Contradictions in the Neoliberal Policy Instruments: What Is the Stance of the State?
In many countries the neoliberal policies caused the rise of the critique of progressive planning, ranging from arguments against spatial planning to variety of positions that accept some form of intervention in certain contexts. The changes in the planning legislation and institutions, although define the general tendency to cope with the interests of the global capital, are quite uneven and diverse. This paper aims to explore how the policies of neoliberalism and globalisation have affected planning system in Turkey, indicating that the agenda defined under the neoliberal policies was destructive in the Istanbul Metropolitan Region. Following the description of the changes in the recent past, three questions define the core debates of the paper. What is the possibility of attempting to develop spatial strategies if the neoliberal policies dominate economic development? Does increasing uneven distribution of benefits via deregulated urban land market can create a new awareness in the spatial regulation domain? Given the increasing confusions of planning rights and responsibilities, is it possible to redefine a new planning system which can cope control of public rights and the different interests and value systems increasingly differentiated from each other?
KeywordsLocal Government Central Government Urban Land District Municipality Mass Housing
- Duyguluer, F. (2006). İmar mevzuatının kayıpları. Planlama, 2006/4. Ankara: TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Dergisi. 8(1), 35–40.Google Scholar
- Eraydin, A., Turel, A., & Altay, D. (2009). Managing urban change-a systematic survey of current policies and instruments. Paper presented URBAN_NET Project “Sustainable Land Use Policies for Resilient Cities”, November 16–17, 2009, Stockholm.Google Scholar
- Erder, S. (1997). Kentsel Gerilim. Ankara: Uğur Mumcu Araştırmacı Gazetecilik Vakfı.Google Scholar
- Gleeson, B., & Low, N. (2000). Is planning history? In R. Freestone (Ed.), Urban planning in a changing world? New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Gordon, I., Brown, B., Buck, N., Hall, P., Harloe, M., Kleinman, M., et al. (2004). London: competitiveness, cohesion and the policy environment. In M. Boddy & M. Parkinson (Eds.), City matters (pp. 71–92). Bristol: PolicyGoogle Scholar
- Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lemke, T. (2001). ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Micheal Foucalt’s lectures at College de France on neoliberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190–207.Google Scholar
- Marvin, S., Harding, A., & Robson, B. (2006). City-regions: Policy and practice: Lessons from France, Germany and the Netherlands. London: Office of the Deputy Prime MinisterGoogle Scholar
- OECD (2007). Territorial review Istanbul Turkey. Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
- Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanizm: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review, XXIX(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
- Sassen, S. (1994). Cities in the world economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Google Scholar
- Scott, A. (2001). Global city regions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tekinsoy, B. B. (2008). Yargı kararlarında planlama. Ankara: TMOBB Şehir Plancıları Odası.Google Scholar
- TUIK. (2009). Yoksulluk Çalışması. Available at http://www.tuik.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?tb_id=23%26ust_id=7, Accessed December 1, 2009.
- Yavuz, M. H. (2004). Opportunity spaces, identity, and Islamic meaning in Turkey. In Q. Wiktorowicz (Ed.), Islamic activism: A social movement theory approach (pp. 270–286). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar