Research Article


DOI :10.26650/JECS2021-881837   IUP :10.26650/JECS2021-881837    Full Text (PDF)

Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City

Özgür Sayın

Global cities are typically perceived as the outcomes of a series of structural transformations experienced by the advanced capitalist countries in North America and Western Europe in the 1970s. A radical decrease in the share of industrial production vis-à-vis an increase in advanced producer services in the sectorial composition of global cities is one of the indicators of such restructuring. However, beyond the North Atlantic Axis—and especially with regard to new global cities the validity of this assumption is questionable. Consequently, this paper involves a case study of Istanbul on the subject. This paper considers economic production and employment levels as well as spatial indicators to explore the changes in the sectorial dynamics of Istanbul's economy following the 2000s. Furthermore, it evaluates whether post-industrial transformation has taken place in the city. The first empirical section of the paper argues that such post-industrial transformation has not taken place in Istanbul; it posits that rather, globalization has spurred some changes in the manufacturing industry in terms of the scale of production and spatial distribution within the city. It further discusses the local and global dynamics contributing to the survival of industries in the city.

DOI :10.26650/JECS2021-881837   IUP :10.26650/JECS2021-881837    Full Text (PDF)

İstanbul: Sanayisizleşmeyen Bir Küresel Kent

Özgür Sayın

Küresel ekonominin ulus-devletlerin bölgesel sınırlarını aşarak derinleşmesi, küresel kentler olarak adlandırılan bazı büyük şehirlerin bu sistemin organizasyonunda önemli işlevler üstelenerek giderek daha fazla önem kazanmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu kentlerin küresel ve bölgesel işlevleri, ulus-ötesi bağlantıları ve geçirdikleri ekonomik, politik ve sosyal dönüşümler üzerine inşa edilmiş geniş bir literatür bulunmaktadır. Bu literatürdeki temel yaklaşımlardan bir tanesi küresel şehirlerin üretim yapılarının sanayiden ileri hizmetler sektörüne doğru keskin bir geçiş gösterdiğidir. Zaman içinde hem küresel kentler olarak tanımlanan şehirlerin sayısındaki artışa hem de sanayisizleşme çalışmalarında önemli gelişimler gerçekleşmiştir. Bu gelişmelere rağmen küresel kentlerin sanayisizleşmiş şehirler olduğu tezinin yeteri kadar ampirik sorgulamaya tabi tutulmadığı gözlemlenmektedir. Bu noktadan hareketle, bu çalışma küresel kentlerin aynı zamanda post-endüstriyel bir karakter taşıdığı tezini İstanbul örneği üzerinde sorgulamaktadır. Bu amaçla, makale İstanbul’un bir küresel kent olarak ortaya çıktığı 2000’li yıllardan itibaren şehrin ekonomik yapısındaki değişimleri ekonomik üretimin, istihdamın ve mekânsal göstergeler yoluyla inceleyerek şehirde bir sanayisizleşme sürecinin yaşanıp yaşanmadığını incelemektedir. Bulgular, literatürde varsayılanın aksine, şehirde bu tarz bir dönüşüm yaşanmadığını, ancak küreselleşmenin sanayi üretiminin niteliğinde ve kent içindeki yerleşiminde birtakım değişikliklere yol açtığını göstermektedir. Bulgular ayrıca sanayisizleşmenin temelde bir kısım yerel ve ulusal faktörlerden kaynaklandığını, küreselleşmenin de bu sanayinin kentte kalmasına katkı sağladığını göstermektedir.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Since the last quarter of the twentieth century, the profound impacts of economic globalization have initiated significant transitions in the traditional organizational framework that used to prevail in the global capitalist economic system and in which nation-states were the primary actors. Although nation-states' capabilities have diminished gradually, some major cities, called global cities, have emerged as new strategic regions in which various cross-border flows are concentrated. From the economic perspective, these global cities may be identified based on a set of unique functions that they serve in the spatial organization of global capitalism (e.g., coordination units for transnational companies in terms of their global