Speaker
Description
After 1980, the fact experienced all over the world and called neoliberalism is based on the reproduction of capital through urban space. In this process, the relations between institutions, economic actors, the nation state, local governments and financial capital have been redefined by moving away from the concept of the welfare state, privatisation, increasing international capital movements, intensifying competition between countries/regions/cities, and the capitalist system has entered a restructuring process (Peck, Theodore and Brenner, 2009). In line with the cooperation of the state and capital, the development of land use and construction conditions in favour of groups that serve the interests of the dominant class and benefit directly or indirectly from economic growth has triggered the process of reproduction of the urban built environment (Fainstein, 1994; Sengül, 2009; Uzbek and Dincer 2009; Logan and Molotch, 2013; Penpecioglu, 2013). The state becomes a steering force in the redistribution of wealth by making the legal arrangements required by the neoliberal economic structure (Bayirbag and Penpecioglu, 2017). In this process where wealth is distributed through legislation and legal regulations, piecemeal planning decisions and the expanding powers of the central government, one of the most remarkable issues is the commodification of public interest and services. The transformation of public enterprises, which Sato (2000) refers to as dead capital, into liquid capital through the privatisation of infrastructures constitutes a significant problem for the commodification of public services and for disadvantaged groups to benefit from these services.
Peck and Tickell (2002) explain as ‘not the neoliberalisation of the city, but the urbanisation of neoliberalisation’, the state and capital have shaped the city, creating differentiated and privatisationed areas in functional, social and spatial terms. In the ‘regime theory’, which explains the reproduction of the urban environment and the role of the state in this process, it is defined by combining the resources of actors to facilitate acting together in line with their overlapping expectations, in other words, by constructing a network of relations based on mutual interest (Feinstein, 1994; Uzbek and Dincer, 2009). At this stage, while the spatial transformation of the city is financed by state-backed debt, the state has transformed from a social democratic structure into a structure that provides the infrastructure and finance necessary for capital to increase its profitability (Harvey, D., 2013).
Accordingly, the study will discuss the reflections of neoliberal urbanisation policies in Turkey and especially in the city of Istanbul in the context of privatisation of public lands. The main questions of the study are; who are the actors involved in the privatisation of public lands in Istanbul? What is the position of the state in this process? To what extent does the emerging picture coincide with the concept of public interest? The methodology of the study is to discuss the privatisation processes of public lands in Istanbul and their reflections on the urban space, and in the case of Zeytinburnu Iron Factory; the privatisation of the area, legal regulation, planning process, actors involved in the process, spatial reflections and public interest.
As a result, the perception of the city as an investment area causes actors to come together with overlapping expectations. On public lands privatised by the state through legal regulations, special planning and construction conditions, funds and loans provided by public banks, new urban textures are emerging in line with the profit expectations of the private sector. Housing, shopping, office, accommodation textures shaped by targeting high income groups and foreign investors form cocoons alienated from the city. On the other hand, the question of what is the public interest in this process is an important dilemma.
References
Bayirbag, M.K., and Penpecioglu, M. (2017) Urban crisis: ‘Limits to governance of alienation'. Urban Studies, 54 (9), pp 2056-2071, 2017.
De Soto, H. (2000) The mystery of capital: why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.
Fainstein, S. (1994) The City Builders: Property, Politics, and Planning in London and New York. New York: Blackwell Publication.
Harvey, D. (2013) Rebel Cities. İstanbul: Metis Publication.
Logan, J., R., Molotch, H., L., (2013) Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. California: University of California Press.
Peck, J. and A. Tickell (2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34 (3), pp 380–404.
Peck, J., Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2009) Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents. Antipode, 41 (1), pp 94–116.
Penpecioglu, M. (2013) Large-scale urban projects, production of space and neo-liberal hegemony: A comparative study in the case of Izmir. Megaron, 8 (2), pp 97-114.
Sengul, T. (2009) Urban contradiction and politics critique of capitalist urbanisation processes. Istanbul: Imge Publication.
Uzbek, H., Dincer, İ. (2009) Does the Urban Regime Theory Provide an Appropriate Theoretical Framework for Analysis of Urban Politics in the Context of the Urbanization Process in Turkey? a Theoretical Discussion. Megaron, 4 (1), pp 16-26.
| Keywords | Neoliberal Urbanisation; State; Privatisation; Public Interest; Zeytinburnu Fabrika-i Humayun |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
