Formation of Planning Culture in the Dilemma of Deinstitutionalization and Excessive Institutionalization

Öz

In parallel with political culture, different cultural contexts experience economic, political, and social global restructuring processes differently. Particularly in the field of planning, cultural factors are reflected through institutional structures, prevailing codes, actors, and operational traditions that have evolved over time, becoming written and unwritten practice traditions. These elements accumulate to create an experiential domain, giving rise to unique planning cultures shaped by factors such as changing actors and roles, power relationships, behaviors, representation, and policy norms over time. The research, therefore, primarily examines planning practices that create specific conditions within the political-cultural context and planning practices that emerge as a tool in the spiral of institutionalization-excessive institutionalization. It begins with reviewing studies on planning and culture, followed by a detailing in Othengrafen's "Planning Culture" model. Subsequently, it explores the historical development Turkey’s planning system evolving to a direct intervention tool in urban space by the state. It also addresses the redistribution processes of institutionalized power indicating deinstitutionalization, alongside power conflicts among different levels of governance. This study highlights the multifaceted nature of planning culture and its relationship with broader socio-political transformations. It underscores the need to move beyond the limitations of specific models of research limited to specific geography and rather establish a more universal foundation for studies on the relationship between planning and culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Planning culture
• planning practice
• representation of planning
• the institutionalization of planning

Kurumsuzlaştırma – Aşırı Kurumsallaşma Sarmalında Planlama Kültürünün Oluşumu

Öz

Siyasal kültüre paralel olarak farklı kültürel bağlamlar ekonomik, siyasal ve toplumsal küresel yeniden yapılanma süreçlerini farklı şekilde yaşamaktadır. Özellikle planlama alanında kültürel faktörler, zamanla gelişerek yazılı ve yazılı olmayan uygulama gelenekleri haline gelen kurumsal yapılar, hakim kodlar, aktörler ve operasyonel gelenekler aracılığıyla yansıtılmaktadır. Zaman içinde bu unsurlar birbiri üzerine biriken bir tecrübe alanı oluştururken, farklılaşan aktörler ve rolleri, güç ilişkileri, davranışlar, temsil ve politika normları gibi faktörler tarafından şekillendirilen benzersiz planlama kültürlerine de yol açar. Araştırma, politik-kültürel bağlam içinde özgün koşullar oluşturan planlama uygulamalarını kurumsallaşma- aşırı kurumsallaşma sarmalında bir araç olarak ortaya çıkan planlama uygulamaları ile öncelikle genel hatlarıyla planlama ve kültür üzerine yapılan çalışmalar üzerinden, detayda ise Otherngrafen’in ‘Planlama Kültürü’ modeli üzerinden incelemektedir. Ardından, devlet eliyle kentsel mekâna müdahalenin doğrudan aracı olarak planlamanın Türkiye’deki tarihsel gelişimi, kurumsallaşan gücün kurumsuzlaşmaya işaret eden yeniden dağıtımı süreçlerini, farklı yönetim düzeyleri arasında yaşanan kurumsallaştırılmış güç çatışmaları eşliğinde ortaya koyacaktır. Çalışma ortaya çıkan değerlendirme sonuçları ile Türkiye planlama pratiğinin birikimli tecrübeleri ile gelişerek oluşturduğu kendine has planlama kültürünün oluşumu üzerinden planlama kültürünün çok yönlü doğasını ve daha geniş toplumsal-siyasi dönüşümlerle olan ilişkisini ortaya koyarak, belirli bir coğrafyanin ürünü kısıtlılığında kalan planlama ve kültür ilişkisine yönelik çalışmaların daha evrensel bir zemine oturtulması gerekliliği vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Planlama kültürü
• planlama pratiği
• planlamanın temsili
• planlamanın kurumsallığı

Destekleyen Kurum

Çalışmayı destekleyen bir kurum yoktur.

Etik Beyan

Etik anlamda beyan edecek bir husus yoktur.

