Contradictions in the Neoliberal Policy Instruments: What Is the Stance of the State?

Chapter
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 102)

Abstract

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?

Keywords

Local Government Central Government Urban Land District Municipality Mass Housing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Brenner, N. (2003). Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4), 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duyguluer, F. (2006). İmar mevzuatının kayıpları. Planlama, 2006/4. Ankara: TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Dergisi. 8(1), 35–40.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Erder, S. (1997). Kentsel Gerilim. Ankara: Uğur Mumcu Araştırmacı Gazetecilik Vakfı.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jessop, B. (2000). The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), 323–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. John, P., Tickell, A., & Musson, S. (2005). Governing the mega-region: governance and networks across London and South East of England. New Political Economy, 10(11), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. McGuirk, P. (2005). Neoliberalist planning? Rethinking and re-casting Sydney’s metropolitan planning. Geographical Research, 43(11), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGuirk, P. (2007). The political construction of the city-region: Notes from Sydney. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. OECD (2007). Territorial review Istanbul Turkey. Paris: OECDGoogle Scholar
  15. Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanizm: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review, XXIX(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  16. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Local modes of social regulation? Regulation theory, Thatcherism and uneven development. Geoforum, 23(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Salet, W. (2006). Rescaling territorial governance in the Randstad Holland: The responsiveness of spatial and institutional strategies to changing socio-economic interactions. European Planning Studies, 14(7), 959–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sassen, S. (1994). Cities in the world economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Google Scholar
  19. Scott, A. (2001). Global city regions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Tekinsoy, B. B. (2008). Yargı kararlarında planlama. Ankara: TMOBB Şehir Plancıları Odası.Google Scholar
  21. Thornley, A., & Newman, P. (1996). International competition, urban governance and planning projects: Malmo, Birmingham and Lille. European Planning Studies, 4(5), 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. TUIK. (2009). Yoksulluk Çalışması. Available at http://www.tuik.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?tb_id=23%26ust_id=7, Accessed December 1, 2009.
  23. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations