Urbanization Process: The Problem of
Non-Urbanizing
Murat Binay
*
Abstract: The concept of urbanization cannot be considered independently from
economy-based manufacturing relations. As a frequent topic of Turkey’s agenda,
unplanned urbanization results from unplanned economic development. When post1980 state neglected its role in correcting the differences among the regions in terms of
development, the concept of migration from one city to another emerged in addition to
migration from rural areas to urban areas. Furthermore, the attitude of the center to
take surrounding areas under control constantly prevented the creation of urbanity
consciousness politically and urban areas became not a center of sophisticated art and
freedom thinking but the focus of fight for unearned income.
Keywords: Urban, urbanization, manufacturing, local administration, immigration.
*
PHD Student, Yeditepe University, Department of Financial Economics, Inonu Mah., Kayısdagı Cad.,
34755 Ataşehir /Istanbul/Turkey.
Makale Gönderim Tarihi:05.05.2016
Makale Kabul Tarihi:20.06.2016
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
58
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
Introduction
This study first mentions the concepts and history of urban and urbanization,
which is followed by factors causing urbanization with a particular focus on
economic factors. Industrial revolution is a critical milestone of urbanization.
Even urbanization is divided into two, namely pre- and post-industrial
revolution for urbanization for the purposes of study in literature. Following
close look on the difference between developed / industrialized countries and
our country in terms of urbanization process, the relation between the
urbanization and manufacturing relations is expressed; Republic Era is divided
into sections according to applied economic systems and the concept of
urbanization is analyzed according to this division. The results appear to
indicate that manufacturing relations have a direct impact on the process of
urbanization.
Subsequently, the concept of urbanization as well as post-1980 economic
policies was focused and the concepts of unplanned urbanization were
examined. The concept of Anatolian Tigers which became very popular
particularly after 1980 are analyzed both in financial and urbanization aspects
and it is concluded there is no satisfying or a kind of urbanization in the sense
of the West.
Manufacturing relations and pressure imposed by the center onto the
margins become the direct determinant of distributing unearned income, which
left the concept of the urbanization lacking of urbanizing and resulted in neither
rural nor urbanized people who were urban in terms of giving up agricultural
activities but rural in the sense of being urban and having cultural and urbanity
awareness.
Urbanization is both a dependent and independent variable. While
industrialization and development lead to urbanization, opportunities provided
by the urbanization make contributions to development and industrialization. In
this context, an economic basis adopted as an approach to the ways how to
settle the problem of ‘unplanned urbanization’ or ‘non-urbanization’ in Turkey
as a dominant method in the entire of the study and the state is found out to play
a key role in preventing inequality among the regions and immigration from
urban to urban replacing the immigration from rural areas to urban areas.
If the state implements policies which get rid of regional inequalities in
economic terms and unless it politically imposes pressure on environmental, in
other words, local governments apart from auditing and coordination, then the
state will be, so to say, close to the societal center politically for transforming
from unearned money into normal profit from speculative profits, in other
words, ‘unordinary profit’ and thus people will act with the awareness of
urbanity rather than trying to get unearned money and will get returns in ratio
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
59
with the responsibility taken. For example, mayor will be not the person
centrally nominated by the parties but the person who has delivered services for
that locality and becomes bellowed by the local public. While there is a similar
tendency and positive approach to this in the sense of mayoralty, municipal
councils etc. are still under the dominance of the center.
In conclusion, it is suggested that the state should implement policies to get
rid of regional inequalities in terms of finance, draw its dominance politically
over the surrounding, in other words, local administrations and make attempts
to create not identity politics but the consciousness of urbanity. In this case,
urban environment will be actually liberalized.
The Concept of Urban
City refers to a unit of settlement with its unique and specific characteristics as
well as a lifestyle. It means ‘city’ and ‘urban’ in English. It is colloquially used
as ‘şehir’ derived from Farsi language. Dictionary of Urban Science Terms
defines it as a settlement unit which is undergoing a societal development with
the society whose needs for settlement, accommodation, travelling, working,
resting and having fun etc. are met and where small number of people deal with
agricultural activities with small units of neighborhood and having denser
population when compared to villages(Keleş, 1998). The concept of city was
first originated from Science of Politics. This was derived from the desire of
people to live together. The historians have regarded the emergence of cities as
the birth of civilizations. Occurrence of mutual relations between people for
meeting their needs gives birth to cities called as cradle of civilization where the
factors of manufacturing, distribution and consumption are centralized, making
people obliged to live together since the earliest eras (Topal, 2004). Urban way
of living which has occurred in different areas all over the world refers to a
structure accommodating similarities and differences in terms of political and
societal conditions. The city is named as polis in Greek, cite in French, medine
in Arabic, burg or borough meaning castle or sitting area in German and urbs
and civitas in Latin meaning citizenship (Benevola, 1995). Civitas is identified
with civilization in Latin languages. As for Arabic languages, the word of
‘Medina’ is known to correspond to civilization (Keleş, 2012). As a result of the
close relation between the concept of city and the concept of civilization, it is
revealed that the people who live in cities are accepted to be civilized and the
cities are accepted to be places where civilized people live.
Emerging first in around 6000 B.C and starting to reveal themselves in
around 400 B.C in the fullest sense, the first cities were naturally small-scaled
and slightly different from established villages and towns. The evident reason
why such cities were small-scaled is the low productivity of agriculture and
high cost of long-distanced travelling. Allowance of increased agricultural
60
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
efficiency to gather more population together required metallurgical inventions
in the field of iron and advancement of agricultural machinery technology and
the transportation technologies depending on such developments)(Hatt,
2002:29). While this situation is frequently observed in the east, especially in
Mesopotamia and Nile Catchment, production of several tools made from
mines, marine and trade become the factors having impacts on the structure of
the cities due to absence of agriculturally productive lands around Aegean.
Particularly Greek cities gradually increased their richness through international
trade and got regional possibilities to accommodate four times more capacity of
population. For example, an industry consisting of products sold to outer world
and developed in Athens didn’t only meet the food requirements of the city but
also made contributions to the enrichment of the cities(Childe, 1983:223)
As it can be deducted from the above, arousal of cities in different forms in
the west and the east are directly related to the ways of manufacturing. This
situation reveals itself not only in the periods of urban occurrence but also
during the times of development and change. The cities were weakened due to
feudal societal structure during the early periods of the Middle Ape. Because
the way of manufacturing was shaped by the serfs who were dependent on land
as labor, societal structure was organized in rural areas. With the importance
regained by craft and trade in 10th century, cities started to re-grow both in
Europe and Islamic world. As a matter of fact, when the historical process of
cities is investigated, it is seen that the emergence of modern cities in the
current sense dates back to post-industrial revolution. Besides, division of
‘Urbanization’ into two parts, namely ‘Urbanization during pre-Industrial
Revolution’ and ‘Urbanization during post-Industrial Revolution’ indicates that
industrial revolution is a milestone in this process.
As a matter of the fact, very speed transformation of the cities structurally
and functionally during industrial period and later supports this concept. As
Yılmaz states, ‘’Cities mostly remained as an experience of minority from the
first emergence to industrial revolution and underwent a slight transformation in
terms of function and structure until revolution. On the other hand,
industrialization leads to the speed growth of the cities and occurrence of
urbanization as a concept. In other words, in the contemporary sense,
urbanization occurred along with the population movement’’(Yılmaz,
2004:250-267). Under the basis of such population movements lay new
manufacturing factors which emerged along with the industrialization, increased
efficiency and thus increased the need for labor. Besides, different job branches
created in the urban areas become appealing for the individuals who live in rural
areas.
