5

Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks

and the Ford Foundation Projects in Turkey
during the Cold War

Ali Erken*

Abstract

This article discusses the activities of the Ford Foundation in Turkey between
1957 and 1968. Based on archival sources it examines the Foundation projects
in education and deals with key personalities involved in this cooperation. The
Ford Foundation supported the improvement of the quality of primary educa-
tion, the foundation of a Science High School for gifted children and develop-
ment of population studies. The Foundation enjoyed the fruits of Turkish-Amer-
ican rapprochement, but also managed to avoid detrimental consequences of
political turbulences taking place in Turkey and found workable partners among
the educated elites of the country. Both parties shared an ultimate goal towards
the westernization of Turkey and sought to foster scientific culture. It helped
establish informal networks managing to work with different political groups
during the Cold War.

Key Words

Ford Foundation, Turkish History, Political History, Cold War, Education

Introduction
This article discusses the activities of the Ford Foundation
in Turkey. Based on archival sources it examines three major
projects the Foundation launched between 1957 and 1968. The
Ford Foundation’s active presence in Turkey spanned from
1952 to 1971 and the scale of programs involved scientific edu-
cation, industrial development and social sciences. Literature

*
İstanbul. Marmara University, ali.erken@marmara.edu.tr
6 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

on the US philanthropic foundations has been engagingly rich,

yet most of case studies have dealt with the European or Far
Eastern countries whereas the Middle East has received less
attention.1 Likewise studies examining Turkish-American re-
lations during the Cold War have covered diplomatic, military
and financial aspects at large whereas only few recent works
have dealt with non-governmental aspects of policy making.2
As Parmar suggests non-state factors, namely the US foun-
dations, were one of the most significant components of the
US policy making.3 They remained in close contact with gov-
ernments and state agencies, developed relationship with
leading civil actors and bureaucratic mechanisms, and man-
aged to adopt themselves to changing political conditions.4
These characteristics gave them an edge in working out long-
term projects regardless of political instabilities. Yet it would
not be true to assume that the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie
foundations acted independent from the US state apparatus.5
Many of the trustees and high-rank directors of these foun-
dations undertook administrative positions at bureaucracy.
Paul Hoffman, the third President of the Ford Foundation, for
example, had worked as Director of Economic Cooperation
Administration responsible for the coordination of Marshall
Plan in Europe and George McBundy, the sixth President, had
served as Security Advisor to John F. Kennedy. 6 The founda-
tion objectives complemented ideological lines of official pol-
icy making at a time the United State claimed its position as
a global superpower. In that regard, it could be said that the
Ford Foundation in Turkey operated on its own rationale but
through intersecting lines with the state institutions and con-
tributed to the framing of US-Turkish relations in the 1950s
and 1960s.
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 7

Birth of the Ford Foundation

The Ford Foundation was established by Henry Ford, own-
er of the Ford Motor Company, biggest automobile produc-
er in the United States, in 1936. Philanthropic activities in the
United States had taken a new shift in the early 20th century
with the leading industrialists initiated charitable institutions
independent of religious missionaries. Andrew Carnegie,
who made a fortune in steel industry, established the Carne-
gie Foundation for Advanced Knowledge in 1906 and John F.
Rockefeller, oil magnate, established the Rockefeller Founda-
tion in 1912. Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations sought to
strengthen means of modern education through institution-
al grants and individual fellowships within and outside the
United States. The Rockefeller Foundation prioritized the ad-
vancement of medical science and health service, established
a specific branch, International Health Division, in the field of
preventive medicine and public health.7 The Carnegie Foun-
dation likewise spent a substantial amount on the develop-
ment of modern education through the training of instructors
and libraries.8 Ever since the early years of their establishment
both foundations launched specified programs abroad. As op-
posed to isolationists within the American political-intellectu-
al elite, the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations advocated
stronger US presence across Europe, Near and Far Eastern re-
gions.9 Being sensitive to political changes taking place abroad
the Rockefeller Foundation sent its experts to Turkey in 1925,
just two years after the Republic of Turkey was founded, and
sought for ways of cooperation with the new Turkish leader-
ship.10 Two years after this initial trip the Foundation spon-
sored the opening of a Public School of Hygiene in Ankara,
the first institution of education in the field of public health.11
8 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

