Osman Şenkul
Although economic life 3,000–4,000 years ago was not as complex as it is today, it did exhibit developments similar to what we are experiencing today. For example, the economy would occasionally experience great vitality and consequently grow; yet there were also economies that suffered deep crises, collapsed and hit rock bottom. Just as today, in ancient times too, following economic crises, a restructuring would take place across all elements of the economy—from superstructures such as the state down to the infrastructure of individuals and families—depending on the severity of the crisis.
The post-crisis ‘looting economies’ observed in today’s restructuring processes were also experienced in history. In today’s economic world, the most primitive forms of imitation and theft, carried out in pursuit of greater market share and higher profits, also existed in history. During a crisis that emerged in history, changes in economic and commercial life around the Aegean civilisation—and the transformations this brought about in family structures—took place, and perhaps the first instance of technological theft (imitation) in history occurred.
In the early 8th century BC, following a long period of economic prosperity in the Attica (Greece) Peninsula, Thrace, the Aegean Islands and the Anatolian coast of the Aegean, wars broke out, resulting in the plundering of the region’s wealth and the onset of a deep economic crisis that would last for 150–200 years. The economy, which had been developing rapidly and establishing fundamental rules, suddenly reverted to its primitive stages.
Trade virtually ceased to exist. Families in the region, who had lived in prosperity before the crisis, fell into great poverty. Every family tried to avoid buying goods from outside as much as possible; they could only produce foodstuffs to meet their own needs. Furthermore, as they had no surplus production to spend, families attempted to make their own clothing, shoes, household goods and agricultural tools using their own resources and other means.
Everyone in the family had a job to do. The men ploughed the fields, planted trees, harvested the crops, ground the grain, looked after the livestock, milked the sheep and goats, and produced butter and cheese. Women, meanwhile, spun wool and wove cloth at home, using these to sew the clothes the family needed. In addition, feeding and raising the children, cooking meals and washing clothes were the women’s primary duties.
These economic changes affected not only ordinary people but also the royal court. King Odysseus harvested crops and ground wheat. The King had also learnt enough carpentry to build ships and to make and repair the beds in his home.
Queen Penelope, too, wove cloth in the palace alongside her maids. The princess, meanwhile, contributed to the ‘palace economy’ by washing clothes with her maids. These economic developments had brought a certain degree of equality even to the servants and slaves found in palaces and the homes of major landowners and those active in trade.
Although slaves and servants performed the heaviest tasks in the home and palace, the fact that other family members were also obliged to work alongside them—and thus found themselves in an ‘equal’ position in the work they did—meant that they had risen to the same level as other family members, or that the others had descended to their level. This situation made the slaves very happy; because, whilst performing the same tasks as family members in the home, kitchen, fields and gardens, they were also able to participate in religious ceremonies alongside them.
During these years, the region’s economy relied almost entirely on agriculture and livestock farming. As can be understood from Homer’s poems, agriculture in the region was mainly practised in the plains, with the use of fertiliser and the practice of fallow. The two most commonly cultivated crops were wheat and barley. Olive and grape cultivation also took place; meals consisted of wheat bread and sweet wine was drunk. Olive oil was also used in cooking and for lighting.
Those who made their living from livestock farming mainly reared sheep, goats and pigs. In addition, cattle such as bulls and other oxen were bred, and a portion of the animals were reared specifically for sacrifice. Furthermore, horse breeding was also practised, particularly on the Anatolian side of the Aegean. Livestock farming in the region was largely controlled by owners of large herds, and their wealth depended on this. According to historical records, those who owned herds faced a greater risk of impoverishment. A large landowner could retain his land even during a drought, whereas a herdsman would quickly fall into poverty during an outbreak of disease.