In the simplest meaning, Industrial Revolution is a set of events driven by
the vapor power as new energy resource on the machines as well as innovative
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
61
technical inventions as alternatives to small craft, workshop and workbench
manufacturing and where human, wind, water and animal energy is replaced
with steamboat and machinery (Talas, 1981:29). As a result of these technical
and societal changes, ‘worker’ class emerged and work division created by mass
production and specialization led to increased need for workers. As a result,
population of the urban areas increased dramatically.
When industrial cities and pre-industrial cities are compared, concept of
closed class, social mobility and gender-based close work division are observed
among pre-industrial cities. Status of the people in these cities is achieved
status. Education is only available for an elite class. It is not possible for each
individual to get education they want. On the contrary, official education in
industrial cities welcomes every individual with regardless to any class and
wealth difference. It is natural for the individuals to get promoted and awarded
to the extent which they work and become successful. From such aspects,
industrial cities reflect a different world when compared with pre-industrial
cities (Erkan, 2010: 40-56). As it is deducted, changes in urban life and
industrial revolution accommodate not only economic area but also social,
political and cultural changes.
When the areas to be used for meeting the need of accommodation for the
population migrated to urban areas became insufficient, worker quarters were
formed for creating new settlement areas outside the cities. The houses for the
workers built nearby the factories were made of bad-quality materials and next
to each other. When housing supply mechanisms couldn’t meet increased
demand, the application that the units of housing were divided and rented (one
room per family) was commenced, which resulted in unhealthy life conditions
along with excessive intensity(Uğurlu, 2010).
Being developed socio-economically is identified with the degree of
industrialization in the country in question. Industrialization, first of all, means
that significant part of national income consists of industrial products. The share
of industrial income in the national income is very important in developed
countries. The share of agricultural income in the national income is low. In
terms of foreign trade relations, exportation of developed countries mostly
consists of industrial products, whereas importation consists of agricultural
products and raw materials purchased from underdeveloped countries(Erkan,
2010:56). Therefore, it is foreseen that industrialization is necessary for
underdeveloped countries or developing countries to catch up with the
developed countries.
62
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
The Concept of Urbanization
In the narrowest sense, urbanization is the increase in the number of cities as
well as increased population living in such cities. It would be wrong to see
urbanization only as a population movement. Urbanization refers to an on-going
concept and dynamic structure. As a result of the economic factors, it is a kind
of change at living level of the society. In parallel to industrialization and
economic development, this is a process of population accumulation causing
urban-specific changes in behaviors and relations of people, creating increased
organization and work division and specialization in societal structure and
giving birth to increased number of cities and urban growth (Keleş, 2014:1920). Causing communities to settle down in certain regions densely,
urbanization is a determinant factor considered in determining the status of
development and civilization of nationalities. The status of industry is the most
important criterion taken as basis for determining whether societies are
developed or developing. This is followed by the settlement areas and the
development process of cities. New settlement units which are established
through shedding from being ruralized are called cities, whereas structural
changes during urban formation are called urbanization. While urbanization
becomes a ‘dependent variable’ as an outcome of change, industrialization and
democratization processes, it can be also an ‘independent variable’ giving birth
to other results such as dramatic fall in population once it has occurred (Kongar,
2013:521). Perceiving and assessing the urbanization as both a dependent and
an independent variable reveals that urbanization is a population movement
only from rural areas to urban areas. It can emerge without immigration.
Besides the demographical dimension of immigration, there are political,
economic and societal dimensions. In this context, urbanization is used to
express growth, development, integration and change in the cities after the
emergence of cities.
Emerging in the 20th century, urbanization occurred in varying forms
according to developed and underdeveloped countries. Urbanization in
developed countries emerged in parallel to technological development giving
way to continuous growth in manufacturing, trade and services and structural
change and increased production starting in agriculture along with the industrial
revolution drove population to gather around cities. In underdeveloped or
developing countries, urbanization has varying characteristics in demographic,
economic and societal dimensions. Urbanization in these countries advance with
a speeder pace than industrialization. Besides, it has an economic structure
based on service sector rather than manufacturing industry. Service sector
started to develop only after agricultural economy and industrial economy
became strong in developed countries. On the other hand, service sector first
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
63
develops in developing countries and cities fall into definition of urbanization
only in terms of population. Development used as a synonym for the
urbanization in developed countries fails to express the event of urbanization in
developing countries (Erkan, 2010:68). This situation causes the experience of
urbanization in developing countries along with problems such as unplanned
urbanization, the problem of adaptation among the immigrants to the cities,
emergence of the regions which are not compliant to cities both structurally and
socially. On the other hand, environmental problems arising out of urbanization
reinforced particularly with the effect of industrialization are experienced by
almost all the countries and become among the basic problems to be settled
globally during the recent years. The needs for directing urbanization process
healthily, settling down the problems emerging and getting maximal benefits
from positive effects of urbanization on development have revealed the
importance of planning needs as well as urban planning.
According to Lerner, who expresses that what lies under modernization is
urbanization, the necessity for modern manufacturing is naturally fired when
voluntary urbanization rate exceeds 25% in a society. Urbanization brings about
production based on modern industry. Developed industry and disseminated
complex manufacturing relation establishes the ground for the development of
literacy and mass communication. Increase in literacy rate is both an outcome of
industrialization and a necessary requirement for the industrialization. Increased
rate of literacy means that one becomes subject to the impact of mass
communication. Increase in mass communication brings about political,
economic and social participation. From this point, Lerner creates differences
among traditional communities, in-transition communities and modern
communities within the framework of literacy rates, ways of urbanization,
relations with the media, rates of political participation and capacities to
develop empathy (Lerner. 1964:49-71).
However, Max Weber is the person who deals with relation between politic cultural structure and finance in the clearest way. In the beginning of 20 th
century, Max Weber claims that some cultural and political pre-requisites
should be made available so that economic development can put a firm stamp
on the society. Rejecting the assumption of Max Weber that capitalist-oriented
mind should occur before capitalism, Sombart points out the importance of the
capacity to predict future for the purposes of developing capitalism. According
to Sombart, the importance of government enterprise reveals itself in the early
periods of capitalism(İnsel, 1991:18-19).
While some thoughts argue that democracy is necessary before development,
other thoughts perceive democracy as a political order which complicates the
use of limited sources logically during the process of development. Some
countries achieve economic development through authoritative regimes (such as
64
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
South Korea), whereas dictatorship may affect economic development
adversely in some countries (such as Chile). In this sense, it can be expressed
that developmental dynamics can vary from one country to another depending
on varying situations. Therefore, political and cultural foundations of
developmental dynamics gain importance. In other words, neither development
nor pattern of democracy - development is universal but dependent upon
societal - historical cases.
Perceiving democracy as a situation correlated to the level of economic
development makes democracy depend upon economic improvement /
development. In this sense, democracy isn’t developed well in non-Western
countries which are underdeveloped according to the status of being
underdeveloped. Unless such societies are directly or indirectly kept subject to
interventions by the West / externally, they remain entrapped in their cycle. The
practices of authority or dictator who adopts the ways of development presented
can be welcomed. As a matter of fact, dictatorships of Third-World Countries
have been supported on the basis of such assumptions.
Lowness, backwardness and poverty dominating non-Western societies arise
from their own structure and geographical factors. In this sense, internal
structures owned by such communities create an opposition to West European
communities. This point of view has the same nature among the intellectual in
several fields ranging from the economy to philosophy. Discussing the
conditions of non-Western societies, A. Smith expresses that such societies (the
entire central Africa and Black Sea occupied by the Tatar and where Siberia is
located as well as some section of Asia consisting of an area located on the
north part of Caspian Sea) have always been into poverty and backwardness for
all the times and the situation hasn’t changed yet (Türkay, 1995:94).
A ‘human-centered’ approach where humane variables are emphasized
should be adopted instead of ‘meta-oriented’ approaches keeping development
identified with the economic development through the years and perceiving it as
an increase in national income and criticized because of neglecting humanrelated variables. The idea of sustainable development introduced in 1980s
takes this fact into consideration to some extent (İnsel, 1991:229). The concept
of sustainable development focused on a ‘humane-centered’ development
approach instead of ‘growth centered’ developmental approach based on capital
accumulation started to gain great importance after 1980s.