activities, primary locations of advanced producer service firms, and basing points for global capital accumulation). For researchers studying global cities, this reorganization has appeared parallel to a restructuring in the sectorial composition of global cities. This restructuring takes the form of a sharp shift from the prevalence of industrial service sectors to that of advanced ones. However, outside the core realm of the research, the perception of global cities as post-industrial spaces is questionable in general as various local, national, and global dynamics play active roles—simultaneously but in different scales—in the establishment of global cities. This paper further interrogates the post-industrial transformation thesis on Istanbul, one of the leading recently globalized cities. The potential contribution of such an examination is threefold. This study proposes the thesis that Istanbul is not a deindustrialized global city. Such an approach can provide empirical evidence for future studies considering Istanbul within the globalization–city relationship framework. In the broader context, this study offers a new approach to testing the fundamental assumptions on global cities; thus, it enables researchers to stretch the theoretical limits to studying the establishment of global cities. Finally, establishing a common basis for deindustrialization studies and global urban research may help expand the empirical grounds for both these types of literature. There are three aspects in which Istanbul may be considered an interesting and fruitful case study subject in the context of the study of global cities. First, the rise of Istanbul as a global city has emerged primarily in the span of the last 20 years; thus, it is a contemporary as well as ongoing process. Second, Istanbul has emerged as one of the most developed cities among the several recently globalized ones. Thirdly, although Istanbul is one of the world's prominent global cities today, it contradicts some assumptions of how global cities are typically established and comprises a more hybrid and partly exceptional urbanization pattern. The core argument of this paper is that a similar differentiation can also be observed in the sectorial composition of the Istanbul economy. In other words, although Istanbul is considered a global city, it has not yet experienced a deindustrialization process; on the contrary, the manufacturing industry has still maintained its importance in the sectoral distribution of the economy.. The transformation experienced in Istanbul can be interpreted in two ways. First, it may be perceived as a spatial change occurring mainly in the form of the concentration of manufacturing firms on the periphery of the city, which is a stark contrast to the agglomeration of service sectors in the central areas. Second, it is a qualitative shift in the industrial production scale from large corporations toward small- and medium-sized enterprises, most of which are export-oriented and subcontracted. The fact that Istanbul has not transformed into a post-industrial city—at least so far—may be attributed to various reasons that are beyond the purview of this study. However, in all circumstances, one of the most important factors to consider in this context is Istanbul’s position as the nation’s core at various levels, including the economic and social levels. Istanbul’s central position makes it necessary for all major companies in the country to be situated in Istanbul, regardless of their origins or the sectors in which they operate. Besides, it is also evident that administrative strategies that can facilitate the removal of industrial areas towards other cities have not yet been realized despite targets set in this direction. Another aspect to consider is that the city's labor structure is not capable of causing this transformation, neither through its internal dynamics nor with its external migration. Finally, because foreign investments in the city are relatively compatible with the current local and national dynamics, they do not cause a serious structural change in the city's current economic system. 