Although a large part of the economy was represented by agriculture, livestock farming and household production, trades such as copper and ironwork, pottery, masonry and carpentry were also developing during the same period. However, due to the crisis, the owners of these workshops fell into poverty to a great extent; consequently, they were unable to continue production and were forced to close their workshops. These artisans found employment as wage labourers working for a few large workshop owners. Thus, this major economic crisis also gave rise to the first instance of ‘wage labour’ in history.
The economic crisis in the region gradually gave way to economic recovery towards the end of the 8th century BC. Transport advanced with the help of new techniques, and thus inter-regional relations developed and trade revived. Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, the island of Euboea (Aegean), Argolis and Laconia (the Greek coast of the Aegean), and all the cities along the Aegean coast of Anatolia became major centres of trade. As transport developed further, trade extended as far as the coasts of Syria and Phoenicia.
As a result of the re-establishment of relations in these regions, significant increases were observed not only in trade but also in agricultural, livestock and artisanal production. Goods produced in the settled civilisations of Greece and Western Anatolia began to be transported to these regions in large quantities once again. The port of El-Mina, on the coast of present-day Syria, became the hub through which virtually all goods from the Aegean were transported.
Colourful fabrics, spices, metalware and various industrial goods from Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt were brought to this port by caravans, where they were exchanged for the Aegean’s wheat, wine and olive oil. Aegean merchants would take the industrial goods and textiles they acquired in exchange for wheat, wine and olive oil back to their homelands.
These exchanges of goods led to a significant revival of trade. However, they may also have given rise to what could be termed ‘history’s first instance of imitation’. The Aegean civilisations, having fallen behind the civilisations of Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt and other Eastern civilisations in terms of technology due to the economic crisis they faced in the face of major attacks, particularly from Europe, had been forced into a state of economic crisis. Industrial products and textiles arriving via trade facilitated technological progress within the Aegean civilisations as well. The goods brought to the region were closely examined by master blacksmiths, carpenters and weavers, who attempted to imitate them. Initially rather crude, these imitations gradually began to surpass the originals in quality under the hands of artisans who had mastered these crafts.
By the end of the 8th century BC and the beginning of the 7th century BC, the Aegean civilisations were firmly in the midst of a definite economic revival. Having further developed the technologies acquired through imitation from the East, the Aegeans had once again seized leadership in trade and the economy, just as they had done 150–200 years earlier. Having acquired this technology, the Aegean civilisations were particularly adept at exploiting the underground and surface riches of Anatolia, and they surpassed even those who had originally developed the technology. Of course, as there were no patents or know-how in those days, no one could accuse the Aegean civilisations of technology piracy.
However, on the Anatolian Peninsula to the east of these same lands, centuries after all these developments, we witness that not only has keeping pace with global technological advancements become impossible, but even the agricultural progress achieved at that time—and more importantly, ensuring adequate nutrition for the hundreds of thousands of people living on those same lands—has become an unattainable luxury. A clear definition of this ‘luxury’ could be described as ‘having the world’s highest food inflation’.
As can be seen above, hundreds of years ago, from the very top down to the very bottom—including the slaves—they managed to set out and attain even the best technologies of the era to ensure that all living beings were at least fed. In other words, in this region, which enjoyed extensive agricultural support following the establishment of the Republic, we can see from the results and data that such support has now all but vanished, evidenced by the “unattainability” of the food required for adequate nutrition.
This situation is also evident from numerous data and reports. According to the Agricultural Monitoring Report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), support for agriculture in Turkey has decreased significantly. The report indicates that while agricultural support averaged 4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until 2002, it fell to 1.4 per cent between 2018 and 2020. The minimum price support, which accounted for 78 per cent of total agricultural support up until 2002, fell to 54 per cent last year. The decline in agricultural support was also influenced by the falling share of the agricultural sector within GDP. Looking more closely at the present situation; the basic support coefficient for the 2026 production year has been set at just 310 TL per decare; in other words, a level of support equivalent to the current price of one kilogram of tomatoes is deemed sufficient.
