<\/p>\n
Tar\u0131m politikas\u0131,m\u00fcdahale yanl\u0131s\u0131 ve kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131 taraflar\u0131n tar\u0131msal evrimi belirlemelerinden bu yana tart\u0131\u015fmalara konu olmu\u015ftur. M\u00fcdahale kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131 olanlar bu tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n lideri konumundad\u0131r ve tar\u0131m\u0131 neoliberal kurallara g\u00f6re \u015fekillendirmektedir. T\u00fcrkiye \u00f6rne\u011fi de bu konuda istisnai de\u011fildir.. T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin son on y\u0131ldaki tar\u0131m politikalar\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan en \u00f6nemli sonu\u00e7lar tutars\u0131zl\u0131k ve istikrars\u0131zl\u0131k olacakt\u0131r. Bu makale, tar\u0131mda neoliberal politikalara uyum i\u00e7in uygulamaya konmu\u015f tek kapsaml\u0131 politika reformunun, reformdan sonra politika yap\u0131c\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan da kabul edilen yoksulluk, g\u00f6\u00e7 ve i\u015fsizlik art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n (Oral, 2012) ve neoliberal d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmler sonucunda tar\u0131mda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan y\u0131k\u0131m\u0131n nas\u0131l tamir edilece\u011fi hakk\u0131nda bilgiler sunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Reform projesi, 2009 y\u0131l\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir hedefine ula\u015famadan sona ermi\u015ftir (Akder, 2010).\u00a0 Kademeli olarak son bulmas\u0131 beklenen tar\u0131m deste\u011fi devaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ve s\u00fcre\u00e7 boyunca asli unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 iyile\u015ftirmeye devam etmi\u015ftir. T\u00fcrkiye, tar\u0131m sekt\u00f6r\u00fcne neoliberal mant\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerle\u015ftirmenin d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ABD ve Bat\u0131 kaynakl\u0131 kurumlar\u0131n ve k\u00fcresel sermayenin direktifleri do\u011frultusunda kurumsal anlamda da \u00f6nemli geli\u015fmeler kaydetmi\u015ftir. Bu makale, tar\u0131m deste\u011finde iyile\u015ftirmeler ve her y\u0131l art\u0131\u015f olsa da, istihdam, yoksulluk ve tar\u0131msal de\u011ferle alakal\u0131 var olan problemlerin hedeflenip \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131nda reform politikalar\u0131n\u0131n yetersiz kontrol \u00e7abalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6tesine ge\u00e7emedi\u011fi konusunda tart\u0131\u015fmalar \u00f6ne s\u00fcrmektedir. T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin ihtiyac\u0131 olan, kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc k\u0131rsal karakteri do\u011frultusunda, insan sermayesi yat\u0131r\u0131mana \u00f6nem veren, k\u0131rsal kalk\u0131nma stratejileri hakk\u0131nda bilgi i\u00e7eren ve k\u0131rsal alanda sosyal sorunlar\u0131 giderebilecek insanlar\u0131n istihdam\u0131na olanak sa\u011flayan ve kendi kendine yeterlilik ve ihracat gelirleri a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferli \u00fcr\u00fcnler \u00fcreten k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ve orta \u00f6l\u00e7ekli \u00e7iftliklere a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k veren verimli i\u00e7 politikalard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ekonomik geli\u015fmelere paralel olarak, tar\u0131mda \u00fcretim ve istihdam d\u00fc\u015fse de (Ilkkaraca and Tunal\u0131, 2010), toplam istihdam\u0131n %24\u2019\u00fc (DB istatistikleri, 2011) ve GSY\u0130H\u2019nin %9\u2019u (DB istatistikleri, 2011)\u00a0 tar\u0131m sekt\u00f6r\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan sa\u011flanmaktad\u0131r. T\u00fcrkiye n\u00fcfusunun %30\u2019u k\u0131rsal alanda ikamet etmekte ve bu n\u00fcfusun \u00a0gelirinin en b\u00fcy\u00fck kayna\u011f\u0131, %60 oranla tar\u0131msal faaliyetlerden sa\u011flanmaktad\u0131r (T\u00dc\u0130K, 2009). T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de toplam kara par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131n yar\u0131s\u0131na yak\u0131n\u0131 tar\u0131ma ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olsa da ortalama \u00e7iftlik b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc 6 hektard\u0131r, ki bu rakam 2007\u2019de ortalama b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc 16 hektar olan Bulgaristan ve Romanya\u2019n\u0131n da kabul edilmesiyle %28 oran\u0131nda bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f ya\u015fayan ve 11.5 hektarl\u0131k b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011fe gerileyen AB\u2019nin olduk\u00e7a gerisindedir (EC, 2009). Bu da T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de tar\u0131m\u0131n ge\u00e7imlik ve yar\u0131 ge\u00e7imlik oldu\u011funu kan\u0131tlar niteliktedir.<\/p>\n
Tar\u0131msal \u00fcretimde en b\u00fcy\u00fck pay, \u00e7iftlik hayvan\u0131 \u00fcretimiyle k\u0131yasland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, %75\u2019lik oranla ekin \u00fcretimine aittir. Fakat \u00e7iftlik hayvan\u0131 \u00fcretimi, 2002 y\u0131l\u0131nda verilen 83 milyon liral\u0131k, 2012\u2019de ise 2,2 trilyonu bulan destek ve 6,7 trilyonluk krediyle ciddi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde desteklenmektedir (Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, 2012). Ancak meyve ve sebze gibi ihracat odakl\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnler toplam \u00fcretimde en y\u00fcksek paya sahip \u00fcr\u00fcnler olsalar daha az \u00f6nemsenmi\u015ftir (\u00c7akmak ve Dudu, 2010: 66). Bunun yan\u0131nda, 2005\u2019ten bu yana ihracat\u0131n ithalata oran\u0131, tar\u0131m \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinde ihracat\u0131n d\u00fc\u015fmesi ve toplam ithalatta tar\u0131m \u00fcr\u00fcnleri oran\u0131n artmas\u0131yla birlikte, h\u0131zl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde d\u00fc\u015fmektedir(\u00c7akmak ve Dudu, 2010: 67).<\/p>\n
