Download - Concentrated Urban Poverty

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 14 November 2010Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713417253

Concentrated Urban Poverty: The Case of Izmir Inner Area, TurkeyIpek zbek Snmeza

a City and Regional Planning Department, Faculty of Architecture, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir,Turkey

To cite this Article Snmez, Ipek zbek(2007) 'Concentrated Urban Poverty: The Case of Izmir Inner Area, Turkey', EuropeanPlanning Studies, 15: 3, 319 — 338To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09654310601017026URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310601017026

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713417253

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310601017026

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Concentrated Urban Poverty: The Caseof Izmir Inner Area, Turkey

IPEK OZBEK SONMEZ

City and Regional Planning Department, Faculty of Architecture, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT In Turkey, poverty has been a main subject of debates since 1960s. It used to be aserious problem for both rural areas and the big cities that gained migration. In Turkey andworld-wide since the 1980s, however, there have been more research interests in theconcentrated urban poverty, especially along with the increase in levels of impoverishmentaround the world. With the help of a case study in Izmir (Turkey), this paper aims to examine theprocess of concentrated urban poverty from different points of view in the literature. This is acase study developed at the peripheries of the traditional city centre—or inner areas—of the cityof Izmir, Turkey. The paper, first, discusses the parameters of concentrated poverty according tothe literature. Then it introduces the study findings of the author, which point out the macro-scale, micro-scale and ecological dynamics that are important in the development ofconcentrated urban poverty. The macro-scale dynamics suggest that poverty in inner areas of thecity are related to the unbalanced development trends within the country, such as the overgrowthof metropolitan cities, economic restructuring processes, migration trends and the development ofinformal economy. The ecological dynamics address to the housing and job location preferencesand invasion-succession processes in the city, which emphasize that socio-economiccharacteristics of inner areas of the city are different from those of other city parts. Micro-scaledynamics are related to poors’ ability of developing solidarity relations among themselves, whichis also related to the spatial characteristics of inner areas of the city, according to this study’sfindings.

Introduction

Inner areas of the city have long been under the gaze of the scholars in sociology and geogra-

phy. The social-economic changes since the development of industrial cities in the

nineteenth century—especially the concentration of poverty and unhealthy living environ-

ments resulting from the concentration of low income labour force—were driving these

scholarly interests in developed countries. Meanwhile, similar discussions in developing

countries also started along with the urbanization and industrialization trends in these

countries.

Correspondence Address: Ipek Ozbek Sonmez, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Mimarlık Fakultesi/Sehir Planlama

Bolumu, Tınaztepe Kampusu, Dogus Caddesi, No:209, 35160, Kurucesme, Izmir, Turkey. Email: ipek.

[email protected]

ISSN 0965-4313 print=ISSN 1469-5944 online=07=030319–20 # 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080=09654310601017026

European Planning Studies Vol. 15, No. 3, April 2007

Downloaded At: 11:51 14 November 2010

Such contextual differences have resulted in the emergence of different approaches to

concentrated urban poverty. This paper discusses these approaches, and examines how

relevant they are to the case of Turkey, drawn from the case study findings in the Metro-

politan City of Izmir. The study site includes the areas next to the traditional city centre of

Izmir, which this paper calls the inner areas of the city.

The study has data at both the city and the neighbourhood scale, drawn from the data

from the State Office of Statistics and from my extensive fieldwork in inner areas

around the city centre of Izmir, respectively. The data at the fieldwork comes primarily

from interviews with 323 households in 12 neighbourhoods that have been completed

since 1998 (Figures 1 and 2 and A1). From each neighborhood 10% of the interview

subjects were chosen by random sampling.

The next part of the paper introduces different theories and approaches to the concen-

trated urban poverty in the literature. Within relation to these approaches, the third part of

the paper discusses how the dynamics of concentrated urban poverty in Turkey and

particularly, in the city of Izmir develop. The last part concludes with some remarks

about the concentration of poverty.

In contemporary developed and developing world, poverty is concentrated in urban

areas. Overall, the reason for concentrated poverty mainly relates to the macro-economic

factors. However, the process and structure of concentrated poverty might differ from city

to city. Therefore, this paper aims to contribute to the discussions on concentrated urban

poverty by studying the dynamics of poverty as experienced at a particular place. The

paper also develops a historical perspective and looks at how the study site has been por-

trayed through the decades.

The study site and the city of Izmir in general have some commonalities with other parts

of the world. In many historic cities like Izmir, tourism is a driver for the physical upgrad-

ing of central-city areas. The problem for these cities is that such physical upgrading might

trigger gentrification to and, thus, displacement of the urban poor from these areas that are

close to some job opportunities for the poor.

Studies about the central areas of metropolitan cities indicate that social upgrading also

leads to gentrification in Turkey. The development of gentrification seems to correlate

with degrees of integration to globalization processes. Istanbul, for instance, is a city

that is highly integrated to globalization processes. Various analysis of Istanbul points

out that mostly central areas experience gentrification. Uzun (2001), for instance,

describes the new-environmentally-conscious and community-oriented lifestyles that

Figure 1. Location of survey area within the Great City of Izmir

320 I. O. Sonmez


develop within the historically rich areas of the city. Yet she also points out that gentrifi-

cation in inner areas of the city threatens low-income communities to be displaced from

their neighbourhoods.

Different Perspectives on the Concentrated Urban Poverty

Since the industrialization movements of the nineteenth century, scholars and politicians

have heavily debated the poverty and social segregation in inner areas of the city. Along

with the growth of cities in the twentieth century, geographers and sociologists have tried

to identify and explain variations in cities’ spatial patterns. In the twentieth century, three

main schools of thought developed about urban poverty. The “ecological approach” put

forward several models of the city. The model of Burgess (1925) is composed of socio-

economic groupings of the inhabitants of Chicago, Illinois. One of the basic assumptions

of Burgess is that low-income residents have to live near to their workplaces in the city

centre because they could not afford high housing and transportation costs. According

to the Concentric Zones Model, the central business district is surrounded by a transition

zone, at which old housing units are either deteriorated into slum properties or invaded by

the light industrial uses.

This model in some respects also explains the development of slum housing in the inner

areas of the cities in developing countries. Modernization and industrialization trends in

these countries after the 1960s have caused millions of people to migrate from rural to

urban areas. Especially the pull factors of the metropolitan city economies and the push

factors of rural areas—such as the changing structure of agriculture and the high

number of population without any land ownership—have been parts of these trends.