Urbanized person is defined as a person who lives in a city and has adopted
urban-specific culture, maintains a lifestyle which different from lifestyles of
rural areas and deals with non-agricultural and non-husbandry activities for
earning (Erten, 1999:30). Urbanity deriving from urbanization can be defined as
a process through which an individual acquires characteristics of cities. The
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
65
transition from traditional village community to modern urban society
symbolized societal change. Urbanity which should be assessed within the
dimension of urbanization refers to the process of developing and adopting new
behaviors though forcing the individual of homogenous rural areas which have
scarce population and are dominated by old values and norms, traditions and
conventions as soon as such individual gets out of traditional societal lifestyle
(Duru and Alkan, 2002: 55). Urbanization as a process through which
traditional values, habits and relation types are substituted by new patterns
contains an identity-related conversion and points out an individual type reshaped with some features in terms of their values, sets of behaviors and daily
life.
Taking urbanization as a criterion for modernization and indicator of
development, one may conclude that urbanization is an important changing
factor in commencing and accelerating societal change. Along with
urbanization, literacy rate and woman labor increases, which brings about
increase in communication as well as economic and politic participation.
Theorists of modernization mention that cities have mutual functions in terms of
societal change. On one hand, innovations first emerge in cities and are
disseminated to villages. As a set of societal life systems, cities add certain
features to individual behaviors of those living there. On the other hand, cities
melt newcomers from rural areas in its pot and add them to modern urban life
dominated by Western culture (Canatan, 1995:89-90). Current modern cities
have occurred in parallel to industrialization after Industrial Revolution.
Industrialization has led to societal conversion and allowed the transition from
traditional rural community based on agriculture to modern urban community
based on industry in the West. Modern society is an urbanized community. It
becomes a structure where non-agricultural, industrial and service activities are
concentrated in the cities and production is controlled and organized. Population
density and heterogeneous nature become among the specific characteristics of
cities (Keleş, 2015:30). Urbanization has been greatly accelerated with the
industrialization; this acceleration has revealed itself in the movement of
population from rural areas to urban areas. The relation between
industrialization and urbanization has become influential in experiencing the
quantitative changes first driven by population movement (Giddens, 1997:93).
City leads to the emergence of population which is motivated to achieve
what is extraordinary, innovative and creative and gets differentiated. Cities are
the settings where people can express their thoughts, are not condemned due to
their behaviors and can have any style of clothing (Duru, 2002:97). Cities are
the places where differentiation occurs in terms of population structure, relative
relations ethnicity, religion, cultural, educational level, traditions and
conventions. Even if inherited from medieval ages, the saying that ‘urban air
66
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
liberates people’ is a fact(Bookchin, 1999:139). Urbanity is remarked as an
outcome of relation between production structure and life style. New
technology and production relations result in organization and differentiation in
the cities; this situation creates city-specific behavior stereotypes and gives birth
to urban culture. Urban culture refers to more modern behaviors, values and
lifestyles in cities as a symbol of civilization when compared to rural areas
(Kaypak, 2012:26).
Traditional culture and social structures are resolved in the process of
urbanization and this dissolution also affects the surrounding parts of the cities.
For this reason, urbanization is not deemed to be limited to the urban
borders(Keleş, 1996:31). Hence, the differences among countries and societal
regions will be disposed as the modernization expands from center to rural
areas, thus advancement and development will be achieved for the sake of
humanity. The process of development and industrialization in Europe has
abolished the rural-urban opposition throughout the time, which is well
observed in developing countries currently. The number of people living in
village-type settlement units in Western industrial communities has very small
share in the total population. According to this point of view, main power of
developing countries to develop originates from the cities; they will undergo the
same processes; it is suggested that this is not valid for underdeveloped
countries and city and urbanization cannot be perceived as an independent
variable(Canatan, 1995:89-94).
However, urbanization advances in parallel to industrialization in developing
countries, whereas urbanization is first realized and industrialization is
subsequently achieved in underdeveloped countries. Cities of developing
countries have mutual structure consisting of one section developing around
industrial establishments and one section based on market economy created by
commercial efforts (Keleş,1996:30). Cities are similar to one another in terms of
developmental processes according to their functions and forms. Yet, each city
is unique in any types (Duru, 2002:83). For example, a capital city would be
different from an industrial, commercial, mining, fishery, tourism or university
cities.
Urbanization from the Ottoman Empire to Republic
Ottoman community was agricultural. There were people settled in towns,
villages and urban areas as well as Turkmen nomads dealing with husbandry on
the mountainous regions highly populated with grasslands. Settled public in
cities either surrounded the cities with city walls after Jelali Revolts or receded
towards the mountains. The opposition between the people who lived in the
cities and nomads gave birth to a stereotyped thought of the Ottomans where
education and civilization fuelled the conflict between the urban and nomadic
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
67
life styles and anything related to nomadic life was humiliated on the basis of
‘centrality’ and ‘marginality’. The attitude signifying that ‘anywhere out of the
center is rural’ was shaped at those times. One reminiscent inherited from the
basic discontinuity between the settled public and nomadic public is related to
the fact that people who live in the East deal with husbandry, whereas people
who live in advanced West deal with settled agriculture(Mardin, 2000:125).
Disconnection between Istanbul as administrative center and the places which
are left out of the center has become structured and established. The
surrounding refers to rural areas. Manager and officials have been significantly
influenced by previous successful and city-originated cultures in the cities. The
innovations which were attempted to be imitated in this context have created
dual cultural structure not only politically but culturally along with Tanzimat
Reforms in the Ottoman community: ‘exclusive culture’ in which western
effects were felt deeply and intensively and ‘folk culture’ remolded with Islam
in the rural areas. This situation has continued in the same way through
westernization and modernization process: Republic has taken such dual
structure as a delivery (Canatan, 1995:58). More than 80% of the country lives
in villages and majority part of the population is deprived of schooling (Arıkan,
2008). In this line, new Republic has faced with a problem of building a nation
under conditions of non-industrialized and non-urbanized agricultural
society(Tekeli, 2001:60). Turkish Enlightenment has approached to the cities
with a special interest. While the Republic of Turkey was established as a new
and civilized state through political, social and economic reforms, the cities
were regarded as intermediary units which would enable conversion from rural
community to urban community and disseminate such attitude all over the
country. Urban areas have been assigned to be carrier of enlightenment and
civilization because life styles of cities and people living in the cities become an
indicator of societal development along with their social relations and functions.
Being the most important elements of cultural modernization, nation and living
as a citizen is realized firstly in urban areas. Being the settlement places where
the modernization is born and becomes symbolized, the cities are the places,
along with their attitude of being pioneers, to make mind operate, drive
advancement and direct economic, social and political developments. What
specifies cities is the diversity; it creates more freedom when compared to rural
areas and provides the individuals with a rich cultural diversity which helps
such individual to have access to their own awareness. Urban life foreseen
along with New Republic is a kind of modern communal life where all the
individuals get benefit from human rights freely and improve their material and
moral identities and values.
Modern society is participative. Among the most important elements of
cultural modernization, nation and living as a citizen occurs firstly in urban
68
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
areas. Conditions under which democracy may exist are well-established. These
include ‘national formation, industrialization, urbanization, educational level,
pluralist society, escaping from poverty and sophisticated means of mass
communication’(Kışlalı, 1997:84). Urban areas where industry has developed
are units where civilization is generated and transmitted. Cities and specific
lifestyles of people living in cities become an indicator for developmental level
of that society along with its societal relations and functions and the use of
urban areas.
