At the center of the debate was the relationship between the impact of earthquake expenditures on budget balances and the ratio of public spending to national income. Mutlu's approach served as an objection to presenting the cost of the earthquake as the sole explanation for the lack of support provided to social segments.