Figure 2. The traditional city centre of Izmir (inner city) and the survey area

Concentrated Urban Poverty: The Case of Izmir Inner Area, Turkey 321


Poor migrants have had usually two options for housing. They need to live either in inner

areas or peripheries of the city after building their shantytowns. Almost in all of the metro-

politan cities in the developing world, the inner areas have been close to job opportunities

and the housing stocks around the city centre. Similar to the ecological models, therefore,

a pattern of the concentrated urban poverty has developed in the inner areas of metropo-

litan cities in the developing countries.

The second approach to urban poverty is the culturalist approach that develops in

response to the ecological approaches in general. This approach basically develops

around Oscar Lewis’ ideas (Lewis, 1966). According to him, “poverty was vicious beha-

vioral cycle, based on sub cultural adaptations and passed on from parents to children; that

is each generation was trained to be poor by the previous one. His assumption was based

on Park’s argument that natural areas generate their own moral order, like that of the slum”

(Flanagan, 1999, p. 265).

The structuralists, however, criticize the culturalist approach, on the basis that “the

social conflicts and confrontations between popular movements and the elements of

force available to state authorities in the late 1960s had the effect of liberating social criti-

cism within the social sciences” (Flanagan, 1993, p. 85). The criticism of “the culture of

poverty” and its policy implementations, argues that the kind of analysis based on the

culturalist approach results in a terrifying sameness in the programmes. In education,

for instance, there are programmes of education that aim to build up attitudes and skills

among the ghetto children, rather than to initiate structural changes in schools (Flanagan,

1999, p. 268).

According to the structuralist approach, poverty in general is a fundamental product of

capitalism in a wider sense (Harvey, 1973). This is also the case in inner areas of metro-

politan cities in the developing countries. Slum clearance programmes in these countries,

for instance, aim to transform inner areas into modern housing areas or commercial

districts, similar to the cases in the countries with developed economies. Turner (1968)

criticized the slum clearance programmes for their inefficiency. But he was neither an

advocate of slum preservation and renovation (Turner, 1968). Meanwhile, policy-

makers contributed to the myth of the shanty town by promoting “upgrading programmes”

in peripheral areas but not in the inner city (Eckstein, 1990).

However, Castells’ (1983) standing on the Marxist perspective conceives the lower

class options in terms of the broader state and class dynamics. He believes that mobiliz-

ation at below has the potential of offsetting the state control from above. He claims that

residents of low income settlements can attain urban services through their grassroots

movements (Eckstein, 1990).

Since the last two decades, the social and economic transformations world-wide have

led to serious discussions on the processes of the impoverishment and concentrated

urban poverty in developing and developed countries. Concepts like “new poverty,”

“hyper-segregation” and “concentrated poverty” have become to define socially and econ-

omically polarized groups. Kasarda (1993), for instance, identifies poverty, extreme

poverty, distressed and severely distressed neighbourhoods within the 100 largest

central cities of the US using the tract level data from the 1970, 1980 and 1990 US

Census Data. His results show that concentration and neighbourhood distress worsened

nationwide between 1980 and 1990.

Sassen (1996) points out the dramatic increases in socio-economic and spatial inequal-

ities in the major cities world-wide and, interprets these inequalities as results from

322 I. O. Sonmez


economic restructuring and the emergence of new social forms and class alignments in the

big cities of highly developed countries. She also addresses to the segmentation among the

middle class people that has a sharper upward and downward slant than that had in earlier

periods.

In his discussion on the post-Fordist ghetto, Marcuse asserts that “The post-Fordist

ghetto is a ‘new ghetto’ in that it has become an outcast ghetto, a ghetto of the excluded,

rather than more generally of the dominated and exploited or of the marginal . . . The

ghetto colonies are linked to the colonizers, the masters have an interest in profit from

the work of the subject peoples. That has changed in the post-Fordist city. Those in

today’s black ghettos are not productive” (Marcuse, 1996). An analysis by Wilson

about US ghettos, meanwhile, stresses on out-migration of the middle class African-Amer-

ican population from the older black ghettos and, thus, the emergence of a new form of

ghettos in respect to the recent economic and demographic trends (Wilson, 1996).

Where as the American model of the concentrated urban poverty has its own dynamics

of development, Western Europe with its relatively strong welfare states might provide

different patterns of the social segregation and the processes of concentrated urban

poverty. A detailed study of social exclusion in 10 neighbourhoods in eight countries of

the European Union (EU) describes how broader processes of social exclusion evolve

similarly across all these neighbourhoods. It points out primarily the mismatch between

the welfare delivery systems and the current situation in distressed neighbourhoods

(Madanipour et al., 2000). Mingione (1996) also points out the fact that the features of

characterizing the urban poor—concentrated in ghettos or decaying peripheries—run a

risk of becoming chronic forms of social exclusion.

Meanwhile, the impoverishment of countries after the macro-economic changes in the

1980s has created a new terminology such as “underclass” and “new poverty” for

identifying poverty in developing countries as well. Describing the new poverty in

Latin American cities, De La Rocha et al. assert that “today’s new poverty is often

embedded within structures of social exclusion that severely reduce opportunities for

social mobility among the urban poor” (2004). Portes and Hoffman (2003) indicate that

the present era has more visibility in the income inequality, social polarization, rapid

upward class mobility among micro-entrepreneurs, and the stagnation or increase of

informal proletariat than the previous eras had.

In post-1980s, poverty has been embedded within structures of social exclusion. This

has led to the concentration of poverty in urban areas. The major parameters of the con-

centrated poverty are related to the new changes in the macro-economic factors that had

already resulted in poverty across the developing countries. Also, poverty becomes con-

centrated in certain areas in the cities of the developing world. These are usually peripheral

areas of the city centre, that is, the inner areas of the city. The site of the concentrated

poverty in the city might vary in general because each city has distinct growth dynamics;

it might be at different stages of integration to the global economy; and every locality

develops its own strategies to cope with impoverishment.1 These and similar factors

might affect where and with what density the poverty concentrate in the city.

How we perceive poverty and also inner city problems is an important question because

answers to this question have produced different policy formulations to deal with urban

poverty. Overall, the ecologists formulate the gentrification processes in decaying neigh-

bourhoods as a reversal of the invasion-succession pattern to revitalize the inner areas of

the city, whereas structuralists address the displacement of the less affluent ones in these



processes; and the conservatives take a culturalist approach and focus on social behaviours

of the poor. These approaches generally shape the continuing debates about many metro-

politan cities of the developing countries. This paper will relate these perspectives to the

case of a metropolitan city of Turkey, namely, Izmir.