Analysis of Post-1980 Urbanization in Turkey
Conversions in the global and Turkish economy for the latest twenty five years
significantly affect organization patterns of economic activities in the places.
Named as ‘globalization’ and ‘international expansion’, the process has added
many new dimensions to unequal spatial developmental attitudes and reshaped
work division among settlement centers, and conversions in organizational
patters of economic activities in nation’s geography have significant reflections
on urbanization processes.
Here are the basic determinations pertaining to changes observed in the
urbanization processes in Turkey after 1980:
Policies implemented after 1980 produced significant outcomes of reshaping rural areas. It is seen that the rural areas from where people emigrate
and yet which become subject to increased actual population during the period
between 1950 and 1980 witnessed decrease in actual population after 1980.
Scattered rural settlement structure of Turkey, of which was frequently
complained for the latest 20 years significantly disappeared; this development
resulted in new needs in terms of organizing public services in rural areas.
After 1980, regional inequalities increased quietly in 1980; it was observed
in this process that some cities developed, whereas other became more and
more backward. Great dimensions of regional inequalities put a firm stamp on
urbanization processes, as a result of which, a new concept called ‘migration
from city to city’ became an item of agenda in addition to ‘migration from rural
areas to urban areas’ and population movements to metropolitans. This
development is so striking that the share of ‘migration from city to city’ in total
migrations after 1980 exceeded the share of ‘migration from rural areas to urban
areas’. Finding out the reasons of becoming backwards in cities subject to loss
of population is a requirement for identifying policies for the purposes of
achieving balanced development.
In an attempt to conduct such an analysis, one must first agree that
organization styles of economic activities determine the distribution of capital
and labor all around the geography of the country. Within this framework, it is
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
69
agreed that scientific studies start dealing with the features of capital
accumulation processes for analyzing the conversion of relations between
country-based settlement order and settlement centers. The relation between the
capital accumulation process and settlement order arises out of spatial
reflections created by the relation between capital and labor among several
sections of the capital. Within this framework, it is observed that changes in
relations between the capital and several sections reshape the relations among
settlement centers, whereas investments and employment become dense in some
specific parts of the world and the country (Wallerstein,1999).
Secondly, conversion of settlement order means production and circulation
of commodities and re-distribution of production and consumption as well as redistribution of capital and labor in the setting. This situation arises from the
valid investment criteria for capital groups, sectors and sub-branches
highlighted by accumulation process. In short, it is seen that settlement units
which have the most appropriate conditions for growing capital groups, sectors
and sub-branches grow, while the others become more and more backward.
Thirdly, restructuring process of capital agreed to play key role in analyzing
the conversion of settlement order is analyzed under three main titles, namely,
(i) way of Turkey to get articulation with global economy and sectorial
developments, (ii) relations between the capital and several sections, (iii) role of
state in the economy(Ataay, 2004:5-62). The way of getting articulation with
global economy, class-oriented shaping and changes in the role of the state are
agreed to be mainly important in analyzing the patterns of organizing economic
activities in the geographical location of the country. Within this framework, it
is determined that economic developmental phases determine the settlement
order, status of cities in spatial work division and the processes of urbanization;
in other words, the analysis of conversions in the urbanization processes should
be based on historical framework related to changes in the models of capital
accumulation.
Typologies of ‘accumulation style and regulation way’ created by Alain
Lipietz, one of the most important representatives of Regulation School, in
relation to underdeveloped countries are briefly mentioned.
Primary accumulation regime is a way of international work division in
which agricultural products and raw materials of surrounding countries are
exported and industrial products are imported. The status of Turkey in 1940 and
even pre-1954 period is greatly compliant to this attitude.
First examples of sub-Fordism or importation substitution industrialization
model started to occur in 1930s among some countries including Turkey; yet it
could be expanded around the world only after 1950s. This type of relation is
typically characterized by differentiation of environment’s ‘primary capital
70
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
accumulation’ model of exportation quantitatively as well as the attempt to
make industrial investments substituting the importation of firstly basic
consumables and then sound consumables.
On the other hand, environmental Fordism is different from primary
Taylorism in the sense of having accumulation regime with more internally
centered. Industrialization is mainly based on extension of internal market and
speeder growth of internal market than exportation. In other words, only
underdeveloped countries which have been significantly capitalized and
industrialized and made significant advancements in importation substitution
with a large internal market can have the possibility to go through the phase of
environmental Fordism phase.
Evaluating the development followed by Turkey on the basis of Lipietz,
Tülay Arın states that Turkey followed sub-Fordist accumulation regime up to
1980, whereas it has neither become representative of primary Taylorism nor
got a development reaching to environmental Fordism after 1980. According to
Arın, post-1980 development of Turkey can be described as ‘obstructed subFordism carrying some primary taylorist elements’ (Arın, 1986).
Developmental characteristics determined by Arın became valid until 2000
when the effects of ‘Customs Union Convention’ signed with the EU started to
emerge. Adopting firstly commercial and subsequently financial liberalization
after 1980 and opening its internal market to competition, Turkey has been
locked within the first phases of exportation-oriented industrialization model.
Consequently, as a result of these assessments in relation to economic
development followed by Turkey, three basic phases are defined for the
following in terms of analyzing urbanization processes of Turkey:
Period of 1923-1953: Development based on accumulation of agricultural
and commercial capital (primary accumulation regime),
1. Period of 1954-1980: Development based on industrial capital under
import substitution industrialization (primary accumulation regime +
sub-Fordism),
2. From 1980 to now: Outward-Oriented Growth (primary
accumulation regime + sub-Fordism + primary Taylorism)
While this periodization is defined, the suggestions made by Korkut Boratav
(1989, 1995) and Haldun Gülalp (1987, 1993) in relation to the developmental
phases of Turkish economy are mainly driven without periodization.
Declaring the provinces around the catchment with intensive industry as the
prior locality for development (KÖY - Developmentally prior places) and
establishing organized industry zones (OSB) and supporting the investments
made on KÖYs OSBs through several incentives have become the most
effective precautions in the face of increasing problems such as heavy
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
71
urbanization- and environment-related problems along traditional urbanization
(İstanbul - Kocaeli) line and increased cost of land. Edirne, Tekirdağ, Kırklareli,
Çanakkale, Bilecik and Bolu around Marmara Region, Denizli in Aegean
Region, Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş in the South are predicted to be center
of attraction significantly for the private investments starting in 1970s due to
awarding such cities with KÖY status and establishment of organized industry
zones (Ataay, 2004:5-62). However, application of KÖY is determined to
generate no positive function for directing private investments on eastern parts
of the country.
Being also names as ‘Anatoloian Tigers’ after 1980, cities such as Kayseri,
Konya, Gaziantep, Eskişehir and Denizli made use of opportunities brought by
globalization and succeeded in creating new visions for themselves in economic
perspective as analyzed above. Among these provinces described as ‘New
industrial focus’ or ‘Anatolian tigers’, Denizli, Gaziantep, Konya, Karaman and
Kayseri are the most important ones. Edirne, Uşak, Afyon, Çorum, K.Maraş,
Adıyaman and Malatya are among the other provinces assessed within this
scope. However, while some of these provinces have worth-recognizing
industry, their share in Turkish economy is not so big.
As a matter of fact, people from most of these provinces continue to migrate.
Furthermore, one should avoid considering that sectors which are labor- or raw
material-intensive sectors are gathered around these provinces entirely.
Marmara Region ranks the first in this sense. In addition, as a result of the
comparison of their shares in employment and GDP in 1980 and 1997, it is
observed that the line between İstanbul and Kocaeli increased its share when
compared to Anatolian Tigers.