The Ford Foundation was born into a field where the two
major foundations have already drawn the lines of operation.
The foundation trustees had been discussing where foundation
sources could be spent at best use when the World War II broke
out in 1939. As a result of new balance of power after the end
of War the US universities and governmental agencies became
far more interested in global affairs and the Ford Foundation
staff were quick to readjust its priorities. Henry Ford II, the
third President of the Ford Foundation, asked Horace Rowand
Gaither12 in 1948 to prepare a report outlining the foundation’s
mission and strategies in the following decades. “Gaither re-
port”, prepared partly with help from the Carnegie Foundation
staff with an internationalist perspective, urged broader over-
seas investment in economy and education so as to strength-
en “democracy” against “communism”.13 A foundation report
published four years later claimed that the improvement liv-
ing standards is “vital to human welfare” and people in “free”
countries have chosen the “democratic course” and other mil-
lions living in “totalitarian” states were likely to make the same
choice.14 In line with these the Ford Foundation turned its focus
towards underdeveloped countries to improve technical exper-
tise, rational management and instrumental public education.15
The other priority rested with the establishment of area
studies as the American elites complained lack of qualified ex-
perts and trained personnel familiar with different cultures.16
The Ford Foundation report in 1950 addresses this question:
“The conduct of international affairs needs men and wom-
en of the highest intellectual competence and stature, govern-
ment is often unable to find, attract and hold the quality of
persons required in sufficient number.”17
Rockefeller and Ford Foundations took lead in funding area
studies in the US universities; Russian Studies at Harvard,
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 9

Far Eastern Studies at Columbia and centres at such universi-

ties as Cornell, Boston, Michigan and Princeton were funded
by these two foundations.18 The Ford Foundation supported
more than 100 of 191 research centres in the United States,
thanks to its funding amounting $26 million, becoming the
biggest benefactor of area studies in the United States.19 Near-
ly $45 million were spent on “Foreign Area Fellowships” and
$23 million were spent to the Social Science Research Council
between 1956 and 1969.20 In the words of Philip Moseley, Di-
rector of the Russian Institute at Columbia University and Di-
rector of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, the area
studies funded by these foundations helped the United States
understand its role in foreign relations.21

The Ford Foundation in Turkey

Loaded with longstanding suspicion towards the British,
French and Russian Empires the early Republican leadership
remained in friendly terms with the United States. In an inter-
view he gave in 1924 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk praised Ameri-
cans ideals as “same with the ideals of new Turkish Republic”.22
His close friendship with the American High Commissioner in
Turkey, Admiral Mark Bristol, was not only derived from per-
sonal affinity but also based on ideological concerns. Ataturk
did not hesitate to send his adopted daughters to Robert Col-
lege of Istanbul, the first American College founded abroad,
as he wanted them become more acquainted with the Amer-
ican culture.23 Likewise Ismet Inonu, Prime Minister of Tur-
key between 1925 and 1937 and Mustafa Kemal’s successor as
President of Republic, usually expressed his friendly feelings
towards the Americans. Each time Rockefeller officers visited
Turkey, for example, they had a chance to meet him, although
in brief, and were encouraged to work more actively in Tur-
10 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

key.24 Just a year after he became the President of Republic, on

the anniversary of the American Independence, official stamps
depicting Inonu and President Roosevelt’s photographs were
printed. This cordial connection turned into geopolitical part-
nership after the end of World War II as the Turkish leadership,
struggling with the Soviet demands over the straits and East-
ern regions, welcomed the protection of the United States.25
The declaration of the Truman Doctrine and inclusion of Tur-
key to the Marshall Plan marked the beginning of a new era in
Turkey’s relations with the United States.
Following twenty four years of the CHP government the
Democrat Party came to power in 1950. The Democrat leader-
ship, composed mostly of the former CHP elites, adhered to
the Republican vision with a slight liberal orientation in public
life and economy. Celal Bayar, one of the founding leaders of
the party, had been a close aide of Mustafa Kemal and served
as his Prime Minister, and Adnan Menderes, the leader of the
party and Prime Minister between 1950 and 1960, was a CHP
MP in the 1930s. In foreign affairs the Democrats had no other
choice but to stick with the Western bloc during the Cold War,
sending the Turkish troops to the Korean War in support for
the American forces.26 The DP elite invited American know
how in development and modernization, embraced American
model as the ultimate goal for the Turkish modernization. 27
Commonly regarded as the “heyday” of Turkish-American
relations the Democrat Party era symbolized the peak of this
economic, military and cultural rapprochement.
The Ford Foundation’s first arrival in Turkey took place
in 1952. A group of foundation experts visited the country
and prepared a report for the possible areas of operation.28
Yet available data indicate that, despite various projects and
grants in strengthening primary and secondary education,
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 11

