Neoliberal urbanisation dynamics of Istanbul: Public interest and urban regime analysis

Neo-liberalism, described as the period of reconstruction after the recession of global economy leading to a crisis in late 1970s, has started to take effect in Turkey in early 1980s, as it is all over the world. The implementation of neoliberal policies has brought an ongoing conversion and transition in all fields of life, from state and city governance structures to urbanization and planning policies and approaches, from city space to social structures. Regarding the future of the urban planning profession, it is crucial to understand the transformations occurred during the neo-liberal period, on various structures related to the urban development. Since Second World War in Western World, real estate market was regulated through urban planning, whose legitimization is based on the idea of limiting the private ownership rights to maintain public interest. Public interest has always been a debatable concept for philosophers and political science theoreticians. Definition of public interest is ambiguous due to differing views about political, ethical and ideological dimensions of it. Even so, it is not possible to ignore the concept. Urban planning, by its nature, is a public service for the benefit of the society. Therefore, public interest is considered as a practical tool to evaluate and legitimize the planning decisions. It is an ethical reference point to maintain equity and justice in urban interventions. Controversy around the concept of public interest in planning practice continue regarding urban interventions shaped by neoliberal economy. The difference between the public interest perceptions of decision makers, practitioners and users forms the basis of the debate. In today's world, capitalist cities are not only the spaces of commodification but also, they are the object of it. In terms of capital, urban space is not only the place where relations of production, circulation and consumption take place, but also bearer of exchange value. Because of the discrepancies between use and exchange values of urban space, neoliberal urban policies result in contradictions and conflicts in all cities around the world. Since 1980s, it has been frequently spoke out particularly by critical thinkers, that the planning act has been discredited with the effect of neo-liberal policies, that the practices tending to ignore the public interest have risen and that the profession field has been reduced. Therefore, public interest, as a principle and basis of urban planning, became a controversial issue considering urban interventions. Management structures are complex in urban planning, as it is in many other fields. Studies for better understanding of national and local political processes have been conducted by researchers of different school of thoughts since 1960s. Urban Regime Theory, which was developed in 1980s and which is based on previous theories, has become one of the most frequently referenced theories explaining the mechanisms of urban politics. Urban Regime Analysis aims to define general political processes through analyzing the behavior of local actors on urban decision making processes. In this respect, urban regime analysis is considered as an appropriate method to examine the controversial urban interventions in terms of public interest. Within this framework, this thesis is a critical reading of the "planning" as a public action whose primary concern should be (or assumed to be) to maintain public interest. Framed by the public interest perspective, this study examines the behaviors of the actors of the urban interventions. The conceptual framework of the study consists of two main components: "public interest" and "urban regime analysis". In accordance with urban regime analysis, four components of local governance model – agenda setting, coalition building, resource mobilization and devising schemes of cooperation- are incorporated into the research. 1980 is defined as the breaking point in transition to neoliberal political economy. Owing to 24 January 1980 Regulations, Istanbul as the most industrialized city of Turkey, became subjected to the new urban practices under the policies shaped by Turkey's economic transformation. Since then, Istanbul has gradually become the major focus for capital owners and central government because of its high number of voters compared to the other cities, economic dominance and pioneering role in the integration to global capital. Therefore, Istanbul continues to be the arena of differing interests resulting in changing controversial urban practices. What is aimed in this study is to understand the changes in urban political processes in Istanbul since 1980 until present day, through historically analyzing controversial urban interventions with the help of urban regime analysis. The study has six main chapters. The first chapter is the introduction, consisting of the research problematic and questions, methods and the scope of work. In second chapter, neoliberal processes of capitalism, including transformations in the structure of state, urbanism and urban planning policies and urban governance together with the impacts of these on space and society has been defined. In addition to these, in this chapter, public interest concept in urban planning and urban regime theory and analysis clarified in order to piece together the theoretical framework of the research. Third chapter, includes the assessment of neoliberal urban policies in Turkey and urban interventions in İstanbul through the perspective of public interest since 1980s. Planning legislations and amendments and controversial urban interventions operated by public and private sector leading to natural, cultural and social hazards, which are largely covered in media and sued for public interest, are reviewed. In fourth chapter, Turkish general elections and municipal elections in İstanbul is examined, to differentiate the structure of political periods in the framework of urban regime theory. The fifth chapter is the presentation of original research. The data found throughout the study and preliminary findings demonstrated the importance of Beyoğlu City Center in terms of urban interventions. Thus, analysis of the urban regime changes about Beyoğlu case, forms the basis of the study. By reviewing and interpreting documents and reports on election periods and election results, it has been concluded that Istanbul city management can be examined in 3 major periods since 1980. The periods are defined as 1980-1990,1990-2000 and period after 2000. The period after 2000 divided into two, because of the unique characteristics of the legal and institutional changes and urban interventions after 2010, the period in which controversial policies and projects are presented and implemented. Accordingly, these four controversial urban intervention processes, Park Hotel, Cercle d'Orient, Tarlabaşı Kentsel Yenileme (Tarlabaşı Urban Renewal) and Taksim Meydanı Yayalaştırma ve Topçu Kışlası (Taksim Square Pedestrianization and Topçu Kışlası) have been selected chronologically for each period. In this chapter given urban intervention processes are examined in the context of local governance model's constituents which are agenda setting, coalition building, resource mobilization and devising schemes of cooperation. In addition to this, the concept of public interest is elaborated based on urban interventions. The last chapter, which is the conclusion, includes the results derived from the findings of the original research. According to the results, İstanbul is the primary area of interest and implementation of urban policies and practices for all central governments in each period. Findings show that, the role of the central governments is primary in each component of the local governance model in İstanbul. It is not possible to speak of an urban regime without central government actors, which makes it sensitive to the changes in the government. 1980s represents the rise of a neoliberal urban regime established after the coup d'état. 1990s is a period of conflict and development, in which this new urban regime is questioned and new approaches are mapped out. Finally, after the transition period of 1990s, through the assertive role of central government, neoliberal urban regime is institutionalized after 2000.