TRUP S\u00fcreci<\/strong><\/p>\n 1970 ve 1980\u2019ler T\u00fcrkiye tar\u0131m politikalar\u0131nda yeni bir s\u00fcrecin ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sinyallerini veren y\u0131llard\u0131. 70\u2019lerde \u2018ye\u015fil devrim\u2019, verimi yayg\u0131n ila\u00e7lama ve g\u00fcbre kullan\u0131m\u0131 ile sa\u011fland\u0131 ve yak\u0131t fiyatlar\u0131 ve destek al\u0131mlar\u0131 ile desteklendi (K\u00f6ytmen, 2008: 291). 1980\u2019lerde ise uluslararas\u0131 kurumlar ve anla\u015fmalar kurumsal de\u011fi\u015fimlerin temelini olu\u015fturmaktayd\u0131. Avrupa Ekonomik Toplulu\u011fu (AET) Avrupa Ortak Tar\u0131m Politikas\u0131 (AOTP) ile tar\u0131msal \u00fcr\u00fcn destek politikas\u0131ndan k\u0131rsal kalk\u0131nma, g\u0131da g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ve hayvan sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 politikalar\u0131na ge\u00e7i\u015fi \u00f6ng\u00f6rmekteydi (Ayd\u0131n, 2004: 88). Buna paralel olarak, 1984 y\u0131l\u0131nda g\u0131da ihracat\u0131ndaki vergi ve har\u00e7lar d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc ve g\u0131da ithalat\u0131nda bir art\u0131\u015f g\u00f6zlendi. Ayr\u0131ca, tar\u0131msal kamu y\u00f6netimi yeniden d\u00fczenlendi ve bakanl\u0131k y\u00f6netim kapasitesini di\u011fer kamu y\u00f6netimi birimlerine vermi\u015f oldu; bu da tar\u0131msal y\u00f6netimin daha verimsiz hale gelmesiyle sonu\u00e7land\u0131 (Tar\u0131m, 2004).<\/p>\n 1990\u2019lar\u0131n ortalar\u0131nda T\u00fcrkiye, Uruguay G\u00fcmr\u00fck Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Anla\u015fmas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n (GTTGA) y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesi ve D\u00fcnya Ticaret \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn kurulmas\u0131yla, Tar\u0131m Anla\u015fmas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n (TA) tam kat\u0131l\u0131mc\u0131 \u00fcye \u00fclkesi oldu. Bunun \u00fczerine, on y\u0131l i\u00e7erisinde \u00a0T\u00fcrkiye, tar\u0131m \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinde (en az) %10\u2019luk, b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00fcr\u00fcnlerde ise ortalama %24\u2019l\u00fck g\u00fcmr\u00fck vergisi indirimine gitti. T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin dereg\u00fclasyon s\u00fcreci AB, sekt\u00f6re \u00e7er\u00e7eve haz\u0131rlayan G\u00fcmr\u00fck Birli\u011fi ve DT\u00d6\u2019n\u00fcn \u00f6zelle\u015ftirme stratejiyle \u015fekillenmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zt\u00fcrk, 2012: 68).<\/p>\n Politika reform program\u0131 2000 y\u0131l\u0131nda ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu d\u00f6nem yurti\u00e7i ekonomik krizlerin en keskin bi\u00e7imde ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6nemdi ve bu d\u00f6nemdeki as\u0131l ama\u00e7, IMF ve DB\u2019nin direktifleri do\u011frultusunda girdi ve \u00fcr\u00fcn fiyat desteklerini ortadan kald\u0131rarak finansal istikrar\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131. Hazine, D\u00fcnya Bankas\u0131 ve Tar\u0131m ve K\u00f6y \u0130\u015fleri Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131, tar\u0131m sekt\u00f6r\u00fcnde yard\u0131m ve desteklerin getirmi\u015f oldu\u011fu finansal y\u00fcklerle ilgilenen kurumlar olmalar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 programa destek veren temel kurumlard\u0131 (Akder, 2010). Bunun sebepleri, tar\u0131ma verilen desteklerin girdi temelli destekler olmas\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f kooperatif birlikleri taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan al\u0131m destekleri, eksiklik \u00f6demeleri ve bunlar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcmet taraf\u0131ndan tar\u0131ma ayr\u0131lan net kaynaklar\u0131n etkisiyle ekonomide olumsuz etkiler yaratmas\u0131yd\u0131 (Nash, 2008: 1). OECD istatistiklerine g\u00f6re T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de tar\u0131ma verilen destek OECD \u00fclkelerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck olsa da, deste\u011f az\u0131msanmayacak bir seviyededir ve s\u00f6z konusu \u00fclkeler aras\u0131nda ilk s\u0131ralarda yer almaktad\u0131r (OECD, 2011, p.78). Bu de\u011fi\u015fim ayn\u0131 zamanda, tar\u0131ma verilen desteklerin ticarete engel ve \u201camber kutusu\u201d olduklar\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle DT\u00d6 taraf\u0131ndan da bask\u0131lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yerine getirilecek yenilikler, ticarete veya tar\u0131msal \u00fcretime engel olmayan veya asgari d\u00fczeyde engel te\u015fkil eden n\u00f6tr \u201cye\u015fil kutu\u201d tedbirleriyle, ve t\u00fcketiciden \u00fcreticiye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcme olanak tan\u0131mayan yenilikler olacakt\u0131 (DT\u00d6, 2012).