most of the foundation grants in Turkey were awarded in the

1960s, namely after the fall of Democrat Party government. It
was rather the Rockefeller Foundation which benefited from
the friendly atmosphere of the 1950s. This delay seemed to be
a result of the Ford Foundation’s own strategic priorities and
unfamiliarity with the Turkish context as it took a while for
the Foundation staff to learn about available options, individ-
uals and institutions to work with.
The first serious project the Ford Foundation was involved
in Turkey aimed to the improvement of primary and secondary
education in Turkey. Upon the request of the Ministry of Educa-
tion three leading experts from the Foundation arrived in Tur-
key in 1957; the group consisted of Champion Ward, appointed
as Ford Foundation’s Deputy Vice President for Education and
Research in 1963, Philip Coombs, a director at Ford Foundation
and later appointed as assistant Secretary of State for Education
and Culture in 1961, and Louis Smith, advisor to the Founda-
tion in education.29 As the Ministry asked the foundation staff
to examine general condition of education in Turkey they pre-
pared a comprehensive report outlining urgent needs to “meet
expanding educational requirements” in schools.30 The report
starts with a general statement that there is a strong interde-
pendence between the “growth of education” and “growth of
Turkey’s general strength”. As strategic investment in educa-
tion yields cultural and democratic progress Turkey’s nation-
al security would be much stronger.31 The foundation staff felt
content with educators’ good will, energy and motivation and
observed that despite centralized administration there was di-
versity among the institutions of education.32 The report sug-
gested for the foundation of a National Commission on Edu-
cation, a unified “charter” led by the Ministry of Education,
composed of school teachers, ministry bureaucrats, academi-
12 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

cians and foundation experts to set out a pathway for the de-
velopment of education in Turkey. This commission would be
expected to explore “leading characteristics of the Turkish ed-
ucational system” and “what kind of an educated person this
system aims to produce in terms of values and beliefs”.33
Soon after the submission of report a Commission was set
up by the Ministry; some notable members included: Prof.Feh-
mi Yavuz.(Chairman), Fahir İz, Professor of Turkish Literatre,
Mukbil Gökdoğan: Dean of Faculty of Architecture, Semin
Sinanoğlu, Lecturer in Philololgy, Hasan Acar: Member of Ex-
ecutive Committee of Ministry of Education, Nihat Saydam,
Head of Mechinary Department at Yıldız Technical School,
Howard Wilson, Dean of School of Education, University of
California, Pierre Guillon, Professor of Classical Civilization,
Aix-en-Provence, Champion Ward and Harvey Hall from the
Ford Foundation. The Commission visited schools and uni-
versities in various cities such as Trabzon, Rize, Erzurum, Di-
yarbakır, Adana, Mersin, İzmir, İstanbul, Bursa and Ankara,
met people and carried out interviews. Then they embarked
on a trip to Japan, followed by visits to the United States, Ger-
many, France, Italy, England and Austria.34 They spent days
meeting with the school heads, scholars and official represen-
tatives of institutions of education in these countries, collected
their views on education.
After this painstaking endeavour the report was finished
in 1959 and submitted to the Ministry.35 During the course
of preparation the Minister of Education changed as Celal
Yardımcı, who had started the Commission, resigned and the
report was published under the Ministership of by Prof. Fehmi
Yavuz. In his preface to the Commission report Yavuz wrote:
“The report starts with a remark that modern civilization
in the democratic understanding of humanity, which works
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 13

