The recent literature on neoliberal urban redevelopment is marked by a gap between theory and empirical research. While there exists a lively theoretical debate regarding the context-bound and spatially heterogeneous character of redevelopment, there is less effort to explain the heterogeneity through empirical studies. We argue that we can identify the specific contextual and macro-structural factors producing the “variegated” neoliberal redevelopment trajectories with carefully constructed comparative studies. To this end, we compare divergent redevelopment processes in three secondary Turkish cities. Based on in-depth interviews, close documentary analysis, and descriptive statistics, our research highlights the role of coalitions formed among local elites and their ties with central-state agents in determining how neoliberal transformations take shape. Even in a highly centralized country, such as Turkey, it is the varying capacity of local actors to form collaborative networks that explains why divergent redevelopment outcomes emerge across similar cities.
AndersonM. B.SternbergC.2012. “‘Non-White’ Gentrification in Chicago’s Bronzeville and Pilsen: Racial Economy and the Intraurban Contingency of Urban Redevelopment.” Urban Affairs Review49 (3): 435–67.
5.
AsiliskenderB.2008. “DOCOMOMO_Kayseri Toplantısının Ardından: 20. Yüzyıl ‘Modern’ Mimari Mirası Üzerine Notlar” [After the DOCOMOMO Meeting in Kayseri: Notes on 20th Century ‘Modern’ Architecture]. Mimarlık339:20–23.
6.
AtaövA.EraydinA.2011. “Different Forms of Governance: Responses of Two Metropolitan Regions in Turkey to State Restructuring.” Urban Affairs Review47 (1): 84–128.
7.
Bartu CandanA.KolluoğluB. “Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism: A Gated Town and a Public Housing Project in Istanbul.” New Perspectives on Turkey39: 5-46.
8.
BayırbağM. K.2012. “Local Entrepreneurialism and State Rescaling in Turkey.” Urban Studies47 (2): 363–85.
9.
BayraktarU.MassicardE.2012. Decentralization in Turkey. Paris: Focales.
10.
BrennerN.PeckJ.TheodoreN.2010. “Variegated Neoliberalization: Geographies, Modalities, Pathways.” Global Networks20 (2): 182–222.
11.
BuğraA.SavaşkanO.2012. “Politics and Class: The Turkish Business Environment in the Neoliberal Age.” New Perspectives on Turkey46:27–63.
12.
BunnellT.NahA. M.2004. “Counter-Global Cases for Place: Contesting Displacement in Globalising Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Area.” Urban Studies41 (12): 2447–67.
13.
CaoL.PriemusH.2007. “Spatial Disparities and Housing Market Deregulation in the Randstad Region: A Comparison with the San Francisco Bay Area.” European Urban and Regional Studies14 (4): 362–81.
14.
DavisL. K.2011. “International Events and Mass Evictions: A Longer View.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35 (3): 582–99.
15.
DiGaetanoA.KlemanskiJ. S.1993. “Urban Regime Capacity: A Comparison of Birmingham, England, and Detroit, Michigan.” Journal of Urban Affairs15 (4): 367–84.
DoğanA. E.2007. Eğreti Kamusallık: Kayseri Örneğinde İslamcı Belediyecilik [Twisted Publicness: Islamic Municipalities Examined Through the Case of Kayseri]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
18.
DoğruözH.2008. “Muslim Entrepreneurs and Alternative Modernities: The Case of MÜSİAD.” Unpublished MA thesis, Central European Univ., Budapest, Hungary.
19.
DoucetB.2012. “Variations of the Entrepreneurial City: Goals, Roles and Visions in Rotterdam’s Kop van Zuid and the Glasgow Harbour Megaprojects.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37 (6): 2035–51.
20.
EraydınK.GülE.ÇevikB.DemirE.2012. 2005 ve 2010 Verileri ile Türkiye’de İllerin Gelişmişlik Düzeyi Araştırması [Development Level of Turkish Provinces Based on 2005 and 2010 Data]. Türkiye İş Bankası A.Ş. ekonomi.isbank.com.tr/UserFiles/pdf/ar_03_2012v1.pdf (accessed April 21, 2013)
21.
ErendilA. T.2000. “Mit ve Gerçeklik Olarak Denizli - Üretim ve işgücünün değişen yapısı: Eleştirel kuram açısından bir değerlendirme” [Denizli as a Myth and Reality-Changing Structure of Production and Labor: An Assessment Through the Lens of Critical Theory]. Toplum ve Bilim86:91–117.
22.
FainsteinS. S.2008. Mega-projects in New York, London and Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32 (4):768-785.
23.
GürleselC. F.2010. Türkiye Gayrimenkul Sektörü Temel Göstergeleri. İstanbul: GYODER.
24.
HackworthJ.MoriahA.2006. “Neoliberalism, Contingency and Urban Policy: The Case of Social Housing in Ontario.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research30 (3): 510–27.
25.
HarveyD.2001. Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. New York: Routledge.
26.
HodkinsonS.2011. “Housing Regeneration and the Private Finance Initiative in England: Unstitching the Neoliberal Urban Straitjacket.” Antipode43 (2): 358–83.
27.
HolmA.KuhnA.2011. “Squatting and Urban Renewal: The Interaction of Squatter Movements and Strategies of Urban Restructuring in Berlin.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35 (3): 644–58.
28.
JonesC.2001. “A Level Playing Field? Sports Stadium Infrastructure and Urban Development in the United Kingdom.” Environment and Planning A33 (5): 845–61.
29.
