Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Sınır Bölgelerinde Sosyo-Mekânsal Etkileşim ve Yönetişim: Türkiye Örneği

Yıl 2020, , 140 - 172, 30.04.2020
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.704097

Öz

Ulus devlet sınırlarının geçirgenliklerinin artması ile sınır bölgeleri eskiye kıyasla daha yoğun mal ve insan akışına ev sahipliği yapmakta ve çeperde kalan dışlanmış mekânlar olmak yerine, daha merkezi ve önemli aktivitelerin mekânlarına dönüşmektedir. Hacimsel olarak artan etkileşimler, sınırın çok boyutlu ve analitik olarak değerlendirilmesini ve bu çerçevede ortak yönetişim arayışlarını gündeme getirmiştir. Bu kapsamda Türkiye’nin ulusal sınırlarındaki, sınır ötesi ekonomik, sosyal, idari ve mekânsal etkileşim seviyelerinin, merkezi düzeyde elde edilebilen nesnel göstergeler yardımıyla ölçülmesi, etkileşimin görece yüksek seviyede olduğu sınır bölgelerinde sosyo-mekânsal etkileşim biçimlerinin ağ analiz yöntemleri ile tanımlanması ve sınır bölgelerinin özgün nitelikleri bağlamında ortak yönetişim çerçevesi geliştirilmiştir. Bu çalışma ile; sınır bölgeleri için ulusal düzeyde Çok Değişkenli Sınır Geçirgenlik Endeksi (ÇDSGE) geliştirilmiştir. Yapılan ağ analizleri, sınır bölgelerindeki merkezi yerleşimlerinin ağ karakterlerine bağlı olarak farklılaştığını, sınır bölgelerinin etki alanının literatürde ve uygulamadaki mesafelerin ötesine geçebildiğini, sınırın mekânsal etki alanı dışında bulunan ulusal düzeyde merkezi özellik taşıyan yerleşmelerin de sınır ötesi ile önemli derecelerde ilişkilerinin olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Yönetişim boyutunda ise, kırılganlık ve komşu devletler arasındaki hassas dengelerin sınır bölgeleri için kuvvetli bir yönetişim çerçevesinin sürdürülmesine olanak sağlayamadığı ve bu çerçevede sınır bölgeleri için “ortak yönetişim aralığı” kavramının önemi vurgulanmıştır.