<\/p>\n Reformdan as\u0131l beklenti finansal istikrar\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131. T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de tar\u0131m politikalar\u0131 olduk\u00e7a s\u0131k bi\u00e7imde de\u011fi\u015fimlere u\u011fram\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Akder\u2019in de i\u015faret etti\u011fi gibi politika se\u00e7imi modeli, bu s\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kapsaml\u0131 bir reforma olanak sa\u011flamayan verimsiz ve tutars\u0131z h\u00fck\u00fcmet politikalar\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klar niteliktedir (Akder, 2007: 516). Tar\u0131msal politika yap\u0131m\u0131ndaki \u00e7oklu akt\u00f6rler verimsiz bir sistem yaratmaktad\u0131r. Yarat\u0131c\u0131 politikalar ve siyasal liderli\u011fin eksikli\u011finin yan\u0131nda \u00f6ncelikli olarak kendi \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zeten siyasal payda\u015flar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 da g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edilmemelidir. Oylar\u0131n yakla\u015f\u0131k \u00fc\u00e7te birini te\u015fkil eden k\u0131rsal kesimdeki insanlar\u0131n oylar\u0131, yerel ve genel se\u00e7imler \u00f6ncesi artan tar\u0131msal desteklerin ba\u015fl\u0131ca nedeni olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r (Akder, 2007). \u00d6nemli politika de\u011fi\u015fiklikleri ile ilgili siyasi kayg\u0131lar paradigma de\u011fi\u015fikliklerini zorla\u015ft\u0131rmakta ve buna paralel olarak T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de transfer politikalar\u0131 tek alternatif olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r (\u00c7akmak ve Dudu, 2010, 66). Ancak t\u00fcketici destek tahminlerine (\u00c7akmak ve Dudu, 2010: 71) g\u00f6re vergi \u00f6deyen konumundaki t\u00fcketiciler tar\u0131msal transferin finansman\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan temel akt\u00f6rler olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131karlar. \u00dcretici desteklerine ek olarak, tar\u0131msal devlet kurumlar\u0131n\u0131n ve parastatal (k\u0131smen veya tamamen devletin sahip oldu\u011fu veya y\u00f6netti\u011fi kurulu\u015f)\u00a0 kurumlar\u0131n maliyetlerini g\u00f6steren, genel servis destek tahminleri de 2003 y\u0131l\u0131na kadar \u00e7ok y\u00fcksekti. Tar\u0131msal transferlerin \u00e7o\u011funa b\u00fct\u00e7e ayr\u0131lmamakla beraber, kurumlar bor\u00e7 i\u00e7indeydi ve devlet bankalar\u0131 y\u00fcksek faiz oranlar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 problemler ya\u015famaktayd\u0131; bunlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda c\u00f6mert\u00e7e verilmi\u015f olan krediler ve b\u00fct\u00e7e d\u0131\u015f\u0131 fonlar toplam b\u00fct\u00e7e \u00fczerindeki di\u011fer k\u0131s\u0131tlay\u0131c\u0131 etkenlerdi (Akder, 2007: 523). Bu nedenle, finansal istikrar\u0131 sa\u011flamak amac\u0131yla, destek b\u00fct\u00e7esini \u015feffaf ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir hale getirmek ba\u015fl\u0131ca hedeflerden biriydi. Reform ayn\u0131 zamanda, deste\u011fin daha iyi bir bi\u00e7imde hedeflenmesine, yoksul \u00e7ift\u00e7ilerin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131na ve \u00e7iftiler i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir gelir kaynaklar\u0131 yarat\u0131lmas\u0131na ek olarak, tar\u0131msal politikalar\u0131 uygulamadaki verimlili\u011fi artt\u0131rmay\u0131 da hedeflemekteydi. Akder\u2019e g\u00f6re reformdan beklenen faydalar aras\u0131nda, TRUP\u2019un temel bile\u015feni olan \u201cDo\u011frudan Gelir Deste\u011fi\u201d d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, \u00e7iftlik problemleriyle alakal\u0131 herhangi bir \u00f6nlem yer almamaktayd\u0131 (Akder, 2010:49).<\/p>\n Do\u011frudan gelir deste\u011fi (DOD), deste\u011fin kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131yla ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan gelir kay\u0131plar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131lan k\u00fcresel ve te\u015fvik-n\u00f6tr bir ara\u00e7t\u0131r. \u00d6demeler hektar ba\u015f\u0131na ve ekin se\u00e7imi ve \u00fcretimine bakmaks\u0131z\u0131n yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r. Reformun di\u011fer bile\u015feni ise t\u00fct\u00fcn ve f\u0131nd\u0131k gibi \u00fcretimi fazla olan \u00fcr\u00fcnlerden T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin ithalat\u00e7\u0131 konumda oldu\u011fu veya kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rmal\u0131 \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc olan \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin \u00fcretimine ge\u00e7i\u015fi \u00f6ng\u00f6ren \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin yeti\u015ftirilmesine olanak sa\u011flayan \u201c\u00e7ift\u00e7i d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcd\u00fcr\u201d. \u201cTar\u0131m Sat\u0131\u015f Kooperatif Birlikleri Yeniden Yap\u0131land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131\u201dparastatal sat\u0131\u015f kooperatif birliklerini ve kamu iktisadi te\u015febb\u00fcslerini (K\u0130T) kapsamaktad\u0131r. Verimsizlik, fazla personel ve \u00f6zel sekt\u00f6r maa\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n \u00fczerinde \u00f6denen maa\u015flarla \u00f6zde\u015fle\u015ftirilmi\u015f bu kurumlar, destekler bir kez ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, anlams\u0131z hale gelecek, tasfiye edilecek veya kendi \u00fcyelerinin \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131na hizmet eden \u00f6zerk kurumlar haline gelecektir (Akder, 2010).<\/p>\n Reformun son bile\u015feni, de\u011ferlendirmeyi ba\u015flatabilecek bir kamu bilgilendirme kampanyas\u0131yd\u0131. Bu kampanya gerekti\u011fi gibi ba\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015flatamad\u0131 ve bu gecikme yanl\u0131\u015f anlamalar\u0131 ve \u2018projenin amac\u0131n\u0131n suland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131\u2019 kolayla\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131 (Akder, 2010:54).