In 2009, Turkey's economy contracted like a developed country's economy that had suffered the effects of a banking crisis. And in 2010, Turkey's economy recovered like a developing country's economy.

It appears that the remarkable recovery of Turkey's economy in 2010 will be discussed at length even in the future. If you see the economic growth process as a sports contest, you will tend to assess the issue as "let's see in which fields we rank first." I believe this is almost inevitable on the eve of elections. Indeed, Honorable Prime Minister Erdoğan could not help himself and declared, "Turkey ranks first among the OECD countries." So today, let me announce my rankings. If you are curious about these, please read on.

Turkey's economy has rapidly offset the losses in production suffered in 2010. The first remarkable point about the recovery performance in 2010 is that Turkey was among the ten economies that contracted most in 2009 and then was among the ten economies that recovered most rapidly in 2010. It is the only country that appears on both lists. This success is unique. In 2009, Turkey's economy contracted like a developed country's economy that had suffered the effects of a banking crisis. And in 2010, Turkey's economy recovered like a developing country's economy. I think such is the bridge between two worlds. Would a well-administered economy have been on both lists? We had better sit down and think about it. It is possible that the growth figures will be revised; but this is the situation for now. This is the first point to state.

And the second point:  The recovery in 2010 should be read in association with the contraction in 2009. What matters most is the extent to which the country offset the loss in production. If you examine to what extent Turkey offset the production loss between the first quarter of 2008, when the impacts of the global economic crisis became visible, and the end of 2010, something interesting appears. Turkey, following Poland, ranked second among European countries in terms of performance in 2010 in offsetting production loss.  If you get your hopes up that "We were not the first in Europe, but we certainly were at the top in the Middle East," you will be disappointed. Turkey ranked second in the Middle East, after Israel. You might think of the possibility of ranking first among "the group of countries with predominantly Muslim populations, " but Turkey ranked second after Indonesia in that category. If you see the issue as a sports contest, Turkey deserves nothing but the silver medal. And for sportspeople, as a friend of mine says, you do not win the silver medal; you lose the gold medal by a hair's breadth.

The third point directly follows the second one. Poland, a country which has performed better than Turkey in Europe, and Indonesia,  which is ahead of Turkey in the group of Muslim countries, are two countries with economies that did not contract during the global crisis. Let me repeat:  Poland and Indonesia are two of the four countries with economies did not contract during the crisis period. Another common feature is that they devised policies to tackle the crisis throughout the process. Turkey, however, definitely did not. Here comes an interesting exam question: If doing noting earns you second place, do you need to make effort to become the champion? Or are you following the "you do not win the silver medal; you lose the gold medal by a hair's breadth" school of thought?

If you approach the economic policy issue with the sports contest mentality, the quantity rather than the quality comes to the fore. The conclusion reached with this perspective goes as follows: Turkey deserved to be the testing case of the 2008 crisis with the "zero measure policy" pursued particularly in the earliest phases of the process. This is the aspect of the issue that requires examination. In this sense, Turkey performed not all that badly.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 05.04.2011