Destekleyen Kurum

Tübitak

Proje Numarası

Sobag 114K887

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma, TÜBİTAK-SOBAG tarafından desteklenen 114K887 nolu projenin saha çalışması bulgularına dayalı olarak geliştirilmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, J. ve O'Dowd, L. (1999). Contested borders: globalization and ethno-national conflict in Ireland. Regional Studies, 33, 681-691.
  • Baud, M. ve Schendel, W. (1997). Toward a comparative history of borderlands. Journal of World History, 8(2), 211-242.
  • Bauman Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity Press
  • Blatter J. (2004). From 'spaces of place' to 'spaces of flows'? Territorial and functional governance in cross ‐ border regions in Europe and North America, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(2).
  • Bonacich, P. (1972). Technique for analyzing overlapping memberships. Sociological Methodology, 4(1), 176-178.
  • Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.
  • Castel-Branco C. N. (2014). Growth, capital accumulation and economic porosity in Mozambique: social losses, private gains, Review of African Political Economy, 41(1), 26-48.
  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, the ınformation age: Economy, society and culture. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Diener, A., C. ve Hagen, J. (2012). Borders. A very short introduction. Oxford and NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  • Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
  • Grosby, S. (1995). Territoriality: The Transcendental, Primordial Feature of Modern Societies. Nations and Nationalism, 1(1), 143–162.
  • Hansen, J. D., Johnson, A., Lacis, S., Lebedeff, P., Lee, D. ve Russell, G. (1981). Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966.
  • Harrison, J. (2012). Configuring the new ‘regional world’: on being caught between territory and networks. Regional Studies, 47(1), 55–74.
  • Haselsberger, B. (2014). Decoding borders: appreciating border impacts on space and people. Planning Theory and Practice, 15(4), 505–526.
  • Hidalgo, C. A. (2016). Disconnected, fragmented, or united? a trans-disciplinary review of network science. Applied Network Science, 1(6), 300-328.
  • Hooghe, L. (1996). Cohesion policy and European integration: building multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 126.
  • Housen-Couriel D. (1994). Some principles of cooperation in the management and use of international water resources. Tel Aviv:Tel Aviv University.
  • Jessop, B., Brenner, N. ve Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389–401.
  • Kolejka, J., Wiesława, Ź., Kateřina, B., Stanisław, C., Sylwia, D., Karel, K., Tomáš, K., Andrzej, R., Waldemar, S. ve Jana Z. (2015). Permeability of Czech-Polish border using by selected criteria. Geographia Technica, 10(1), 51-65.
  • Kolossov, V. (2005). Theorizing borders border studies: Changing perspectives and theoretical approaches. Geopolitics, 10, 606-632.
  • Kooiman, J. ve S. Jentoft (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4).
  • Krugman, P. R. (1992). Does the new trade theory require a new trade policy? The World Economy, 15(4), 423-442.
  • Martinez, P. (2004). "Noble" Tlaxcalans: Race and ethnicity in Northeastern New Spain: 1770-1810.USA:The University of Texas at Austin,
  • Milo, R. (2002). Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science, 298(5594), 824-827.
  • Mitchell, J.C., (1969) The concept and use of social networks. (Ed. J.C. Mitchell), Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships in Central African Towns içinde, Manchester University Press: England.
  • Nathalie, S. (2006). Permeability models for the monitoring of border crossings, içinde Schneiderbauer vd. Remote sensing from space - Supporting ınternational peace and security - GMOSS Book, (1. Bsm). Springer.
  • Newman, D. (2003). On borders and power: a theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 18(1), 13–25.
  • Opsahl, T., Agnessens, F., ve Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245-251.
  • Paasi, A. (2005). Generations and the ‘development’ of border studies. Geopolitics, 10(4), 663-671.
  • Painter J, (2008). Cartographic anxiety and the search for regionality. Environment and Planning A, 40 342–361
  • Popescu, G. (2006). Geopolitics of scale and cross border cooperation in Eastern Europe: the case of Romanian-Ukranian-Moldovan borderlands, Aldershot Ashgate. 35-51.
  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years. Organization Studies, 28, 1243.
  • Sassen, S. (2001). The global city, (2. bsm). NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Scott, J. W. (2012). European politics of borders, border symbolism and cross-border cooperation. T. M. Wilson ve H. Donnan (Ed.), A Companion to Border Studies, içinde (s.83-99).Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Shen-Orr, S. S., Milo, R., Mangan, S., ve Alon, U. (2002). Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nature Genetics, 31(1), 64–68.
  • Starr, H., ve Thomas, G. (2001). The nature of borders and conflict: Revisiting hypotheses on territory and war. 2001 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
  • Stephenne, N. ve Pesaresi, M. (2006). Spatial permeability model at the European Union land border, EUR report 22332 (Luxembourg: European Commission / DG-JRC / IPSC).
  • Tekeli, İ. (2004, Haziran). Katılımcı demokrasi, sivil ağlar ve sivil toplum kuruluşları. 15. STK Sempozyumu. İstanbul.
  • Van Houtum, H. (2005). The geopolitics of borders and boundaries. Geopolitics 10(4), 672-679.
  • Waterhout, B. (2010). Soft spaces and governance: The transformation of planning, 24. AESOP Konferansı, Helsinki, 7-10 Temmuz 2010.

Socio-Spatial Interaction and Governance in Border Regions: The Case of Turkey

Yıl 2020, , 140 - 172, 30.04.2020
https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.704097

Öz

With the increased permeability of the nation state borders, border regions host more intense flows of goods and people when compared to the past and turn into spaces of more central and important activities, instead of being excluded places in the periphery. The growing volumetric interactions have led to a multi-dimensional and analytical assessment of the border regions. In this respect, it is aimed to measure the cross-border economic, social, administrative and spatial interaction levels in Turkey’s national borders with the help of objective indicators that can be obtained at the central level; to define the socio-spatial interaction forms by network analysis in the border regions where the interaction is relatively high; and to develop a governance framework in the context of the specific characteristics of the regions. With this research; Multivariate Border Permeability Index was developed to measure border permeability at the national level. The network analysis; revealed that the central settlements in the border regions differed depending on the characteristics of the network, the spatial domain of the border regions could go beyond the distances in the literature and in practice, and the settlements that had central features at the national level but outside the spatial domain of the border had significant relations with the cross-border. In the governance dimension, the importance of the concept of “common governance gap” for the border regions was emphasized that vulnerability and sensitive balances between neighbor states do not allow a strong governance framework to be maintained for border regions

