A Historical Synopsis of Over-feminized Local Governance in Neoliberal Turkey

Abstract

In Turkey, important decentralization measures were taken after the 1980s. The new administrative model gave local governments the role of dealing with social exclusion while financing social welfare expenditures through entrepreneurial investment of their non-material resources. This study is an attempt to discuss how such a challenge for local governments has been resolved through the analysis of gendering impacts of three decentralization reform programs.

Notes on Contributor

Sezen Yaraş is a PhD candidate of political science and public administration from Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. She has had research stays at the University of Chicago, USA, as a Fulbright Grantee. She had participated as a researcher in the research projects of United Nations Development Programme, Turkish Ministry of Development and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Her research interests cover gender and politics, women's representation at local governments, gender and social policy and feminist research methodologies.

Notes

1. Beall, “Decentralizing Government and Decentering Gender,” 254–76; Pierre, “Comparative Urban Governance Uncovering Complex Causalities,” 446–62; and Kearns, “Active Citizenship and Local Governance,” 155–75.

2. Alkan, “Gendered Structures of Local Politics in Turkey,” 31.

3. Devas and Grant, “Local Government Decision Making, Citizen Participation and Local Accountability,” 307–16; Krishna, “Partnerships Between Local Governments and Community-Based Organisations,” 361–71; and Ebrahim, “Accountability in Practice,” 813–29.

4. Manor, Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization, vii.

5. Some relevant studies on the cases of Japan, UK, Continental Europe, Canada, Mexico and South Africa are as follows: Peng, “Social Care in Crisis,” 411–43; Lewis, “Gender and Welfare State Change,” 331–57; Luccisano and Macdonald, “Neo-liberalism, Semi-clientelism and the Politics of Scale,” 1–27; Beall, “Decentralizing Government and Decentering Gender,” 253–76.

6. Brenner, “Global Cities, Glocal States,” 1–37; McGuirk and MacLaran, “Changing Approaches to Urban Planning,” 437–57; Yu, Zhang, and Yin, “Entrepreneurial Inclination of China's City Marketing,” 608–12; and Quilley, “Manchester First,” 601–15.

7. Halford and Savage, “Restructuring Organisations, Changing People,” 100.

8. Mackay, “‘Thick’ Conceptions of Substantive Representation,” 125.

9. Although cross-country comparison is out of the methodological limits of this study, some examples about how socioeconomic gender codes in a given context interact with the processes of decentralization in different countries should be listed here: Halford and Savage, “Restructuring Organisations,” 97–122; Bakshi et al., “Gender, Race, and Class in the Local Welfare State,” 1539–54; Mattingly, “Home and the World,” 370–86; and MacLeavy, “Engendering New Labour's Workfarist Regime,” 721–43.

10. Buğra, “Immoral Economy of Housing in Turkey,” 313.

11. Alkan, Yerel Yönetimler ve Cinsiyet, 6.

12. Roy, “Why India Cannot Plan Its Cities,” 85.

13. Danielson and Keleş, Politics of Rapid Urbanization, 39.

14. Kıray, Kentleşme Yazıları, 21.

15. Karpat, The Gecekondu, 9.

16. Bayraktar, “Turkish Municipalities,” 21.

17. Öncü, “Politics of the Urban Land Market in Turkey,” 44.

18. Erkip, “Global Transformations Versus Local Dynamics in Istanbul,” 372.

19. Baslevent and Dayoglu, “Effect of Squatter Housing,” 33.

20. Hersant and Toumarkine, “Hometown Organisations in Turkey,” 17.

21. White, Para ile Akraba, 33.

22. Işık and Pınarcıoğlu, “Sultanbeyli Üzerine Notlar,” 47.

23. Eroğlu, Beyond the Resources of Poverty, 12.

24. Kalaycıoğlu, “Dynamics of Poverty in Turkey,” 226.

25. Buğra, “Immoral Economy of Housing in Turkey,” 313.

26. Ahmad, Modern Türkiye'nin Oluşumu, 285.

27. Bartu-Candan and Kolluoğlu, “Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism,” 7.

28. Murakami, Constructing Female Subject, 7.

29. Cizre-Sakallioglu and Yeldan, “Politics, Society and Financial Liberalization,” 482.

30. Ministry of Interior, General Directorate of Local Authorities, “Local Governments in Turkey.”

31. Uzun, “Globalization and Urban Governance in Istanbul,” 128.

32. Doğan, “Neo-Liberal Belediyeciliğin Çelik Zırhı,” 5.

33. Nalbandian, “Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy,” 187.

34. Buğra and Yakut-Cakar, “Structural Change,” 531.

35. White, Islamist Mobilization in Turkey, 22.

36. Ibid., 28.

37. Ayata and Tütüncü, “Party Politics of the AKP,” 369.

38. Jenkins, “Muslim Democrats in Turkey?,” 63.

39. Secor, “Toward a Feminist Counter-Geopolitics,” 205.

40. Çavdar, “Islamist Moderation and the Resilience of Gender,” 341.

41. White, Islamist Mobilization in Turkey, 214.

42. Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul,” 128.

43. Kuyucu and Ünsal, “‘Urban Transformation’ as State-Led Property Transfer,” 1484.

44. İslam, “Current Urban Discourse,” 61.

45. Local Administration Reform Programme, “Policy Documents.”

46. Şengül, “Yerel Devlet Sorunu Ve Yerel Devletin Dönüşümünde Yeni Eğilimler,” 206.

47. Bayraktar, Makbul Anneler Müstakbel Vatandaşlar, 215.

48. Molyneux, “Mothers at the Service of the New Poverty Agenda,” 433.

49. Ibid., 429.

50. Ayata and Tütüncü, “Party Politics of the AKP,” 378.

51. Lovenduski, Feminizing Politics, 106.

52. Coşar and Yeğenoğlu, “New Grounds for Patriarchy in Turkey,” 557.

53. Lovenduski, Feminizing Politics, 106.