Because a capitalist economy was thought to bring legitimacy to the nation state, the market economy was introduced, in which the price of inputs as well as of goods is determined in self-regulating markets. According to Polanyi ( 1957), the modern nation state initiated fundamental changes in the social and economic system as well as in human nature.

While Polanyi ( 1957), Wallerstein ( 1974, 1979a) and North ( 1981, 1990, 1993) and North and Thomas ( 1973) investigate the emergence of fundamental structures throughout history, they do so quite differently. First, because there are competing institutional approaches to economic history, we want to discuss the characteristics of the institutional approach that we apply to our subject. We provide a new interpretation for these historical sources, while keeping the internal consistency of our argument in tact over the selected institutions.Д«efore we provide more information on the Ottoman institutions that we consider in this paper, we want to briefly talk about two subjects associated with our approach to the fall of the Ottoman Empire: the selection of the type of the institutional approach and the issues surrounding the choice of a вЂњgrand narrativeвЂќ as the fall of an empire.

The methodology that we employ in our review of the selected Ottoman institutions relies on secondary historical sources that are reviewed qualitatively. Examination is expected to show that the Ottoman institutions, in other words, the explicit and implicit setups or rules, which governed the Empire during its rise may have been influential for bringing about the end as well. The key idea is that any approach that examines the fall of the Ottomans should go back to the period of the rise and the expansion. The aim of this paper is to apply the institutional perspective to the selected areas of social, political, and economic decision-making in the Ottoman Empire and reinterpret the existing nominal accounts of events between the rise and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In addition to the mentioned internal reasons, the marginalization of the Ottomans by the world economy in the eighteenth and nineteenth century is also suggested as an important external reason for the EmpireвЂ™s fall (Ergil & Rhodes, 1975 Kasaba, 1988). Among the most frequently mentioned accounts of the fall of this vast empire are the problems associated with a large, multi-ethnic (the Turks, the Arabs, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Jews, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Albanians, etc.), and centrally governed empire with extraordinarily weak public finances (Shaw, 1976). Still, none of them disintegrated as the Ottoman Empire. The contemporary empires and kingdoms of the Ottomans in the West survived, albeit eventually losing the majority of their overseas territories. Its army marched as far west as Vienna and laid siege to the city twice in 15 (Kasaba, 1988 Quataert, 2000).

At its height of power in the seventeenth century, the EmpireвЂ™s territories reached from the Balkans to the Black Sea and to North Africa, Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. The Ottoman presence was known in the world from the thirteenth century to the end of WWI in 1918. Additionally, the examination of these institutions leads to the identification of even more fundamental characteristics of the Ottomans, such as their aversion toward Turkish Muslims and commerce as well as their oblivious attitude toward technological innovations. Our conclusion is that the weaknesses in the mentioned institutions were fundamental enough to make the Empire vulnerable. As a result, the paper identifies three institutions: succession structure, power structure, and the identity of the Ottoman elites and the landownership-military-public finance triangle. Third, the institution should allow the investigation of whether changes in it led to increased power sharing between the sultan and a larger segment of the society.

Second, the institution has to be present during the rise of the Empire. First, there should be nominal accounts of the institution. We propose three criteria based on which the Ottoman institutions are selected. This paper examines the selected Ottoman institutions during the so-called rise (fourteenth through sixteenth centuries) and identifies the institutional characteristics that may have led to the eventual fall of the Empire in 1918.

Age of empires 3 ottoman strategy