Metropolde üretim: İstanbul’un üretim alanları ve ürünleri

Öz

Küresel kent oluşumu ile imalat sanayinin sürekliliği arasındaki ilişki, gelişmekte olan küresel merkezlerdeki sanayisizleşme varsayımlarına meydan okumaktadır. Bu çalışma, İstanbul’un özgün sanayi peyzajını, İstanbul Sanayi Odası’nın (İSO) 2021 yılı firma düzeyindeki verilerini ve CBS tabanlı mekânsal analiz yöntemlerini kullanarak veri odaklı bir vaka analizi çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Araştırma, 14.704 imalat işletmesinin mekânsal dağılımını, kuşak temelli (cohort-based) bir yaklaşımla kuruluş tarihlerine göre analiz etmektedir. Bulgular, imalat faaliyetlerinin topyekûn bir yok oluştan ziyade, mekânsal yeniden yapılanma ve teknolojik uzmanlaşma ile karakterize edilen nüanslı bir dönüşüm geçirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. İstanbul, imalatın sadece devam etmekle kalmadığı, aynı zamanda işletmelerin %80’inden fazlasının 2000 yılından sonra olmasıyla, imalatın küresel entegrasyon sürecinde yeniden üretildiği hibrit bir ekonomik model sergilemektedir. Analizler, D-100 ve TEM ulaşım koridorları boyunca küresel kent işlevlerini tamamlayan uzmanlaşmış üretim kümelerinin varlığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, küresel kent teorisindeki doğrusal dönüşüm anlatılarının yeniden ele alınmasını zorunlu kılmakta; imalatın küreselleşen metropollerde hizmet ekonomisini tamamlayan yapısal bir unsur olarak işlev gördüğünü somut biçimde ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İstanbul
• İmalat Sanayi
• Küresel Kent
• Mekânsal Analiz
• Kuşak (Kohort) Analizi
• Endüstriyel Süreklilik

Manufacturing in the metropolis: what does Istanbul produce and where

Öz

The relationship between global city formation and manufacturing persistence challenges deindustrialisation assumptions in emerging global centres. This study examines Istanbul’s industrial landscape through a data-driven spatial case study, incorporating 2021 firm-level data from the Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ISO) and GIS-based spatial analysis. Moving away from longitudinal tracking, the research employs a cohort-based approach to analyse the spatial distribution of 14,704 manufacturing establishments by their founding dates. The findings reveal a nuanced transformation characterized by spatial reorganization and technological specialisation rather than wholesale decline. Istanbul demonstrates a hybrid economic model where manufacturing not only persists but has largely emerged during the city’s period of global integration, with over 80% of firms established after 2000. The analysis identifies intricate spatial clustering patterns along the D-100 and TEM transportation corridors, forming specialized production zones that complement global city functions. These findings necessitate a revisiting of linear transformation narratives in global city theory, demonstrating that manufacturing functions as a structural complement to the service economy in globalising metropolises rather than its casualty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Istanbul
• Manufacturing
• Global City
• Spatial Analysis
• Cohort Analysis
• Industrial Persistence

Kaynakça

1. Akgöz, G. (2023). In the shadow of war and empire: Industrialisation, nation-building, and working-class politics in Turkey (Vol. 52). Brill.
2. Akgün, A. A., & Akgün, İ. (2017). İstanbul’da istihdam eğilimlerinin belirlenmesi. Marmara University Press.
3. Akın, O. (2012). İstanbul kentinin değişim öyküsü. Mimarist, 12(45), 46–59.
4. Ayık, U., & Avcı, S. (2018). İstanbul’da sanayisizleşme: Coğrafi bir bakış. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 6(65), 505–523. https://doi. org/10.16992/ASOS.13405
5. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Araştırmalar Merkezi [BETAM]. (2022). İstanbul işgücü piyasası: Güncel görünüm ve yapısal özellikler. Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi.
6. Berköz, L., & Eyuboglu, E. (2007). Intra-metropolitan location of producer service FDI in Istanbul. European Planning Studies, 15(3), 357– 381. https://doi.org/10.1080/096.543.10601017075
7. Bezmez, D. (2008). The politics of urban waterfront regeneration: The case of Haliç (the Golden Horn), Istanbul. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 815–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2427.2008.00825.x
8. Doğan, M. (2013). Geçmişten günümüze İstanbul’da sanayileşme süreci ve son 10 yıllık gelişimi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, (27), 511–550. https://izlik.org/JA76YR76TP