72
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
Table 1. Shares of the Province in Population and Registered Employment
POPULATION
SHARE (%)
1980
İstanbul 10.60
Ankara
6.38
İzmir
4.42
Konya
3.49
Adana
3.32
Bursa
2.57
Samsun
2.25
Zonguldak 2.13
Manisa
2.11
Balıkesir
1.91
Hatay
1.91
İçel
1.89
Gaziantep 1.81
Erzurum
1.79
Diyarbakır 1.74
Kayseri
1.74
Sivas
1.68
Antalya
1.67
Trabzon
1.63
Aydın
1.46
Denizli
1.35
Urfa
1.35
Kocaeli
1.34
Sakarya
1.23
Eskişehir 1.22
Muğla
0.98
Rize
0.81
Tekirdağ
0.81
1997
İstanbul 14.67
Ankara
6.36
İzmir
4.88
Konya
3.45
Adana
3.39
Bursa
3.09
İçel
2.41
Antalya
2.35
Urfa
2.08
Diyarbakı r 2.04
Gaziantep 1.97
Manisa
1.95
Hatay
1.91
Kocaeli
1.86
Samsun
1.86
Zonguldak 1.65
Balıkesir 1.64
Kayseri
1.55
Aydın
1.42
Erzurum 1.41
Trabzon
1.36
Denizli
1.30
Sakarya
1.16
Sivas
1.12
Eskişehir 1.04
Muğla
1.00
Tekirdağ 0.87
Rize
0.53
SHARE OF EMPLOYMENT WITH
SSK (%)
1980
İstanbul
26.46
Ankara
8.13
İzmir
7.76
Zonguldak 4.23
Bursa
3.64
Adana
3.45
Kocaeli
3.12
Konya
2.27
Eskişehir 1.94
İçel
1.85
Kayseri
1.72
Hatay
1.64
Samsun
1.58
Manisa
1.56
Balıkesir 1.56
Rize
1.51
Antalya
1.34
Aydın
1.29
Sakarya
1.10
Gaziantep 1.07
Sivas
1.04
Trabzon
0.99
Denizli
0.94
Erzurum 0.94
Diyarbakır 0.86
Muğla
0.80
Tekirdağ 0.78
Urfa
0.47
Created from calculation of data under DİE and SSK.
1998
İstanbul
28.62
Ankara
8.73
İzmir
8.35
Bursa
5.25
Antalya
3.04
Kocaeli
2.93
Adana
2.70
Konya
2.22
Zonguldak 1.74
Tekirdağ
1.66
İçel
1.66
Manisa
1.66
Denizli
1.66
Muğla
1.58
Kayseri
1.53
Eskişehir
1.44
Balıkesir
1.43
Aydın
1.42
Gaziantep 1.42
Hatay
1.16
Samsun
1.17
Sakarya
1.11
Trabzon
0.91
Rize
0.65
Diyarbakır 0.60
Sivas
0.56
Urfa
0.47
Erzurum
0.46
RATIO OF
WORKERS TO
ACTIVE
POPULATION
(%)
1990
İstanbul
74.26
Ankara
61.30
İzmir
60.08
Kocaeli
57.30
Bursa
50.90
Eskişehir 48.96
Tekirdağ 44.70
Adana
44.05
Aydın
43.75
Kayseri
43.27
G. Antep 41.54
Kırklareli 40.44
İçel
39.17
Bilecik
37.99
Antalya
37.72
Isparta
37.13
Edirne
35.20
Denizli
33.33
Zonguldak33.12
Muğla
32.75
Erzincan 32.30
Manisa
32.29
Balıkesir 31.75
Çanakkale 1.47
Hakkari
1.38
Hatay
1.33
Elazığ
0.73
Malatya
0.64
SHARE OF THE
PUBLIC ON
EMPLOYMENT
WITH SSK (%)
1998
Van
67.3
Mardin
64.6
Hakkari
63.6
Muş
63.5
Bitlis
61.4
Rize
59.6
Ağrı
58.6
Erzincan
56.9
Siirt
55.5
Artvin
53.1
Erzurum
49.9
Diyarbakır 49.7
Tokat
47.0
Tunceli
46.8
Kars
46.3
Kastamonu 45.0
Sivas
44.7
Zonguldak 43.7
Adıyaman 43.1
Urfa
42.8
Elazığ
42.3
Bingöl
42.1
Çankırı
39.8
G.hane
39.7
Amasya
39.2
Niğde
36.4
Sinop
36.3
Kütahya
35.8
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
73
Table 2. GDP Shares of Provinces
GDP (%)
1979
1997
İst.
21.19 İst.
İzmir
7.34 Ankara
Ankara
7.33 İzmir
Kocaeli 3.51
AGRICULTU
INDUSTRY
RE (%)
(%)
1979
1997
7.4 İçel
3.54 İçel
4.05 Kocaeli 9.48
7.1 Manisa
3.42 Manisa
4.01 İzmir
3.37 Adana
3.63 Zongul. 6.44
Kocaeli 4.8
İzmir
3.39 Bursa
3.5 Ankara 3.25
Bursa
3.21 Adana
3.2 Bursa
Konya
3.02 İçel
2.8 Antalya 3.02
İçel
Antalya
2.27 Konya
2.7 Adana
Urfa
3.08 Bursa
2.73 Ankara 2.83
Samsun 2.57
Hatay
Erzurum2.02 Samsun 2.57
Bursa
Kayseri 1.47
Muğla
1.4 N.şehir 1.68
D.bakır 2.17
Denizli 1.42
Samsun
1.4 Çorum 1.65
Ordu
1.34 Denizli
1.3
Denizli 1.65
Kütahya1.22 Kastam. 1.2 D.bakır 1.65
G.Antep1.22 Kayseri
1.2
Trabzon1.21 D.bakır
1.2 Mardin 1.62
Sakarya 1.04
Ç.kale
Tekirdağ 1.1
0.98 Sakarya
1.1
Erzurum0.98 Trabzon 1.0
T.dağ
0.97 K.Maraş
G.Antep1.65 Afyon
Hatay
Kastam.1.59
Elazığ 1.39
2.17 Hatay 1.34
2.02 Denizli 1.05
Bolu
1.61 Siirt
1.89 T.dağ
1.75
Ordu
G.Antep1.50 Aydın
K.Maraş0.96 Bolu
0.9 Bolu
Muğla
0.94 Urfa
0.9 Kayseri 1.51
Edirne
0.88 Kütahya 0.8
Bolu
0.88 Malatya 0.8 Afyon
Ç.kale
1.52 İst.
Edirne
1.51 Kars
1.49
1.90 İçel
T.dağ
1.27
1.16
1.47 Muğla
0.65
1.57 Aydın
Tokat
1.54 Muğla
1.43
Zongul.1.53 B.kesir
1.42
Samsun 1.41
Kayseri 1.30
G.Antep1.33 Denizli
1.05 Kayseri1.27
0.95
1.61
1.49
1.07 Kocaeli 1.35
Sakarya1.06
1.63
Manisa
Kastam.1.11 Denizli 1.51
0.86 Muğla
G.Antep0.67
1.60 G.Antep1.65
Antalya1.56
G.Antep1.22 Aydın
B.kesir
Kocaeli 2.28
Kastam.1.60 Hatay
Kütahya1.35 Hatay
0.95 Hatay
1.54 Sakarya 0.79
Trabzon1.53
1.0 K.Maraş1.52 Ç.kale
Konya
Trabzon0.86 Samsun 0.96
1.60 B.kesir
Trabzon1.61
1.57
1.09
K.Maraş1.89 Manisa 1.01
Muğla
3.11
2.57 Samsun 1.87
Kütahya1.71 Kırklar. 1.47
Rize
3.52
2.48
1.72 Denizli 2.40
1.4 Kastam 1.68
Adana
2.74 Bursa
1.91 Konya
Aydın
G.Antep 1.5
Konya 2.83
3.59 Adana
7.11
Manisa
1.81 İçel
1.84 B.kesir 2.41 Samsun 1.40
1.52 Aydın
2.92 Antalya 3.53
2.42 Manisa 2.82
Kars
E.şehir 1.53
7.92 İzmir
Bursa
2.51
1.5
B.kesir
8.43 İzmir
5.02
1.93 İçel
1.89 Niğde
Antalya 1.61
27.09
11.31 Ankara10.38 Ankara 8.98
B.kesir
1.6 Niğde
2.52
Adana
1997
24.90 İst.
