The urbanization policy of Turkey: an uneasy symbiosis of unimplemented policy with centralized pragmatic interventions

ABSTRACT

Regarding urbanization policy in Turkey, one can observe how policy-making efforts continuously have moved away from transnational influences and reverted to more pragmatic, national-oriented practices in the last three decades. The results of different attempts to make sustainable urbanization policy for Turkey are vivid examples of how aspirations to reframe national urban development pattern through policy transfer failed and a nationalistic, pragmatic and authoritarian intervention, each time more hard-hitting than before, emerged with dire consequences. Occasionally, distinctive characteristics of the Turkish experience manifested itself in the uneasy symbiosis of policy-making with neo-liberal practices in cities. Using qualitative methodology, this study provides an account of Turkey’s urbanization policy-making episodes in the last decade to show how consecutive attempts to use policy learning and participation as leverage gradually alienated policy intermediaries and allowed strengthening of neo-liberal interventions in urban sphere.

KEYWORDS:

• Policy learning
• urbanization policy
• urban development
• neo-liberal pragmatism
• Turkey

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Note on Contributor

Savaş Zafer Şahin is an Associate Professor at the Atılım University in Ankara. He holds a Ph D. in Political Science and Public Administration from Middle East Technical University. His research is mainly focused on topics of urban planning, public policy, local governments and ethics in urban planning, local politics, and public administration in Turkey. While completing his studies, he also worked as a civil servant in different levels of Turkish state including municipalities, governorships and ministries. Furthermore, he acted as a civil activist concerning urban planning issues through his role in the Turkish Chambers of Engineers, Architects and City Planners. In addition to publishing academic work, he also contributed to the drafting of some important national policy documents and development plans. He occasionally appears in national and local media to share his opinions on urban planning and local governments in Turkey. 

ORCID

Savaş Zafer Şahin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8915-5823

Notes

1. Bathelt et al., “Clusters and Knowledge”; Baker et al., “Reading Jamie Peck”; Ward, “Policies in Motion”; Ward, “Policy Mobilities, Politics and Place,” and Hae, “Traveling Policy.”

2. Baysal, “Terricide: Poisoning the Lungs of Istanbul”; Bayırbaǧ, “Continuity and Change in Public Policy”; Yıldırım et al., “Europeanization Under Membership Uncertainty”; Tatoglu et al., “Adoption of Corporate Environmental Policies”; Özveren and Nas, “Economic Development” and Sobaci, “Regional Development Agencies.”

3. Cavuşoǧlu and Strutz, “Producing Force and Consent”; Tansel, “Reproducing Authoritarian Neo-liberalism in Turkey”; Lelandais, “Space and Identity,” and Elicin, “Neo-liberal Transformation.”

4. This is emphasized in Eraydin and Taşan-Kok’s study, “State Response.”

5. Peck et al., “Neoliberal Urbanism.”

6. Brenner et al., “Variegated Neo-liberalization,” and Hilgers, “The Historicity.”

7. Eraydin and Tasan Kok, “State Response.”

8. Karaman, “Urban Renewal in Istanbul”; Yetiskul et al., “Local Responses to Urban Redevelopment Projects”; Aksoy, “Riding the Storm”; Baysal ibid.; Dinçer, “The Impact of Neo-liberal Policies,” and Enlil, “The Neo-liberal Agenda.”

9. Dolowitz and Marsh, “Learning from Abroad.”

10. Benson and Jordan, “What Have We Learned,” and Marsh and Sharman, “Policy Diffusion.”

11. Hae, “Travelling Policy.”

12. Mohan, “The Disappointments of Civil Society.”

13. Legrand, “Overseas and Over Here.”

14. Janicke and Weidner, “Summary,” and May, “Policy Learning and Failure.”

15. For a detailed description of the method see Ellis et al., “Autoethnography.”

16. Fischer et al., “Handbook of Public Policy Analysis,” 418.

17. This set of legislation, namely ‘The Basic Law of Public Administration’ foresaw such a radical decentralization that it could not be enacted as a whole because of the vetoes of the President of that time. Later it was enacted as several separate laws for local governments. Uluğ, “Yönetimde Yeniden Yapılanma.”

18. Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı, 21. Yüzyılda Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı.

19. Akay, “Çevre Düzeni Planları.”

20. The ministerial staff in those years was a complex mixture of experienced and young technocrats/administrators with diverse backgrounds and political inclinations. There was a relatively younger group who were more focussed on idealistic positions together with newly appointed higher-level officials of the AKP. There was also an old group of bureaucrats who were remnants of the previous periods.

21. Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı, Kentleşme Şurası.

22. T.R. Prime Ministry Turkey, “Turkey’s 9th Development Plan.”

23. The term ‘Şura’, has some historical and religious connotations for the Turkish Republic. As a collective form of decision making, it has its roots in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed and ancient Turkish dynasties. Yet, it does not always mean a modern participatory mechanism, which later rises as a question of methodology.

24. Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı, Kentleşme Şurası.

25. Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı, Kentleşme Şurası Komi˙syon Raporlari.

26. Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı, Kentleşme Şurasi.

27. Kayasü and Yetiskul, “Evolving Legal and Institutional Frameworks,” and Osmay and Ataöv, “Türki˙ye’de Kentsel Dönüşüme Yöntemsel Bi˙r Yaklaşım.”

28. Peck, “Economic Geography Political Economies of Scale.”

29. One anecdote told by Erdoğan Bayraktar, former head of the MHA, well illustrates this diversion. He says ‘When I first came to office a prepared a modest plan for building a hundred thousand housing units in ten years. The Prime Minister thrown it back to me and asked for at least five hundred thousand units’ from an interview in dunyabulteni.com.

30. T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, Kentges.

31. Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı, ibid.

32. The use of this term can be taken as a clear change of the paradigm in urban policies in Turkey. Later, this term became a general motto for the Turkish Politics for dealing urban issues. While the sustainable urban development paradigms of the era envisage small changes and the power of individual, crazy projects call for mega projects that might change the fate of not only cities but also the whole nation. Indeed, what followed this paradigm was mega scale projects especially for Istanbul.

33. Yeşilbağ, “Hegemonyanın Harcı.”

34. Balaban, “The Negative Effects of Construction Boom.”

35. Gül et al., “Istanbul’s Taksim Square and Gezi Park,” and Gürcan and Peker, “Turkey’s Gezi Park Demonstrations of 2013.”

36. Taksim Platform was an alliance of NGO’s organized around Istanbul branches of the Chambers of City Planners and Architects, established much earlier than the Gezi Park events, to advocate public interest on design of the Taksim Square and its surroundings.

37. Ökten et al., “Katılımın Yokluğunda Gezide Direniş.”

38. Acar, “Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Corruption,” and Özbudun, “Turkey’s Judiciary and the Drift.”

39. Şahin, “Davutoğlunun Kentsel Çelişkileri.”

40. The name ‘urbanism’ has a conservative tone. In Turkish there are two terms for city, ‘kent’ and ‘şehir.’ Usually şehir is preferred by conservative thinkers usually with cultural connotations, whereas kent is close to a Western interpretation of the urban issues by more liberal or socialist thinkers. Therefore, the selection of the name of the last Council as ‘şehircilik’, i.e. related to the şehir, can not be taken as a mere coincidence but a display of changing attitude.

41. Mimarlar Odası Ankara Branch made an open declaration, ‘Cumhuriyetle Hesaplaşmanın Mekânsallığı.’

42. T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, “Şehircilik Şurası Komisyonları Çalışma Kılavuzu.”

43. Yilmaz, The Presidential System.

44. In the presidential election campaign, Erdogan declared that they will build ‘Millet Gardens’ and ‘Millet Coffe Houses’ in every Turkish city to handle lack of green areas and social facilities. Naming these standardized urban facilities ‘millet’ (translated as ‘religious nation’ in English) brought a further politicized and centralized tone to AKP’s urban policies, completely neglecting local identity.