Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:09:45.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Present Day Status of Small-Scale Industries (Sanatkar) In Bursa, Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

E. Mine ünar ,
Gunar Eucimen  and
Mehmet Kaytaz
Mehmet Kaytaz
Affiliation:
Department of Economics Loyola University of Chicago Department of Economics Bogaziçi University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Social scientists have studied small-scale manufacturers both on a theoretical and on a regional basis relative to their occupational prestige, values, way of life, and political affiliations. Lately, this topic has also been of interest to international lending institutions that have adopted policies that promote small-scale firms in less-developed countries. Part of the reason for the change in policy stems from the inefficient production of large-scale firms and their disappointing performance in reducing unemployment. Some of the studies have found small- scale firms to be more efficient in inputs. Small-scale firms are viewed as generating needed employment opportunities in countries that face pressures of fast-growing labor force populations.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 1988 , pp. 287 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Authors' note: We are grateful to the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada for financial support of the survey part of this study. We thank E. Akarli, A. Ökten, and A. Kantar for their direct and indirect contributions to the execution of the project. We also thank an anonymous referee and D. Merriman for their comments on the manuscript.

1 Bechhofer, F. and Elliott, B., “An Approach to the Study of Small Shopkeepers and the Class Structure,” European Journal of Sociology, 9, 2 (1968), 180–202;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBechhofer, F., Elliott, B. and Rushforth, M., “The Market Situation of Small Shopkeepers,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 18, 2 (1971), 161–80;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBechhofer, F., Elliott, B., Rushford, M. and Bland, R., “The Petit Bourgeois in the Class Structure: the Case of the Small Shopkeepers,” in Parkin, A., ed., The Social Analysis of Class Structure (London: Tavistock, 1974), pp. 103–28;Google ScholarPerlman, J. E., The Myth of Marginality (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1976).Google Scholar

2 During the 1972–1976 period, the World Bank lent $100 million to small enterprises and $3.1 billion for large-scale projects. From July 1977 to June 1984, the bank lent $1.97 billion for 63 projects to support small and medium enterprises in 35 countries. Also see Levitsky, J., World Bank Lending to Small Enterprises: A Review, Industry and Finance Series 16 (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1986), p. 1.Google Scholar

3 Fisseha, Y. and Milimo, J. T., “Small Scale Enterprises in Zambia: Summary of Survey Results,” paper presented at the Annual African Studies Association Meeting, New Orleans, 11 23, 1985;Google ScholarHull, G., A Small Business Agenda: Trends in a Global Economy (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1985);Google ScholarLevitsky, J., World Bank Lending to Small Enterprises, pp. 7–9;Google ScholarFarbman, M., The Pisces Studies: Assisting the Smallest Economic Activities of the Poor, Office of Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: USAID, 1981);Google ScholarAshe, J., The Pisces II Experience, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: USAID, 1985);Google ScholarBlayney, R. G. and Otero, M., “Small and Micro Enterprises: Contributions to Development and Future Directions for AID's Support,” Report Prepared for USAID, Washington, D.C., 11 1985.Google Scholar

4 The official legal term was hirfet and the sanatkar was herif, denoting petty craftsman. The latter is now used as a derogatory word in Turkish.Google Scholar

5 Inalcik, H., The Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age 1300–1600 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983), pp. 150–52.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., p. 152.

7 Ibid., pp. 153–56, notes that the guild structure with limited production and supply was basically a small-town production structure and its imposition to large urban areas such as Istanbul created the usual problems associated with scarcity of supply. A number of shops usually opened up at other parts of the city, sometimes lowering quality and price to serve a larger consumer base. These koltukcus were after a time declared illegal by the central government due to the pressure of the guilds.