in the very involved activities of industrial and agricultural

technology, calls for highly qualified and educated citizens…
Education is both a work of progress and cause of develop-
ment. Since men is created with certain natural strengths and
talents, it is possible to educate him”.36
The report underlines that every country has its own pri-
orities in developing an educational system and Turkey is ex-
pected to train scientists and technicians to maintain her place
in the modern world Turkey.37 It praises Islamic tenets, which
require people to “do their utmost” for learning based on such
values as justice, mercy and love. Fanaticism and degenera-
tion, however, caused false ideas spread among people and
damaged Turkish national and religious morality.38 The re-
port asserts that as institutions of religious education, namely
medrese and tekkes, did not transform in accordance with the
changing needs and requirements of the day bigotry among
religious scholars persisted. This negligence was detrimental
to the progress of Islamic countries and left them weak against
the Western states.39 The report also argues that the Ottomans
felt superior at times the Western scientific advance started
and thus neglected it, then unable to confront and catch the de-
velopments.40 Turkey after the foundation of Republic has cho-
sen to follow Western scientific path but still there is no clear
vision about the development of science and scientific study,
the report complains. Turkey needs a proper program in scien-
tific education, the report suggests, that the Turkish education
should lean to the West without leaving the Eastern root.41

Political Turbulence in Turkey and Eugene Northrop

There was no time to implement these suggestions as the
Turkish army carried out military coup and overthrow the
Democrat Party government in 27 May 1960. The Nation-
14 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

al Union Committee, composed of thirty eight soldiers from

different ranks of the army, took over the government and
General Cemal Gursel assumed the Presidency of Republic.42
It seems despite lingering discontent among the army mem-
bers with the increasing military dependence to the United
States the National Union Committee was not willing to se-
vere ties with the Americans. Eugene Northrop, who had been
appointed as representative director of the Ford Foundation
in Turkey, arrived in Turkey just two months before the Coup.
Northrop witnessed the fall of 10 years long Democrat Party
rule, the arrest of politicians, bureaucrats and officers close to
the Democrat leadership, but managed to develop productive
relations with universities, bureaucracy and other administra-
tive units. During his tenure he was aided by Robert Kerwin43,
previously a Ford Foundation fellow on the Middle East, who
worked in the foundation’s Istanbul office.
Northrop spent his early months in discussions with men
of education to identify Turkey’s problems in the field of sci-
ence. He observed that men of science were discouraged from
conducting scientific study and needed guidance as well as
funding so as to improve the quality of scientific research in
the country. In a meeting with three ministers in 1961 he pro-
posed the foundation of a National Advisory Committee on
Science.44 Northrop prioritized the strengthening of scientific
education in Turkey as he thought industrial development de-
pends on a solid base of scientific knowledge and culture of
research. The most notable project he initiated was the foun-
dation of National Science High School for gifted students.
He worked out a development plan with Kemal Kurdaş, the
Rector of Middle Eastern Technical University, to which the
Ford Foundation paid particular attention, and proposed the
project to the Ministry of Education.45 The school building was
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 15

erected within the METU campus so that students would be

familiar with research atmosphere in the university. Kurdaş
recounts that Northrop was committed to improve standard
of scientific education in Turkey and allocated available re-
sources under his directorship for this project.46 In 1962 first
elections after the Coup was held and a coalition government
between the Republican Party and the Justice Party, which
represented the continuation of Democrat Party, was founded
under the Prime Ministership of Ismet Inonu. Soon after this
Hilmi İncesulu, the Ministry of Education, approved the foun-
dation of a Commission for this school in 1962.47 In the found-
ing documents it is stressed that the country’s gifted children
need better education to excel in their area of interest and this
Science High School would offer necessary conditions to im-
prove the quality of scientific education in the country.48 Upon
gaining approval from the Ministry a group of experts were
asked to prepare a new curriculum and courses started in the
academic year of 1964.
Northrop was aware that investing in future scientists was
more demanding than spending on technological equipment
for laboratories, but as a professor of mathematics, he held
a firm belief in scientific education. During the early period
experts from the Florida University were involved the project
and modelled the school on Bronx Science School in New York,
adjusting latest revisions in science curriculum in the United
States.49 Likewise instructors got training in the United States
and 96 successful students who took university entrance ex-
ams enrolled to the school.50 Several academicians were visit-
ing the High School and on one occasion James Watson, No-
bel Prize winner, gave a lecture to students.51As time proved
Northrop’s expectations correct, the graduates of High School
tended to choose METU, or engineering sciences in any other
16 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