PDF View

References

  • Akcan, E. (2015). The” Occupy” turn in the global city paradigm: The architecture of AK Party’s Istanbul and the Gezi Movement. Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 2(2), 359-378. google scholar
  • Akçalı, E., & Korkut, U. (2015). Urban transformation in Istanbul and Budapest: Neoliberal governmentality in the EU’s semi-periphery and its limits. Political Geography, 46, 76-88. google scholar
  • Akgün, İ. & Akgün, A. A. (2017). İstanbul’da istihdam eğilimlerinin belirlenmesi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Aksoy, A. (2012). Riding the storm:‘new Istanbul’. City, 16(1-2), 93-111. google scholar
  • A.T. Kearney (2017). Global cities: Leaders in a world of disruptive innovation, Chicago, IL: A.T. Kearney. google scholar
  • Ayık, U. & Avcı, S. (2018). İstanbul’da sanayisizleşme: Coğrafi bir bakış. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(65), 505-523. google scholar
  • Beaverstock, J. V. (2005). Transnational elites in the city: British highly-skilled inter-company transferees in New York City’s financial district. Journal of ethnic and migration studies, 31(2), 245-268. google scholar
  • Beaverstock, J. V. (2017). The spatial mobility of corporate knowledge: expatriation, global talent, and the world city. In H. Jöns, P. Meusburger, M. Heffernan (Ed.), Mobilities of knowledge (pp. 227-246). Cham, CH: Springer. google scholar
  • Beaverstock, J. V., & Hall, S. (2012). Competing for talent: global mobility, immigration and the City of London’s labour market. Cambridge Journal ofRegions, Economy and Society, 5(2), 271-288. google scholar
  • Beaverstock, J. V., Smith, R. G. and Taylor, P. J. (2000). World-City network: A new metageography?. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 90(1), 123-134. google scholar
  • Bell, D. (1976). The coming of the post-industrial society. The Educational Forum, 40(4), 574-579. google scholar
  • Bezmez, D. (2008). The politics of urban waterfront regeneration: the case of Haliç (the Golden Horn), Istanbul. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 815-840. google scholar
  • Bhandari, A., & Verma, R. P. (2013). Strategic management: A conceptualframework. New Delhi, IN: McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited. google scholar
  • Brenner, N. (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Brenner, N. (2018) New Urban Spaces: Urban Theory and the Scale Question. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Brenner, R. (2006). The economics ofglobal turbulence: the advanced capitalist economies from long boom to long downturn, 1945—2005. New York, NY: Verso. google scholar
  • Caro, L. P. (2020). Türk işgücü piyasasında Suriyeli mülteciler. İstanbul: ILO Türkiye Ofisi. google scholar
  • Csomos, G. (2017). Cities as command and control centres of the world economy: An empirical analysis, 2006-2015. Bulletin of Geography, 38(38), 7-26. google scholar
  • Daniels, P. (2013). Reconfiguring the global service economy? The case of the BRICs. In J. R. Cuadrado-Roura (Ed.), Service Industries and Regions (pp. 135-155). Berlin, DE: Springer. google scholar
  • Derudder, B., & Taylor, P. (2016). Change in the world city network, 2000-2012. The Professional Geographer, 68(4), 624-637. google scholar
  • Dökmeci, V., & Berköz, L. (1994). Transformation of Istanbul from a monocentric to a polycentric city. European Planning Studies, 2(2), 193-205. google scholar
  • Doğan, M. (2013). Geçmişten günümüze İstanbul’da sanayileşme süreci ve son 10 yıllık gelişimi. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 27, 511-550. google scholar
  • Enlil, Z. M. (2011). The neoliberal agenda and the changing urban form of Istanbul. International Planning Studies, 16(1), 5-25. google scholar
  • Fainstein, S. S. (2001). Inequality in global city-regions. DisP-The Planning Review, 37(144), 20-25. google scholar
  • Florida, R. L. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar
  • Ferm, J., & Jones, E. (2016). Mixed-use ‘regeneration’of employment land in the post-industrial city: challenges and realities in London. European Planning Studies, 24(10), 1913-1936. google scholar
  • Ferm, J. (2016). Preventing the displacement of small businesses through commercial gentrification: are affordable workspace policies the solution?. Planning Practice & Research, 31(4), 402-419. google scholar
  • Friedmann, J. (1986). The world city hypothesis. Development and change, 17(1), 69-83. google scholar
  • Fujita, K. (2003). Neo-industrial Tokyo: Urban development and globalisation in Japan’s state-centred developmental capitalism. Urban Studies, 40(2), 249-281. google scholar
  • GaWC (2000). The world according to GaWC 2000. Globalization and World Cities Network. Retrieved from https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2000.html google scholar
  • GaWC (2017). The world according to GaWC 2016. Globalization and World Cities Network. Retrieved from https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2016.html google scholar
  • Hamnett, C. (2000). Gentrification, postindustrialism, and industrial and occupational restructuring in global cities. In G. Bridge& S. Watson (Eds.), A Companion to the (pp. 331-341), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. google scholar
  • Hamnett, C. (2020). The changing social structure of global cities: Professionalisation, proletarianisation or polarisation. Urban Studies, DOI: 10.1177/0042098020940556 google scholar
