Capital Mobility and Culture: Beyond Economic Rationality
- Buğra Veysel Kolcu
- 16 hours ago
- 4 min read
Reading capital mCapital Mobility and Culture: Beyond Economic Rationalityovements solely through market rules or rational individual assumptions oversimplifies the matter. This is because capital often finds its counterpart in society's historical memory, cultural codes, and even religious references. In this regard, I would like to summarize and convey my observations about how capital exists not only as an economic phenomenon but also as a social subject.
The "homo economicus" assumption in neoclassical economic theory positions individuals as rational actors trying to maximize their utility. However, in the real world, the factors that shape capital movements are too complex and multidimensional to be expressed in mathematical models. Frankly speaking, it is quite ironic that this reductionist approach still prevails in the discipline of economics.
Douglass North's institutionalist approach shows us that capital is shaped not only by law but also by tradition, belief, and trust relationships. The "path dependency" phenomenon emphasized by North explains why capital does not function the same way in every society. This becomes particularly evident in social structures like Turkey, where traditional and modern dynamics are intertwined.
The Difference in Capital Formations in Turkey
In the case of Turkey, conservative capital structures that have developed in Central Anatolia appear not only as an economic choice but also as a community, a sense of belonging, and a way of life. Here, capital operates within a solidarity network interwoven with religious discourse, hometown ties, and local values. This capital structure, referred to as "Anatolian Tigers" after the 1980s, has gathered around organizations like MÜSİAD, becoming a manifestation of shared value systems and worldviews.
In regions like Marmara, however, capital advances on a more secular, individualistic, and competitive path. This capital fraction, organized under the TÜSİAD umbrella, has a character more compatible with the founding ideology of the Republic, oriented towards the West, and maintains closer relationships with international finance and trade networks. This difference tells us: The movement of capital is related not only to "how much profit it brings" but also to "how it is legitimized in which cultural ground."
Social Capital and Collective Solidarity
Especially since the 2000s, solidarity mechanisms of local capital groups have gained importance in the face of neoliberal policies that began to find a space for themselves in Turkey. This phenomenon, termed "social capital" in economic terminology, refers to the effect of social networks, norms, and trust relationships on economic development.
As emphasized in Robert Putnam's studies, communities with high social capital solve collective action problems more easily and reduce transaction costs. In capital mobility in Turkey, social capital built through hometown ties and religious communities has played a critical role in the success of rising capital groups, especially in Anatolian cities.
In this respect, the sources of legitimacy for capital also show regional and cultural differences. While emphasis on "halal earnings" compatible with Islamic values is an important source of legitimacy in conservative capital circles, Western standards and global integration are more important in secular capital circles.
Embedded Economy and Social Context
The concept of "embedded economy" put forward by Karl Polanyi in his work "The Great Transformation" emphasizes that economic activities cannot be isolated from the network of social relations. According to Polanyi, market society is a modern invention, and historically, economic activities have always been "embedded" in social, political, and cultural contexts.
Of course, changes in political and social perspectives have also transformed capital structuring. Today, businesses in Turkey are in search of not only profit maximization but also social responsibility, sustainability, and cultural legitimacy. This transformation raises questions about whether traditional forms of capital are changing or values are being disregarded.
The Relationship Between Capital and Public Space
Although the concept of capital is interpreted as an accumulation or dynamic system, in Turkey, this situation also brings about an essential and public integration. Criticisms in the past that capital was monopolized by certain segments and that the countryside was kept outside the public structure have now given way to a more inclusive understanding of capital. This is because at the core of capital lies the idea that no region is superior to another and that everyone should have equal opportunities.
I believe that the reasons for our society's propensity for economic polarization and our proximity to public capital can be clarified by experts conducting a political-economic survey of approximately 250 years, beyond the recent economic history of the Republic of Turkey. The fact that capital is limited to formal institutions or laws, that is, the lack of social conscience, could be a valid reason for conducting this survey.
Conclusion: The Social Dimension of Capital
Therefore, capital transforms into a social subject as much as it is an economic object. This perspective helps us better understand the interaction between economic development and capital formations with cultural values. To understand capital movements, we need a multidimensional analytical framework that includes historical, sociological, and anthropological perspectives instead of the reductionist approaches of neoclassical economics.
With these feelings and thoughts, I emphasize the necessity of considering capital not only as an economic but also as a social and cultural phenomenon.
Comments