NEOLIBERAL URBANIZATION, SPATIAL INEQUITY, AND SOCIAL ALIENATION: AN ANALYSIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CRITICAL URBAN THEORY

Öz

The global rise of neoliberalism has reshaped not only economic and administrative structures but has also profoundly transformed the production, use, and redistribution of urban space. Since the 1980s, cities have been restructured in line with objectives such as attracting global capital, enhancing competitiveness, and positioning themselves as branded investment hubs. Within this framework, market-oriented policies have become the dominant logic of urban planning and governance. This study aims to analyze how neoliberal urban policies generate spatial injustice and social alienation within urban environments. The central research question guiding the study is formulated as follows: Through which mechanisms do neoliberal urban policies produce injustice and alienation in urban space? The study adopts a qualitative research design based on a narrative literature review approach. Academic publications produced between 2000 and 2024 were examined through searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Sources were selected around key concepts such as neoliberal urbanism, spatial injustice, gentrification, the right to the city, and social alienation. The selected studies were evaluated through a thematic synthesis, and the impacts of neoliberal urbanization were classified under four primary analytical categories: commodification of space, gentrification and displacement, marketization of public space, and loss of belonging–social alienation. The findings indicate that neoliberal urbanization reproduces spatial inequalities not merely through income distribution disparities, but also through restricted access to decision-making processes, unequal distribution of public services, and differential access to spatial resources. Gentrification processes result in the displacement of low-income groups and the erosion of community bonds, while the privatization of public spaces narrows urban rights and weakens collective forms of urban life. Consequently, individuals’ sense of belonging to their living environments diminishes, deepening experiences of social alienation. The study argues that neoliberal urbanization constitutes a multi-layered regime of inequality operating across economic, political, and socio-spatial dimensions. In this regard, it highlights the necessity of alternative urban governance models grounded in spatial justice, democratic participation, and social cohesion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Neoliberalism
• Urban Policy
• Spatil Inequality
• Dispossesion and Alienation

NEOLİBERAL KENTLEŞME, MEKÂNSAL ADALETSİZLİK VE TOPLUMSAL YABANCILAŞMA: ELEŞTİREL KENT KURAMI ÇERÇEVESİNDE BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Neoliberalizmin küresel ölçekte yükselişi, ekonomik ve yönetsel dönüşümlerin ötesinde kentsel mekânın üretim, kullanım ve yeniden dağıtım süreçlerini de derinden etkilemiştir. 1980 sonrası dönemde kentler, küresel sermayeyi çekme, rekabetçi marka şehir olma ve yatırım ortamını iyileştirme hedefleri doğrultusunda yeniden yapılandırılmış; bu süreçte piyasa merkezli politikalar kentsel planlamanın belirleyici unsuru hâline gelmiştir. Bu çalışma, neoliberal kentsel politikaların kent mekânında nasıl bir mekânsal adaletsizlik ve toplumsal yabancılaşma ürettiğini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Temel araştırma sorusu, “Neoliberal kentsel politikalar, kent mekânında adaletsizlik ve yabancılaşmayı hangi mekanizmalar üzerinden üretmektedir?” şeklinde formüle edilmiştir. Çalışma nitel araştırma tasarımı çerçevesinde anlatımsal (narrative) literatür taraması yöntemiyle yürütülmüştür. 2000–2024 yılları arasında yayımlanmış akademik çalışmalar Web of Science, Scopus ve Google Scholar veri tabanları üzerinden taranmış; neoliberal kentleşme, mekânsal adaletsizlik, gentrifikasyon, kent hakkı ve toplumsal yabancılaşma kavramları ekseninde seçilen çalışmalar tematik analiz yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sürecinde neoliberal kentleşmenin etkileri dört ana başlık altında sınıflandırılmıştır: mekânın metalaşması, gentrifikasyon ve yerinden edilme, kamusal alanın piyasalaşması ve aidiyet kaybı–yabancılaşma. Bulgular, neoliberal kentleşmenin mekânsal eşitsizlikleri salt ekonomik gelir dağılımı üzerinden değil; karar alma süreçlerine erişim, kamusal hizmetlerin dağılımı ve mekânsal kaynaklara ulaşım boyutlarında da yeniden ürettiğini göstermektedir. Gentrifikasyon süreçleri düşük gelirli grupların yerinden edilmesine ve topluluk bağlarının çözülmesine yol açarken; kamusal alanların özelleştirilmesi kentli haklarının daralmasına neden olmaktadır. Böylelikle kentlilerin yaşadıkları mekânla kurdukları aidiyet ilişkisi zayıflamakta ve toplumsal yabancılaşma derinleşmektedir. Çalışma, neoliberal kentleşmenin çok düzlemli bir eşitsizlik rejimi ürettiğini ileri sürmekte ve mekânsal adalet ile toplumsal bütünleşmeyi önceleyen alternatif kentsel yönetişim modellerinin gerekliliğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Neoliberalizm
• Kentsel Politika
• Mekansal Adaletsizlik
• Mülksüzleştirme ve Yabancılaşma