\u00a0 Devlet i\u00e7indeki direni\u015ften ve tar\u0131m bakan\u0131n\u0131n negatif tutuma sahip oldu\u011fu yerlerden, \u00e7ift\u00e7i organizasyonlar\u0131ndan ve tar\u0131m odalar\u0131ndan gelen muhalefetten dolay\u0131, reform fazla destek bulamad\u0131. Reform politikalar\u0131 desteklere y\u00f6nlendirildi, bunun sonucunda reform T\u00fcrk tar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda yatan yap\u0131sal sorunlara dikkat \u00e7ekemedi . Dahas\u0131, ortada k\u0131rsal giri\u015fimciyi, verimlili\u011fi ve yenili\u011fi i\u00e7eren uzun soluklu ulusal strateji d\u00fczenlemek i\u00e7in yeterli politik destek yoktu(Akder, 2007: 515). Rausser\u2019e g\u00f6re (1992: 133), ne T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin politika g\u00fcndemi ne de TRUP\u2019un hedefleri verimli olarak s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131labilir; \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc ilkindeki as\u0131l ama\u00e7 yeniden da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131; ikincisindeki ama\u00e7 ise verimlilik konular\u0131na y\u00f6nelmek yerine tar\u0131mda liberalle\u015fmeyi ba\u015farmak, devlet m\u00fcdahalesini azaltmak ve mali istikrar\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131(Cakmak and Dudu, 2010: 63).<\/p>\n Sonu\u00e7 olarak, TRUP t\u00fcm desteklerin ortadan acilen kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 te\u015fvik etti ve \u00e7ift\u00e7ilerin kay\u0131plar\u0131n\u0131 tazmin etmek i\u00e7in do\u011frudan gelir deste\u011fi getirdi. D\u0131\u015f \u00f6demeler, onlardan yararlanmak isteyen b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00e7ift\u00e7ilerin kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmak zorunda oldu\u011fu \u00e7ift\u00e7i kay\u0131t veri taban\u0131 \u00fczerinden da\u011f\u0131t\u0131lacakt\u0131. Bu yol T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin neredeyse b\u00fct\u00fcn co\u011frafyas\u0131nda tamamland\u0131. Ayr\u0131ca bu yol T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de destek al\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131n daha iyi belirlenmesine de yard\u0131m etti. \u0130lk olarak \u00fcst limit 20 hektard\u0131. Ancak \u00f6demeler onlar\u0131n hara\u00e7 \u00f6demek zorunda olduklar\u0131 ziraat odalar\u0131 i\u00e7indeki kay\u0131t maliyetlerinin fiyat\u0131 kadar bile de\u011fildi. Belirleme ba\u015far\u0131lamad\u0131 \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc toprak geni\u015fli\u011finin s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 50 hektara y\u00fckseltilene kadar, toprak sahipleri \u00e7oktan \u00f6demelerden daha fazla faydalanmak i\u00e7in aile \u00fcyeleri aras\u0131nda arazilerini da\u011f\u0131t\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131 ve bu durum gelecekteki arazi da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m\u0131na, \u00e7ift\u00e7i veri taban\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcvenilirli\u011fini azalmas\u0131na sebep olmaktayd\u0131.<\/p>\n Direk \u00f6demelerin \u00fcretimden ayr\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n planlanmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00f6demelerin orijinal kompozisyonu, g\u00fcndeme eklenen her bir destek \u00f6demesi taraf\u0131nda inceltildi (Akder, 2010:47). 2003\u2019te, ortada arazi temelli yak\u0131t ve DGD birle\u015fik b\u00fct\u00e7esinden \u00f6denen g\u00fcbre destekleri vard\u0131 (Akder, 2010:55). 2006-2009 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131nda tar\u0131msal strateji belgesinde, DGD bile\u015feni %45\u2019e kadar geriledi, 2009\u2019da tamamen kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131. Prim \u00f6demeleri, her \u00fcr\u00fcn i\u00e7in farkl\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oranlar\u0131 ile reforma hayat verdi (Akder, 2010:56). Bu nedenle, b\u00f6lgeler aras\u0131ndaki \u00fcr\u00fcn farkl\u0131la\u015fmas\u0131 nedeniyle reformun b\u00f6lgesel farkl\u0131l\u0131klar \u00fczerinde hi\u00e7bir etkisi olmad\u0131 (Cakmak, 2003:5).\u00a0 Y\u00fcksek gelirli alanlar olan bat\u0131 ve g\u00fcney k\u0131y\u0131lar\u0131, yo\u011fun yak\u0131t ve g\u00fcbre kullan\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle en b\u00fcy\u00fck paylar\u0131 ald\u0131 (Cakmak, 2003:5). Ek olarak, reform ne b\u00f6lgesel farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 azaltmada yararl\u0131, ne de denkle\u015ftirici de\u011fi\u015fimde, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck orta b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00e7iftlikler aras\u0131ndaki farkl\u0131l\u0131klara duyarl\u0131 oldu. \u0130stanbul Ticaret Odas\u0131 analizleri, b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00e7iftlikler \u00f6demelerden gelir da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m\u0131ndaki k\u00f6t\u00fcle\u015fme etkisini temsil eden k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00e7iftliklerden daha fazla fayda sa\u011flad\u0131klar\u0131na a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131k getirdi. Daha k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck teknik kapasiteli ve daha az mali kapasitesi olan k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00e7apl\u0131 \u00e7ift\u00e7iler (5 hektardan az) T\u00fcrkiye\u2019deki toplam \u00e7iftliklerin y\u00fczde 57.6s\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n 2001 tarihinde, toplam ihracat\u0131n i\u00e7inde tar\u0131msal ihracat\u0131n oran\u0131 3 puan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcp %3,2 olmu\u015ftur. Ayr\u0131ca reform \u00f6ncesi d\u00f6nemde bir art\u0131\u015f g\u00f6steren tar\u0131m sekt\u00f6r\u00fc katma de\u011feri reform sonras\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f e\u011filimine sahipti. T\u00dc\u0130K verilerine g\u00f6re, son on y\u0131lda bu\u011fday \u00fcretimi durgunla\u015fm\u0131\u015f, arpa \u00fcretimi ise azalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. End\u00fcstriyel bitkilerin (\u00f6zellikle t\u00fct\u00fcn ve pamuk, kuru fasulye nohut, mercimek, patates