Secularism, Sharia, and the Turkish Financial Markets

The financial markets in Turkey provide a laboratory to help resolve these competing views. Islamic law or Sharia contains a number of proscriptions that directly affect financial practices. The payment and receipt of interest is prohibited; so are most kinds of commercial insurance. These interpretations provided the impetus in the Islamic world for the creation of a class of banks that sought to offer Sharia compliant services. The first Islamic Banks in Turkey began operations in the 1980s. Their entry was initially tepid, in no small part because of secularist principles. Islamic financial institutions could not overtly advertise their religious orientation. The country had no “Islamic” banks, only finance houses. They were not Sharia compliant but “interest-free.” Moreover, the government left them in an uncertain regulatory status and subjected them to restrictions on growth. In this environment, the Islamic banks remained a peripheral part of the financial system. With the election of the AKP in 2002, however, the environment for Islamic banks in Turkey changed. Limitations on branch networks and capital raising were lifted. The government removed restrictions on the issuance of Sharia compliant bonds. Officials from the Islamic banks were appointed to the highest levels of government. This Article does several things. First, it examines principles of Islam that affect banking practices, with a particular emphasis on deposit insurance and credit cards. Second, the Article discusses the emergence of secularism in Turkey and the introduction of Islamic banks into the Turkish financial markets. The Article then examine their evolution, with particular emphasis on the changes implemented by the AKP. Finally, the Article examines the impact of these reforms, and what that impact says about Islamic influence in Turkey.

The Perceived Effects of Dance for Individuals with Parkinson’s Disease and Healthy Amateurs

The objective of the present study was to compare the effects of dance participation on physical and psychological functioning as perceived by two distinct groups of dancers: dancers with Parkinson's disease (PD) and healthy amateur (HA) dancers. Dancers in the Parkinson's sample group were gathered from participants in the Dance for PD® program, while healthy amateur dancers were recruited from university dance departments and through social media. Both groups were administered measures related to affect, self-efficacy, quality of life, and which aspects of dance classes were most helpful and/or challenging. Several open-ended questions for both groups were included, along with questions specific to each group. Results of the study indicated that there was no difference between the two groups on positive affect experienced while dancing, but that HA dancers experienced higher levels of negative affect than PD dancers. HA dancers exhibited higher levels of self-efficacy, but there was no difference between the groups on perceived quality of life. Additionally, both groups identified the same two components of dance classes as the most helpful: "moving and getting some exercise" and "doing something fun." Thematic analysis of responses to open-ended questions found that, in general, HA and PD dancers identified similar factors which made dance unique from other forms of exercise. The primary differences were that HA dancers more strongly emphasized artistic and spiritual components of dance, whereas PD dancers focused on the importance of the dance instructors and tailoring movements to individuals with PD. More differences were found between the two groups with respect to the negative aspects of dance classes. Notably, PD dancers identified almost no negative aspects, while HA dancers described internal and external pressure, criticism, and competition as problematic. Future research could benefit from ensuring that both groups are administered the same standardized measures to allow for additional comparisons between groups and with normative samples.

Comment Letter: The NYSE and the End of the Structural Separation between Regulatory and Commercial Interests of the Exchange

The NYSE transformed into a for profit entity in 2006. As part of the approval process, the NYSE agreed to structurally separate the regulatory function from the business function. In doing so, the NYSE created NYSE Regulation, a non-profit with an independent board, to handle most regulatory matters. During the comment period, a spirited debate arose over the ability of a for profit company to carry out a regulatory mission. Some suggested that the regulatory function was incompatible with a "for profit" motive and that NYSE Regulation should be spun off. Others accepted the proposed structure but called for additional changes designed to reduce the possible influence of the public holding company over the regulatory function. In the end, the SEC approved the structure but with a number of prophylactic safeguards including the requirement that NYSE Regulation have a board consisting of all independent directors (save the CEO) and that directors from the for profit holding company could not make up a majority of the board. More recently, however, the NYSE has proposed to end the structural separation of the two functions and instead put in place a functional separation. The proposal would result in the termination of the delegation agreement between the Exchange and NYSE Regulation and the creation of both a Regulatory Oversight Committee of the Board of Directors of the Exchange and the creation of a Chief Regulatory Officer. This letter examines the history of the separation of the two functions and critiques the NYSE's proposal.