https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-4879
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article argues that the convergence of state policies and the interests of capital and business owners are central to the understanding of the governance of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Drawing on fieldwork in Ankara, Gaziantep, Hatay and Izmir, collected between 2016 and 2018, this article shows that the terms of Turkish state’s temporary protection regime, the state’s ad hoc leniency towards the informal use of refugee labour and the disciplinary effects of the laws complies with the economic expectations of business and capital owners. This article also sheds light on the structural limitations that the state-market convergence places on civil actor’s ability to make improvements to the overall living and working conditions of Syrians in Turkey. The overall analysis points to the fact that the governance of Syrian refugees in Turkey could be conceived as yet another manifestation of the vital role that the state plays in the pursuits of capital.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank E. en and Çaml for their fieldwork assistance and K. Pendakis, M. Aç kgöz, H. Cömert and E.A. Tonak for their insightful suggestions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. In this analysis, civil actors refer to ‘the web of activities and organizations that are not created by the state, or by its articulations, and are not directly controlled by it’ (Ambrosini & Leun, Citation2015, p. 104).
2. At the beginning of the Syrian conflict, Syrians refugees were put in camps near the border as a temporary measure until their return to Syria. As the conflict became more complex and intensified, and larger influxes of Syrian nationals began to enter Turkish borders in 2013–2014, Syrians were instead permitted ‘free movement’ within the country. Our interviewees working in NGOs discussed this ‘free movement’ period before registration in a specific location became compulsory. The analysis of the situation of refugees who are in camps is beyond the scope of this article.
3. This article refers to Syrians as ‘refugees’ because their migration is war-related. It does not refer to a legal status recognized internationally as per the Geneva Convention.
4. Authors’ interview: Owner of a small jeans factory, Izmir (October 2017).
5. Authors’ interview: Owner of a small jeans factory, Izmir (October 2017).
6. Authors’ interview: Owner of a small jeans factory, Izmir (October 2017).
7. Authors’ interview: Journalist, Izmir (March 2017).
8. Authors’ interview: Worker and resident, Izmir (October 2017).
9. Authors’ interview: Two NGO labour rights experts, Izmir (March 2017).
10. Authors’ interview: Manager of an NGO, Ankara (October 2016).
11. Authors’ interview: Two NGO labour rights experts, Izmir (October 2016).
12. Turkey declared a state of emergency on 20 July 2016 following a coup d’état attempt carried out by the officers in the army linked to so-called ‘Gulen community’ The state of emergency was extended on January 2018 for another period of 3 months.
13. Authors’ interview: Owner of a small jeans factory, Izmir (October 2017).
14. Authors’ interview: Municipal worker, Izmir (October 2017).
15. Authors’ interview: Director of an NGO, Izmir (October 2017).
16. Authors’ interview: NGO lawyer expert in labour and refugee rights, Hatay (March 2017).
17. Authors’ interview: Focus group with footwear sector workers, Isikkent (March 2017 and October 2017).
18. The Interior Minister of Turkey declared on July 2017 that since the onset of the Syrian immigration the Turkish government deported 23,215 Syrian refugees because of criminal activities (NTV, Citation2017).
19. According to the temporary protection regulation issued in October 2014, it was stated that ‘those who are considered to be a threat to public due to being convicted of a serious crime and those who are considered to pose danger to national security, public order, or public security’ will not be covered under the scope of temporary protection and that ‘temporary protection shall be terminated by the Directorate General or governorates in case it is understood afterwards that’ a person falls within the scope of this profile. The termination of the temporary protection, according to this regulation, could also mean ‘return of persons to their countries’, that is, deportation.