Journals / Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 25 Sayı: 44

Privatization of Public Spaces and the Right to the City in the United States

Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde Kamusal Alanların Özelleştirilmesi ve Şehir Hakkı

Pages
416–432
Publication Date
2023-06-30
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)

The conclusion provides our assessment of this conflict and preference of urban theory schools to strengthen citizen control over urban areas.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Privatization of urban public spaces leads to two conflicting positions regarding the private or public rights over a place.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We, then, identify three barriers that we regard the strongest in overcoming these problems: (1) lack of inclusive mechanisms, (2) misunderstanding of the right to the city, and (3) privatization of public spaces with neoliberal influences.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The conclusion provides our assessment of this conflict and preference of urban theory schools to strengthen citizen control over urban areas.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:kentleşme · özelleştirme · kamusal alan

Abstract

Privatization of urban public spaces leads to two conflicting positions regarding the private or public rights over a place. This article discusses the problems of urban areas with regard to the privatization of public spaces and the consequent reaction of the citizens to claim their right to the city in various forms of social mobilization. This contestation between citizen and business claims over urban places is analyzed through a historical perspective that traces the development of business role in public policy making, the ways in which business influences policy making process, and their outcomes. We, then, identify three barriers that we regard the strongest in overcoming these problems: (1) lack of inclusive mechanisms, (2) misunderstanding of the right to the city, and (3) privatization of public spaces with neoliberal influences. Lastly, we discuss the role of different stakeholders, such as academics, policy makers, and citizens. The conclusion provides our assessment of this conflict and preference of urban theory schools to strengthen citizen control over urban areas.

Özet

Kentsel kamusal alanların özelleştirilmesi, bu alanlar üzerindeki özel veya kamusal olmak üzere iki farklı hak iddiasına yol açmaktadır. Bu makale, kentlerdeki kamusal alanların özelleştirilmesi ile ilgili ortaya çıkan sorunları ve bunun sonucunda vatandaşların çeşitli toplumsal hareket yöntemleriyle şehir haklarını talep etme konusundaki tepkilerini tartışmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, vatandaş ve özel sektörün kentsel alanlar üzerindeki iddiaları arasındaki çekişme, kamu politikası yapımında özel sektörün rolünün gelişimini, sermayenin politika oluşturma sürecini etkileme yollarını ve bunların sonuçlarını izleyen tarihsel bir perspektif aracılığıyla analiz edilmektedir. Bu makale, bu sorunların aşılmasının önündeki en belirgin bu üç engelin (1) kapsayıcı mekanizmaların olmaması, (2) şehir hakkının yanlış anlaşılması ve (3) neoliberal etkilerle kamusal alanların özelleştirilmesi olduğu sonucuna varmıştır. Ek olarak, bu sorunların giderilmesi konusunda, akademisyenler, politika yapıcılar ve vatandaşlar gibi farklı paydaşların rolü tartışılmıştır. Bu çatışmaya ilişkin değerlendirme sonucunda, kentsel alanlar üzerindeki vatandaş kontrolünü güçlendirmek için kent kuramları üzerine çalışan ekollerin tercihlerine önem verilmesine ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKOÇ, M., SOYLEMEZ-KARAKOC, B. (2023). Privatization of Public Spaces and the Right to the City in the United States. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 44, 416–432. https://ajindex.com/articles/950147

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Barnekov, T. K., Boyle, R., and Rich, D. (1989). Privatism and urban policy in Britain and the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Barnekov, T. K., Rich, D., and Warren, R. (1981).
  3. The New Privatism, Federalism, and The Future of Urban Governance: National Urban Policy in the 1980s. Journal of Urban Affairs, 3(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.1981.tb00013.x
  4. Dahl, R. A. (1967). The City in the Future of Democracy. American Political Science Review, 61(04), 953–970. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953398
  5. Davidson, M. (2017). Governance. In M. Jayne & K. Ward (Eds.), Urban theory: new critical perspectives (pp. 146–157).
  6. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. DiGaetano, A., and Strom, E. (2003). Comparative Urban Governance: An Integrated Approach. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 356–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087402238806
  7. Dikeç, M. (2001). Justice and the Spatial Imagination. Environment and Planning A, 33(10), 1785–1805. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3467
  8. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
  9. Garcia, M. (2006). Citizenship Practices and Urban Governance in European Cities. Urban Studies, 43(4), 745– 765. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600597491
  10. Goss, S., and Neiburg, J. (2017).
  11. Hey, Amazon, Delaware has your future headquarters site. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://www.delawareonline.com/story/money/business/2017/09/15/hey-amazon-delaware- has-your-future-headquarters-site/667735001/ Harvey, D. (1997). Contested cities: Social process and spatial form. In N. Jewson & S. MacGregor (Eds.), Transforming cities: contested governance and new spatial divisions. London; New York: Routledge. Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x
  12. Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206296780
  13. Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review, (53), 23–40.
  14. Jayne, M., and Ward, K. (2017). A Twenty-First Century Introduction to Urban Theory. In M. Jayne & K. Ward (Eds.), Urban theory: new critical perspectives (pp. 1–18).
  15. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Kantor, P., and Savitch, H. V. (2005). How to Study Comparative Urban Development Politics: A Research Note. Internat