KadirbeyoğluZ.SümerB.2012. “The Neoliberal Transformation of Local Government in Turkey and the Contracting Out of Municipal Services: Implications for Public Accountability.” Mediterranean Politics17 (3): 340–57.
30.
KanaiM.Ortega-AlcazarI.2009. “The Prospects for Progressive Culture-Led Urban Regeneration in Latin America: Cases from Mexico City and Buenos Aires.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33 (2): 483–501.
31.
KöksalT. G.AhunbayZ.2006. “İstanbul’daki endüstri mirası için koruma ve yeniden kullanım önerileri.” İTÜ Dergisi5 (2): 241-250.
32.
KuyucuT.ÜnsalÖ.2010. “‘Urban Transformation,’ as State-Led Property Transfer: An Analysis of Two Cases of Urban Renewal in Istanbul.” Urban Studies47 (7): 1479–99.
33.
MolotchH.LoganJ.1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
34.
MossbergerK.StokerG.2001. “The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory: The Challenge of Conceptualization.” Urban Affairs Review36:810–35.
35.
ÖnişZ.2009. “Beyond the 2001 Financial Crisis: The Political Economy of the New Phase of Neo-liberal Restructuring in Turkey.” Review of International Political Economy16 (3): 409–32.
36.
ÖzcanGül Berna. 1997. “Denizli: A Rising Economic Star of the Aegean region.” Private ViewWinter:70–74.
37.
OzelI.2012. “The Politics of (De)Delegation: Regulatory (In)Dependence in Turkey.” Regulation & Governance6 (1): 119–29.
38.
PatonK.MooneyG.McKeeK.2012. “Class, Citizenship and Regeneration: Glasgow and the Commonwealth Games 2014.” Antipode44 (4): 1470–89.
PierreJ.2014. “Can Urban Regimes Travel in Time and Space? Urban Regime Theory, Urban Governance Theory, and Comparative Urban Politics.” Urban Affairs Review. Published electronically January 10. doi:10.1177/1078087413518175.
41.
PlazaB.2008. “On Some Challenges and Conditions for the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao to Be an Effective Economic Re-activator.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32 (2): 506–17.
42.
PonziniD.RossiU.2010. “Becoming a Creative City: The Entrepreneurial Mayor, Network Politics and the Promise of an Urban Renaissance.” Urban Studies47 (5): 1037–57.
43.
RacoM.2003. “Remaking Place and Securitising Space: Urban Regeneration and the Strategies, Tactics and Practices of Policing in the UK.” Urban Studies40 (9): 1869–87.
44.
RastJ.2006. “Governing the Regimeless City: The Frank Zeidler Administration in Milwaukee, 1948-1960.” Urban Affairs Review42 (1): 81–112.
45.
ReeseL. A.RosenfeldR. A.2002. “Reconsidering Private Sector Power: Business Input and Local Development Policy.” Urban Affairs Review37 (5): 642–74.
46.
SaviniF.2011. “The Endowment of Community Participation: Institutional Settings in Two Urban Regeneration Projects.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35 (5): 949–68.
47.
ShinH. B.2009. “Residential Redevelopment and the Entrepreneurial Local State: The Implications of Beijing’s Shifting Emphasis on Urban Redevelopment Policies.” Urban Studies46 (13): 2815–39.
48.
ShinH. B.StevensQ.2012. “How Culture and Economy Meet in South Korea: The Politics of Cultural Economy in Culture-Led Urban Regeneration.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37 (5): 1707–23.
49.
SkocpolT.SomersM.1980. “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry.” Comparative Studies in Society and History22 (2): 174–97.
50.
SternbergC.AndersonM.2014. “Contestation and the Local Trajectories of Neoliberal Urban Governance in Chicago’s Bronzeville and Pilsen.” Urban Studies. Published electronically May 9. doi:10.1177/0042098014532143.
51.
StoneC.2005. “Looking Back to Look Forward: Reflections on Urban Regime Analysis.” Urban Affairs Review40 (3): 309–41.
52.
SwansonK.2007. “Revanchist Urbanism Heads South: The Regulation of Indigenous Beggars and Street Vendors in Ecuador.” Antipode39 (4): 708–28.
53.
TheurillatT.CrevoisierO.2012. “The Sustainability of a Financialized Urban Megaproject: The Case of Sihlcity in Zurich.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37 (6): 2052–73.
TretterE. M.2009. “The Cultures of Capitalism: Glasgow and the Monopoly of Culture.” Antipode41 (1): 111–32.
56.
TümerE. Ö. 2004. Türkiye’de Özelleştirmenin Ücret ve İstihdam Üzerindeki Etkisi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, T.C [The Impact of Privatization on Wages and Employment in Turkey]. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara Ünivesitesi.
WangJ.2009. “‘Art in Capital’: Shaping Distinctiveness in a Culture-Led Urban Regeneration Project in Red Town, Shanghai.” Cities26 (6): 318–30.
59.
WeiY. D.LeungC. K.2005. “Development Zones, Foreign Investment, and Global City Formation in Shanghai.” Growth and Change36 (1): 16–40.
60.
WilsonD.2004. “Toward a Contingent Urban Neoliberalism.” Urban Geography25 (8): 771–83.
61.
YavuzçehreP. S.2011. Kentsel Mekanda Değişim: Denizli [Changes in Urban Space: Denizli]. Denizli: Denizli Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
62.
YilmazS.GunerA.2013. “Local Government Discretion and Accountability in Turkey.” Public Administration and Development33: 125–42.
63.
ZukinS.2009. “Changing Landscapes of Power: Opulence and the Urge for Authenticity.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33 (2): 543–53.