university, and increased the quality of output from the uni-

versity education.
National Science High School stands as the biggest project
of the Ford Foundation in Turkey. What seems more impres-
sive was Northrop’s tenacity with pursing the project despite
political turbulences between 1961 and 1964. Four Ministers
of Education changed in three years, the coalition government
survived two abortive coup attempts and tightening pressure
of the military elites over parliamentarian politics.52 In addition
to all these, President Johnson’s letter to Ismet Inonu regarding
Turkey’s position via political developments in Cyprus in 1964
resulted in almost the worst crisis for the Turkish-American
relations in the 20th century.53 Northrop shied away from these
turbulences, managed to open the school in two years and es-
tablished a new model for the Turkish education system.
The productive cooperation between the Ford Foundation
and METU owed a debt to Kemal Kurdaş. Kurdaş, who had
worked at IMF between 1956 and 1959, has made a reputation
among intellectual, political and military elites. The National
Union Committee invited him back to Turkey to work as Min-
ster of Treasury and soon after this position he was appoint-
ed as the Rector of METU in 1961.54 It was fair to say Kurdaş
remained distanced from party affiliation, maintained a bal-
anced relationship with political and military leaders of the
time. Once he was asked by Colonel Cemal Gürsel, the Pres-
ident of Republic, to lead the government after Ismet Inonu
resigned from the Prime Ministership, but declined this offer
due to his commitment to the University work. Kurdaş also
remained in good terms with the leader of Justice Party, Su-
leyman Demirel, who became PM after 1965.55 He was keen to
draw the attention of Americans to the development of METU
and through personal efforts secured a $15 million aid from
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 17

the US Agency for International Development.56 Likewise his

collaboration with Northrop facilitated the processing of Ford
grants to the development of METU.57
The Justice Party’s victory in the 1965 elections reshaped
political landscape in Turkey. The military elite that had ex-
erted a powerful pressure on parliamentary politics since 27
May 1960 had not envisioned an absolute majority of the Jus-
tice Party in the parliament.58 Suleyman Demirel, the leader of
the party and Primer Minister, had been an Eisenhower fellow
and worked in an American company in the 1950s59, seemed
to be a workable partner for the Americans. Eugene Northrop
left Turkey in 1966 due to health problems but the Ford Foun-
dation continued its investment after 1965 and METU as well
as other university. Another scholar the Ford Foundation had
good relations was Ihsan Doğramacı, Professor of Paediatrics
and Child Health at Hacettepe University. The Ford Founda-
tion has long kept an interest in population studies. Between
1952 and 1975 the foundation spent nearly $150 million for
family planning and biological research.60 Several projects
have already been underway on family planning and popula-
tion control in Turkey as well.61 A major fieldwork was carried
out by the Population Council officers and Ministry of Health
in 1963 across the country, prepared a comprehensive report
on family planning and population control.62 The report notes
that the Turkish government considered population growth
detrimental to national development and this rapid increase
should be brought under control.63 It suggests that a com-
petent person should be appointed as the director of Family
Planning Department and the Turkish public should be taught
about the methods of family planning.64 A result of this exten-
sive project was to the foundation of an Institute of Population
Studies at Hacettepe University.
18 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