9. Dökmeci, V., & Berköz, L. (1994). Transformation of Istanbul from a monocentric to a polycentric city. European Planning Studies, 2(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/096.543.19408720259
10. Doussard, M., Schrock, G., Wolf-Powers, L., Eisenburger, M., & Marotta, S. (2018). Manufacturing without the firm: Challenges for the maker movement in three US cities. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(3), 651–670. https://doi. org/10.1177/0308518X17749709
11. Enlil, Z. M. (2011). The neoliberal agenda and the changing urban form of Istanbul. International Planning Studies, 16(1), 5–25. https://doi. org/10.1080/13563.475.2011.552475
12. Erbaş, A. E. (2018). İstanbul metropoliten alanı’nda 1980 sonrası kentsel gelişme dinamikleri ve idari coğrafyada sınır değişiklikleri. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 5(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.356757
13. Eskidemir, K., Aytaç, G., & Dinemis Aman, D. (2019). Kentlerde post endüstriyel alanların yeniden kullanımı:
14. İstanbul Osmanlı dönemi sanayi alanları. Medeniyet Sanat Dergisi, 5(1), 44–60. https://izlik.org/JA63MR84NY Evsile, M. (2018). Cumhuriyet döneminde sanayileşme faaliyetleri (1923–1950). History Studies, 10(8), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.9737/ hist.2018.666
15. Friedmann, J. (1986). The world city hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1986.tb00231.x
16. Güvenç, M. (1993). Metropol değil azman sanayi kenti. İstanbul, (5), 75–81.
17. Hagemann, A. (2015). From flagship store to factory: Tracing the spaces of transnational clothing production in Istanbul. Articulo – Journal of Urban Research, 12. https://doi.org/10.4000/articulo.2889
18. Hill, R. C., & Kim, J. W. (2000). Global cities and developmental states: New York, Tokyo and Seoul. Urban Studies, 37(12), 2167–2195. https://doi.org/10.1080/004.209.80020002760
19. Indraprahasta, G. S., Derudder, B., & Koelemaij, J. (2018). Global-local dynamics in the transformation of the Jakarta metropolitan area into a global city-region. disP – The Planning Review, 54(3), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513.625.2018.1525212
20. İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi [İBB]. (2020). İstanbul ekonomi bülteni: İşgücü piyasası, Aralık 2020. İstanbul İstatistik Ofisi.
21. Istanbul Chamber of Industry [ISO]. (2021). Manufacturing establishments database 2021 [Unpublished dataset]. Istanbul Chamber of Industry.
22. İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı [İKA]. (2022). 2024–2028 İstanbul bölge planı: Ek 1 mevcut durum analizi. İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı.
23. İstanbul Planlama Ajansı [İPA]. (2021). Son verilerle İstanbul ekonomisi: 2021/2 yarıyıl raporu. İstanbul Planlama Ajansı.
24. Kleibert, J. (2017). On the global city map, but not in command? Probing Manila’s position in the world city network. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(12), 2897–2915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16663710
25. Krijnen, M., Bassens, D., & van Meeteren, M. (2017). Manning circuits of value: Lebanese professionals and expatriate world-city formation in Beirut. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(12), 2878– 2896. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X166605
26. Ma, X., & Timberlake, M. (2013). World city typologies and national city system deterritorialisation: USA, China and Japan. Urban Studies, 50(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/004.209.8012453859
27. Ministry of Industry and Technology, Istanbul Provincial Directorate. (2021). Istanbul provincial industry status report 2020 [Report]. Ministry of Industry and Technology.
28. Ministry of Industry and Technology, Istanbul Provincial Directorate. (2022). Istanbul provincial industry status report 2021 [Report]. Ministry of Industry and Technology.
29. Olds, K., & Yeung, H. (2004). Pathways to global city formation: A view from the developmental city-state of Singapore. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 489–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/096.922.9042000252873
30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2008). OECD territorial reviews: Istanbul, Turkey. OECD Publishing.
31. Özdemir, D. (2002). The developments in the central business district of Istanbul in the 1990s. In Proceedings of the 42nd Congress of the European Regional Science Association. European Regional Science Association (ERSA). https://hdl.handle.net/10419/115818
32. Pamuk, Ş. (2024). The state and industrialization in Turkey since the nineteenth century. Journal of Government and Economics, 16, Article 100126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jge.2024.100126
33. Parnreiter, C. (2019). Global cities and the geographical transfer of value. Urban Studies, 56(1), 81–96. https://doi. org/10.1177/004.209.8017722739
34. Pike, A. (2022). Coping with deindustrialization in the global North and South. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 26(1), 1–22. https:// doi.org/10.1080/12265.934.2020.1730225
35. Pinedo Caro, L. (2020). Syrian refugees in the Turkish labour market: a socio-economic analysis. Sosyoekonomi, 28(46), 51-74. https://doi. org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.04.03
36. Quataert, D. (1992). Manufacturing and technology transfer in the Ottoman Empire, 1800–1914. The Isis Press.
37. Roy, A. (2016). Who’s afraid of postcolonial theory? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 200–209. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-2427.12274
38. Şahin, C. (2015). İstanbul’un Cumhuriyet dönemi mekansal gelişimi. C. Yılmaz (Ed.) içinde, Antikçağ’dan XXI. yüzyıla Büyük İstanbul tarihi: Cilt 1 (ss. 456–477). ISAM ve İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür A.Ş.
39. Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.
40. Sayın, Ö. (2020). Bir küresel kent olarak İstanbul’un küresel ekonomideki konumu ve işlevlerine dair kısa bir değerlendirme. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 125(246), 109–128. https://izlik.org/JA29PZ72AH
41. Sayın, Ö. (2022). İstanbul: Sanayisizleşmeyen bir küresel kent. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, (65), 329–349. https://doi. org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837
42. Sayın, Ö., Hoyler, M., & Harrison, J. (2022). Doing comparative urbanism differently: Conjunctural cities and the stress-testing of urban theory. Urban Studies, 59(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/004.209.8020957499
43. Schindler, S., Gillespie, T., Banks, N., Bayırbağ, M. K., Burte, H., Kanai, J. M., & Sami, N. (2020). Deindustrialization in cities of the Global South. Area Development and Policy, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792.949.2020.1725393
44. Scott, A. J., Agnew, J., Soja, E. W., & Storper, M. (2001). Global city-regions. In A. J. Scott (Ed.), Global city- regions: Trends, theory, policy (pp. 11–32). Oxford University Press.
45. Taylor, P. J. (2004). World city network: A global urban analysis. Routledge.
46. Tekeli, İ. (2013). İstanbul’un planlanmasının ve gelişmesinin öyküsü. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
47. Temurçin, K., & Aldirmaz, Y. (2015). The development and structure of industry in the district of Ümraniye, Istanbul. Studies of the Industrial Geography Commission of the Polish Geographical Society, 26, 207–233. https://doi.org/10.24917/20801653.26.14
48. Timberlake, M., Wei, Y. D., Ma, X., & Hao, J. (2014). Global cities with Chinese characteristics. Cities, 41, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2014.02.009
49. Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat). (2023). Press release no. 45867 [Press release]. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/en/press/45867
50. Üçoğlu, M. (2019). Massive housing and nature’s limits? The urban political ecology of Istanbul’s periphery. In K. M. Güney, R. Keil, & M. Üçoğlu (Eds.), Massive suburbanization: (Re)building the global periphery (pp. 181– 200). University of Toronto Press.
51. Uğur, Y., Aslaner, S., Arlı, A., Düzenli, H. İ., & Yücesoy, E. (2019). Cumhuriyet döneminde Ümraniye: Şehirleşme, toplum, ekonomi ve yönetim: Cilt 2. Ümraniye Belediyesi.
52. Yetişkul, E., & Demirel, S. (2018). Assembling gentrification in Istanbul: The Cihangir neighbourhood of Beyoğlu. Urban Studies, 55(15), 3336–3352. https://doi.org/10.1177/004.209.80177466
53. Yıldız, E. (2020). A reassessment of Turkey’s import substitution strategy: Bureaucracy, politics, and the international organizations. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology, 40(2), 599–623. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2020.40.2.0100
54. Yüzer, A. Ş., & Giritlioğlu, C. (2003). Sanayi alanları yeni düzenleme stratejileri – İstanbul örneği. İTÜ Dergisi: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 2(1), 119–131.
55. Zhang, J., & Peck, J. (2016). Variegated capitalism, Chinese style: Regional models, multi-scalar constructions. Regional Studies, 50(1), 52– 78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343.404.2013.856514
56. Zhang, L. Y. (2014). Dynamics and constraints of state-led global city formation in emerging economies: The case of Shanghai. Urban Studies, 51(6), 1162–1178. https://doi.org/10.1177/004.209.8013495577