Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:53:38.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The state of property development in Turkey: facts and comparisons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2017

Seda Demiralp ,
Selva Demiralp  and
İnci Gümüş
Seda Demiralp
Affiliation:
Işık University, Department of International Relations, 34980, Şile, İstanbul, seda.demiralp@isikun.edu.tr.
Selva Demiralp
Affiliation:
Koç University, Department of Economics, 34450, Sarıyer, İstanbul, sdemiralp@ku.edu.tr.
İnci Gümüş
Affiliation:
Sabancı University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, 34956, Tuzla, İstanbul, incigumus@sabanciuniv.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we investigate economic and political developments in Turkey’s construction sector over the last decade and consider their implications. We find that during the first term of the government of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP), thanks to administrative and economic incentives, both private and public construction rose considerably. Despite the construction sector’s contribution to growth, there is also evidence of a transfer from the industrial sector toward the construction sector, which led to significant decline in the trend growth of the industrial sector in the era prior to 2006. Such evidence disappears in the post-crisis period, when the growth of private construction slows. However, overcentralization, clientelism, an absence of transparency, and limitations on citizen participation in urban planning remain as problems that need to be addressed through urban reform.

Keywords

constructiongrowthindustrializationland rentsurban policy
Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 55 , November 2016 , pp. 85 - 106
Copyright
© New Perspectives on Turkey and Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoğlu, Daron and Üçer, Murat. “The Ups and Downs of Turkish Growth, 2002–2015: Political Dynamics, the European Union and the Institutional Slide.” NBER Working Paper No: 21608, 2015.Google Scholar
Atiyas, İzak. “Economic Institutions and Institutional Change in Turkey during the Neoliberal Era.” New Perspectives on Turkey 14 (2012): 45–69.Google Scholar
Babacan, Ali. “İnşaatta Ölçüsüz Rantlar Var.” Yeni Şafak. September 16, 2014. http://www.yenisafak.com.tr/ekonomi/babacan-insaatta-olcusuz-rant-var-685512.Google Scholar
Bellin, Eva. “Contingent Democrats: Industrialists, Labor, and Democratization in Late- Developing Countries.” World Politics 52 (2000): 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Allison and Kristiansen, Annali. Urban Policies and the Right to the City: Rights, Responsibilities, and Citizenship. UNESCO, UN-HABITAT, March 2009. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001780/178090e.pdf.Google Scholar
Buğra, Ayşe. State and Business in Modern Turkey. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Buğra, Ayşe and Savaşkan, . “Politics and Class: The Turkish Business Environment in the Neoliberal Age.” New Perspectives on Turkey 46 (2012): 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, Roderic. Entrepreneurs and Politics in Twentieth-Century Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Çavuşoğlu, Erbatur. “İslamcı Neoliberalizmde İnşaat Fetişi ve Mülkiyet Üzerine Simgesel Hale.” Birikim 270 (2011): 40–51.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, Bates, Robert, Goldstone, Jack, Kristensen, Ida and O’Halloran, Sharyn. “Democratic Transitions.” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (2006): 551–569.Google Scholar
Eğilmez, Mahfi. “İnşaata Dayalı Büyüme Modelinin Sonu.” August 10, 2015. http://www.mahfiegilmez.com/2015/08/insaat-onderliginde-buyume-modelinin.html.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian. “How Development Leads to Democracy.” Foreign Affairs 88, no. 2 (2009): 33–48.Google Scholar
İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası. “Toki Değerlendirme Raporu.” November 13, 2011. http://www.imo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/2d6528de98702ba_ek.pdf?tipi=4&turu=H&sube=0.Google Scholar
“İnşaattaki Artış Diğer Sanayileri Engelliyor.” March 26, 2015. http://www.emlakguncel.com/haber/insaattaki-artis-diger-sanayileri-engelliyor.Google Scholar
Karaman, Ozan. “Urban Neoliberalism with Islamic Characteristics.” Urban Studies 50, no. 16 (2013): 3412–3427.Google Scholar
Kuyucu, Tuna and Ünsal, Özlem. “Urban Transformation as State-led Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul.” Urban Studies 47, no. 7 (2010): 1479–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, Henry. Writings on Cities. Translated and edited by Eleonore Kofman and Elizabeth Lebas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1963.Google Scholar
Moore, Barrington Jr. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Pamuk, Şevket. “2007 Sonrası Partiye Yakın Zengin Bir Zümre Yaratmak En Büyük Ekonomik Hedef Oldu.” Interview by Ezgi Başaran. Radikal. December 1, 2014. http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/ezgi_basaran/2007_sonrasi_partiye_yakin_zengin_bir_zumre_yaratmak_en_buyuk_ekonomik_hedef_oldu-1242057.Google Scholar
Penpecioğlu, Mehmet. “Kapitalist Kentleşme Dinamiklerinin Türkiye’deki Son 10 Yılı: Yapılı Çevre Üretimi, Devlet ve Büyük Ölçekli Kentsel Projeler.” Birikim 270 (2011): 62–73.Google Scholar
Purcell, Mark. “Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 3 (September 2003): 564–590.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Stephens, Evelyne Huber and Stephens, John D., eds. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Sintomer, Yves, Herzberg, Carsten, Röcke, Anja and Allegretti, Giovanni. “Transnational Models of Citizen Participation: The Case of Participatory Budgeting.” Journal of Public Deliberation 8, no. 2 (2012): 1–34.Google Scholar
Shah, Anwar, ed. Participatory Budgeting. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Törüner, Yaman. “İnşaat Sektörü Krizden Nasıl Etkilenir?” Milliyet. January 29, 2008. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/insaat-sektoru-krizden-nasil-etkilenir-/yaman-toruner/ekonomi/yazardetayarsiv/29.01.2008/236508/default.htm.Google Scholar
Van Deusen, Richard. “Public Space Design as Class Warfare: Urban Design, the ‘Right to the City’ and the Production of Clinton Square, Syracuse, NY.” GeoJournal 58, no. 2/3 (2002): 149–158.Google Scholar