Ihsan Doğramacı, Rector of Ankara University between

1963 and 1965, had been granted Rockefeller fellowship in
the mid-1950s and after this fellowship developed projects
with the Rockefeller Foundation. He had arranged the Rocke-
feller Foundation grants for certain departments of Ankara
University, then transformed these faculties into an indepen-
dent university.65 Nusret Fişek, former Rockefeller fellow and
Undersecretary of Health, was appointed as the director of
Institute of Population Studies, which would offer two year
post-graduate professional course in population studies.66 Un-
der Doğramacı’s control it was relatively easy to run a proj-
ect in conjunction with Hacettepe University and Population
Studies Institute quickly became an established institution in
the making of population policies in Turkey. A report notes
that previous family planning campaign launched by the
Turkish government was not successful partly because of the
lack of available know-how in Turkey. 67 In another foundation
report it was suggested that new research projects should be
undertaken to explore social and economic aspects of popu-
lation rise in Turkey and the Institute at Hacettepe University
should conduct specific researches on population policies and
family planning.68 In the end the Ford Foundation decided to
release a grant of $250.000 for the development of the Institute
of Population Studies at Hacettepe University in 1967.
In brief, it could be seen that the Ford Foundation prior-
itized projects compatible with the needs of policy makers.
Many of the Foundation projects were initiated by an official
call from the Turkish government. In line with the Republican
desire to westernize education and industrial development
the Ford Foundation kept its emphasis on education and sci-
entific development. The Ford Foundation departmentalized
its operational units into different spheres as it helped them
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 19

find reliable partners in changing contexts and despite polit-

ical turbulences in Turkey the Foundation managed to com-
plete its plans and projects at large. This achievement was
made possible thanks to the encouraging attitude of Turkish
politicians and bureaucracy towards cooperation with the
American foundations. The educated elite’s commitment to
the westernization benefited from the backing of their Amer-
ican counterparts and worked through informal networks
overcoming political affiliations.

(Endnotes)
1
See Frank Ninkovich, “The Rockefeller Foundation, China, and Cultural Chan-
ge”, The Journal of American History 70 (1984) 799-820; Nick Cullather, The
Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia (Cambri-
dge: Harvard University Press, 2010); Robert E. Kohler, Partners in Science:
Foundations and Natural Scientists, 1900–1945 (Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press, 1991); John Krige, American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstru-
ction of Science in Europe (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press, 2006); Inderjeet Parmar, “American Foundations and the Development of
International Knowledge Networks”, Global Networks 2 (2002), 13-14.
2
Begüm Adalet, Mirrors of Modernization: The American Reflection in Turkey
(Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2014); American Tur-
kish Encounters: Politics and Culture, 1830-1989. ed. Selcuk Esenbel, Bilge Nur
Criss, Tony Greenwood and Louis Marazzi (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2011)
3
Inderjeet Parmar, “Foundations Network and American Hegemony’’, European
Journal of American Studies Vol. 7, No 1, 2012, 4.
4
Inderjeet Parmar, “Foundation Network and American Hegemony”, 4.
5
Inderjeet Parmar, “Conceptualising the State-Private Network in American Fo-
regin Policy” in the US Government, Citizen Groups and the Cold War: The
State-Private Network. ed: Helen Laville, Hugh (Wilford UK: Routledge 2006),
13-14.
6
Bruce Cumings, “Oral History Interview with Paul G.Hoffman”, New York: Oc-
tober 25, 1964, htt//www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/hoffmanp.htm (accessed
15.01.2016)
7
http//www.rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/health/international-he-
alth-division (accessed 21.10.2015)
8
Ellen Condliffe Lageman, The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporati-
on, Philanthropy, and Public Policy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
1989), 112-114.
20 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

