Journals / Megaron / 2009 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

Does the urban regime theory provide an appropriate theoretical framework for analysis of urban politics in the context of the urbanization process in Turkey? a theoretical discussion

Kentsel rejim kuramının Türkiye’deki kentleşme dinamiklerinin açıklanmasında uygulanabilirliği üzerine kuramsal bir tartışma

Journal
Megaron
Pages
16–26
DOI
—
🏛️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)

From this point of view, the theory seems to be appropriate; however, in order to avoid concept-stretching, some points of concern that remind the researcher of the core of the theory should always be kept in mind.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Since the 1980’s, the urban regime theory has been one of the most widely used theoretical frameworks in the field of the analysis of urban politics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By doing so, they bring together complementary resources and gain the “capacity to govern” in cities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:From this point of view, the theory seems to be appropriate; however, in order to avoid concept-stretching, some points of concern that remind the researcher of the core of the theory should always be kept in mind.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türkiye · Turkey

Abstract

Since the 1980’s, the urban regime theory has been one of the most widely used theoretical frameworks in the field of the analysis of urban politics. Seeking a synthesis between the pluralist and structuralist approaches, it focuses on semi-formal and cross-sectoral networks of relationships in cities that are formed around a particular agenda by actors who have a shared sense of purpose. By doing so, they bring together complementary resources and gain the “capacity to govern” in cities. The aim of this article was to discuss theoretically whether the urban regime theory can be applied in the context of the urbanization process in Turkey. Coalitions being formed by different groups of the society and playing a significant role in the urbanization process of the country show some similarities with the regime concept provided by the theory. From this point of view, the theory seems to be appropriate; however, in order to avoid concept-stretching, some points of concern that remind the researcher of the core of the theory should always be kept in mind.

Özet

Kentsel rejim kuramı, 1980’lerdeki ortaya çıkışından bu yana kentsel siyasal yapı çözümlemelerinde en sık kullanılan kuramsal çerçevelerdendir. Çoğulcu ve yapısalcı yaklaşımlar arasında bir orta yol bulmaya çalışan kuram, belirli bir gündem ve ortak hedefler çerçevesinde kaynaklarını birleştiren farklı sektörlerden aktörlerce oluşturulan ve kendisini sürekli kılarak toplumdaki önderliği ele geçiren yarı formel ilişki ağları -yani rejimler- üzerinde durmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı, kentsel rejim kuramının, Türkiye’deki kentleşme sürecinin siyasal boyutunun incelenmesi ve açıklanması bakımından uygun bir çerçeve sunup sunmadığını kuramsal olarak tartışmaktır. Ülkemizdeki kentleşme biçiminde önemli rol oynayan ve toplumun farklı kesimlerince oluşturulan uzlaşı ve ittifakların kimi yönleriyle kuramca çizilen kavramsal çerçeveyle örtüştüğü gözükmektedir. Bununla birlikte diğer coğrafyalarda olduğu gibi Türkiye’de de rejim kuramı bağlamında yapılan kentsel siyasal yapı çözümlemelerinde kavram kargaşasına düşmemek adına özenli davranmak ve kuramın özünden ayrılmamayı sağlayacak temel bir takım noktaları gözden uzak tutmamak gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

UZBEK, M. H., DİNÇER, İ. (2009). Does the urban regime theory provide an appropriate theoretical framework for analysis of urban politics in the context of the urbanization process in Turkey? a theoretical discussion. Megaron, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 16–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/276704

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Davidoff, P., (1965), “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning”, 423-433, The City Reader / second edition, R.T. LeGates, F. Stout (Rev.), Routledge, Suffolk
  2. Arnstein, S., (1969), “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, 240-252, The City Reader / second edition, R.T. LeGates, F. Stout (Rev.), Routledge, Suffolk
  3. Bailey, J., (1975), Social Theory for Planning, Routledge&Kegan Paul Ltd, London, 73-85
  4. Forester, J., (1987), “Planning in the Face of Conflict”, 410-422, The City Reader / second edition, R.T. LeGates, F. Stout (Rev.), Routledge, Suffolk
  5. Squires, G.D., (1991), “Partnership and the Pursuit of the Private City”, 266-290, Readings in Urban Theory, S. Fainstein ve S. Campbell (Rev.), Blackwell, Cornwall
  6. Ward, S.V., (2004), Planning and Urban Change, Sage Publications, London, 1-8
  7. Imbroscio, D.L., (1998), “Reformulating Urban Regime Theory: The Division of Labor Between State and Market Reconsidered”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(3):233-248
  8. Imbroscio, D.L., (2003), “Overcoming the Neglect of Economics in Urban Regime Theory”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(3):271-284
  9. Mossberger, K. ve Stoker, G., (2001), “The Evolution of Urban Regime Theory, the Challenge of Conceptualization”, Urban Affairs Review, 36(6):810-835
  10. Davies, J.S., (2002), “Urban Regime Theory: A Normative- Empirical Critique”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(1):1-17
  11. Davies, J.S., (2003), “Partnerships Versus Regimes: Why Regime Theory Cannot Explain Urban Coalitions in the UK”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(3):253-269
  12. Mollenkopf, J., (1992), “How to Study Urban Political Power”, 219-228, The City Reader / second edition, R.T. LeGates ve F. Stout (Derl.), Routledge, Suffolk
  13. Allmendinger, P., (2002a), “Towards a Post-Positivist Typology of Planning Theory”, Planning Theory, 1(1):77-99
  14. Stone, C.N., (1998), “Regime Analysis and the Study of Urban Politics, A Rejoinder”, Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(3):249-260
  15. Cevizci, A., (1999), Felsefe Sözlüğü, “Yapısalcılık” Maddesi, Paradigma, İstanbul
  16. Stoker, G., (1995), “Regime Theory and Urban Politics”, 54-71, Theories of Urban Politics, D. Judge, G. Stoker, H. Wolman (Rev.), SAGE Publications, London
  17. Hall, T., (1998), Urban Geography, Routledge, London, 57-79
  18. Stone, C.N., (2006), “Power, Reform, and Urban Regime Analysis”, City & Community, 5:23-38
  19. Allen, J., (2003), Lost Geographies of Power, Blackwell, Cornwall, 38-64
  20. Harding, A., (1995), “Elite Theory and Growth Machines”,