ve so\u011fan gibi bitkiler) \u00fcretim hacmi de azalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Artan destek ve kaliteli yeniden kullan\u0131labili rtohumlar nedeniyle art\u0131\u015f sadece m\u0131s\u0131r pirin\u00e7 ve ay\u00e7i\u00e7e\u011fi \u00fcretiminde g\u00f6zlemlenebilmi\u015ftir (Oral, 2012). DGD \u00f6demeleri fayda-maliyet analizi i\u00e7inde artan bir etki g\u00f6stermeyen, y\u00fcksek seviyelerde \u00e7iftlik geliri sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in sosyal yard\u0131m amac\u0131yla kullan\u0131ld\u0131 (ITO, 2004:97). Kas\u0131m 2002, Temmuz 2005 tarihleri aras\u0131nda girdi fiyatlar\u0131 %100 artt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00fcr\u00fcn fiyatlar\u0131 %30-80 oran\u0131nda azald\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in (Talas, 2009:115) toplam gelir kayb\u0131n\u0131n ancak %50\u2019si tazmin edilebildi (Olhan, 2006:46) ve vergi m\u00fckellefleri (Akder, 2010:61) taraf\u0131ndan tekrar \u00f6denen reform 600 milyon dolara mal oldu.<\/p>\n Reformun bir di\u011fer etkisi de devlet desteklerinin dorukta oldu\u011fu 1990\u2019l\u0131 y\u0131llarda ortalama 8,7 milyon olan tar\u0131msal istihdam\u0131n, 2006 y\u0131l\u0131nda reformun yakla\u015f\u0131k 5 sene uygulanmas\u0131ndan sonra, 6,1 milyona d\u00fc\u015fmesidir. TRUP d\u00f6nemi boyunca, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck aile verimlili\u011fine sebebiyet veren reformun ilk a\u015famas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131, k\u0131rsal i\u015fsizlik neredeyse iki kat\u0131na \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu da, iki problemi ortaya \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131: ilk olarak tar\u0131mda a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 istidam krizin sosyal ve ekonomik maliyetlerinin hafifletilmesine yard\u0131mc\u0131 olmu\u015ftur. \u0130kinci olarak ise, insan sermayesi engelleri nedeniyle kentsel i\u015fg\u00fcc\u00fc piyasas\u0131n\u0131n hazmetme kapasitesi ve k\u0131rsal i\u015fg\u00fcc\u00fc piyasas\u0131nda tar\u0131m d\u0131\u015f\u0131 istihdam olanaklar\u0131 yetersiz hale gelmi\u015ftir (Ilkkaracan and Tunal\u0131, 2010).<\/p>\n \u00c7akmak ve Dudu(2010) tar\u0131msal gelir ve verimlilik aras\u0131nda pozitif bir ili\u015fki oldu\u011funu savunmaktad\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca sermaye i\u00e7in 0,4\u2019e yak\u0131n olan \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131 esnekli\u011fi verimlilik a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan en \u00f6nemli \u00fcretim fakt\u00f6r\u00fcd\u00fcr. TRUP\u2019la birlikte kredi deste\u011fi 1999 y\u0131l\u0131nda %57,4\u2019ten 2004\u2019te %2.6 ya \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde azalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Olhan, 2006). Verimlilik T\u00fcrkiye tar\u0131m\u0131nda kritik bir problem olarak g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, sekt\u00f6rde rekabeti sa\u011flamak ve k\u0131rsal alanlarda refah\u0131 art\u0131rmak i\u00e7in, reform, finansal deste\u011fin yan\u0131nda teknik yard\u0131m, e\u011fitim, altyap\u0131 ve insan sermayesi yat\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131yla verimlili\u011fi artt\u0131rma \u00e7abalar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7ermeliydi \u00c7akmak ve Dudu, 2010; Aerni, 2010; Adaman ve \u00d6zertan, 2010).<\/p>\n D\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm s\u00fcrecini daha iyi anlayabilmek i\u00e7in, \u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan ve Adaman tar\u0131msal destek ve m\u00fcdahalenin neden asl\u0131nda temel olarak kabul edildi\u011fini anlamam\u0131z gerekti\u011fini i\u015faret etmektedir. Destek ve m\u00fcdahalenin ilk amac\u0131 do\u011fal ko\u015fullara ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ok y\u00fcksek olan bu sekt\u00f6r\u00fcn gerekliliklerini g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurarak piyasa istikrar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131r. \u0130kinci ama\u00e7, g\u0131da g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ve kendi kendine yeterlilik endi\u015feleri gerek\u00e7esiyle g\u0131da tedarikini belirli bir d\u00fczeyde tutabilmektir. Bunlara ek olarak, verimlili\u011fi ve \u00fcretkenli\u011fi artt\u0131rmak i\u00e7in gerekli olan teknik geli\u015fmeleri \u00f6\u011frenebilmek i\u00e7in \u00fcreticilerin destek ve rehberli\u011fe ihtiyac\u0131 vard\u0131r. K\u0131rsal kesimde e\u015fit hayat standartlar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayabilmek ve k\u0131rsal topluluklar\u0131 piyasa kurallar\u0131na teslim etmemek i\u00e7in gerekli olan adalet d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi tar\u0131ma m\u00fcdahaleyi gerekli k\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan ve Adaman, 2010). Bu temel mant\u0131k bile destek politikalar\u0131 i\u00e7in yeterlidir; fakat bahsi edilen m\u00fcdahale T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de uygulanan i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli de\u011fildir. Tar\u0131msal ve k\u0131rsal politikalar k\u0131rsal alanda ya\u015fanabilirli\u011fi sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in birbirine paralel seyreden politikalar olmal\u0131d\u0131r. H\u00fck\u00fcmetin g\u00fcndemine destek politikalar\u0131n\u0131 tamamlay\u0131c\u0131 bile\u015fenler resmi evraklarla h\u00fck\u00fcmetin g\u00fcndemine al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. T\u00fcrkiye 2004\u2019te, 2006-2010 y\u0131llar\u0131 i\u00e7in Tar\u0131msal Strateji Belgesi\u2019ni yay\u0131nlad\u0131. Akder\u2019e g\u00f6re bu belge TRUP i\u00e7in yay\u0131nlanm\u0131\u015f ilk resmi belge niteli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131maktayd\u0131 (Akder, 2010). H\u00fck\u00fcmet GSY\u0130H\u2019nin %1\u2019nin tar\u0131m sekt\u00f6r\u00fcne ayr\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, DGD\u2019ye ayr\u0131lan pay\u0131n %45, a\u00e7\u0131k \u00f6demelerin pay\u0131n\u0131n %10, k\u0131rsal kesim desteklerinin ise %10 olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ilan etti (Tar\u0131msal Strateji Belgesi, 2004:5). Bu strateji belgesini, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019nin ilk tar\u0131m kanunu (2006), 9. Kalk\u0131nma Plan\u0131 (2007-2013), Ulusal K\u0131rsal Kalk\u0131nma Stratejisi ve Plan\u0131 (2010-2013) IPARD Strateji ve Plan\u2019\u0131 izledi.