8 Ibid., p. 158.

9 Akarli, E., “Artisan Shopkeepers in Late Ottoman History: An Effort to Develop a Viable Research Framework,” in Perspectives on Small Scale Production and Trade in Bursa: Interdisciplinary Explorations (Istanbul: Boagiçi University, 1978), pp. 71–84.Google Scholar

10 Toprak, Z., “Osmanli Devleti ve Sanayileşme Sorunu,” Tanzimattan Cumhuriyet'e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Iletişim Yayinlari, 1986), pp. 1340–44.Google Scholar

11 Ökçün, G., Boratav, K. and Pamuk, Ş., “Osmanli Devleti'nde Ücretler (1839–1913),” Tanzimattan Cumhuriyet'e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Iletişim Yayinlari, 1986), pp. 753–59.Google Scholar

12 We make a distinction in this survey between small-scale artisan shops which were the target of our study and the very small “firms” in the informal sector which are usually the self-employed, one-person operations operating on the street or sidewalk. These “firms” require very little capital, have no fixed outlays such as shop rent and usually do not employ others, but may operate as partnerships with a relative or may have child helpers. These usually are run by individuals who have migrated to the urban centers from the rural towns or from the agricultural sector. Typical examples that come to mind are the Street peddlers (işportaci). The small shops have a conflict of interest with the işportaci and cannot easily compete with the informal firms due to large overhead costs. Most economic studies combine these two into one “small-scale” group. This can lead to confusion with respect to policy statements because what is good for one group is not necessarily good for the other.Google Scholar

13 An inferior good is defined to be a good for which the income effect due to a price change is negative in household consumption behavior. The term is not used to denote inferior quality.Google Scholar

14 Inalcik, H., “Osmanli Pamuklu Pazari, Hindistan ve Ingiltere: Pazar Rekabetinde Emek Maliyetinin Rolu,” Gelişme Dergisi, 7 (1979–1980), 1–66.Google Scholar

15 Hill, H., “Subcontracting, Technological Diffusion and the Development of Small Enterprise in Philippine Manufacturing,” The Journal of Developing Areas, 19, 1 (1985), 245–61.Google Scholar

16 Erder, L. T., “The Making of Industrial Bursa: Economic Activity and Population in a Turkish City,” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1976.Google Scholar

17 Inalcik, H. lists extensive evidence on the extent of Bursa's trade in 1483–1485 in his “Osmanli Idare, Sosyal ye Ekonomik Tarihiyle Ilgili Belgeler: Bursa Kadi Sicillerinden Seçmeler,” Belgeler, 10, 14 (1980–1981), 1–91. Most of the documents deal with court settlement of trades (some about cloth, silk, and dyes) between parties in legal disputes.Google Scholar

18 State Planning Organisation, Türkiye'de Küçük Esnaf ye Sanaikar Sayilari (Ankara: DPT, 1980).Google Scholar

19 Bademli, R., “Distorted and Lower Forms of Capitalist Industrial Production in Underdeveloped Countries: Contemporary Artisan Shops and Workshops in Eskişehir and Gaziantep, Turkey,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1977.Google Scholar

20 One of the purposes of the G. Menteş' project, also funded by IDRC, was to prepare the sampling base for this study. Menteş used proportional sampling for each stratum, from which shops were drawn by systematic random sampling. For detailed accounts of the strata, sampling process, his survey and his findings, see Menteş, G., “Location, Site Selection of Petty Production in Bursa,” Research Reports, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, May 1984 through October 1985.Google Scholar

21 This preference for family labor is not a recent phenomenon. The industrial survey by the State Statistical Institute (DIE) shows that a majority of textile firms in Bursa in 1927 were small firms that made extensive use of family labor. See Sanayi Sayimi 1927, DIE Publications, No. 584 (Ankara: DIE, 1969).Google Scholar

22 One should note that most of the apprentices were less than 18 years old and hence were not covered by adult minimum wage legislation. However, even when the minimum wages for apprentices (which were 3,000 T.L. less than the adult minimum wage) were used, apprentices still earned less than their minimum wage in most sectors.Google Scholar