The Dynamics of the Concentrated Urban Poverty in Inner Areas of Izmir,

Turkey

In Turkey, as in other parts of the world, poverty started to develop a concentrated pattern

after the 1980s. This section of the paper discusses further the approaches to the concen-

trated poverty with the help of a case study on the inner areas of the metropolitan city of

Izmir. It states that these theories and different perspectives explain the processes of the

impoverishment in the case of Izmir, but only partially. The structuralist approach can

explain these processes only in respect to the macro-economic changes and their effects

on the certain area. The ecologist approach explains these processes by examining

social and economic structural dynamics of the city. Also, the culturalist approach

focuses on the micro-scale dynamics of these processes that are basically related to the

social processes of individuals. Therefore, this section of the paper examines the

process of impoverishment with the help of all these different perspectives.

Macro-scale Structural Dynamics of Concentrated Urban Poverty in Turkey

The structuralist approach considers poverty to be a major result of capitalism (Harvey,

1973; Castells, 1977). Similarly, one of the macro-scale dynamics of concentrated

poverty in the metropolitan cities of Turkey is related to the over-growth of some city

economies. Relatively, the over growth of economies resulted with migration from econ-

omically less developed regions. Roberts (1978) has indicated that the existence and

growth in numbers of urban poor functions as a reserve army of labour for the growth

of the modern sector of the urban economy which has also resulted with the concentration

of poverty in metropolitan cities.

The other macro dynamics are related with the migration patterns, the development

process of informal economy and the economic restructuring processes since the 1980s.

Unbalanced development trends: overgrowth of metropolitan cities and economic

restructuring. The dependency theory explains that since the seventeenth century,

many cities in the developing world had integrated to the trade capitalism and later to the

industrial capitalism. That is also the case for the Turkish port cities that had a hinterland

rich in agricultural and mineral sources. Meanwhile, these economic conditions changed

further the economic and also the social and physical structure of these cities. Some of

the port cities, such as Istanbul and Izmir, had received high levels of investments in

urban infrastructure since the seventeenth century. Ultimately, like those in many other

developing countries, these cities attracted more industrial investments followed by

increasing number of migrants from rural areas. Along with these additions, the environs

of these cities expanded to form their contemporary metropolitan boundaries.

In Turkey, Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara are still the largest metropolitan cities in population

growth, although some other cities (for insance, Kocaeli, Bursa, Adana and Manisa) too have

had an increasing level of economic development trend since recent decades (Table 1,

324 I. O. Sonmez


Figure 3). The former three were also the first three in provincial ranking of gross domestic

product (GDP) by the year 2000 (Unsal, 2004). But Istanbul and Izmir are different from

Ankara (the capital city) because the development pattern of Ankara—an inland city—

evolved along with the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Furthermore, Istanbul

and Izmir have been integrated to the world economy for hundreds of years.

Economic developments, however, might also have some negative impacts on the

urbanization processes of settlements, which is the case for metropolitan cities of many

developing countries. Usually, rapid urbanization has resulted in inadequate supply of

housing, urban infrastructure, and job opportunities in these cities.

After the 1950s, in Turkey, the supply of affordable housing and job opportunities were

not enough to respond to the need of the great number of migrants from rural to urban areas.

That is followed by the informalization of cities on the basis of spatial and economic struc-

tures. However, many politicians and scholars portrayed rural migration as good and as a

part of the modernization processes—that is, a recipe for economic development, according

to the modernist perspective. This perception was parallel with the portrayal of the housing

developments by urban poor, similar to the portrayal of squatter settlements at the periph-

eries of Mexico City as positive housing developments in the 1960s (Eckstein, 1990).

Table 1. Population of the province centres by 1990 and 2000

1990 2000

Istanbul 6 629 431 8 831 805Ankara 2 583 963 3 203 362Izmir 1 758 780 2 250 149Bursa 834 576 1 184 144Adana 916 150 1 133 028

Source: www.die.gov.tr (The Official Web Page of the State Statistics

Office, Turkey)

(Out of 81 provinces in Turkey, this first five in population are listed in this

table)

Figure 3. The location of the first five province centres in population ranking



From a structuralist point of view, briefly, some cities in Turkey have integrated to the

world trade and industrial capitalism since the seventeenth century. The process of inte-

gration has attracted further investments to these cities and resulted in economic

growth. Yet this process has also caused an unbalanced pattern in social, economic and

urban development in the country. Specifically, a high number of people migrated from

the relatively economically less to the well-developed regions in Turkey.

The city of Izmir engaged in trade capitalism in the seventeenth century and to industrial

capitalism in the nineteenth century. This city and its hinterland experienced major

changes, especially by developing a pattern of export-oriented economic structure.

These caused also changes in the social and spatial pattern of the city. Levels of infrastruc-

ture and superstructure of the city was disproportionately high compared to the other

Turkish cities, because most of the investments in the city infrastructure were developed

to sustain the export-oriented facilities. “From 18th century till 19th century, the popu-

lation of the city had increased to 200 000 but the ratio of Turkish citizens decreased to

35% according to some explanations. This proportion is also a reflection of the colonial

structure of the city” (Atay, 1991).

Izmir has been an attraction point for economic investments since the seventeenth

century. After the industrialization period of the city in the 1960s, Izmir has attracted

migrants from other parts of Turkey. However, as noted earlier, the number of jobs and

housing units was inadequate for these migrants and, thus, the informalization process

of housing and job opportunities started to emerge.

After the 1980s, Turkey integrated to broader economic restructuring processes, which

resulted in social polarization in many cities as in other parts of the world. Meanwhile, to

overcome the negative impacts of the economic crisis of the 1970s, Turkey adopted

structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s. The implementation of such programmes

created many negative impacts on the middle and low-income population. “Since export

oriented development model that depended on liberalization was adopted, the exploitative

support of the export became the source of inflation; external debt rates and price controls

were liberated, subvansions at some areas were cut off” (Aren, 1986, p. 31).

Meanwhile, the state was under the pressure of the globalizing economy. Ultimately,

Turkey had an economic crisis in the late 1990s. The capacity of production decreased

with the development of the money market. The urban places and the capital market

became the new tools of economic investments. The growth rates in the sector of pro-

duction, service and commercial declined in the late 1990s. Besides, under the influences

of inflation, real wages declined. This also caused loses at the local markets, since the

levels of importing increased as well (Kazgan, 1999).