9
Inderjeet Parmar, “To Relate Knowledge and Action: The Impact of the Rocke-
feller Foundation On Foreign Policy Thinking During America’s Rise to Globa-
lism: 1939–1945”, Minerva 40 (2002): 235-240 and Inderjeet Parmar, “American
Foundations”, 13-14.
10
Ralph Collins, “Public Health in Turkey: September 1926”, RG 1.1, Series 805,
Box:1, Folder: 1, 143-44; Selskar Gunn “Diary of Visit to Turkey: May 5- May 13
1925’’. RG 6.1, Series 1.1, Box: 37, Folder: 458.
11
Kenneth Rose, “The Rockefeller Foundation’s Fellowship Program in Turkey:
1925-1938”, 8.
12
He became the President of Ford Foundation in 1953.
13
Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, The Politics of Knowledge, 178-179; Richard Magat,
The Ford Foundation at Work: Philanthropic Choices, Methods and Styles
(New York: Plenum Press, 1979), 63-64.
14
“Report of the Trustees of the Ford Foundation 1950”, 11, 17.
15
John Howard notes that the Ford Foundation increased its investment in Sout-
heast Asia as the area was under the Chinese sphere of influence. Edward Ber-
man, The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on
American Foreign Policy: The Idea of Philanthropy (Albany: State University
of New York, 1983), 56.
16
Edward Berman. The Idea of Philanthropy, 100; Inderjeet Parmar, Foundations
of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations
in the Rise of American Power in the 20th Century (NY: Columbia University
Press 2014), 136
17
“Report of the Trustees of the Ford Foundation 1950”, 12.
18
Berman notes that the Ford Foundation gave $740.000 to Harvard Univer-
sity Russian Research Centre and in total spent around $138 million for the
training of area experts. Edward Berman. The Idea of Philanthropy. 101-
103.
19
Inderjeet Parmar, “American Foundations’’, 17.
20
Edward Berman, The Ideology of Philanthropy, 203; Inderjeet Parmar, “Ame-
rican Foundations’’, 17. Richard Magat, The Ford Foundation at Work, 73; Dwi-
ght MacDonald, The Ford Foundation: The Men and the Millions (Oxford:
Transaction Publishers 2011), 104.
21
Philip Moseley, “International affairs” in W. Weaver (ed.) US Philanthropic
Foundations: Their History, Structure, Management and Record (New York:
Harper and Row. 1967), 385.
22
Interview with Mustafa Kemal by Isaac Marcosson in The Saturday Evening
Post, October 20, 1923 “Kemal Pasha”, 8-9, 141-149.
23
John Freely, A History of Robert College I-II (Istanbul: YKY 2009), 22.
24
Selskar Gunn “Diary of Visit to Turkey”
25
Mehmet Gönlübol, Olaylarla Türk Dış Politikası: 1919-1965 (Ankara: Ankara
Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi ve Basın-Yayın Yüksekokulu Basımevi,
1987), 194, 200-201; Cemil Koçak, Türkiye’de Milli Şef Dönemi: 1938-1945 (İs-
tanbul: İletişim, 1996), 560.
Negotiating Politics, Informal Networks and the Ford
Foundation Projects in Turkey during the Cold War 21

26
Burcu Bostancıoğlu, Türkiye-ABD İlişkilerinin Politikası (İstanbul: İmge 1999),
388-398.
27
Tanel Demirel, Türkiye’nin Uzun 10 Yılı (İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları
2011), 118.
28
“Ford Foundaiton History Project Files: The Ford Foundation in Turkey, April
24, 1985”, FA568, Box 75, Folder 12, 6.
29
http//www.oberlin.edu/alummag/fallwinter2007-08/losses.html (accessed
on 5.01.2016)
30
“The Preparation of Teachers in Turkey”, 4 December 1957, RFA Ford Foundati-
on Records, FA 739B, 003621, 4-7.
31
“The Preparation of Teachers in Turkey”, 4-7.
32
“The Preparation of Teachers in Turkey”, 4-7.
33
“The Preparation of Teachers in Turkey”, 7. The foundation staff also suggested
for the selection of a pilot program of guidance for primary and secondary scho-
ol teachers for their training and education.
34
See ‘‘Preface’’ in The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Educati-
on, Robert College Archive, Box:42 Folder 13
35
“Preface” in The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education
36
The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 1.
37
The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 2.
38
The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 116.
39
The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 116.
40
The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 25-29.
41
The Report of the Turkish National Commission on Education, 40.
42
For a detailed account of the military coup see Abdi İpekçi and Ömer Sami Co-
şar, İhtilalin İç Yüzü (İstanbul: Uygun 1965)
43
Robert Kerwin had been a foreign area fellow of Ford Foundation, then worked
for Mobil Oil Company and United States Information Agency. In 1964 he was
appointed as full-time program of the Ford Foundation in Istanbul
44
Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation in Science Education
(New York: Wiley, 1975), 1l0; Peter Hopkins, Conducents for the Performance
of Experimental activity: An Investigation into the Development of Modern
Science in Republican Turkey (Unpublished PhD, Loughborough University,
July,1981), 241-242, 289-290.
45
Kemal Kurdaş, Odtü Yıllarım: Bir Hizmetin Hikayesi, (Ankara: METU
1988), 109-114. For a detailed discussion of the establishment of this school
see Robert Maybury, Technical Assistance and Innovation in Science Edu-
cation, 107
46
Kemal Kurdaş, Odtü Yıllarım, 109-114
47
http://mebk12.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/06/119664/dosya-
lar/2013_07/08114555_fenlsesnnkurulutarhes.pdf
48
http://ankarafenlisesi.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/06/119664/dosya-
lar/2014_06/10091618_fenlsesnnkurulukomisyonu.pdf
49
Doğan Dönmez, “Ankara Fen Lisesi”, The De Morgan Gazette 7 no. 1 (2015), 1–3.
22 International Journal of Turcologia / Vol: XI No: 21

