SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Fiscaoeconomia / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 2

The Transformation of Land into a Valorization Area through Two Legal Regulations

İki Yasal Düzenleme Üzerinden Toprağın Değerlenme Alanına Dönüşümü

Selma Değirmenci(KADIR HAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2862-6203
Fuat Ercan(MİMAR SİNAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7839-6242
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-04
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this sense, the article argues that recent legal interventions function as mechanisms that expand the integration of agricultural land into capitalist accumulation and valorization processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article argues that two recent legal interventions in Turkey, the Law on Soil Conservation and Land Use (TKAKK) and the Regulation on Leasing Uncultivated Agricultural Land (İTAY), mark a qualitative threshold in the capitalist transformation of agriculture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Through the concepts of absolute rent and differential rent (I and II), the article demonstrates how these regulations integrate agricultural land more directly into capitalist valorization processes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this sense, the article argues that recent legal interventions function as mechanisms that expand the integration of agricultural land into capitalist accumulation and valorization processes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Agriculture · Land Ownership · Rent Theory

Abstract

This article argues that two recent legal interventions in Turkey, the Law on Soil Conservation and Land Use (TKAKK) and the Regulation on Leasing Uncultivated Agricultural Land (İTAY), mark a qualitative threshold in the capitalist transformation of agriculture. Drawing on Marxist rent theory, it examines how state intervention restructures land ownership and use in favor of capital accumulation. Through the concepts of absolute rent and differential rent (I and II), the article demonstrates how these regulations integrate agricultural land more directly into capitalist valorization processes. Rather than merely addressing inefficiency, these measures accelerate the withdrawal of small producers from agriculture, deepen proletarianization, and reconfigure rural class relations. In this sense, the article argues that recent legal interventions function as mechanisms that expand the integration of agricultural land into capitalist accumulation and valorization processes.

Özet

Bu makale, Türkiye’de son dönemde yürürlüğe giren Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullanımı Kanunu (TKAKK) ile İşlenmeyen Tarım Arazilerinin Tarımsal Amaçlı Kiraya Verilmesine İlişkin Yönetmelik’in (İTAY), tarımda kapitalistleşme sürecinde niteliksel bir eşiğe işaret ettiğini ileri sürmektedir. Çalışma, bu iki düzenlemeyi Marksist rant teorisi çerçevesinde ele alarak tarım topraklarının mülkiyet ve kullanım ilişkilerinin devlet eliyle sermaye birikimi lehine yeniden yapılandırılmasını analiz etmektedir. Mutlak rant ile farklılık rantı (I ve II) kavramları üzerinden, söz konusu müdahalelerin tarımsal alanı kapitalist değerlenme sürecine daha doğrudan biçimde eklemlediği gösterilmektedir. Bu bağlamda makale, son dönemdeki hukuki müdahalelerin tarım topraklarının kapitalist birikim ve değerlenme süreçlerine eklemlenmesini genişleten mekanizmalar olarak işlediğini ileri sürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Değirmenci, S., Ercan, F. (2026). The Transformation of Land into a Valorization Area through Two Legal Regulations. Fiscaoeconomia, Volume: 10 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1893248

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Akçay, F., & Ünay, H. (2019). The process of small farmers’ withdrawal from agriculture in Türkiye and its effects. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 25(2), 133–150.
  2. Akın, E. (2007). Kentsel gelişme ve kentsel rantlar: Ankara örneği (Doctoral dissertation). Ankara University.
  3. Aydın, Z. (1986). Capitalism, the agricultural problem, and underdeveloped countries (I). Journal of Peasant Studies, 13(4), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066158608438275
  4. Aydın, Z. (2010). The political economy of Türkiye: Rural transformation and agrarian change. Z. Aydın & A. Akça (Eds.), Agrarian change, labour and peasant movements in Türkiye. London: Routledge.
  5. Bernstein, H. (2006). Is there an agrarian question in the 21st century?. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 27(4), 449–460.
  6. Boratav, K. (2000). Yeni dünya düzeni nereye. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  7. Chayanov, A. V. (1966). The theory of peasant economy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
  8. Değirmenci, S. (2019). 2000 sonrası Türkiye tarımında dönüşümün temel bileşenleri: Devlet-sermaye ilişkileri ekseninde talepler ve yasal düzenlemeler [Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University]. https://katalog.marmara.edu.tr/veriler/yordambt/cokluortam/6B/47C584B9-6752-4E41-96F6-37D340AF46C9.pdf
  9. Değirmenci, S. (2021). Türkiye’de tarım kapitalistleşirken. İstanbul: SAV.
  10. Dinçer, A. (2022). The transformation of the peasantry within the framework of agricultural censuses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University.
  11. Ercan, F. (2008). Kırsal yapıda toplumsal değişme. İstanbul: SAV Sosyal Araştırmalar Vakfı Yayınları.
  12. Ercan, F. (2022). The truth of Turkey scattered in the middle: The Canal Istanbul project. F. Ercan & T. Tezer (Eds.), Kanal İstanbul Projesi'ndeki Türkiye (pp. 1–73). İstanbul: Bağlam.
  13. Ersoy, M. (2022). Historical development of rent theories. M. Ersoy & H. Ç. Keskinok (Eds.), Kentsel rantlar, planlama ve kamu yararı. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  14. Ertürk, H. (1997). Kent ekonomisi. Bursa: Ekin.
  15. Fairbairn, M. (2020). Fields of gold: Financing the global land rush. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  16. Fine, B. (1979). On Marx’s theory of agricultural rent. Economy and society, 8(3), 241–278.
  17. Gülöksüz, Y. G., & Gülöksüz, Y. (2008). Rural structure. Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 5, pp. 1240–1253). İstanbul: Yurt.
  18. Haila, A. (1989). Rent and the concept of landed property. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13(1), 78–91.
  19. Kalenderoğlu, A. (2019). 5403 sayılı Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullanımı Kanunu kapsamında tarım arazilerinin miras yoluyla devri (Master’s thesis). Selçuk University.
  20. Kautsky, K. (1988). The Agrarian Question. London: Zwan.
  21. Keyder, Ç. (1982). Dünya ekonomisi içinde Türkiye (1923–1929) (Turkey in the world economy, 1923–1929). Yurt Yayınları.
  22. Keyder, Ç., & Yenal, Z. (2013). Bildiğimiz tarımın sonu: Küresel iktidar ve köylülük. İstanbul: İletişim.
  23. Keyder, Ç., & Yenal, Z. (2022). Turkey’s growing agricultural problem: Climate change and the state. Sarkaç. https://sarkac.org
  24. Kocabıçak, E. (2022). Gendered property and labour relations in agriculture: Implications for social change in Turkey. Oxford Development Studies, 50(2), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2021.1929914
  25. Krueger, A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. American Economic Review, 64(3), 291–303.
  26. Kurt, N. (2020). The phenomenon of urban rent and the role of the state in the urban development process in Turkey. Kent Akademisi, 13(4), 785–807. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.797866
  27. Leonhardt, H. (2024). How close are they? Using proximity theory to understand the relationship between landlords and tenants of agricultural land. Journal of Rural Studies, 109, 103330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103330
  28. Marx, K. (1978). Kapital: Ekonomi politiğin eleştirisi, üçüncü cilt (Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 3] (A. Bilgi, Trans.). Sol Yayınları. (Original work published 1894)
  29. Marx, K. (2016). Kapital: Ekonomi politiğin eleştirisi, Cilt III (Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 3) (M. Selik & E. Özalp, Trans.). Yordam Kitap. (Original work published 1894)
  30. Mdoda, L. I., & Gidi, L. S. (2023). Impact of land ownership in enhancing agricultural productivity in rural areas of Eastern Cape Province. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 51(2). https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2023/v51n2a11553
  31. Miles, M. E., Berens, G., & Weiss, M. (2000). Real Estate Development: Principles and Process. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
  32. Oyan, O. (2024). The AKP cannot save either agriculture or appearances. Haber Sol. https://haber.sol.org.tr/yazarlar/oguz-oyan/akp-tarimi-da-zevahiri-de-kurtaramaz-394787
  33. Oyan, O. (2025). On the verge of a new turning point in agriculture. Haber Sol. https://haber.sol.org.tr/yazarlar/oguz-oyan/tarimda-yeni-bir-kirilmanin-esiginde-404110
  34. Öztürk, B. N. (2024). Full support for capital in agriculture: Is the era of small farming over? Umut-Sen. https://umutsen.org/index.php/2024/09/tarimda-sermayeye-tam-destek-kucuk-ciftcilik-donemi-bitti-mi-beyza-nur-ozturk/
  35. Özuğurlu, M. (2011). Küçük köylülüğe sermaye kapanı: Türkiye’de tarım çalışmaları ve köylülük üzerine gözlemler. Ankara: Nota Bene.
  36. Pelek, D. (2022). Ethnic residential segregation among seasonal migrant workers: From temporary tents to new rural ghettos in Southern Turkey. Journal of Peasant Studies, 49(1), 54–77.
  37. Piketty, T. (2021). Capital and ideology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  38. Qiu, T., He, Q., Li, Y., & Choy, B. (2020). The impact of land renting-in on farm productivity: Evidence from maize production in China. China Agricultural Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-08-2019-0135
  39. Reisman, E., & Fairbairn, M. (2021). Agri-food systems and the political economy of socioecological transformation. Agriculture and Human Values, 38(4), 1023–1037.
  40. Republic of Türkiye Presidency of Strategy and Budget. (2024). Medium-Term Plan 2025–2027. Ankara.
  41. Ricardo, D. (2000). Principles of political economy and taxation. İstanbul: Belge.
  42. Richani, N. F. (2023). War rentierism and agrarian restructuring in the Global South. Journal of Peasant Studies, 50(6), 2154–2176.
  43. Smith, A. (2019). The Wealth of Nations (S. Ülgener, Trans.). İstanbul: İş Bankası.
  44. Sönmez, M. (2011). İnşaat Ya Resulullah. İstanbul: Yordam Kitap.
  45. Tekeli, İ. (2009). Kentsel arsa, altyapı ve kentsel hizmetler. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
  46. Topal, A. (2014). Agricultural policies and dynamics of rural struggles in Mexico. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 41, 151–176.
  47. Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullanımı Kanunu [Soil Conservation and Land Use Act], Kanun No. 5403, Resmî Gazete No. 25880 (2005). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5403.pdf
  48. Yenal, Z. (2022). How can we restore agriculture?. Perspektif. https://perspektif.online/tarimi-nasil-onarabiliriz/
  49. Yeşilbağ, M. (2016). The AKP and the construction of hegemony in Turkey. Middle East Critique, 25(4), 361–376.
  50. Yeşilbağ, M. (2021). Statecraft on cement: The politics of land-based accumulation in Erdoğan’s Turkey. Urban Studies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211044044
  51. Yıldırım, A. E. (2024). The Ministry of Agriculture will lease agricultural lands left uncultivated for two years. Karasaban. https://www.karasaban.net/tarim-bakanligi-2-yil-ekilmeyen-tarim-arazilerini-kiraya-verecek-ali-ekber-yildirim/
  52. Zhang, L., Hong, M., Guo, X., & Qian, W. (2022). How does land rental affect agricultural labor productivity? An empirical study in rural China. Land, 11(5), Article 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050653