<\/p>\n B\u00fct\u00fcn bu belgelerin i\u015faret etti\u011fi temel noktalar, verimlili\u011fi ve \u00fcretici refah\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in gerekli olan tedbirleri almak, s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclebilir tar\u0131msal \u00fcretime olanak tan\u0131mak, \u00fcr\u00fcn kalitesini ve g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flamak ve rekabet ve k\u0131rsal kalk\u0131nmay\u0131 garanti alt\u0131na almakt\u0131r (EC, 2013: 3). Stratejinin temel dayanaklar\u0131 DT\u00d6 ve AB\u2019nin i\u015faret etmi\u015f oldu\u011fu serbest piyasa normlar\u0131na uyum sa\u011flamak, ve reforma entegre ve kat\u0131l\u0131mc\u0131 bir yakla\u015f\u0131m getirmektir (T\u00fcrkiye Toprak Mahsulleri Ofisi, 2004). H\u00e2lihaz\u0131rda belirlenmi\u015f olan ve devletin elini piyasadan \u00e7ekmesi gerekti\u011fini savunan neoliberal yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n gerekleri yerine getirilmi\u015f oldu. Var olan destek politikalar\u0131 Avrupa Komisyonu\u2019yla ters d\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr ve ters d\u00fc\u015fmeye devam etmektedir. AB\u2019nin OTP k\u0131rsal kalk\u0131nma aya\u011f\u0131na ge\u00e7i\u015f s\u00fcrecine paralel olarak insan kaynaklar\u0131 ve k\u0131rsal kalk\u0131nmay\u0131 kapsayan AB \u00fcyelik \u00f6ncesi yard\u0131mlar\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, yat\u0131r\u0131m maliyetlerinin yar\u0131s\u0131 yararlan\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanacakve fonlar\u0131n e\u015f finansman\u0131 ilkesinden anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 gibi \u00f6demelerin di\u011fer yar\u0131s\u0131 proje tamamland\u0131ktan sonra yap\u0131lacakt\u0131r (Bak\u0131rc\u0131, 2009:75). K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck yat\u0131r\u0131mc\u0131lar\u0131n k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 finansman kaynaklar\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda proje olu\u015fturma, finansman ve y\u00f6netim ile ilgili ciddi bir profesyonel dan\u0131\u015fmanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n olmas\u0131 gerekir. Bu y\u00fczden krediler T\u00fcrkiye tar\u0131m\u0131nda problem te\u015fkil etmeye devam edecektir. Buna ek olarak, k\u0131rsalda art\u0131\u015f g\u00f6steren yasad\u0131\u015f\u0131 kredi sa\u011flay\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131, azalan kredi se\u00e7eneklerinin sonucu olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r (\u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan ve Adaman, 2010). Fakat \u00e7iftlik hayvanlar\u0131n\u0131n durumu g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tutars\u0131z ve kontrols\u00fczh\u00fck\u00fcmet politikalar\u0131, T\u00fcrkiye\u2019yi \u00e7iftlik hayvan\u0131 ithalat\u0131 yapan bir \u00fclke pozisyonuna getirmi\u015ftir. Yem fiyatlar\u0131 2007-2008 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki kurakl\u0131ktan sonra \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde y\u00fckselmi\u015f ve buna paralel olarak ithalat dalgas\u0131 yaratmaya sebep olan yerli \u00fcretimde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f ya\u015fanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yerli sekt\u00f6r, yerli piyasada neredeyse hi\u00e7 hayvan bulunmamas\u0131 sebebiyle, 2010\u2019dan bu yana kredilerle hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde desteklenmemi\u015f ve bu da ithalata olan gereksinimi art\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve fiyatlar\u0131 ikiye katlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kredi alan \u00e7ift\u00e7iler, iki y\u0131l sonra normal seviyelerine geri d\u00f6nen fiyatlardan dolay\u0131 kayda de\u011fer zararlar etmi\u015ftir (Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, 2012).<\/p>\n \u00c7ift\u00e7ilerin sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 anlamak ve bu sorunlara efektif \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmler \u00fcretebilmek i\u00e7in ihtiya\u00e7 duyulan kolektif demokratik eylem, \u00e7ift\u00e7i giri\u015fimleri ve \u00fcretici gruplar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fc\u00e7lendirilmesidir. Reformla birlikte tar\u0131m sat\u0131\u015f kooperatiflerinde, \u00e7ift\u00e7ilerin ve kooperatiflerin kendi haklar\u0131n\u0131 kontrol edemedikleri kurumsal bo\u015fluklar ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Akder vd., 2004:6). Devlet desteklerinin sona erdirilmesinden sonra bir\u00e7ok kooperatif yoksulla\u015fm\u0131\u015f;hatta baz\u0131lar\u0131 iflas etmi\u015ftir. Pamuk \u00fcreticileri grubu, rekabet\u00e7i ve iyi organize olmu\u015f yap\u0131lar\u0131yla AB d\u00fczeyinde tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olsalar da (Erkmen, 2006), reformla birlikte \u00f6zerk bir stat\u00fc elde eden \u00c7ukurova Pamuk Tar\u0131m Sat\u0131\u015f Kooperatifleri Birli\u011fi (\u00c7ukobirlik) fiyat belirleme, perakende sat\u0131\u015f ve \u00fcretim; bunlara ek olarak g\u00fcven ve \u00e7ift\u00e7ilerin i\u015fbirli\u011fi gibi konularda sahip oldu\u011fu pozisyonu yitirmi\u015ftir. Bunun sonucunda, birlik tesislerini kapatmak ve sahip olduklar\u0131n\u0131 ucuza satmak zorunda kalm\u0131\u015f ve yolsuzluk sendikan\u0131n ortadan kalkmas\u0131na sebep olmu\u015ftur. Birli\u011fin d\u00fcnya b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fck s\u0131ralamas\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc s\u0131rada yer alan b\u00fcy\u00fck entegre tekstil tesisi de kapat\u0131lmak zorunda kal\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r(http:\/\/www.adanamilletvekilleri.com\/?p=420<\/a>, 1 Mart, 2010).