Kaynakça

1. Bayırbağ, M. ve Penpecioğlu, M. (2017). Urban crisis: ‘Limits to governance of alienation’. Urban Studies, 54(9), 2056–2071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015617079
2. Boyle, M., McWilliams, C. ve Rice, G. (2008). The spatialities of actually existing neoliberalism in Glasgow, 1977 to present. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography, 90(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2008.00296.x
3. 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
4. Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. University of California Press.
5. Červinková, H. (2013). The kidnapping of Wroclaw’s dwarves. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 27(4), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325413488627
6. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 (Editors: M. Senellart, F. Ewald, A. Fontana). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594180
7. Gemmiti, R. (2019). Neoliberal Rome—the role of tourism. Social Sciences, 8(6), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8060196
8. Gomez, M. B. (2017). Neoliberalization’s propagation of health inequity in urban rebuilding processes: The dependence on context and path. International Journal of Health Services, 47(4), 655–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731417712393

9. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.
10. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001
11. Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.64590/fmh
12. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.
13. He, S. ve Wu, F. (2009). China’s emerging neoliberal urbanism: Perspectives from urban redevelopment. Antipode, 41(2), 282–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00673.x
14. Hubbard, P. (2004). Revenge and injustice in the neoliberal city: Uncovering masculinist agendas. Antipode, 36(4), 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00442.x
15. Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Polity Press.
16. Kemp, A., Lebuhn, H. ve Rattner, G. (2015). Between neoliberal governance and the right to the city: Participatory politics in Berlin and Tel Aviv. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 704–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12262
17. Khalatbari, A. (2024). A critique of neoliberal urbanization and its downsides on housing policies. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.0923.v1
18. Le Galès, P. (2016). Neoliberalism and urban change: Stretching a good idea too far? Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1165143
19. Lees, L., Slater, T. ve Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203940877
20. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Eds. & Trans.). Blackwell.
21. Lombard, M. (2013). Citizen participation in urban governance in the context of democratization: Evidence from low‐income neighbourhoods in Mexico. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01175.x
22. Marcuse, P. (1985). Gentrification, abandonment, and displacement: Connections, causes, and policy responses in New York City. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 28(1), 195–240.
23. Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy: Volume I (B. Fowkes, Trans.; E. Mandel, Intro.). Penguin Books.
24. Mele, C. (2011). Casinos, prisons, incinerators, and other fragments of neoliberal urban development. Social Science History, 35(3), 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0145553200011597
25. Nagel, M. ve Satoh, K. (2019). Protesting iconic megaprojects: A discourse network analysis of the evolution of the conflict over Stuttgart 21. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1681–1700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018775903
26. Özcan, E., Atatepe. Özden, S. ve İçağasıoğlu Çoban, A. (2017). Sosyal hizmet uzmanlarının güvencesiz çalışma biçimine ilişkin deneyimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(1), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4371
27. Peck, J. ve Tickell, A. (2017). Neoliberalizing space. R. Martin (der.) Economy: Critical Essays in Human Geography içinde (ss. 475-500). Routledge.
28. Peck, J., Theodore, N. ve Brenner, N. (2013). Neoliberal urbanism redux? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12066
29. Rankin, K. N. ve Delaney, J. (2011). Community bias as practices of assemblage: Contingent politics in the neoliberal city. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43(6), 1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43301
30. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
31. Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W. W. Norton & Company.
32. Shaw, K. S. ve Hagemans, I. W. (2015). ‘Gentrification without displacement’ and the consequent loss of place: The effects of class transition on low‐income residents of secure housing in gentrifying areas. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(2), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12164
33. Shin, H. B. (2009). Property-based redevelopment and gentrification: The case of Seoul, South Korea. Geoforum, 40(5), 906–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.06.009
34. Smith, N. (2005). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge.
35. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
36. Sorensen, A. (2003). Building world city Tokyo: Globalization and conflict over urban space. The Annals of Regional Science, 37(3), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-003-0168-3
37. Şengül, T. (2009). Kentsel çelişki ve siyaset: Kapitalist kentleşme süreçlerinin eleştirisi. İmge Kitabevi.
38. Temenos, C. ve McCann, E. (2013). Geographies of policy mobilities. Geography Compass, 7(5), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12063
39. Tulumello, S. (2015). Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: Urban regeneration policy in a “dense” space in Lisbon. Urban Geography, 37(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1056605
40. Véron, R. (2010). Small cities, neoliberal governance and sustainable development in the global south: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Sustainability, 2(9), 2833–2848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092833
41. Vogelpohl, A. ve Buchholz, T. (2017). Breaking with neoliberalization by restricting the housing market: Novel urban policies and the case of Hamburg. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(2), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12490
42. Wittmer, J. ve Parizeau, K. (2016). Informal recyclers’ geographies of surviving neoliberal urbanism in Vancouver, BC. Applied Geography, 66, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.10.006