3.86 Zongul. 2.95
2.66 Kayseri 1.78
Zongul. 1.6
Aydın
İçel
Bursa
1979
27.42 İst.
5.05 Ankara 5.13
3.28 Ankara 5.03
2.2
Manisa
Hatay
Adana
K.eli
9.40 İzmir
2.72 Konya
Samsun1.89
1.80 Hatay
Antalya 3.53
3.04 İzmir
30.25 İst.
2.4 B.kesir 2.66 Aydın
Manisa 1.99
B.kesir
1997
6.22 İst.
Adana
Zongul. 2.81
1979
4.97 Konya
23.2 Konya
SERVICES (%)
1.26
Kastam.1.23
Trabzon1.22 Zongul. 1.21
K.Maraş1.08 D.bakır 1.14
Kütahy 1.05
Trabzon1.05
Malatya0.87 Sakarya 1.03
Sakarya 0.94
Kayseri 0.91
K.Maraş0.87 Ç.kale
0.58 D.bakır 0.78
1.02 T.dağ
0.90
1.00 Çorum 0.82
0.77 Muğla
0.96 Bolu
1.32 Isparta
0.51 Bolu
0.74 Afyon
0.92
Erzurum0.78
0.83 Ç.kale
0.49 Denizli
0.72 Edirne 0.91
K.Maraş0.78
1.35 Antalya 0.55
Erzurum0.75 Kırklar. 0.37
Ç.kale
Sivas
Bilecik
0.71
Erzurum0.91 Ç.kale
0.79
0.73
74
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
Table 3. Comparing Developed Provinces in Terms of Several Indicators
EMPLOYMENT SHARES IN
ADDED VALUE SHARES IN
MANUFACTURING
SHARES OF PEOPLE WITH
MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY (%)
SSK IN EMPLOYMENT
INDUSTRY (%)
1983
1996
1983
1996
1980
1998
İLLER
İstanbul
27.52
26.50
28.94
29.72
26.46
28.62
Kocaeli
18.58
12.97
6.53
4.64
3.12
2.93
Bursa
4.77
6.48
5.15
7.93
3.64
5.25
Tekirdağ
1.21
2.49
1.54
3.13
0.78
1.66
Kırklareli
0.58
1.45
0.58
1.01
0.57
0.67
Sakarya
0.69
1.20
1.34
1.12
1.10
1.11
Bilecik
0.35
1.19
0.59
1.03
0.36
0.47
Eskişehir
0.84
1.40
1.80
1.58
1.94
1.44
Balıkesir
0.86
1.03
1.05
1.14
1.56
1.43
Çanakkale
0.54
0.79
0.60
0.43
0.60
0.66
11.90
13.87
9.18
10.13
7.76
8.35
Manisa
0.81
1.75
1.29
1.91
1.56
1.66
TOTAL
68.65
71.12
58.59
63.77
49.45
54.25
Edirne
0.72
0.43
0.92
0.82
0.67
0.51
Denizli
0.53
1.50
0.99
2.75
0.94
1.66
Afyon
0.26
0.25
0.65
0.65
0.70
0.65
Uşak
0.08
0.14
0.30
0.58
0.33
0.45
G.Antep
0.48
0.85
0.92
2.03
1.07
1.42
K.Maraş
0.07
0.35
0.24
0.64
0.73
0.69
Adıyaman
0.09
0.06
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.28
Konya
1.41
1.41
2.51
2.05
2.27
2.22
Kayseri
0.99
1.41
1.74
2.16
1.72
1.53
Malatya
1.23
0.35
0.87
0.72
0.95
0.65
Çorum
0.16
0.25
0.22
0.48
0.44
0.53
TOTAL
6.02
7.00
9.54
13.12
10.01
10.59
İzmir
Created from calculation of data under DİE and SSK.
Unplanned Urbanization and Migrations
As it is mentioned earlier, urbanization in developed countries advances in
parallel to industrialization, whereas urbanization outrides industrialization in
developing countries, which results in unplanned urbanization. Because post1980 development of Turkey is ‘obstructed Fordism’, migrants have become the
most important factor of urbanization. Along with the migrants, the population
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
75
has gradually increased. However, the act of population to live in urban areas
failed to bring about exhibiting urban behaviors, in other words, urbanity.
Emerging as an important societal problem, this situation also affects political
processes because failure to have urban identity drives people to have nonurban identities such as ethnical and religious identities. This situation activates
identity politics. Therefore, urban requirements and expectations of urban
people are replaced with citizenship (being from the same town in this sense)
and ethnical identities in identifying politic-related behaviors.
Cities and Migrations
The process of migration is carried out due to many factors other than
industrialization and economic development. Modern history of Turkey can be
assessed as the history of migrations in one sense. No any other societal
concepts could directly or indirectly affect Turkish society as much as internal
and foreign migrations throughout Republic history. Migration can be regarded
as a factor making contributions to societal and economic values as well as an
outcome of societal and economic transformations(İçduygu, 1999a: 250)
(İçduygu,1999b: 269). Commencing in 1950s in Turkey, the process of societal
and economic development caused Turkey to experience very speed rate of
migration and thus industrialization process. While only around 20% of the
population lived in the urban areas in 1950, this rate has recently reached up to
75%. Particularly late 1970s witnessed a very speed rate of migration.
According to the records of Turkish Statistical Institution, population of
Turkey consists of 73.722.988 as of December 31, 2010. While 76,3% of the
population (56.222.356 persons) resides in the centers of provinces and
counties, 23,7% (17.500.632 persons) resides in towns and villages. İstanbul
ranks the first with the rate of 100 % in terms of the population living in the
centers of provinces and counties, whereas Ardahan ranks the last with the rate
of 32%. 18% (13.255.685 persons) of the total population resides in İstanbul.
This is followed by Ankara with the rate of 6,5% (4.771.716 persons), İzmir
with the rate of 5,4% (3.948.848 persons), Bursa with the rate of 3,5%
(2.605.495 persons) and Adana with the rate of 2,8% (2.085.225 persons)
(http://www.tuik.gov.tr, 2011).
While 1.563.410 people residing in Ankara are registered with the
population records of Ankara, only 2.167.873 of those residing in İstanbul are
registered with the population records of İstanbul (Görmez, 2012:2). In other
words, approximately 40% of people living in Ankara and 17% of people living
in İstanbul are native to the cities where they live. Individuals who immigrate to
the cities will become urban to the extent which they can make use of
opportunities provided by the cities in economic and societal settings of the
cities. On the other hand, even people who were born in big cities of Turkey
76
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
cannot feel being urban. For example, approximately half of the people who
were born in urban settings of Ankara feel being from another city or village.
This pattern is one of the significant factors affecting the shaping process of
urban politics.
It takes at least 40 – 50 years for an individual to be converted from ‘rural
person’ into an ‘urban person’ whose societal and economic setting covers only
cities under Turkish conditions (Kartal, 1982: 141). It is necessary for a person
to have at least three generations lived in the city using urban facilities in order
to become urbanized.
The masses who immigrated to the cities earlier whom we describe as the
first generation settled down in the squatter houses started to get richer and
richer thanks to high unearned monies emerging when the location of squatter
houses got changed after a while. Those who settled down in such places of the
cities started to supply housing for the next immigrants thanks to the earnings
acquired as per the pardons for zoning particularly after 1980. After a while, it
became a system, in one sense, in which poverty was transferred to later-comers
of the cities. This process of squatting has been supported by increasing
solidarity webs and community-like relation on the basis of citizenship (being
from the same town) and cultural differentiation; hence, the masses immigrating
to the cities have existed in a system of different relations since the very
beginning (Işık and Pınarcıoğlu, 1999:49). Failure of Turkish cities to get
immigrants oriented to the urban areas prevents the formation of comprehensive
and inclusive urban identity.
