The Process of Promoting Small Cities through Local and Authentic Values: City Tourism in the Time of Globalisation
Sevim Budak, Suna Ersavaş KavanozA new understanding of localization (glocalisation) with the post-1970 globalization process has risen. The change and transformation of the role of state in globalization will also lead to change and transformation of the role of the city governments in the process of glocalization and they will seek to occupy a place in the global arena by constructing and monitoring their own entrepreneurial policies. While this quest leads metropolitan cities to follow different methods and strategies, it forces small cities to follow very different paths and strategies. While metropolitan cities grow enormously with their populations and activities and eventually come to resemble each other, small cites market themselves by highlighting their own original values and making themselves objects of recognition. Demands of tourists bored with metropolitan cities and the change in the demands of the tourism industry seeking authenticity have eased and encouraged this process.
In this article the impact of glocalization (which can be described as the process of competition through focusing on differences in an era of homogenized globalization), on the efforts of small cities’ and their administrator’s sensitivity against the demands from the tourism industry and the effect of this on city life will be examined. Analyzing the aforementioned sensitivities and approaches will enable the analysis of the efforts of small cities that highlight their differences and show their originality in terms of cultural legacy, local food and drinks and festivities. Related to that, analyzing these efforts will make it easier to understand urban policies. In this way, the evolution of the slow, sustainable, peaceful, livable and ecological city in the glocalization process will be easier to analyze.
Küçük Yerleşimlerin Yerel ve Özgün Değerleriyle Öne Çıkarılma Süreci: Küreselleşme Çağında Kent Turizmi
Sevim Budak, Suna Ersavaş Kavanoz1970 sonrası küreselleşme süreci ile birlikte yükselen yeni bir yerelleşme anlayışı (Glocalisation: Türkçeye küreyerelleşme olarak çevrilmiştir) olduğu görülmektedir. Küreselleşme ile birlikte devletin rolündeki değişim ve dönüşüm küreyerelleşme sürecinde kent yönetimlerinin rollerinde de değişim ve dönüşüme yol açacak, kent yönetimleri kendi girişimci politikalarını kurgulayıp izleyerek küresel alanda kendilerine yer edinme arayışına girişeceklerdir. Bu arayış metropol şehirler bakımından farklı bir yol ve yöntem izlenmesine yol açarken ve bu konudaki literatür çığ gibi büyürken, küçük yerleşimler için çok daha farklı bir yol izleme gerekliliğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Metropol şehirler nüfus ve faaliyet bakımından dev gibi büyür ve gitgide birbirlerine benzerlerken, küçük şehirler bakımından -farklılıkların bir tanınma nesnesi haline getirilmesi suretiyle- kentlerin kendilerini özgün kılan değerlerini öne çıkarmaları ve piyasalaştırmaları söz konusu olmuştur. Giderek birbirine benzeyen metropol şehirlerin havasından sıkılan turistlerin ve turizm endüstrisinin taleplerindeki değişimin yönünün de otantiklik/özgünlük arayışı üzerine olması bu süreci kolaylaştırrmış ve teşvik etmiştir.
Bu çalışmada aynılaştıran küreselleşme süreci karşısında farklılıkları öne çıkararak rekabet etme süreci olarak nitelendirebileceğimiz küreyerelleşmenin küçük yerleşimlerin ve yöneticilerinin küresel piyasada yer alabilmek için turizm endüstrisinin taleplerine karşı gösterdiği duyarlılık ve yaklaşımın kent yaşamına etkisi incelenecektir. Söz konusu duyarlılık ve yaklaşımların incelenmesi, küçük yerleşimlerin kendi farklılıklarını, özgünlüklerini temsil eden kültür/miras; yerel yemekler ve içecekler ile doğa ve festival ve benzeri organizasyonlarını görünür kılma çabalarını ve bunun yan etkilerini kentleşme politikaları bakımından daha kolay analiz etmemizi sağlayacaktır. Sakin, yavaş, sürdürülebilir, huzurlu, yaşanabilir ve ekolojik şehir kavramlarının küreyerelleşme karşısında nasıl bir dönüşüm geçirdiği de daha rahat anlaşılacaktır.
Since the start of globalization in the early 1970’s, we have come across a new form of localization - glocalization. The changes in and reshaping of the role of the nation state in the globalization process have given rise to changes in and the reshaping of urban authorities, where many glocal cities create new policies to find a place for themselves in the global arena. These policies are more similar to each other for the metropolitan cities but are very different from the policies applied in smaller towns. Where metropolitan cities grow rapidly in terms of their population and business activities (which, accompanied by the standardization of production and consumption patterns resulting in a growing resemblance among metropolitan areas), smaller towns concentrate their efforts on developing and advertising their local characteristics and values as being very different from other towns. Those metropolitan cities which have become more and more similar to each other have lost their attractiveness for the tourism industry leaving the way clear for small towns with their authentic products.
When we consider the relationship between “global” and “local” in the context of political economy and culture, we may observe that the urban authorities find themselves in a fight for survival where local values are reorganized and reproduced for the needs of global capitalism. In the 21st century, cities find their place in global markets, not only due to their physical environment but also thanks to their local-cultural and social values. As a matter of fact, the increasing interest in and demand for the products of local cultures is the result of the dissatisfaction with the standardised life style of metropolitan urban areas.
The revitalisation of local values and local identities may give rise to alternative models or different cultures of capitalism. If this happens, the capitalism which standardises products and values will be replaced by new forms of capitalism based on different local cultures. Such transformations, replacing the modern loneliness of the individual with a marketed local safety, can also be seen as a risk of camouflaging the harmful effects of modernity and new-liberalism.
Creative global market players have not lost any time in starting to collect the products of local cultures and supplying them to “cosmopolite” consumers. This development can be observed in “third world” cinema and literature as well as in markets such as food, music, tourism, fashion industry etc. Thus, glocalisation is emerging as an area for commercialisation of local values. Cities are competing with each other to attract global investors. While metropolitan cities try to fortify their positions with metaphors such as “cultural capital” or “global finance centre”, small towns concentrate their efforts for survival utilising the concepts such as “slow city” or “eco-city”.
Urban authorities are the decision makers in glocal marketing strategy. They decide which local value will be presented as a product and who will be the addressees of the campaign. It is not the inhabitants but the local governors of the city who aim to make the city a centre of attraction. The commercialisation of local values may be harmful for the culture and economy of the town. Local governors have to adapt the urban environment to meet the needs of the tourists, and such adaptation efforts may be strong enough to dominate the political economy of the cities. As a result of this transformation process aimed at tourist-friendly cities, local characteristics may be lost. There is empirical evidence which shows that a town’s becoming attractive for tourists may easily destroy its local characteristics, e.g. it may not be “slow” anymore. Moreover, local resources (which should be used for the inhabitants’ welfare), or the branches of traditional local economy such as agriculture, forestry, and fisheries may be consumed in the promotion of the tourism business. The developments summarized above may invite new discussion topics in the context of urban rights.