Proje Numarası

Sobag 114K887

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, J. ve O'Dowd, L. (1999). Contested borders: globalization and ethno-national conflict in Ireland. Regional Studies, 33, 681-691.
  • Baud, M. ve Schendel, W. (1997). Toward a comparative history of borderlands. Journal of World History, 8(2), 211-242.
  • Bauman Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity Press
  • Blatter J. (2004). From 'spaces of place' to 'spaces of flows'? Territorial and functional governance in cross ‐ border regions in Europe and North America, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(2).
  • Bonacich, P. (1972). Technique for analyzing overlapping memberships. Sociological Methodology, 4(1), 176-178.
  • Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.
  • Castel-Branco C. N. (2014). Growth, capital accumulation and economic porosity in Mozambique: social losses, private gains, Review of African Political Economy, 41(1), 26-48.
  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, the ınformation age: Economy, society and culture. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Diener, A., C. ve Hagen, J. (2012). Borders. A very short introduction. Oxford and NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  • Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
  • Grosby, S. (1995). Territoriality: The Transcendental, Primordial Feature of Modern Societies. Nations and Nationalism, 1(1), 143–162.
  • Hansen, J. D., Johnson, A., Lacis, S., Lebedeff, P., Lee, D. ve Russell, G. (1981). Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966.
  • Harrison, J. (2012). Configuring the new ‘regional world’: on being caught between territory and networks. Regional Studies, 47(1), 55–74.
  • Haselsberger, B. (2014). Decoding borders: appreciating border impacts on space and people. Planning Theory and Practice, 15(4), 505–526.
  • Hidalgo, C. A. (2016). Disconnected, fragmented, or united? a trans-disciplinary review of network science. Applied Network Science, 1(6), 300-328.
  • Hooghe, L. (1996). Cohesion policy and European integration: building multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 126.
  • Housen-Couriel D. (1994). Some principles of cooperation in the management and use of international water resources. Tel Aviv:Tel Aviv University.
  • Jessop, B., Brenner, N. ve Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389–401.
  • Kolejka, J., Wiesława, Ź., Kateřina, B., Stanisław, C., Sylwia, D., Karel, K., Tomáš, K., Andrzej, R., Waldemar, S. ve Jana Z. (2015). Permeability of Czech-Polish border using by selected criteria. Geographia Technica, 10(1), 51-65.
  • Kolossov, V. (2005). Theorizing borders border studies: Changing perspectives and theoretical approaches. Geopolitics, 10, 606-632.
  • Kooiman, J. ve S. Jentoft (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4).
  • Krugman, P. R. (1992). Does the new trade theory require a new trade policy? The World Economy, 15(4), 423-442.
  • Martinez, P. (2004). "Noble" Tlaxcalans: Race and ethnicity in Northeastern New Spain: 1770-1810.USA:The University of Texas at Austin,
  • Milo, R. (2002). Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science, 298(5594), 824-827.
  • Mitchell, J.C., (1969) The concept and use of social networks. (Ed. J.C. Mitchell), Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships in Central African Towns içinde, Manchester University Press: England.
  • Nathalie, S. (2006). Permeability models for the monitoring of border crossings, içinde Schneiderbauer vd. Remote sensing from space - Supporting ınternational peace and security - GMOSS Book, (1. Bsm). Springer.
  • Newman, D. (2003). On borders and power: a theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 18(1), 13–25.
  • Opsahl, T., Agnessens, F., ve Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245-251.
  • Paasi, A. (2005). Generations and the ‘development’ of border studies. Geopolitics, 10(4), 663-671.
  • Painter J, (2008). Cartographic anxiety and the search for regionality. Environment and Planning A, 40 342–361
  • Popescu, G. (2006). Geopolitics of scale and cross border cooperation in Eastern Europe: the case of Romanian-Ukranian-Moldovan borderlands, Aldershot Ashgate. 35-51.
  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years. Organization Studies, 28, 1243.
  • Sassen, S. (2001). The global city, (2. bsm). NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Scott, J. W. (2012). European politics of borders, border symbolism and cross-border cooperation. T. M. Wilson ve H. Donnan (Ed.), A Companion to Border Studies, içinde (s.83-99).Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Shen-Orr, S. S., Milo, R., Mangan, S., ve Alon, U. (2002). Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nature Genetics, 31(1), 64–68.
  • Starr, H., ve Thomas, G. (2001). The nature of borders and conflict: Revisiting hypotheses on territory and war. 2001 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
  • Stephenne, N. ve Pesaresi, M. (2006). Spatial permeability model at the European Union land border, EUR report 22332 (Luxembourg: European Commission / DG-JRC / IPSC).
  • Tekeli, İ. (2004, Haziran). Katılımcı demokrasi, sivil ağlar ve sivil toplum kuruluşları. 15. STK Sempozyumu. İstanbul.
  • Van Houtum, H. (2005). The geopolitics of borders and boundaries. Geopolitics 10(4), 672-679.
  • Waterhout, B. (2010). Soft spaces and governance: The transformation of planning, 24. AESOP Konferansı, Helsinki, 7-10 Temmuz 2010.
Toplam 41 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Emrah Söylemez 0000-0003-4150-3184

Cigdem Varol 0000-0002-2432-5745

Proje Numarası Sobag 114K887
Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Nisan 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020

Kaynak Göster

APA Söylemez, E., & Varol, C. (2020). Sınır Bölgelerinde Sosyo-Mekânsal Etkileşim ve Yönetişim: Türkiye Örneği. İDEALKENT, 11(29), 140-172. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.704097