In short, as noted by Ali Ekber Yıldırım, the Agriculture Correspondent for Ekonomi Gazetesi: “Agricultural support for 2026 has been set at 167.6 billion lira, representing a 24.2 per cent increase compared to the 2025 initial budget. Compared to the expected support budget for 2025, however, there will be an increase of just 5.7 per cent. In other words, in the nightmarish year of 2025, support will be increased by only 5.7 per cent. In short, there will unfortunately still be no support policy to alleviate the plight of farmers who are going through a very difficult period and entering 2026 with despair. At the very least, during such a period, the provision in the Agriculture Law stating that ‘agricultural support shall amount to at least 1 per cent of gross domestic product’ should have been implemented in 2026. With this approach, the expected agricultural production will not materialise in 2026 either. It is not only the farmers who are paying the price for this, but all of us as consumers, and we will continue to do so.”
Although Turkey has been described as an “Agricultural Nation” almost since the founding of the Republic of Turkey, thanks to its vast and fertile lands and the agricultural cooperatives established throughout the country, the situation remains as such. Yet, globally, the countries providing the highest levels of support to the agricultural sector are generally developed Western nations and major agricultural economies.
Although the amount of support varies in terms of total value and as a proportion of production value, Norway leads the way among the countries providing the highest level of agricultural support. Norway ranks among the world’s top countries in terms of subsidies, providing support equivalent to 65–75 per cent of the value of agricultural production. This country is followed by Japan and Switzerland, which offer support at similar levels. Furthermore, China, the world’s largest agricultural producer, stands out as one of the countries providing the highest total support due to its production volume. Additionally, the United States, known as the world’s largest economy, is recognised as one of the major agricultural powers that allocates a very high budget to its farmers through its agricultural policies.
Furthermore, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands—all counted among the world’s largest economies—provide billions of euros in support to agriculture under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. India also stands out as a country with very high levels of agricultural support, particularly through subsidies for inputs such as fertiliser, electricity and water.
Today, in Turkey—which is rapidly heading towards becoming the “country with the world’s highest food inflation” and already holds third place globally—agricultural support fails to even feature in the general rankings, let alone rank among the highest. Under the Agricultural Reform Implementation Project implemented in Turkey, price and input supports were largely abolished; for example, the minimum price support, which accounted for 78 per cent of total agricultural support in 2002, was significantly reduced in subsequent years. Research indicates that these fundamental changes in support policies have led to declines in the real value of agricultural support and in its contribution to the development of the agricultural sector.
Of course, we cannot expect agricultural production in Turkey—which has been stripped of support to the greatest extent possible—to survive in the face of agricultural products that receive substantial support almost everywhere else in the world. Turkey’s agricultural, food and beverage exports rose by 1.21 per cent in the first month of 2026 compared to the same period last year, reaching 2.4 billion dollars, whilst imports increased by 7.68 per cent to 2.18 billion dollars during the same period. In short, over the past 23 years alone, 45 billion dollars’ worth of grain has been imported, of which 30 billion dollars was for wheat. During the same period, 7 billion dollars was spent on pulses, 8.4 billion dollars on sunflower seeds, and 34 billion dollars on cotton imports.
Turkey imports wheat and sunflower seeds from Russia and Ukraine; chickpeas, green lentils, and dried beans from Canada, the US, Russia and China; and soya and maize from Egypt, the US, Ukraine, and Canada. Live animal imports are also primarily sourced from South American and EU countries.
In short, agricultural support has shifted from a minimum price policy to area-based payments; however, it is clear that this process has led to a significant real contraction and an inability to cover farmers’ rising costs. In the 8th century BC, economic changes affected not only ordinary people but also the royal court; even King Odysseus, centuries after the days when he harvested crops and ground wheat, in the first quarter of the 21st century, the most significant indicators that Turkey—which has surged towards the top spot in global food inflation—is on the verge of overtaking the third-place position it reached in roughly 20 years and claiming first place are reflected in the long queues for food products caused by small price reductions and even in the data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat).