The Position of the Local in Neoliberal Urban Government

Öz

This study, which discusses the relationship between local and urban governance in the context of neoliberalism, emphasizes urban and local interactions in urban governance, and the opportunities and challenges that emerge from these interactions. Based on this emphasis, it aims to explain the importance of local governments in the transformation processes of neoliberal urban governance. The study argues that understanding urban restructuring within the complex and contested relationship between neoliberal urban governance and the dynamics of local rationalities requires more than examining macro-level policy changes or institutional reforms. At the same time, arguing on the basis of critical urban theory that attention should be paid to place-specific practices, institutional legacies and the interaction between local and urban scales, this study proposes a relational approach that foregrounds the importance of contextual specificity, discursive practices and the multiplicity of local actors and agendas. By reconsidering the local-urban nexus, the study emphasizes that localities are not merely passive recipients of neoliberal agendas, but also active sites of negotiation, adaptation and resistance. Through a qualitative analysis, the study examines urban governance; Against the backdrop of neoliberalization and globalization, the role of local governments is examined within the context of economic and political contexts and social and cultural dynamics. The study's findings highlight that the local is not merely shaped by top-down reforms, but is also actively constructed through the interplay of institutional structures and conjunctural contradictions, creating space for restructured and situated forms of action. This calls for a critical and context-sensitive analysis of local practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Neoliberal Urbanization
• Local Government
• Urban Government
• Space
• Locality

Neoliberal Kentsel Yönetimde Yerelin Konumu

Öz

Neoliberalizm bağlamında yerel ile kentsel yönetim arasındaki ilişkiyi tartışan bu çalışma ile kentsel yönetimde kentsel ve yerel etkileşimler, bu etkileşimle ortaya çıkan fırsatlar ve zorluklar vurgulanmaktadır. Bu vurgu temelinde neoliberal kentsel yönetimin dönüşüm süreçlerinde yerel yönetimlerin öneminin açıklanması amaçlanmaktadır. Çalışma, neoliberal kentsel yönetim ile yerel rasyonalitelerin dinamikleri arasındaki karmaşık ve tartışmalı ilişki içerisinde kentlerin yeniden yapılandırılmasını anlamanın, makro düzeydeki politika değişimlerini veya kurumsal reformları incelemekten daha fazlasını gerektirdiğini savunmaktadır. Aynı zamanda yer-özgü uygulamalara, kurumsal miraslara ve yerel ve kentsel ölçekler arasındaki etkileşime dikkat edilmesini gerektiğini de eleştirel kentsel teori temelinde tartışan bu çalışma, bağlamsal özgüllüğün, söylemsel uygulamaların ve yerel aktörlerin ve gündemlerin çokluğunun önemini ön plana çıkaran ilişkisel bir yaklaşım önermektedir. Çalışma, yerel-kentsel bağlantıyı yeniden ele alarak, yerelliklerin yalnızca neoliberal gündemlerin pasif alıcıları olmadığını, aynı zamanda müzakere, adaptasyon ve direnişin aktif alanları olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Nitel bir analizle çalışmada kent yönetimi; neoliberalleşme ve küreselleşme arka planında, yerel yönetimlerin rolü ekonomik ve politik bağlamlar, sosyal ve kültürel dinamikler ekseninde ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulguları, yerelin yalnızca tepeden inme reformlarla şekillendirilmediğini, aynı zamanda kurumsal yapıların ve konjonktürel çelişkilerin etkileşimiyle aktif olarak inşa edildiğini ve yeniden yapılandırılmış ve yerleşik eylem biçimlerine alan açtığını vurgulamaktadır. Bu durum, yerel uygulamaların eleştirel ve bağlama duyarlı bir analizini gerektirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Neoliberal Kentleşme
• Yerel Yönetim
• Kentsel Yönetim
• Mekan
• Yerellik

Kaynakça

1. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.
2. Barnes, M., Newman, J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Power, participation and political renewal: Case studies in public participation. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgrqs
3. Barnett, N. (2002), Including ourselves: New labour and engagement with public services. Management Decision, 40(4): 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740210426303
4. Bayırbağ, M. K., Schindler, S. and Penpecioğlu, M. (2023). The Limits to Urban Revolution: The Transformation of Ankara, Turkey, under the Justice and Development Party. Urban Geography 44, no. 8: 1677-1700.
5. Bell, S. ve Hindmoor, A. (2009). Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814617
6. Bora, T. (2016). İnşaat Ya Resulullah. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
7. Boudreau, J. A. (2003). Questioning the use of local democracy as a discursive strategy for political mobilisation in Los Angeles, Montreal and Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00484.x
8. Boudreau, J. A. (2010). Reflections on urbanity as an object of study and a critical epistemology. J. S. Davies ve D. L. Imbroscio (Eds.), Critical Urban Studies: New Directions içinde (ss. 55–72). Albany: State University of New York Press.

9. Brenner, N., Peck, J. ve Theodore, N. (2010). Variegated neoliberalism: Geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks, 10(2), 182–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00277.x
10. Brenner, N. ve Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode, 34(3), 349-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00246
11. Buğra, A. and Savaşkan, O. (2014). New Capitalism in Turkey: The Relationship between Politics, Religion and Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
12. Clarke, J. (2010). Of crises and conjunctures: The problem of the present. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 34(4), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859910382451
13. Çavuşoğlu, E. and Strutz, J. (2014). "Producing Force and Consent: Urban Transformation and Corporatism in Turkey." City 18, no. 2, 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.896643.
14. Davies, J. S. (2009). The new localism. M. Flinders, A. Gamble, C. Hay ve M. Kenny (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of British Politics içinde (ss. 402–422). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Davies, J. S. (2000). The hollowing-out of local democracy and the ‘fatal conceit’of governing without government. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 414-428.
16. Davies, J. S. (2023). Urban governance in the age of austerity: Crises of neoliberal hegemony in comparative perspective. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 56(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X231186151
17. Davies, J. S. ve Blanco, I. (2017). Austerity Urbanism: Patterns of Neoliberalisation and Resistance in Six Cities of Spain and the UK. Environment and Planning A, 49(7), 1517-1536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17701729
18. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
19. Dikeç, M. and Swyngedouw, E. (2017). Theorizing the Politicizing City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41, no. 1, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12388
20. Doğan, A. E. (2007). Eğreti Kamusallık: Kayseri Örneğinde İslamcı Belediyecilik. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
21. Erder, S. & Incioglu, N. (2013). The emergence of local politics in Turkey. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Press.
22. Ersoy, M. (2011). Yerelden ulusala merkezileşerek aynılaşan planlama anlayışı. Merkezi Yönetim Yerel Yönetim İlişkileri: Özerklik. Türk Belediyeler Birliği, 5, 213-229.
23. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Freeman, R. (2008). Learning by meeting. Critical Policy Analysis, 2(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2008.9518529
25. Fuller, C. ve Geddes, M. (2008). Urban governance under neoliberalism: New Labour and the restructuring of state-space. Antipode, 40(2), 252–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00591.x
26. Gamble, A. (2009). The Spectre at the Feast: Capitalist Crisis and the Politics of Recession. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Geddes, M. ve Sullivan, H. (2011). Localities, leadership and neoliberalization: Conflicting discourses, competing practices. Critical Policy Studies, 5(4), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2011.628003
28. Gonzalez, S. ve Oosterlynck, S. (2014). Crisis and resilience in a finance-led city: Effects of the global financial crisis in Leeds. Urban Studies, 51(15), 3164-3179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013519142
29. Griggs, S., Norval, A. J. ve Wagenaar, H. (2014.) Introduction: Democracy, conflict and participation. S. Griggs, A. J. Norval, ve H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Practices of Freedom: Decentred Governance Conflict and Democratic Participation içinde (ss. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107296954.001
30. Griggs, S. ve Sullivan, H. (2014). Puzzling agency in centre-local relations: Regulatory governance and accounts of change under New Labour. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00544.x
31. Grossi, G. ve Pianezzi, D. (2017). Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities, 69, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.012
32. Harvey, D. (2024). Neoliberalizmin Kısa Tarihi. A. Onacak (Çev.), İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
33. Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17.
34. Hay, C. (2007). Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity.
35. Howarth, D. R. (2013). Poststructuralism and After: Structure, Subjectivity and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
36. Hudson, R. (2001). Producing Places. New York: Guilford Press.
37. Jessop, B. (2004). Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900410001674506
38. Karaman, O. (2013). Urban Neoliberalism with Islamic Characteristics. Urban Studies, 50, no. 16 (2013): 3412-3427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013482505
39. Kahraman, T. (2013). Kent hukukunun yeni yüzü: düzenleyici devletten seçkinleştirici devlete. A. Çavdar & P. Tan (Der.), İstanbul düşerken: müstesna şehrin istisna hali içinde, (ss. 17-48) İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
40. Kelly, J. (2006). Central regulation of English local authorities: An example of meta-governance. Public Administration, 84(3), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00604.x
41. King, R. (2007). The Regulatory State in an Age of Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Lefebvre, H. (2023). Mekanın Üretimi. I. Ergüden (Çev.), İstanbul: Sel Yayınları.
43. Le Galés, P. (2002). European Cities: Social Conflicts and Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Le Galès, P. (2016). Neoliberalism and urban change: Stretching a good idea too far? Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1160786
45. Massey, D. (1984). Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production, London: Macmillan.
46. Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place, and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
47. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage Publications.
48. Massey, D. ve Miles, N. (1984). Mapping out the unions. Marxism Today, 28(5), 19-22.
49. Mowbray, M. (2011). What became of the local state? Neo-liberalism, community development and local government. Community Development Journal, 46(1), 1132–1153. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsq051
50. Newman, J. (2014). Landscapes of antagonism: Local governance, neoliberalism and austerity. Urban Studies, 51 (15) , 3290 - 3305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013505159
51. Newman, J. ve Clarke, J. (2009). Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services. London: Sage.
52. Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
53. Peck, J. (2010). Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), 380-404.
55. Penpecioğlu, M. (2011). Kapitalist kentleşme dinamiklerinin Türkiye’deki son 10 yılı: Yapılı çevre üretimi, devlet ve büyük ölçekli kentsel projeler. Birikim, 270, 62-73.
56. Pierre, J. (2005). Comparative urban governance: Uncovering complex causalities. Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404273442
57. Purcell, M. (2006). Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies, 43(11), 1921–1941. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600897826
58. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.
59. 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, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2024.2346169
60. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
61. Smith, N. (2013). Eşitsiz Gelişim Doğa, Sermaye ve Mekanın Üretimi. E. Soğancılar (Çev.), İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
62. Soja, E. W. (1998). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Capital & Class, 22(1), 137-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/030981689806400112
63. Stilwell, F. (1992). Understanding Cities and Regions: Spatial Political Economy. Australia: Pluto Press.
64. Stoker, G. (2011). Was local governance such a good idea? A global comparative perspective. Public Administration, 89(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01900.x
65. Stone, C. (2004). It’s more than economy after all: Continuing the debate about urban regimes. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2004.0001.x
66. Sullivan, H. ve Williams, P. (2012). Whose kettle? Exploring the role of objects in managing and mediating the boundaries of integration in health and social care. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(6), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777261211276970
67. Şanlı, T. (2024). Kurumsuzlaştırma – Aşırı Kurumsallaşma Sarmalında Planlama Kültürünün Oluşumu. İdealkent, 16(46), 2758-2781. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1365251
68. Şengül, T. (2001). Kentsel çelişki ve siyaset: Kapitalist kentleşme süreçleri üzerine yazılar. İstanbul: Demokrasi Kitaplığı.
69. Theodore, N. (2019). Governing through austerity: (Il)logics of neoliberal urbanism after the global financial crisis. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1623683
70. Tuğal, C. (2023). The Fall of the Turkish Model: How the Arab Uprisings Brought Down Islamic Liberalism. London: Verso Books.
71. Tully, J. (2002). Political philosophy as a critical activity. Political Theory, 30(4), 533–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591702304005
72. Wacquant, L. (2012). Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Social Anthropology, 20(1), 66–79.
73. Williams, P. (2012). Collaboration in Public Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.