Consequently, the structure of poverty in urban areas started to change after the 1980s.

Changes in the socio-economic policies created some new opportunities for some urban

poor but also formed new socially excluded and disadvantaged groups in poverty. Some

analyses of the metropolitan cities in Turkey show that the most disadvantaged groups

are located in the inner areas (Guvenc, 2001; Sonmez, I. O., 2001; Dincer & Enlil,

2002). By the late 1980s, a pattern of the concentrated urban poverty evolved in inner

areas because certain jobs in the informal economy are located in the inner areas of metro-

politan cities.

Migration structure. Migration from other parts of Turkey to the metropolitan cities

since the 1950s has been a fundamental result of the development of capitalism,

326 I. O. Sonmez


because locational preferences for investments have been the metropolitan cities. The low

income migrants have either built squatter houses at the city peripheries or started living in

the deteriorating housing stock of the inner areas of the city, which resulted in the

concentration of poverty in both of these areas. However, it is important to indicate that

migration is not the cause of concentrated poverty; poverty in rural areas led many

people to migrate to urban areas.

Massey and Fischer (2000) have hypothesized that besides other factors, immigration

interacts with segregation to produce concentrated urban poverty. “When new immigrants

enter a city in which their ethnic group is highly segregated, immigration will produce

greater concentrations of poverty than when they enter an urban area characterized by

low or moderate levels of segregation (Massey & Fischer, 2000). This hypothesis is

also relevant for the city of Izmir. Migration structure is closely related to the concen-

tration of poverty. However, the social segregation depending on ethnic relations and fel-

lowships have also created positive impacts, such as the development of solidarity

relations among immigrants especially within developing economies.

Table 2 shows the population growth of the province of Izmir. It indicates high rates of

population growth since the 1950s. Displaying the migration to Izmir over different

periods, a study stated that migration to Izmir was mostly from the Aegean region, the

region which this city is part of (Peker et al., 1997). Yet this trend changed after the

1980s. Other cities in the Aegean region became destinations for the migrants to urban

areas. Migration trends to the city can be observed in Figure 4 and Table 3.

My survey findings in the inner areas of Izmir indicate that these areas are the locales at

which urban poverty in this city concentrates and that one of the important dynamics of

this pattern is migration. They also point out that these areas attracted rural migrants

since the 1970s and, consequently today, 76% of the households of these areas had

migrated from another place in the country, especially from the eastern regions of

Turkey (Figure 4).

In detail, 76% of the heads of household in these areas migrated from other regions of

Turkey. Forty-four per cent of the migrant households are from the south-eastern region,

and 22% are from the Aegean region, which Izmir is part of. Mardin—a province in the

south-eastern region of Turkey—is the location of departure for most of the immigrants

in these inner areas of Izmir (27% of total immigrants).

Meanwhile, my interview findings suggest that migration to these areas of Izmir started in

the 1970s and gained a momentum after the 1980s until it reached its peak in the 1990s.

Thirty-four per cent of the total population came to the area after 1980, whereas this

figure was 37% after 1990. Importantly, there is a strong correlation between the period

of migration and the region that contributed to this migration trend. Before the 1970s, the

region that contributed to migration most was the Aegean region, including the province

of Izmir. Yet after the 1980s, the south-eastern region of Turkey became the major

Table 2. Urban population growth in Izmir province

Years 1927 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1997

254 444 283 688 359 372 548 321 753 041 1 059 183 2 134 816 2 544 363

Source: Mutluer (2000, p. 49).



contributor (Figure 4). Whereas 90% of the south-eastern region’s total population is low-

middle and low income people (Sonmez, M., 2001), it is not a surprise that people of this

region tend to migrate not only to Izmir but also to other parts of Turkey in search of jobs.

These results suggest that since the 1960s the inner areas of Izmir have become involved

with the social and spatial transformation process that is strongly related to the socio-

economic changes in the country and also to the migration and development pattern of

the city. Within this process, ultimately, poor groups have tended to concentrate in the

inner areas of Izmir.

Informal economy. Informal economy in developing countries does work not only as the

tertiary sector of the large scale manufacturing or bazaar economy, but also as part of the

international and national social division of labour, as in the case of Izmir. “Wallerstein

(1974) describes a semi-peripheral position, in which they act as intermediate agents

for the technological dominance of the core capitalist counties. In countries like Brazil

and Mexico, for Latin America, manufacturing employment in the modern sector has

expanded, partly because these countries export manufactures to both developed and

developing countries. These exports are usually the basic manufacturers, such as

textiles or shoes . . . Such production is not a sign as we have seen, of self sustaining

development, but it can create an expansion of employment opportunities in the large

scale sector of the economy” (Roberts, 1978, p. 118).

Such an expansion, of course, might have positive impacts. But it also carries risks

for the cheap labour force. Some studies indicate that enterprises are organized to take

Figure 4. Migration trends to Izmir over different periods

Table 3. Percentage of inhabitants of Izmirborn in another city

1950 27.7%

1965 35%1980 42%

Source: Peker et al. (1997, p. 42).

328 I. O. Sonmez


advantage of cheap labour in the US, and that the use of cheap labour based on

international migration continues to be an important element in the expansion of most

advanced economies (Roberts, 1978, p. 119).

This is also true in various cases in Turkey, especially after the 1980s. In the 1960s,

meanwhile, the Turkish government’s policies based on the planned economy had accel-

erated industrialization, which is followed by the emergence of the organized labour force.

In 1963, the workers had gained legal rights to form labour unions. Therefore, from the

aspect of low income groups it could be said that considerable social security was

trying to be provided in the 1960s. However, the industrialization in urban areas, which

was capital intensive and foreign capital oriented, was inadequate to supply enough job

opportunities for new migrants. This resulted in the emergence of an informal sector

and a labour force that held no rights and therefore no social security or a union

(Demir, 1993). In other words, the informal labour force was not under the security of

the welfare state. However, informal workers still had the chance for social mobility.

