SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mülkiye Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 270

Globalizing city and social movements

Küreselleşen kent ve sosyal hareketler

Yeşeren ELİÇİN
Pages
139–156
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

This article aims to discuss these transformations

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The globalization, which is defined by the fluidity and the decentralization of the services and financial markets, emphasized the global cities as command and supervision centers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Indeed, the globalization causes also significant transformations over the content and forms of organization of the urban social movements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This article aims to discuss these transformations
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The globalization, which is defined by the fluidity and the decentralization of the services and financial markets, emphasized the global cities as command and supervision centers. Due to its development in the production of a vast range of highly specialized services, the global city produces on one hand, new urban forms, a new urban culture and life style, becomes, on the other hand, the place of the social opposition. Indeed, the globalization causes also significant transformations over the content and forms of organization of the urban social movements. This article aims to discuss these transformations

Özet

Hizmet ve finans piyasalarının akışkanlığı ve desantralizasyonu ile tanımlanan küreselleşme olgusu bir yandan bu oluşumu hızlandırırken, bir yandan da denetim ve kumanda merkezi işlevini yerine getiren küresel kentleri öne çıkarmaktadır. Küresel sermayeye yüksek düzeyde uzmanlaşmış hizmetler sunabilen bu kentler aynı zamanda yeni kentsel formlar, yeni bir kent kültürü ve yaşam tarzının da taşıyıcıları haline gelmektedir. Öte yandan, kentler aynı zamanda sosyal hareketin filizlendiği ve sahne aldığı mekanlar olmuştur. Küreselleşme olgusu kentsel sosyal muhalefetin içeriği ve örgütlenme biçimi üzerinde de önemli dönüşümlere neden olmaktadır. Bu yazı kapsamında söz konusu dönüşümler ele alınmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ELİÇİN, Y. (2022). Globalizing city and social movements. Mülkiye Dergisi, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 270, 139–156. https://ajindex.com/articles/583979

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Başer, E. (1990). “Sosyalist Tasavvur Dünyası ve Öğrenci Hareketi Üzerine (I)”, Birikim, C.13, S. Mayıs, s.29–34.
  2. Burgers, J. ve Musterd S. (2002). “Understanding Urban Inequality: A Model Based on Existing Theories and an Emprical Illustration”, IJURR, C.26, S.2, s.403–13.
  3. Butler T. (2007). “For Gentrification?”, Environment and Planning A, C.39, s.162–81.
  4. Butler, T. (2002). “Thinking Global but Acting Local: The Middle Classes in the City”, Sociological Research Online 7. Butler, T. (2005). “Gentrification”. N. Buck, I. Gordon, A. Harding, vd (der.), Changing Cities, NY: Palgrave Mac Millan içinde, s. 172–87.
  5. Castells, M. (2002). “Urban Sociology in the Twentyfirst Century”. I. Susser (der.) The Castells Reader on Cities and Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell içinde. Davidson, M. (2007). “Gentrification as Global Habitat: A Process of Class Formation or Corporate Creation?”, Transactions of Institute of the British Geographers, C.32, s. 490–506.
  6. Friedmann, J. (1986). “The World City Hypothesis”, Development and Change, C. 17, s.69–83.
  7. Friedmann, J. ve Wolff, G. (1982). “World City Formation: An Agenda for Research and Action”, IJURR, C.3, s.309–44.
  8. Hall, P. (1966).
  9. The World Cities, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Harvey, D. (2003). “The Right to the City”, IJURR, C. 27, S.4, s.939–41.
  10. Keyder, Ç. (1992). “Istanbul’u Nasıl Satmalı?” İstanbul, C.3, s.80–85.
  11. Keyder, Ç. (2005). “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul”, IJURR, C.29, S.1, s.124–34.
  12. Koehler, B. ve Wissen M. (2003). “Glocalizing Protest: Urban Conflicts and Global Social Movements”, IJURR, C. 27, S.4, s. 942–51.
  13. Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le Droit à la Ville. Paris: Anthropos. Leontidou L. (2010). “Urban Social Movements in ‘Weak’ Civil Societies: The Right to the City and Cosmopolitan Activism in Southern Europe”, Urban Studies, C.47, S.6, s.1179–1203.
  14. Mayer, M. (2000). “Social Movements in European cities: Transitions from the 1970s to the 1990s”, A. Bagnasco ve P. Le Gales (der.), Cities in Contemporary Europe, Cambridge University Press içinde, s.131–152.
  15. Mayer, M. (2009). The ‘Right to the City’ in the Context of Shifting Mottos of Urban Social Movements, City, C.13, S.2/3, s. 362–374. Mollenkopf J. ve Castells M. (der.) (1991). Dual City: Restructuring New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundations. Musterd, S. ve Ostendorf, W. (2005). “Social Exclusion, Segregation and Neighborhood Effects”, Y. Kazepov (der.), Cities of Europe, Malden, Oxford: Blackwell içinde, s.170–189.
  16. Peck, J. ve Tickell, A