Duygun Ruben

2015780108
Political Economy of Turkey(POLS 635)
Commentary V
Turkey embarked on its neoliberalization process in 1980, in line with the newly emerging
world trend. As Istanbul was the pivot of Turkeys import substitution industrialization
strategy between 1950-1980, now it would become its pivotal city in its neoliberalization.
Consequently, this process would have a remarkable impact on Istanbul, spatially and
otherwise. In this paper, I will try to summarize the impact of this neoliberalization process on
Istanbuls landscape.
To begin with the most general trends, the pursuit of neoliberal policies of deregulation and
free market and the opening up of Turkey to the world market and hence to the flows of
capital resulted in the transformation of Istanbuls landscape in 1980s. As the financial and the
service sector started to become more prominent within the economy, Istanbul witnessed the
expansion of the CBD(Central Business District) towards the Maslak-Bykdere axis, which
started to host the offices of major national and transnational companies(Enlil, 2011, p.15).
Furthermore, newly instituted liberal trade regime resulted in the arrival of major hotels, large
scale retail companies, shopping malls and hypermarkets, fast food chains etc., whose
visibility in the city was a very novel phenomena for the residents of Istanbul(Enlil, 2011,
p.17). The emergence of a new middle and upper class as a result of the newly bourgeoing
sectors of the neoliberalizing regime also made its impact on the citys landscape, as these
classes started to look for a new type of housing and as the real estate sector responded to(or

arguibly created) their demands with the sprawl of gated communities, with the help of the
newly liberalizing land regime (Kurtulu, 2005, p.151, Enlil, 2011, p.17).
In Istanbul, the housing regime up to 1980s reflected a special arrangement in line with the
industrialization policy. In a simplified explanation, the newcomers to the city would build
their squatter housings to empty state owned land and the state, in a populist fashion, would
tolerate this homegrown solution because it was beneficial for the industrialization strategy
and because the governments saw the squatter neighbourhoods as voting bases. However, this
arrangement started to be modified after the 1980s. Several large scale amnesties were granted
to the gecekondu settlements in 1980s, which partly or fully legalized them. The amnesties
and the subsequent apartmentalization of gecekondus and enabled tenancy in gecekondus and
facilitated the entry of the real estate sector to the gecekondu market(Sakzlolu, 2012, p.66).
So the land regime became further commercialized.
The 1980s also saw the creation of a two tiered metropolitan government system, which
basically amounted to the decentralization of power to the local level. In Istanbul, the
prominent local figure in mid 1980s was mayor Bedrettin Dalan. Dalan, with the aim of
turning Istanbul into a world city(Kuyucu and nsal, 2010, p.1484), embarked on various
projects to transform the landscape of Istanbul, especially for tourism purposes. Two projects
were especially important, namely the Beyolu revitalization Project and the Golden Horn
rehabilitation project. Golden Horn Project was aimed at deindustrialization and reshaping the
landscape of the Golden Horn for touristic and cultural uses(such as Museums and theme
parks). Similarly, Beyolu Project was aimed at revitalization of Beyolu for commercial,
cultural and touristic uses.
The last issue I want to mention with regard to the period between 1980-2000 is the early and
spontaneous gentrification processes in Istanbul in 1980s and 1990s. The neighbourhoods that

experienced gentrification in this era are Galata, Cihangir, Asmalmescit, Ortaky,

Kuzguncuk, Fener-Balat and Arnavutky. Compared to 2000s, the gentrification of these
neighbourhoods were rather slow and sporadic. Although the state did not directly get
involved in the process except the case of Fener-Balat, most of the scholars in the literature
argue that they played an indirect role via infrastructural and other types of investment in this
gentrification process. For instance, Sakzlolu argues that the revitalization Project of
Beyolu created the conditions for the gentrification of Galata, Cihangir and Asmalmescit.
Most of the gentrified neighbourhoods were areas in which low income people lived, and
which were gentrified by and populated after the gentrification middle and upper classes, and
the cultural amenities they brought with themselves(such as new art galleries, cafes, shops,
restaurants etc.). (Sakzlolu, 2012, p.70-75, Kurtulu, 2005, p.151-156).
However, despite all these developments, the neoliberalization process was far from a
coherent and planned. Rather it proceeded in a piecemeal fashion due to the changing
coalition governments and changing urban coalitions who wanted to pursue and further the
neoliberalization of Istanbul(Sakzlolu, 2012, p.79). This would change in the AKP period,
as AKP would pursue the neoliberalization process more vigorously.
When we come to 2000s or more specifically the AKP era, we see that the neoliberal urban
policies were pursued with more vigour and consistency compared to the previous era. AKP
pursued growth oriented economic policies, one of its main ingredients being the real estate
and construction sector. Istanbul has been the centerpiece of this strategy, and AKP pursued
vigorous strategies to further its transformation to a globalized city. Consequently, the major
trends I have outlined above for the 1980s and 1990s, namely the rise of the finance and
service sectors, the emergence of a new middle and upper class and the commodification of
urban land have continued and accelerated during the AKP era. To outline some general
indicators, this era witnessed the further spread of the CBDs along the connection roads of the