Kaynakça

1. Abram, S. (2011). Culture and Planning. . London: Routledge.
2. Balaban, O. (2008). Capital accumulation, the state and the production of built environment: the case of Turkey. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. ODTÜ, Ankara
3. Balaban, O. (2012). 'The negative effects of construction boom on urban planning and environment in Turkey: Unraveling the role of the public sector', Habitat International, 36(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.05.003
4. Bolan, R. S. (1969). Community decision behavior: The culture of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(5), 301-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977240
5. Booth, P. (2005). The nature of difference: Traditions of law and government and their effects on planning in Britain and France. B. Sanyal (Der.), Comparative planning cultures, içinde (ss. 59-284). London: Routledge.
6. Booth, P. (2011). Culture, planning and path dependence: Some reflections on the problems of comparison. Town Planning Review, 82(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2011.4
7. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism.’. In N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Der.), Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe içinde (ss. 1–32). Oxford: Blackwell.
8. Chilla, T., & Schulz, C. (2015). Spatial Development in Luxembourg: Mimetic Evolution or Emergence of a New Planning Culture? European Planning Studies, 23(3), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.875129

9. Douglass, M., & Friedmann, J. (Eds.). (1998). Cities for citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age. John Wiley & Son Limited.
10. Eraydin, A., Taşan-Kok, T. (2013). Introduction: Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning. In: Eraydin, A., Taşan-Kok, T. (Der.), Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning içinde (ss. 1-16). GeoJournal Library, vol 106. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5476-8_1
11. Erder, S. & Incioglu, N. (2013). The emergence of local politics in Turkey. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Press.
12. Ersoy, M. (2011). Yerelden ulusala merkezileşerek aynılaşan planlama anlayışı. Merkezi Yönetim Yerel Yönetim İlişkileri: Özerklik. Türk Belediyeler Birliği, 5, 213-229. 22.05.2023 tarihinde https://www.tbb.gov.tr/online/yayinlar/yerel_yonetimler_sempozyumu/index.html#p=556 adresinden erişildi.
13. Faludi, A. (2005). The Netherlands: A culture with a soft spot for planning. B. Sanyal (Der.), Comparative planning cultures, içinde (ss. 285–307) London: Routledge.
14. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. London: University of California Press.
15. Friedmann, J. (1989). Planning in the public domain: Discourse and praxis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 8(2), 128–130.
16. Friedmann, J. (1998) Planning theory revisited, European Planning Studies, 6:3, 245-253,
17. Friedmann, J. (2005). Planning cultures in transition. B. Sanyal (Der.), Comparative planning cultures, içinde (ss. 29–44). London: Routledge.
18. Friedmann, J. (2012). Varieties of Planning Experience: Toward a Globalized Planning Culture? R. Crane & R. Weber (Der.), The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, içinde (ss. 92-94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books Publishers.
20. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Gunder, M. (2003) 'Passionate planning for the others' desire: an agonistic response to the dark side of planning', Progress in Planning, 60(3), pp. 235-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00115-0
22. Healey, P. (1996) 'The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation', Environment and planning B, 23, pp. 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1068/b230217
23. Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402
24. Innes, J.E. (1995) 'Planning theory's emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice', Journal of planning education and research, 14(3), pp. 183-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400307
25. Kahraman, T. (2013). Kent hukukunun yeni yüzü: düzenleyici devletten seçkinleştirici devlete. A. Çavdar & P. Tan (Der.), İstanbul: müstesna şehrin istisna hali içinde, (ss. 17-48) İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
26. Kayasü, S. (2002). Yeni Planlama Paradigması ve Kurumsallaşma Süreçleri Üzerine. Planlama Dergisi, 4: 52-54.
27. Keskinok, H. Ç. (2006). Kentleşme Siyasaları, Kaynak Yayınları. İstanbul.
28. Keyder, C. & Oncu, A. (1994) 'Globalization of a Third-World Metropolis: Istanbul in the 1980's', Review, 17(3), pp. 383-421.
29. Kim, A. M. (2012). The evolution of the institutional approach in planning. R. Crane & R. Weber (Der.), The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, içinde (ss. 69-86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Knieling J. & Othengrafen F. (2015). Planning Culture—A Concept to Explain the Evolution of Planning Policies and Processes in Europe?, European Planning Studies, 23:11, 2133-2147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1018404