Urbanization, Ghettoization and Unearned Money Politics
Metropolitan cities of Turkey have very different identity and cultural codes.
While failure of cities to contain city-dwellers caused mainly the formation of
some marginal groups, ethnicity, regional groups or other identities take
precedence over the remaining identities in some communities and societies
which are particularly dragged to the outside of the system nowadays. The
number of unions sustaining the communal relations in the region of squatter
houses increases every day and such unions become the places of ‘re-clanning’
rather than participation in urban activities(Görmez, 2012: 3)The individuals
who are isolated from the urban life or society and fail to be liberated find
themselves with non-urban identities or tendency of becoming communal.
Individuals keep their identities alive within ethnical aggregates or sometimes
on the basis of being from the same town for the purposes of not losing rural
communal culture and identity to which they are strictly adjacent in the city;
hence they think that they have defense mechanism. As long as primary
relations (family, relatives and the same-citizens and etc.) are maintained, they
sustain rural traditions and cultural values in the cities(Parlak,2008:68).
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
77
Besides the squatter houses after 1980s, sub-cities started to emerge as
planned according to middle and higher classes. It is reported that the
emergence of such sub-cities which is divided by means of escaping, capital
saving representing the consumption, education, professional specialization and
income level can be explained by the demand of middle classes as the
transmitter of global consumption culture or new professionals created
throughout the globalization process for housing and lifestyle. Although new
settlement places occupied by the high and middle classes who attempt to
escape from the center of cities, particularly İstanbul are homogeneous within
itself, it caused the occurrence of different life styles which are clear cut from
one another and the diversity among high and middle classes was transformed
into fragmentation in terms of both spatial and cultural aspects in
1990s(Öncü,1999:31).
The case of Anatolian tigers is not different from İstanbul. Being regarded as
one of the most important Anatolian tigers, Kayseri is the most unique example
in terms of its administrative tradition, social structure and economic dynamics.
Economic perspective and urbanization model employed by us can be checked
on Kayseri. Limited and scant means in the past were replaced by opportunities
and potentialities in different sectors in Kayseri. In this line, development which
is fired through capital accumulation of the city is manifested itself on spatial
structuring inevitably. Despite having well-established history and cultural
structure, Kayseri has exhibited an extremely negative scene in terms of
preserving urban history and cultural assets when compared to other cities in
Turkey. Despite quiet rich history and cultural accumulation, Kayseri appearing
to be established later experienced the greatest destruction when urban site area
registered as 110 hectares in 110 was decreased to 8,8 hectares as per the
resolution passed by High Council of Immovable Cultural and Natural
Properties numbered 250 and dated 27.04.1984 (Bakır,2009:62).
Furthermore, while such factors give ways to new channels for the extension
of capital, they fail to generate the improvement expected in livability
conditions. Thus, having created a problematic relation between the desire for
improvement and new opportunities and current local cultural qualities, Kayseri
is observed to preserve historic fabric of the city along with reflecting spatial
projections of a mainly conservative structuring as well as being an experience
fired by global interactions and sacrificed for the sake of unearned money.
Identity Politics
It is evident that immigration from rural to urban areas causes problems related
to adapting immigrants to cities. However, process of adaptation in Turkey
deepened the problems due to urban structures and characteristics of the
migration. Those who fail to have urban identities wrap themselves with non-
78
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
urban identities such as ethnical and religious identities. There are two factors
resulting in this outcome. One of them is the incapacity of current urban
institutions to relieve the load imposed by migration onto the cities. Limited
powers and facilities entrusted to local governments are among the most
important factors for this situation. Second is closely related to the nature of
immigrants. For this, the agricultural structure and ethnical identities of the
immigrants play important role in failure to orient and creation of different
identities (Erder, 2009:197).
Due to all these factors, Turkey has made identity politics effective in the
cities like all around the country. What is determinant in identity politics is the
attempt of the individuals and societies to determine political attitude and
behavior on the basis of identity. Rather than the needs of both the cities and
urbanized people or needs of societal groups, clanning, citizenship,
communities and ethnical identities have become more determinative in
emergence of behaviors related to politics. While organization was first carried
out for protecting the interests of bourgeois class in urban governments in the
West Europe, it subsequently was converted into maximizing the benefits of
different sections of the society. As it is seen, Turkish cities and urban
management have evolved quite different from those in the west. Naturally,
financial social structure of Turkey has also impact on the creation of this
structure.
While ‘urban environment liberated people’ in the sense of medieval cities,
urban environment of Turkey under the control of the center didn’t liberate
human unfortunately. The cities which are bound to be the places of pluralism
and freedom have become settings for sharing unearned income and interests
throughout the process of modernity. This situation has also resulted greatly
from the withdrawal of the state from intervening into the difference among the
regions in terms of development after 1980.
We have already mentioned that the change experienced in the beginning of
1980s affected the urban politics partially in the cities of Turkey. If we look
closely, some actors holding important offices in the central politics can be
observed to have started dealing with politics after this period. This is vastly
resulted from the increased unearned income of the cities.
On the other hand, city-dwellers have become more active in terms of
participating in urban management when compared to older times. However, it
is still possible to argue that identity politics which is dominant all over the
country couldn’t be transformed into service politics.
Even if it became obsolete after 2002, making some reforms on local
governments and reinforcing the locality will add a new dimension to urban
politics in Turkey. Within this framework, while politics hasn’t undergone to
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
79
any change during sharing of urban unearned income, locally distinguished
people started to get benefits from the urban unearned income instead of center.
New patronage relations hiding behind ethnical and citizenship-related relations
in the cities started to emerge. For now, it is considered that it will take a very
long time for unearned money-oriented urban politics arising out of identity
politics to restore itself to its own channel.
Conclusion
An attempt has been made to compact the process containing demolishing
feudality in the West and a period of 400 years along with Industrial Revolution
into one century in Turkey, and the practitioner of this process becomes the
state rather than bourgeois because we took the delivery of non-class state from
the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, neither industrialization nor development and
conservatism can be considered in Turkey in the sense of West fully. It is
inevitable that general economic, societal and political structure of the country
is determinant in shaping the urban politics. Subsequently, it is found out that
the problems arising out of speed immigration in Turkey and identity politics
which is partially parallel to this are dominant in the cities. In addition,
problematic relations between the central governments and local governments
are observed to drive the urban politics out of its channel. Within this
framework, the obligation for urban politics to become democratized has
emerged.
Establishment and institutionalization of democracy at national level is an
obligation of first priority. For this, it is vital that many regulations should be
made, mainly in relation to law on election and political parties. Subsequently,
it is necessary to complete the definition of public management reform which is
left uncompleted and to re-regulate the relations between center and locality.
Within this framework, it is necessary to transfer all the local-related services to
local governments, enhancing their own income resources of the local
administration and escaping them from the dependency on the center. Within
this framework, it is obligatory to revise the regulations related to control of
local governments by the center and to upgrade the relations to the level of
coordination. It is necessary to open up new ways to increase the participation
of urban community in urban management in the sense of laws related to local
managements and to create the awareness of citizenship. Yet, more important
than this, it is necessary for urban managements to create institutions which
integrate or orient new urban-dwellers to the cities. It is of high priority to make
new urban-dwellers have sufficient income to make use of opportunities
provided by cities. Meeting the need of the urbanized people for housing is a
process which accelerates the orienting. Increased and disseminated educational
facilities and making urban institutions such as kindergarten and nursery homes
80
Turkish Public Administration Annual, Vol. 41-42, 2015-2016, p. 57-81.
and etc. available for the use by everybody and increased socio-cultural
facilities will increase awareness of being urbanized.