two bridges connecting the Asian and European sides of the city(Yalntan et al, 2014, p. 64),
the rapid increase in the number of hotels, shopping malls and office buildings and the rapid
rise of in numbers of gated communities, whose numbers had increased to 2290 by
2014(Yalntan et al.,2014, p.60). Furthermore, AKP has given great importance to
infrastructural projects during its reign, prime examples of which are ongoing construction of
the third bridge, the completion of Marmaray and the construction of the third airport in
Istanbul(Yalntan et al., 2014, p.55).
At the intersection of the growth oriented policies based on real estate and construction sector
and the making of Istanbul into a competitive global city in order to attract more financial
capital, tourists and culture industries, are the urban transformation projects which have
become very widespread in Istanbuls landscape during the AKP era. These urban
transformation projects are mostly concerned with the redevelopment of informal housing in
Istanbul and have two main pillars: the redevelopment of squatter settlements in the inner and
outskirts of the city and the enforced gentrification of inner city slums(Karaman, 2013,
p.717). Now I will mention some crucial aspects of these urban transformation projects.
First of all AKP enacted many legislations to enable these urban transformation projects. I
think it is revealing to look at them closely to understand the nature of these projects in terms
of the actors involved, the position of the residents, and the nature of the process. The first
related legislation is Law No. 5237 passed in 2004, which made the construction of
gecekondus punishable by 5 years of prison, signifying the end of the traditionally tolerant
approach of the state towards the gecekondus(Kuyucu and nsal, 2010, p.1484). In 2005,
Law No. 5393 was passed, which authorised district municipalities to implement
transformation projects in derelict and unsafe parts of the city(which in practice corresponded
to gecekondu zones) in collaboration with MHA(Mass Housing Administration). MHA also
acquired the right to expropriate property in these areas. This law foresaw the transfer of the

rightful owners(exluding the tenants) to public housing projects(Kuyucu and nsal, 2010,
p.1485).
Finally, Law No. 5366 was passed in 2005. It is concerned with the historical and natural
protection zones. This law drew the framework of urban transformation projects concerning
historical neighbourhoods. It authorized municipalities to implement urban transformation
projects and to participate in public private partnerships and/or in collaboration with
TOK(Karaman, 2013, p.724, Kuyucu and nsal, 2010, p.1485). Two further aspects of this
law is significant. First, it authorizes the municipality to expropriate the property of the
owners if they disagree to the foreseen urban transformation project. Second, regarding the
participation of the people living in the neighbourhoods to the decision-making process, it
only foresees the notification of the implementation of the transformation process to the
people(Diner, 2011, p.47). Thirdly, it does not establish any rights for the tenants. In practice,
these properties of the law give the upper hand to municipalities and private partners aganist
the residents during the implementation of urban transformation projects. Furthermore, the
powers granted to MHA in both laws shows the crucial role of the central government
involved in these urban transformation projects(Lovering and Trkmen, 2011, p.78).
The second question I want to look at is the question of displacement and resistance.
Regarding displacement, it is safe to say that most residents are displaced as a result of urban
transformation and the tenants are in a more vulnerable position. Most of the evicted residents
are offered mortgage like payment schemes with long maturities for ownership of TOK mass
housing projects in the less attractive parts of the city. (Karaman, 2013, p.724, Lovering and
Trkmen, 2011, pp. 82-92)
Regarding resistance, in most cases the urban regeneration projects are met with resistance in
the form of protests, neighbourhoods associations contesting urban transformation projects

and lawsuits aganist these projects. However, this resistance in most cases does not stay
unified and either dissipates or divides along the axis of ownership structure. The
compensation policies I stated above also serve to weaken resistance. Furthermore, resistance
organizations such as neighbourhoods organizations become concerned with the more
immediate problems and try to secure compensation rights, rather than wholesale opposition
to the projects. (Karaman, 2013, pp. 725-727, , Lovering&Trkmen, 2011, pp.82-92, Kuyucu
and nsal, 2010, p.1491-1494)

Bibliography

Enlil, Zeynep Merey. The Neoliberal Agenda and Changing Urban Form in Istanbul,
International Planning Studies 16, no.1(2011): 5-25.
Karaman, Ozan. Urban Renewal in Istanbul: Reconfigured Spaces, Robotic Lives,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37, no.2(2013), 715-733.
Kurtulu, Hatice. stanbulda Kentsel Ayrma: Mekansal Dnmde Farkl Boyutlar,
stanbul: Balam, 2005.
Kuyucu, Tuna and zlem nsal. Urban Transformation as State-led Property Transfer: An
Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul, Urban Studies 47, no.7(2009), 14791499.
Lovering, John and Hade Trkmen. Bulldozer Neo-liberalism in Istanbul: The State-led
Construction of Property Markets, and the Displacement of the Urban Poor, International
Planning Studies 16, no.1(2011), 73-96.
Sakzlolu, Bahar. Inserting Temporality into the Analysis of Displacement: Living Under
the Threat of Displacement, Urban and Regional Research Center, Utrecht University, 2012.
Yalntan, Murat Cemal, are Ongun alkan, Kumru lgn and Uur Dndar, Istanbul
Dnm Corafyas in Yeni stanbul almalar: Snrlar, Mcadeleler, Almlar ed. Ayfer
Bartu Candan and Cenk zbay, stanbul: Metis Yaynlar, 2014.