After the 1980s, some of the companies in the production sector started to shift to

produce per piece, which led to the further growth of the informal sector. For instance,

a part of the textile sector depended on production at workshops or at homes. In order

to keep a high profit level, small firms developed a strategy for making short-term

contracts and keeping the labour force working without any social securities

(Demir, 1993). Also, the micro entrepreneurs, for instance, in Latin America traditionally

have linked the modern capitalist economy—led by upper classes—with the mass of infor-

mal workers at the bottom of the labour market. Micro entrepreneurs have organized infor-

mal workers to produce low-cost goods and services for consumers and also low-cost

inputs subcontracted by large firms. But by the 1990s, this form of economic adaptation

has become the major source for creating employment opportunities in peripheral econom-

ies (Portes & Hoffman, 2003).

Also, any decrease in the capacity of the manufacturing sector makes the labour force

join the informal sector. However, the informal sector usually does not provide any social

security for labour in order to keep the wages low (Table 4). From 1992 to 1997, the

number of workers with social security decreased in the 15 provinces that received

most of the migration. Overall these results are the signs of informalization in metropolitan

cities (Icduygu et al., 1998).

Within this process, some cities—for instance, Izmir—have gained new roles within the

global economy. One of Izmir’s roles in the national economy has been to manufacture

textile for exporting. However, as noted earlier in the example of the Latin American

cases, manufacturers organize informal labour forces in order to take advantage of

employing cheap labour.

Table 4. Changes in the number of workers in a union

Provinces July 1992 January 1997

Istanbul 1, 135, 884 680, 869Ankara 270, 959 217, 474Izmir 272, 639 194, 536

Source: Icduygu et al. (1998, p. 233).



Some analyses of the inner areas of the city of Izmir emphasize some similarities with

inner areas of the cities in other developing countries. For instance, small scale manufac-

turers in these inner areas are located in small shops, and the informal economy also finds

other ways of hiding in these areas (Gilbert & Gugler, 1992). Also, the poor migrants, who

usually choose these inner areas as their first stop for residence in the city, work in these

small scale manufacturing areas.

Our analysis of Izmir’s inner areas suggests that 67% of the population of these areas

hold informal and marginal occupations and are employed in workplaces close to their

neighbourhood. Thirty-three per cent of the total workers have jobs in small scale

manufacturing—primarily, in textile, shoe or leather production—and also in marginal

services, such as domestic services and street vendoring (Table 5). Seventy-seven per

cent of the total labour force is employed in the inner areas. But 47% of this group has

no social security at their job.

Another drawback of the informal sector is the involvement of children in the labour

force. My findings in inner areas of the city of Izmir show that children living in these

areas have been part of the labour force since the age of 12. Fourteen per cent of the

children and teenagers between the ages of 12–19 have added to the labour force.

These young workers hold jobs mostly in small-scale production manufacturers. My

comparison of the age groups and the employment status displays the fact that the

younger the worker is the more workers with no security at their job. This also suggests

that teenagers stop their school education usually around the age of 15, which adds to

the lack of social securities for the labour force. This prevents further the chances of

educating and then integrating these young workers to the formal labour force. Thus,

this whole process prevents workers’ access to the opportunities for upward social

mobility.

Some analyses of the metropolitan cities in Turkey also point out the densification

of urban poverty in the inner areas (Guvenc, 2001). In Istanbul, for instance, the most

Table 5. Types of occupations of the labour force living in ınner areas of Izmir

Occupations Percentage of labour force (%) Labour force

Small scale textile production 23 90Domestic services 19 73Shoe and leather production 10 38Street vendoring 10 41Construction 6 23Self-employed 6 22Salesman 6 23Technician 4 14Artist 2 8Factory worker 3 11Officers 2 8Repairman 2 9Government employee 2 6Others 6 23Unknown 2 6Total 100 394

Source: Sonmez, I.O. (2001) (data have been collected from interviews in the survey area).

330 I. O. Sonmez


disadvantageous groups on the basis of income live in the inner areas. One of these areas is

called Tarlabasi. The majority of the population in this district (39%) migrated from the

south-eastern region of Turkey, a region with a poverty rate higher than that of the national

level, as noted earlier (Dincer & Enlil, 2002).

In summary, these findings suggest that macro-economic factors affect the development

pattern of cities and also that these economic developments along with the rapid urbaniz-

ation result in the concentration of poverty in inner areas of the city. Besides, the process

for integrating to the global market, at which the micro-entrepreneurs create informal job

opportunities with very low wages and insecure work conditions, might increase the levels

of impoverishment among the urban population in developing countries, such as Turkey.

The Ecological Dynamics of the Concentrated Urban Poverty

Burgess (1925) has explained the concentration of poverty from an ecological perspective.

His assumptions were based on the socio-economic groupings of residents (Burgess,

1925). In the case of Izmir’s inner areas, we find some similarities with Burgess’ approach.

Fifty-seven per cent of the inhabitants in these areas work in the city centre or in the neigh-

bourhoods near the centre. Also 59% of the inhabitants say that they go to their workplace

on foot (Table 6).

Burgess’ (1925) theory also explains the process of deterioration in inner areas of a city.

According to the concentric zones model, the central district is surrounded by old housing

areas that have either deteriorating into slum properties or have been invaded by the light

manufacturing industry. The inner areas of the city of Izmir have experienced a similar

process. After the 1960s, the industrial development in Izmir gained increasing momentum

and, ultimately, the city became the second growth pole in the country by becoming a

destination for migrants. However, the insufficient number of jobs and housing in the city

led to the formation of informal jobs and housing. During the 1960s, the inner areas of

Izmir had the emergence of new jobs—primarily, street peddlers, tradesman, and

organized manufacturers (Kiray 1972). Also, the informal sector based on small scale man-

ufacturing started to emerge in the city centre between the 1970s and 1980s. The micro-entre-

preneurs preferred the inner areas of the city to be their workplaces so that they could easily

work with the commercial units in the centre (Seymen, 1989). This changing land use pattern

of these areas had some major effects on the social and spatial character of the surrounding

housing areas. Ultimately, the periphery of the city centre had a tendency to become a slum

area with the mix uses of housing, commerce and manufacturing (Kiray, 1972).

Table 6. Location of jobs

Number of workers Percentage of workers (%)

City center neighborhoods 145 37Adjacent neighborhoods to the city center 79 20Other neighborhoods 78 20Out of Izmir town 6 2Street vendoring (undefined location) 20 5Unknown 66 17Total 394 100

Source: Sonmez, I.O. (2001) (data have been collected from interviews in the survey area).



Other factors too shaped the social and spatial structure of Izmir’s inner areas. From the

1960s to 1970s, the city expanded along some development axes. This made newly built

housing supply available to the residents, including those of the inner areas of the city.

Whereas those who can afford were moving out to these new housing areas, the new

migrating population started to move in to these inner areas. Thus, this whole process

of population movement in the city did not have any negative impact on commercial

and manufacturing uses in inner areas of the city (Figure 2).

The economic restructuring processes in the late 1980s, including the export oriented

industrialization in Turkey, started to reshape the spatial and socio-economic character-

istics of Izmir. The textile manufacturing—the traditional manufacturing sector of

Izmir—also accelerated in relation to the governmental support to exporting (Altıncekic,

1999). Related also to the micro-relations among different scales of manufacturing, this

trend resulted in the increasing number of unregistered small workshops in the inner

areas of the city. Therefore, the inner areas of Izmir are still the primary location for work-

places and housing of migrating groups, which also fits the explanations of the ecological

perspectives of the city.

Micro-scale Dynamics

By micro-scale dynamics, this study refers to how low income people cope with their

urban life. Many analyses in various countries tell that the poor urban migrants’ social

relationships have an important utilitarian function for their survival. In other words,

these relationships help urban migrants through their process of integrating to the city

(Roberts, 1978). Various studies on Turkey point out the presence of different types of

relations that primarily depend on fellowship and kinship and also these roles in the

survival strategies of the urban poor (Erder, 1996; Ersoy & Sengul, 2000, 2002;

Kalaycioglu & Rittersberg, 2002; Isik & Pinarcioglu, 2001). “Squatter settlements are

physically very diverse types. In some of the oldest settlements of Rio de Janeiro, the

process of housing improvement has reached a point where the settlements are hardly dis-

tinguishable from the legal housing areas with a reasonably good standard of housing.

Neighbours in squatter settlements will often over time install basic urban services

through both cooperative and individual enterprise” (Roberts, 1978, p. 150).

For this reason, it has been argued that the squatter settlements do not form any cultures

of poverty. However, the socio-economic and spatial structures of inner areas in metropo-

litan cities differ from the squatter areas. In this section of the paper, thus, I discuss the

culture of poverty thesis with the help of my analysis of the inner areas of the city of Izmir.

In Turkey, one of the basic distinctions of the inner areas from the squatter areas at city

peripheries is related to the housing characteristics. In the inner areas, people do not build

any squatters, nor do they cooperate for building infrastructure facilities. There is a dete-

riorating housing stock that was used to house middle income population earlier and now

is rented mostly to the newcomers to the city. My statistical survey of the city of Izmir

shows that the percentage of the tenants is the highest primarily in the peripheries of

the traditional city centre (or inner areas) (Figures 5 and 6).

Here I argue that residents in these inner areas do not develop solidarity relations as

much as the residents of squatter areas, although many of the former choose to live in

the inner areas because of their kinships and fellow-villagers in the area. This is mostly

332 I. O. Sonmez


due to the high rates of housing mobility within the inner areas caused by the inflating local

housing prices.

Oscar Lewis (1966) developed the concept of culture of poverty, drawn from his analy-

sis on Mexico City, San Juan, Puerto Rico and New York. He stresses on that this thesis is

applied to groups with no strong basis of class or ethnic identity that could have sustained

them in the face of the cumulative difficulties of urban poverty. Lewis argues that low-

income casual work, poor living conditions and low levels of education made family

relations and friendships unstable and unreliable. The basic problem with this view of mar-

ginality is that the poor tend to be viewed as being incapable of improving their situation

by themselves and that any change originates from above (Roberts, 1978).

Figure 5. Ratio of tenants in Izmir, 1990

Figure 6. Ratio of tenants at the inner area



An analysis of Izmir’s inner areas in relation to the culture of poverty thesis suggests

some similarities only within two aspects. The first one is the local residents’ inability to

perform solidarity relations. Compared to the residents of squatter settlements, these resi-

dents are less able to perform solidarity relations among themselves. According to some

other studies, 75% of the households in inner areas of the city of Izmir would have

moved out of the area if they had a chance to do so. Also, 89% of them tell that there is

no mutual aid among neighbours (Sonmez I. O., 2001). I argue that these social character-

istics of these areas relate to their tenancy and population mobility characteristics. Spatial

formations might also be a determinant of the social relations in inner areas of the city,

because such formations might not be observed in squatter areas at the city peripheries.

Meanwhile, factors like the number of single households or the rate of underemployment in

Izmir’s inner areas do not indicate any strong relevance to the culture of poverty theory. In these

areas, 16% of the families are single, whereas this is 11% for the city of Izmir. That is, rather than

single households, the majority of the population in the area are composed of families. The rate

of underemployment is 6%. Despite the low wages and lack of any kind of employment security,

the majority of residents in these inner areas work without any access to the social welfare

programmes of the country. They try to earn their lives by working either in small scale man-

ufacturing or at various marginal service jobs. Therefore, we do not observe a group of hopeless

poor people that depend on the welfare state. It is rather a group of low-income working class.

However, there is still a hopeless group in these areas, basically the lonely elderly people in need

of care. Meanwhile, young migrant families are suspicious for their future as well.

The processes of impoverishment and concentration of poverty has been a heavily dis-

cussed issue among scholars since the 1980s (De La Rocha et al., 2004; Fainstein, 1996;

Portes & Hoffman, 2003; Sassen, 1996; Marcuse, 1996; Mingione 1996; Wacquant, 1996;

Wilson, 1987; Massey & Fischer, 2000). All of these discussions point out the social polar-

ization of urban population due to the social exclusion in the city.

This might further suggest that the increase in impoverishment might lead to the chronic

forms of social exclusion. Yet there is also another possibility: socio-economic and spatial

conditions in the inner areas might lead local residents to mobilize collectively in order to

claim for more or better urban services (Castells, 1983; Eckstein, 1990).

Briefly, this section suggests that residents of the inner areas in Izmir are not able to

perform solidarity relations compared to those in the squatter areas. This is due to the

high rates of tenancy and high rates of housing mobility in the former areas. Meanwhile,

these factors act as the micro-scale dynamics for the concentration of poverty in urban

areas. But the presence of concentrated poverty in these areas should not suggest the

presence of the culture of poverty in these areas.