References
Arıkan, Y. (2008), “Türk Aydınlanmasının 85’inci Yıl Dönümü: 29 Ekim 1923’ten 29
Ekim 2008’e”, http://www.mevzuatbankasi.com/portal/(01.05.2016)
Ataay, F. (2004), “Türkiye’de Kentsel ve Bölgesel Gelişme Dinamikleri (1923-2000)”,
Editör: Muharrem Güneş, Küreselleşme Kıskacında Kent ve Politika içinde, s. 5-62,
Detay Yayınları, Ankara.
Bakır, N. Y. (2009), “Kayseri Sit Alanının Planlı Değişimi”, TOL Mimarlık Kültürü
Dergisi, Mimarlar Odası Kayseri Şubesi Yayını, 7(7): p. 62.
Benevolo, L. (1995), Avrupa Tarihinde Kentler, (Çev. N. Nirven), Afa Yayıncılık,
İstanbul;
Bookchin, M. (1999), Kentsiz Kentleşme,(Çev. B.Uzyalçın), Ayrıntı Yayını, İstanbul.
p.139.
Canatan, K.(1995), Bir Değişim Süreci Olarak Modernleşme, İnsan Yayınları, İstanbul.
p. 89-90.
Childe, G. (1983), Tarihte Neler Oldu, Alan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, p. 223.
Duru, B. ve Alkan, A. (2002), 20. Yüzyıl Kenti, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara, p.83.
Erder, S. (2009), “Nerelisin Hemşerim?”, İstanbul: Küresel ile Yerel Arasında, Haz. Ç.
Keyder, Metis Yayınları, İstanbul, p.197.
Erkan, R. (2010), Kentleşme ve Sosyal Değişme, Bilimadamı Yayınları, Ankara, p.4056.
Erten, M.(1999), Nasıl Bir Yerel Yönetim, Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi, İstanbul. p. 30.
Giddens, A.(1997), Sosyoloji Eleştirel Yaklaşım, 4.Baskı, (Çev. R. Esengün ve İ.
Öğretir), Birey Yayıncılık, İstanbul, p.93.
Görmez, K.(2012) “Türkiye’de Kent-Siyaset Ilişkisine Dair Gözlemler”, Yerel
Politkalar Dergisi, Cilt1 Sayı 1, Nisan 2012.
Hatt, P. K. ve Reiss, A. J. (2002) Kentsel Yerleşmelerin Tarihi, 20. Yüzyıl Kenti, Der. ve
Çev. B. Duru, ve A. Alkan, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara, p. 29.
Holton, Robert J., (1999), Kentler, Kapitalizm ve Uygarlık, (Çev. R. Keleş), İmge
Kitabevi, Ankara.
http://www.tuik.gov.tr, 2011
İçduygu, A. ve Sirkeci, İ. (1999a), “Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye’sinde Göç
Hareketleri”, 75 Yılda Köylerden Şehirlere, Ed. O.Baydar, Türkiye İş Bankası
Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, p.250.
İçduygu, A. ve Sirkeci, İ. (1999b), “Bir Ülke, Bir Aile ve Birçok Göç: Cumhuriyet
Döneminde Bir Toplumsal Dönüşüm Örneği”, Ed., O. Baydar, 75 Yılda Köylerden
Şehirlere, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, p.269.
İnsel, A. (1991), Siyasal Süreç Olarak İktisadi Kalkınma, Birikim, İstanbul, Birikim
Yayınları, Sayı 21, Ocak 1991,p.18-19.
Urbanization Process: The Problem of Non-Urbanizing
81
Kartal, K. (1982) “Kentleşme Sürecinde Toplumsal Değişme Odağı Olarak Ankara”,
Kentsel Bütünleşme içinde, Yay. Haz. E. Türköz, Türkiye Gelişme Araştırmaları
Vakfı Yayını, Yayın No:4, Ankara, p. 123-163.
Kaypak, Ş.(2012), Kent Sosyolojisi, Basılmış Ders Notları, MKÜ, Antakya, p.26.
Keleş, R.(1996), Kentleşme Politikası, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara. p.31.
Keleş, R.(1998), Kentbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü, İmge Yayını, Ankara.
Keleş, R.(2012), Yerinden Yönetim ve Siyaset, 8th Ed. Cem Yayınevi, İstanbul.
Keleş, R.(2014), Kentleşme Politikası, 15th Ed., İmge Kitabevi, Ankara. p 19-20.
Keleş, R. (2015), Kentleşme Politikası, 14th Ed.,İmge Kitabevi, Ankara. p.30.
Kışlalı, A.T.(1997), “Cumhuriyet ve Demokrasi”, Bir Türkün Ölümü, Ümit Yayıncılık,
p.84.
Kongar, E.(2003), 21.Yüzyılda Türkiye: 2000’li Yıllarda Türkiye’nin Toplumsal Yapısı,
32. Basım, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul, p.521.
Lerner, D. (1964) The Passing Of Traditional Society: Modernizing The Middle East,
New York, Free Press, p. 49-71.
Mardin, Ş.(2000), “Türk Siyasasını Açıklayabilecek Bir Anahtar; Merkez-Çevre
İlişkileri”, (Çev. Ş. Gönen), Türkiye’de Siyaset: Süreklilik ve Değişim, (Der. E.
Kalaycıoğlu ve A. Y. Sarıbay), Der Yayınları, İstanbul, p.125.
Öncü, A. (1999), “‘İdealinizdeki Ev’ Mitolojisi Kültürel Sınırları Aşarak İstanbul’a
Ulaştı”, Birikim, Sayı:123, p.31
Parlak, B. (2008), “Kent Kültürü ve Kentlilik Bilinci Geliştirme Projesi: Bursa
Büyükşehir Örneği”, Dönüşen Kentler ve Değişen Yerel Yönetimler, Ed. F. N. GençA. Yılmaz-H. Özgür, Ankara, Gazi Kitabevi Yay., s.68.
Pınarcıoğlu M. ve Işık, O. (1999), Sulatanbeyli Üzerine Notlar. "Birikim", (1999), s.4752.
Talas, C.(1981) Toplumsal Politikaya Giriş, S Yayınları, Ankara, p. 29.
Tekeli, İ.(2001), Modernite Aşılırken Kent Planlaması, İmge Kitabevi Yayını, Ankara,
p.60.
Topal, A. K. (2004), “Kavramsal Olarak Kent Nedir ve Türkiye’de Kent
Neresidir”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), İzmir.
Toprak, Z.(2001), Kent Yönetimi ve Politikası, Anadolu Matbaacılık, İzmir.
Touraine, A. (1997), Modernliğin Eleştirisi, (Çev. H. Tufan), İstanbul, Yky Yayınları.
Türkay, M.“Gelişme: Felsefi Ve Entelektüel Kökenler”, T. İşgüden, F. Ercan, M.
Türkay (Ed.), Gelişme İktisadı, Kuram, Eleştiri, Yorum, İstanbul, Beta Basın Yayım
Dağıtım,1995.p.94.
Uğurlu, Ö. (2010), Kentlerin Tarihsel Gelişimi, (Ed. Ö. Uğurlu, N.Ş.Pınarcıoğlu ve A.
Kanbak). Türkiye Perspektifinden Kent Sosyolojisi Çalışmaları, Örgün Yayınevi,
İstanbul,s. 60-61.
Wallerstein, I. (1999), Sosyal Bilimleri Düşünmemek, (Çev. T.Doğan) ,İstanbul.
Yılmaz, N.(2004), Farklılaştıran ve Ayrıştıran Bir Mekanizma Olarak Kentleşme,
Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, Sayı: 48, p. 250-267.