<\/p>\n T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de politika yap\u0131c\u0131lar, k\u0131rsal kesimlerdeki ge\u00e7imi sa\u011flamak, derinle\u015fen k\u0131rsal yoksullu\u011fu, k\u0131rsal i\u015fsizlik ve kentlere do\u011fru ya\u015fanan b\u00fcy\u00fck g\u00f6\u00e7leri \u00f6nlemek amac\u0131yla, \u00fcretime, insan kaynaklar\u0131 geli\u015fimine ve adalete \u00f6nem veren, ciddi k\u0131rsal politikalar \u00fcretme gereksinimi duymaktad\u0131r. Tar\u0131m en d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck seviyede gelir sa\u011flayan sekt\u00f6r konumunda olmaya devam etmektedir ve yoksulluk s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131nda olan k\u0131rsal i\u015fg\u00fcc\u00fc %35 seviyelerindedir (T\u00dc\u0130K, 2009). E\u011fitim, sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 altyap\u0131 ve sosyal hizmetleri i\u00e7eren geni\u015f bir sosyal politika tan\u0131m\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcmet taraf\u0131ndan benimsenmelidir (Keyder ve \u00dcst\u00fcnda\u011f, 2006). \u00d6rne\u011fin, Aerni\u2019nin i\u015faret etti\u011fi gibi, do\u011frudan \u00f6demeler yerine T\u00fcrkiye\u201c\u2026\u00e7ift\u00e7ilerin \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131 okula g\u00f6ndermeleri \u015fart\u0131yla, \u00e7apraz-uyum d\u00fczenini\u201d benimsemelidir (Aerni, 2007: 434). Mesleki e\u011fitim problemleri \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmeli ve bu e\u011fitimler i\u015flevsel ve \u00f6\u011frenciler i\u00e7in cazip hale getirilmelidir (Keyder ve Ustundag, 2006:5; Akder, 2007:530).<\/p>\n T\u00fcrkiye tar\u0131m\u0131 kritik yap\u0131sal sorunlardan bunun yan\u0131nda siyasi kayg\u0131lar AB ve D\u00fcnya Bankas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n etkisinin sonucu olarak kusurlu ve talihsiz neoliberal politikalardan \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde etkilenmi\u015ftir. Son reform s\u00fcreci 2001 y\u0131l\u0131nda, D\u00fcnya Bankas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n finansal yard\u0131mlar\u0131yla ortaya konan TRUP\u2019La birlikte ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Genel olarak bu reformun \u00fcretim ve \u00fcretici gelirleri organizasyonlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde, neredeyse hi\u00e7bir ba\u015far\u0131 elde etmeyerek, olumsuz sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 olmu\u015ftur. Fakat tar\u0131mda liberalizasyon d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi \u00fclkeyi bu yola ba\u011fl\u0131 k\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu sene 2014 se\u00e7imlerinden dolay\u0131, artan tar\u0131msal destekler kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r. Fakat T\u00fcrkiye tar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ihtiyac\u0131 olan \u015fey k\u0131rsal kalk\u0131nma \u00f6nlemlerini ve k\u0131rsal problemlerin do\u011fru analizini i\u00e7eren anlaml\u0131 ve \u00fcretim temelli politikalard\u0131r.<\/p>\n Ceren Hi\u00e7 , MSc, Humboldt-Universit\u00e4t zu Berlin<\/strong><\/p>\n Makaleyi \u015fu \u015fekilde referans vererek kullanabilirsiniz:<\/p>\n Hi\u00e7, Ceren (Ekim, 2013), \u201cTar\u0131m Reformu ve Sonras\u0131\u201d, Cilt II, Say\u0131 8, s.30-40,\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye Politika ve Ara\u015ft\u0131rma Merkezi (AnalizT\u00fcrkiye), Londra: Analiz T\u00fcrkiye\u00a0<\/em>(http:\/\/researchturkey.org\/?p=4287&lang=tr)<\/p>\n Aerni, P. (2007) Editorial: Agriculture in Turkey \u2013 structural change, sustainability and EU-compatibility. Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 6. Nos.4\/5. Pp.429-439.<\/p>\n Akder, A.H. (2007) Policy formation in the process of implementing agricultural reform in Turkey. Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 6. Nos.4\/5. Pp.514-532.<\/p>\n Akder, A. H. (2010) How to dilute an agricultural reform: Direct income subsidy experience in Turkey (2001-2008). \u201cRethinking Structural Reforms in Turkish Agriculture, Beyond the World Bank\u2019s Strategy\u201d (2010), pp.47-61.<\/p>\n Bakirci, M. (2009) Avrupa Birligi Uyelik Oncesi Destek Fonu\u2019nun (IPA) Kirsal Kalkinma Bileseni (IPARD),Turkiye\u2019nin Durumu ve Muhtemel Etkileri [Rural Development Component (IPARD) of Pre-Accession Assistance Instrument (IPA) of European Union, Situation of Turkey and Prospective Effects]. Dogu cografya dergisi [Eastern geographical review] (2009) 24888, No: 21, Erzurum (2009).<\/p>\n Bush, R. (1999) Economic Crisis and the Politics of Reform in Egypt. Boulder: Westview Press.<\/p>\n Cakmak, E. (2003) Evaluation of the past and future agricultural policies in Turkey: are they capable to achieve sustainability? Options M\u00e9diterran\u00e9ennes, S\u00e9r. A \/ n\u00b052, 2003 \u2013 Libre-\u00e9change, agriculture et environnement.<\/p>\n Cakmak, E. (2004) Structural Change and Market Opening in Turkish Agriculture. Centre for European Policy Studies, EU-Turkey Working Papers, No. 10\/September 2004.<\/p>\n Cakmak, E., Dudu H. (2010) Agricultural Policy Reform in Turkey: Sectorial and Micro Implications. \u201cRethinking Structural Reforms in Turkish Agriculture, Beyond the World Bank\u2019s Strategy\u201d (2010), pp.63-85.