Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:02:24.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Small Firm Flexibility in Turkey: The Case of OSTIM Industrial District at Ankara

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Nadir Sugur
Nadir Sugur*
Affiliation:
Anadolu University, Department of Sociology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study draws upon fieldwork to examine the role of the small firm in developing countries with special reference to the Turkish case. The fieldwork was conducted at OSTIM during 1992-93. The study will critically examine the theory of ‘flexible specialization’, which claims that certain developments in capitalist economies, such as a rapid change and differentiation in demand and growth of trade unionism in large production plants, increasingly undermine the system of mass production in large scale firms, and thus favor the growth of small firms. More specifically, it will inquire whether the Turkish case confirms the growth of the small firm sector of the economy in relation to the use of new technology, flexible production techniques, flexible work force and design.

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 16 , Spring 1997 , pp. 87 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1997

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

Kumar, K. 1995. From Post-industrial to Post-modern Society, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Murray, F. 1983. “Decentralisation of Production: The Decline of Mass Collective Workers,” Capital and Class, vol.33.Google Scholar
Murray, F. 1987. “Flexible Specialisation in The Third Italy,” Capital and Class, vol.33.Google Scholar
Nichols, T. and Sugur, N. 1996. “Small Employers in Turkey: The OSTIM Estate at Ankara,” Middle Eastern Studies, 32(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. 1993. Economic Survey: Turkey. Paris.Google Scholar
OSTIM 1991. Industrial Catalogue 91, DKGM, Ostim, Ankara.Google Scholar
Piore, J. M. and Sabel, C. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Poon, A. 1990. “Flexible Specialisation and Small Size: The Case of Caribbean Tourism,” World Development, 18(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyke, F. 1988. “Co-operative Practices Among Small and Medium Sized Establishment,” Work Employment and Society, 3(3).Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. 1992. “The small enterprise environment in Zimbabwe: Growing in the shadow of large enterprises,” Institute of Development Studies, 23(3), University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. 1986. “Changing Models of Economic Efficiency and Their Implications for Industrialisation in the Third World,” in Foxley, A. and O'Donnel, G. (eds.), Development, Democracy and the Art of Trespassing. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. 1994. “Flexible Specialisation and Re-emergence of Regional Economies,” in Amin, A. (ed.) Post-fordism. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schmitz, H. 1989. “Flexible Specialisation: A New Paradigm of Small Scale Industrialisation?” Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Schmitz, H. 1992. “On The Clustering of Small Firms,” IDS Bulletin, 23(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SESRTCICI 1987. “Small and Medium Sized Manufacturing Enterprises in Turkey,” Journal of Economic Cooperation Among Islamic Countries, vol.8.Google Scholar
TESK 1990. Türkiye Birinci Esnaf ve Sanaatkarlar Şurası 4 nolu Komisyon Raporu (The First Turkish Small Tradesmen and Artisans Congress, 4th Commission Report), Ankara.Google Scholar