50
The curriculum was shaped by the New Math in the US. School Mathematics
Study Group, a book written by them, and this book was used in the school.
Doğan Dönmez, ‘‘Ankara Fen Lisesi’’, 1-3; Süleyman Çetin Özoğlu, “Eğitim
Sistemimizde Ankara Fen Lisesi Uygulamasının Değerlendirilmesine İlişkin
Bir Araştırma”, V. Bilim Kongresi Bilim Adamı Yetiştirme Grubu Tebliğleri
(Ankara: Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknik Araştırma Kurumu Bilim Adamı Yetiştirme
Grubu Yayınları), 9.
51
Doğan Dönmez, ‘‘Ankara Fen Lisesi’’, 1-3.
52
William Hale, Turkish Politics and the Military (UK:Routledge 1994), 153-181.
53
Nasuh Uslu, Turkish-American Relations Between 1947 and 2003: The History
of a Distinctive Alliance (New York: Nova Science Publishers 2003), 170-171.
54
Kemal Kurdaş, Odtü Yıllarım, 224-225.
55
Kurdaş had troubled relations with some politicians. He clashed with Faruk
Sukan, Minister of Interior, because of his standing with the police involve-
ment to the university during the student events. Kemal Kurdaş, Odtü Yılla-
rım, 283-284.
56
Kemal Kurdaş, Odtü Yıllarım, 220-221.
57
Yet he was accused by the left wing student groups of acting like an American
puppet and building personal wealth from his relationship with the Ford Foun-
dation. Kemal Kurdaş, Odtü Yıllarım, 322.
58
Political Parties and Democracy in Turkey, ed. Metin Heper and Jacob Landau
(UK: Routledge 1991), 135-137, 145. For a detailed study on the AP-Army relati-
ons see Ümit Cizre, AP-Ordu İlişkileri (İstanbul: İletişim 1993).
59
Demirel had worked as an engineering consultant at Morrison Knudson Com-
pany.
60
Mohan Rao, From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian
Arithmetic (London: Sage 2004), 106; Dennis Hodgson, “Orthodoxy and Revisi-
onism in American Demography”, Population and Development Review, 1988
14:4
61
A Rockefeller sponsored study at METU was started by David Godberg, a scho-
lar from the University of Michigan, who carried out interviews on family plan-
ning. RFA, FA210, Box 63 Folder 1082
62
See “Recommendations for a Population Planning Program for the Republic of
Turkey 1963”, RFA, FA 432 Box 192 Folder 1812
63
“Recommendations for a Population Planning Program”, 1-3.
64
“Recommendations for a Population Planning Program”, 69.
65
Kenneth Rose, “The Rockefeller Foundation’s Fellowship Program in Turkey:
1925-1938”, 17-19.
66
“Annual Report”, Ankara, Turkey Field Office (Reports 012369-005), FA739E.
67
“A Tentative Program for Research at the Hacettepe Institute of Population Stu-
dies”, FA739D, Reports 009685, 1967.
68
“A General Statement About the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies: Dis-
cussion Paper for Session I”; also see “A Tentative Program for Research at the
Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies”, FA739D, Reports 009685, 1967.
Copyright of International Journal of Turcologia is the property of International Journal of
Turcologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.