<\/p>\n Caliskan, K., Adaman, F. (2010) The Logic of Neoliberal Agricultural Reform Initiatives: Perspectives and Consequences. \u201cRethinking Structural Reforms in Turkish Agriculture, Beyond the World Bank\u2019s Strategy\u201d (2010), pp. 87-103.<\/p>\n Ekmen, M. E. (2006) The Role of Producer Organizations in the Implementation of the Common Market Mechanism of the European Union and Recommendations for Turkey. Ankara University Agricultural Economics. http:\/\/acikarsiv.ankara.edu.tr\/browse\/3144\/<\/p>\n European Commission (2006) Screening Report Turkey, Chapter 11 \u2013 Agriculture and Rural Development http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/enlargement\/pdf\/turkey\/screening_reports\/screening_report_11_tr_internet_en.pdf<\/p>\n European Commission (2009) Agriculture and Rural Development: Frequently asked questions. http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/agriculture\/faq\/index_en.htm<\/p>\n European Commission (2011) Commission Staff Working Paper, Turkey 2011 Progress Report http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/enlargement\/pdf\/key_documents\/2011\/package\/tr_rapport_2011_en.pdf<\/p>\n European Commission, EU-Turkey Relations http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/enlargement\/candidate-countries\/turkey\/eu_turkey_relations_en.htm<\/p>\n Ilkkaracan, I., Tunal\u0131, I. (2010) Agricultural Transformation and the Rural Labor Market in Turkey. \u201cRethinking Structural Reforms in Turkish Agriculture, Beyond the World Bank\u2019s Strategy\u201d (2010), pp. 105-148.<\/p>\n Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (ITO) (2004) T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de Tar\u0131m\u0131n Te\u015fvikinde DGD Sistemi ve Sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 [DIS support system in Turkey and its results].<\/p>\n Keyder, \u00c7., \u00dcst\u00fcnda\u011f, N. (2006) Do\u011fu ve G\u00fcneydo\u011fu Anadolu\u2019nun Kalk\u0131nmas\u0131nda Sosyal Politikalar [Social Policies in Development of Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia]. TESEV Report, Bo\u011fazi\u00e7i University Social Policy Forum.<\/p>\n Lundell, M., Lampietti J., Pertev, R., Pohlmeier, L., Akder, H., Ocek, E., Shreyasi, J. (2004) A Review of the Impact of the Reform of Agricultural Sector Subsidization. World Bank.<\/p>\n Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock since 2009) (2004) Agricultural Strategy Paper (2006-2010). http:\/\/www.tmo.gov.tr\/Upload\/Document\/mevzuat\/kararnameler\/tarimstrateji.pdf<\/p>\n Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock since 2009) Information on the IPARD Program http:\/\/www.zafer.org.tr\/downloads\/destekler\/ipard_program.pdf<\/p>\n Nash, J. (1998) A direct subsidy program in Turkey. Unpolished note cited by J. Goldberg, sector manager of ARIP, at a Conference on Rural Development, in his presentation \u201cRural Development in Agricultural Reform Implementation Project ARIP\u201d, February 20, 2009, Ankara.<\/p>\n OECD (2011), Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Reforms in Turkey. OECD Publishing. Doi: 10.1787\/9789264113220-en<\/p>\n Olhan, E. (2006) The Impact of the Reforms: Impoverished Turkish Agriculture. Agricultural Journal 1(2): 41-47. Medwell Online.<\/p>\n Oral, N. (2012)\u00a0Tar\u0131mda Neoliberal Politikalar\u0131n 30. Y\u0131l\u0131 [<\/strong>30 Years of Neo-Liberal Policies in Agriculture]http:\/\/www.gidatarim.com\/BASINDAN-MAKALELER\/31676_Tarimda-Neoliberal-Politikalarin-30-Yili.html<\/a><\/p>\n \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, M. (2012) Agriculture, Peasantry and Poverty in Turkey in the Neo-liberal Age. Wageningen Academic Publishers.<\/p>\n State Planning Organization Ninth Development Plan (2007-2013) http:\/\/www2.dpt.gov.tr\/konj\/DPT_Tanitim\/pdf\/Ninth_Development_Plan.pdf<\/p>\n Rausser, G. C. (1992) Predatory versus productive government: the case of US Agricultural Policies. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 3, 133-157.<\/p>\n Talas, M. (2009) T\u00fcrk Tar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n K\u00fcreselle\u015fmesi ve Ortaya \u00c7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131 Toplumsa lProblemler. Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Welt der T\u00fcrken \/ Journal of World of Turks, Germany, 123 06 2009.<\/p>\n Turkstat (2009) Household Labor Force Survey Statistics. http:\/\/tuik.gov.tr<\/p>\n Van Leeuwen, M. et al. (2011) \u2018Potential impacts on agricultural commodity markets of an EU enlargement to Turkey, Extension of the AGMEMOD model towards Turkey and accession scenario\u2019 JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.<\/p>\n World Bank (2010) World Development Indicators. Agriculture value added, http:\/\/data.worldbank.org\/indicator\/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS<\/p>\n World Bank (2010) World Development Indicators. Employment in agriculture, http:\/\/data.worldbank.org\/indicator\/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS<\/p>\n WTO, Agricultural Domestic Support http:\/\/www.wto.org\/english\/tratop_e\/agric_e\/ag_intro03_domestic_e.htm<\/p>\n Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m, A. E. (2012) S\u0131f\u0131r faizli kredinin faturas\u0131 ag\u0131r [Heavy impact of zero-interest credit]\u00a0http:\/\/www.tarimdunyasi.net\/?p=2766<\/a><\/p>\nUygulama ve De\u011ferlendirme<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Son Geli\u015fmeler ve Politikaya \u0130li\u015fkin \u00d6neriler<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\u00a0Sonu\u00e7<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Kaynak\u00e7a<\/strong><\/h3>\n