Conclusion

Since the nineteenth century, inner areas of the city have become an important study site and a

subject among scholars, due to the socio-economic and spatial changes—primarily, the con-

centration of poverty—these areas have been experiencing. Historically, first, the ecologist,

then the culturalist and last, the structuralist approaches have tried to explain the dynamics of

the concentrated urban poverty in these areas. Findings of my survey in Izmir’s inner areas—

or the peripheries of the traditional city centre—show that these areas differ from other parts

of the city on the basis of how urban poverty develops. Poverty concentrates mainly in these

areas. With the help of my study findings and discussion on the ecologist, culturalist and

334 I. O. Sonmez


structuralist approaches to this subject, this paper discussed the reasons for this distinction

and also the dynamics of the concentrated poverty in these areas of Izmir.

From an ecological perspective, the spatial and economic structure of Izmir’s inner

areas has similarities to Burgess’ model on Chicago City (1925): low-income population

in Izmir still prefer living near their workplaces in the inner areas. Also, the housing units

in these areas are deteriorating, whereas they have been also invaded by the uses of light

industry since the 1970s. Today some of these light industries have moved out of the area

but still many small scale manufacturers still prefer their workplace to be in the inner city

areas (Figure 2). Thus, McKenzie’s invasion and succession model (1926) also explains

the relocation of social groups in Izmir’s inner city area.

The culturalist approach tells that social groups of the slums generate their own moral

order and, ultimately, each generation train the next generation to be poor. However, this

approach can not provide any explanation about the dynamics of poverty in inner areas of

the city of Izmir; there is not any group of poor people that depends on the welfare

systems. We rather observe working class people holding jobs in the informal sector

with low wages. However, we should add that the lonely and poor senior citizens are

the most disadvantaged groups in the area. Also, young migrant families with a large

number of members have difficulties in surviving in the city. The only survival strategy

they have is to join in the informal labour force.

The literature tells that the solidarity relations among urban poor help these residents to

survive. In the case of Izmir, however, the spatial characteristics of the inner city prevent

the inhabitants developing and performing such relations. Overall in Izmir’s inner areas,

the rate of tenancy is the highest compared to other parts of the city. Consequently, the

high rate of mobility among tenants prevents them from developing any long-term neigh-

bourly relations. This leads to a disadvantage for the urban poor in these areas.

For the developing countries, poverty is not a new phenomenon. But in these countries,

new forms of impoverishment have emerged in recent decades. Particularly, macro-econ-

omic changes have resulted in the emergence of new disadvantaged poor groups. These

trends are also relevant in Turkey. As in other developing countries, poor migrants in

Turkey prefer to live either in the peripheral squatter areas or in the inner city. The

inner areas appear to be the primary location for concentrated poverty because jobs in

the informal sector too are located in these areas.

Presence of these three different approaches shows that concentrated urban poverty is a

very complex subject. The ecological approach points out that the economy of the house-

hold is related to the city economy, the location of workplaces in the city, the location of

the neighbourhoods where urban poor reside, the transportation opportunities between

homes and workplaces, and also to land values. All of these determinants have to be con-

sidered to be important for developing urban policies. Also, we need to keep in mind that

any intervention to the city changes the ecology of that city, and that these interventions

might also threat the very survival of the urban poor.

Also with its historical sites and structures, my study site is a distinctive part of

Izmir; in fact, it is a touristic site. Currently, there are policies and projects aiming

to upgrade the physical structures of some sections of this site, basically the sections

close to the tourist attraction points. However, the implementation of similar urban

projects in other cities suggests that such policies always carry the potentials for

gentrification of these areas and the threat of displacing the local urban poor. The dis-

placement of urban poor leaves these people in a more disadvantaged position because



they might also loose their contacts with the job opportunities located in the inner areas

of the city.

The culturalist approach points to the micro-scale dynamics of concentrated urban

poverty. It explains primarily the behaviours of individuals and social groups in poverty

and their life cycles. My survey findings show that among the poor in Izmir’s inner

areas, there are some very disadvantaged groups. They are especially the elderly poor

people and the recently migrated young families with a large number of members. Cur-

rently, they afford their life by holding jobs in the informal sector. Yet there is a need

to develop other micro-scale mechanisms to help these urban poor to integrate in to the

city. This implies the need for certain area specific interventions.

The structuralist approach shows that concentrated poverty is strongly related to the

social polarization among different income groups and also to the process of further

impoverishment among the already low income population. This approach basically

deals with the macro-scale interventions, which are related to the socio-economic and pol-

itical restructuring in the country.

My case study has examined the process of concentrated urban poverty from three

different perspectives and these findings suggest that there has been a considerable

amount of increase in poverty in the last decades due to economic restructuring pro-

grammes. Poverty has always shown a concentrated pattern but especially in metropolitan

cities most recently. In this respect, inner areas of cities are locations of concentrated

poverty both in the developed and the developing world. However, from the aspect of

developing countries existence of a working class at the inner areas of cities may play

an important role in overcoming social and economic crisis created by the impoverishment

processes.

Note

1. Kraus (2004) points out the role of local policy-making in the creation of concentrated poverty in the city

of Buffalo, New York in the US since the 1930s.

References

Aksıt, B. (1998) Icgoclerin Nesnel ve Oznel Toplumsal Tarihi Uzerine Gozlemler: Koy Tarafindan Bir Bakis,

Turkiye’de Ic Goc, (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayını).

Altıncekıc, F.(1999) Yeniden Yapılanmada Imalat Sanayi ve Mekansal Donusumler, Egemimarlık, 99/3, 31,

pp. 23–27.

Aren, S. (1986) 24.Ocak Programi ve Alternatifleri, Isbitiren Ekonomi: Liberalizm, Devlet Mudehalesi,

pp. 24–45 (Istanbul: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınevi).

Atay, C. (1991) Metropollesmeye Dogru Izmir, Egemimarlık, 91/2, pp. 43–46.

Burgess, E. (1925) The growth of the city: An ıntroduction to a research project, in: R. E. Park and E. Burgess

(Eds) The City, pp. 47–62 (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).

Castells, M. (1977) The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach, translated by Alan Sheridan (London: Edward

Arnold).

Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Demır, E. (1993) Isgucu Piyasasi ve Kent Emekci Sinifinin Yeniden Kavramsallastirilmasi, Birikim, 53,

pp. 53–45.

De La Rocha, G., Perlman, J., Safa, H., Jelin, E., Roberts, B. R. & Ward, P. (2004) From the marginality of the

1960s to the new poverty of today: ALARR forum, Latin American Research Review, 39(1).

Dıncer, I. & Enlıl, Z. (2002) Eski Kent Merkezinde Yeni Yoksullar: Tarlabasi, Yoksulluk, Kent Yoksullugu ve

Planlama (Ankara: TMMOB Sehir Plancıları Odası Yayini).