31. Oc, T. ve Tiesdell, S. (1994) 'Planning in Turkey: The Constrasting Planning Cultures of Istanbul and Ankara', Habitat International 18(4), pp. 99-116.
32. Othengrafen, F. (2010). Spatial Planning as Expression of CulturizedPlanning Practices: The Examples of Helsinki, Finland and Athens, Greece. The Town Planning Review, 81(1), 83-110. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.25
33. Othengrafen, F., & Reimer, M. (2013). The Embeddedness of Planning in Cultural Contexts: Theoretical Foundations for the Analysis of Dynamic Planning Cultures. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(6), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45131
34. Ozdemir Sonmez, F. N. 2017 Planlamada Yeni Yasal Düzenlemeler. S. S. Ozdemir, B. Ozdemir Sarı, N. Uzun (Der.)., Kent Planlama içinde, (ss. 643-665) Ankara: İmge.
35. Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770.
36. Penpecioğlu, M. (2011). Kapitalist kentleşme dinamiklerinin Türkiye’deki son 10 yılı: Yapılı çevre üretimi, devlet ve büyük ölçekli kentsel projeler. Birikim, 270, 62-73.
37. Robins, K. and Aksoy, A. (1996) 'Istanbul Between civilisation and Discontent', City&Community, 1(5), pp. 6 - 33.
38. Roy, A. (2009). Strangely familiar: Planning and the worlds of insurgence and informality. Planning Theory, 8(1), 7–11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1473095208099294
39. Sandercock, L. (2005). Picking the paradoxes: A historical anatomy of Australian planning cultures. B. Sanyal (Der.), Comparative planning cultures, içinde (ss. 309–330). London: Routledge.
40. Sanli, T., & Townshend, T. (2018). Hegemonic power relations in real practices of spatial planning: the case of Turkey. European Planning Studies, 26(6), 1242–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1448755
41. Sanli, T., Ozdemir Sonmez, F. N., Ilhan, T., & Ozdur, K. (2024). Rigidness of planning law causing fragile grounds for crafting planning tools: neoliberal power and ideology immersed on urban space. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 28(4), 656–674.
42. Sanyal, B. (2005). Hybrid planning cultures: The search for the global cultural commons. B. Sanyal (Der.), Comparative planning cultures, içinde (ss. 3–25). London: Routledge.
43. Seğmen, L. (2009, 26 Mart). 500 bin esege bedel esek heykeli. Hurriyet, http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=11290394
44. Smith, N. (2008). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. University of Georgia Press.
45. Şahin, S.Z. (2007). The Politics of Urban Planning in Ankara Between 1985 and 2005. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. ODTÜ, Ankara
46. Şengül, T. (2001). Kentsel çelişki ve siyaset: Kapitalist kentleşme süreçleri üzerine yazılar. İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı.
47. Şengül, T. (2003). On the Trajectory of Urbanisation in Turkey: An Attempt at Periodisation. International Development Planning Review, 25, pp. 153-168.
48. Tajbakhsh, K. (2005). Planning culture in Iran: centralization and decentralization and local governance in the twentieth century (the case for urban management and planning). B. Sanyal (Der.), Comparative planning cultures, içinde (ss. 67–90). London: Routledge.
49. Tasan-Kok, T. (2015). Analysing Path Dependence to Understand Divergence: Investigating Hybrid Neo-liberal Urban Transformation Processes in Turkey. European Planning Studies, 23(11), 2184–2209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1018458
50. Tasan-Kok, T., Bertolini, L., Oliveira e Costa, S., Lothan, H., Carvalho, H., Desmet, M.,…Zoete, J.A. (2016). ‘Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee’: Giving voice to planning practitioners. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(4), 621–651. doi:10.1080/14649357.2016.1225711
51. Taylor, Z. (2013). Rethinking planning culture: A new institutionalist approach. Town Planning Review, 84(6), 683–702. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2013.36
52. Tekeli, I. (2001) Modernite Asilirken Kent Planlamasi. Ankara: Imge.
53. Tekeli, İ. (2009). Modernizm, modernite ve Türkiye'nin kent planlama tarihi. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
54. Tulumello, S., 2015. Questioning the universality of institutional transformation theories in spatial planning: Shopping mall developments in Palermo. International Planning Studies, 20(4), pp.371-389.
55. Tütüncü, U. (2013, 4 Şubat). Başbakan son sözü söyledi. Haber Turk. http://www.haberturk.com/yasam/haber/817086-basbakan-son-sozu-soyledi
56. Wacquant, L. (2012). Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Social Anthropology, 20(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00189.x