336 I. O. Sonmez


Eckstein, S. (1990) Urbanization revisited: Inner city slum of hope and squatter settlement of despair, World

Development, 18(2), pp. 165–181.

Erder, S. (1996) Istanbul’a Bir Kent Kondu—Umraniye (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinları).

Ersoy, M. & Sengul, T. (Eds) (2000) Kentsel Yoksulluk ve Gecinme Stratejileri, Ankara Ornegi (Ankara: ODTU,

Kentsel Politika Planlamasi ve Yerel Yonetimler Ana Bilim Dalı Yayini).

Ersoy, M. & Sengul, T. (Eds) (2002) Kente Goc ve Yoksulluk—Diyarbakir Ornegi (Ankara: ODTU, Kentsel

Politika Planlaması ve Yerel Yonetimler Ana Bilim Dalı Yayını).

Fainstein, N. (1996) A note on interpreting american poverty, in: E. Mingione (Ed.) Urban Poverty and the

Underclass, pp. 153–159 (London: Blackwell).

Flanagan, W. G. (1993) Contemporary Urban Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Flanagan, W. G. (1999) Urban Sociology—Images and Structure (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon).

Gılbert, A. & Gugler, J. (1992) Cities, Poverty, and Development: Urbanization in the Third World (Oxford:

Oxford University Press).

Guvenc, M. (2001) Toplumsal Cografyalar Farklılıklar Benzerlikler, Istanbul, Ocak sayısı.

Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press)

Isik, O. & Pinarcioglu, M. (2001) Nobetlese Yoksulluk, Sultanbeyli Ornegi (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari).

Icduygu, A., Sirkeci, I. & Aydingun, I. (1998) Turkiye’de Ic Goc, in: Turkiye’de Ic Goc ve Icgocun Isci

Hareketine Etkisi (Istanbul: Turk Tarih Vakfi Yayini).

Kalaycıoglu, S. & Rıttersberg, H. (2002) Yapısal Uyum Programlarıyla Ortaya Cıkan Yoksullukla Basetme

Stratejileri, in: A. Dikmen (Ed.) Kentlesme Goc ve Yoksulluk (Ankara: Turk Sosyal Bilimler Dernegi

Yayını).

Kasarda, J. D. (1993) Inner city—concentrated poverty and neighborhood distress: 1970 to 1990, Housing Policy

Debate, 4(3), pp. 253–302.

Kazgan, G. (1999) Tanzimattan XXI.Yuzyıla Turkiye Ekonomisi (Istanbul: Altın Kitaplar).

Kıray, M. (1972) Orgutlesemeyen Kent: Izmir (1998) (Istanbul: Baglam yayınları).

Kraus, N. (2004) Local policymaking and concentrated poverty: The case of Buffalo, New York, Cities, 21(6),

pp. 481–490.

Lewis, O. (1966) The culture of poverty, The Scientific American, 215(4), pp. 19–25.

Madanıpour, A., Cars, G. & Allen, J. (2000) Social Exclusion in European Cities: Processes, Experiences, and

Responses (London: Stationery Office, Regional Studies Association).

Marcuse (1996) Space and Race in the post-Fordist city: The outcast ghetto and advanced homelessness in the

United States today, in: E. Mingione (Ed.) Urban Poverty and the Underclass, pp. 176–216 (London: Black-

well).

McKenzie, R. (1926) The scope of urban ecology, in: E. W. Burgess (Ed.) The Urban Community, selected papers

from the proceedings of the American Sociological Society, 1925, pp. 167–182 (Chicago, IL: Chicago Uni-

versity Press).

Massey, D. S. & Fischer, M. J. (2000) Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(4), pp. 670–691.

Mingione, E. (1996) Urban poverty in the advanced industrial world: Concepts and analysis, in: E. Mingione

(Ed.) Urban Poverty and the Underclass, pp. 3–40 (London: Blackwell).

Mutluer, M. (2000) Kentlesme Surecinde Izmir’de Toplu Konut Uygulamaları ve Sorunlar (Izmir: Ege Universi-

tesi Fakultesi yayını).

Peker, M., Onen, E. & Balkız, B. (1997) Goc, Kentlesme Sorunları, Yerel Siyaset, Yeni Egilimler, Yeni Yaklasım-

lar (Izmir: Saray kitabevleri).

Portes, A. & Hoffman, K. (2003) Latin American class structures: Their composition and change during the neo-

liberal era, Latin American Research Review, 38(1).

Roberts, B. (1978) Cities of Peasants: The Political Economy of Urbanization in the Third World (London: Sage

Publications).

Sassen, S. (1996) Service employment regimes and the new ınequality, in: E. Mingione (Ed.) Urban Poverty and

the Underclass, pp. 64–82 (London: Blackwell).

Seymen, U. (1989) 1972–1982 Kesitlerini Kapsayan Donem Icinde Izmir Tarihi Kent Merkezi, Egemimarlık,

89/5.

Sonmez, I. O. (2001) Yapısal Donusumler Surecinde Toplumsal Dıslanmisliklarin Olusumu – Izmir Tarihi Kent

Merkezi Gecis Alani Ornegi (Izmir: DEU, Fen Bilimleri Ens). (yayınlanmamıs doktora tezi- PhD thesis)

Sonmez, M. (2001) Gelir Ucurumu – Turkiye’de Gelirin Adaletsiz Bolusumu (Istanbul: Om yayınevi).

Turner, J. (1968) Housing priorities, settlement patterns and urban development in modernizing countries,

Journal of Ameircan Institute of Planners, 34(6), pp. 354–363.



Unsal, F. (2004) Globalization and the mid-rank city: The case of Adana, Turkey, Cities, 21(5), pp. 439–449.

Uzun, N. (2001) Gentrification in Istanbul: A Diagnostic Study (Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies).

Wacquant, L. J. D. (1996) Red belt, black belt: Racial division, class inequality and the state in the French urban

periphery and the American ghetto, in: E. Mingione (Ed.) Urban Poverty and the Underclass, pp. 234–274

(London: Blackwell).

Wilson, W. J. (1987) The truly disadvantaged: The hidden agenda, in: S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds) (1996)

Urban Theory (London: Blackwell).

Appendix

Figure A1. The survey area behind the blocks

338 I. O. Sonmez


Download - Concentrated Urban Poverty

Top Related