  • Harris, A. (2012). The metonymic urbanism of twenty-first-century Mumbai. Urban Studies, 49(13), 2955-2973. google scholar
  • Hassink, R., Hu, X., Shin, D. H., Yamamura, S., & Gong, H. (2018). The restructuring of old industrial areas in East Asia. Area Development and Policy, 3(2), 185-202. google scholar
  • He, C., Zhu, S., & Yang, X. (2017). What matters for regional industrial dynamics in a transitional economy?. Area Development and Policy, 2(1), 71-90. google scholar
  • Heo, I. (2015). Neoliberal developmentalism in South Korea: Evidence from the green growth policymaking process. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 56(3), 351-364. google scholar
  • Hill, R. C. and Kim, J. W. (2000). Global cities and developmental states: New York, Tokyo and Seoul. Urban Studies, 37(12), 2167-2195. google scholar
  • Hoyler, M., & Harrison, J. (2017). Global cities research and urban theory making. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(12), 2853-2858. google scholar
  • Huynh, D. T. (2020). Seoul. In Hyunh D. T. (Ed.). Making megacities in Asia (pp. 13-31). Singapore, SG: Springer. google scholar
  • Indraprahasta, G. S., Derudder, B., & Koelemaij, J. (2018). Global-local dynamics in the transformation of the Jakarta metropolitan area into a global city-region. disP-The Planning Review, 54(3), 52-62. google scholar
  • İBB (2009). 1/100.000 ölçekli İstanbul çevre düzeni planı raporu. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi İmar ve Şehircilik Daire Başkanlığı Şehir Planlama Müdürlüğü. google scholar
  • İBB (2020). İstanbul ekonomi bülteni: İsgücü piyasası, Aralık, 2020. İstanbul İstatistik Ofisi, 15 Ocak 2021 tarihinde https://istatistik.istanbul/bulten.html?id=86 adresinden erişildi. google scholar
  • İSO (2015). İstanbul sanayi odası strateji belgesi. İstanbul Sanayi Odası: İstanbul. google scholar
  • İSTKA (2012). İstanbul bölgesinde yatırım ve yatırımın önündeki engeller. İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı: İstanbul. google scholar
  • İSTKA (2014). 2014—2023 İstanbul çevre planı. İstanbul: İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı. google scholar
  • İŞKUR (2016). İstanbul piyasası araştırma raporu. İstanbul Çalışma ve İş Kurumu İl Müdürlüğü: İstanbul. google scholar
  • Kantor, P., Lefevre, C., Saito, A., Savitch, H. V., & Thornley, A. (2012). Struggling giants: City-Region governance in London, New York, Paris and Tokyo. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. google scholar
  • Kasaba, R. (2008). The Cambridge history of Turkey Volume 4: Turkey in the modern world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Keyder, Ç. (1999). The setting. In Ç. Keyder (Ed.), Istanbul between the global and the local (pp. 3-30), Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield. google scholar
  • Keyder, Ç. (2005). Globalization and social exclusion in Istanbul. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 124-134. google scholar
  • Keyder, Ç. (2008). A brief history of modern Istanbul. In R. Kasaba (Ed.), The Cambridge history of Turkey volume 4: Turkey in the modern world (pp. 504-523), Cambridge,UK : Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Keyder, Ç. (2010). Capital city resurgent: İstanbul since the 1980s. New Perspectives on Turkey, 43, 177-186. google scholar
  • Kızıldere, D., & Chiodelli, F. (2018) Discrete emergence of neoliberal policies on public space: an informal business improvement district in Istanbul, Turkey. Urban Geography. 39(5), 783-802. google scholar
  • Kleibert, J. (2017). On the global city map, but not in command? Probing Manila’s position in the world city network. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(12), 2897-2915. google scholar
  • Krijnen, M., Bassens, D., & Van Meeteren, M. (2017). Manning circuits of value: Lebanese professionals and expatriate world-city formation in Beirut. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(12), 28782896. google scholar
  • Logie, S. & Morvan, Y. (2014). İstanbul 2023. İstanbul: İletişim. google scholar
  • Ma, X., & Timberlake, M. (2013). ‘World city typologies and national city system deterritorialisation: USA, China and Japan’, Urban Studies, 50(2), 255-275. google scholar
  • May, J., Wills, J., Datta, K., Evans, Y., Herbert, J., & McIlwaine, C. (2007). Keeping London working: global cities, the British state and London’s new migrant division of labour. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(2), 151-167. google scholar
  • Neumann, T. (2016). Remaking the rust belt: The postindustrial transformation of North America. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. google scholar
  • Olds, K., & Yeung, H. (2004). Pathways to global city formation: a view from the developmental city-state of Singapore. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 489-521. google scholar
  • Öktem, B. (2011). The role of global city discourses in the development and transformation of the Buyukdere-Maslak Axis into the international business district of Istanbul. International Planning Studies, 16(1), 27-42. google scholar
  • Özdemir, D. (2002). The developments in the central business district of Istanbul in the 1990s. Louvain-La-Neuve: European Regional Science Association (ERSA). Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/115818 google scholar
  • Parnell, S., & Robinson, J. (2012). (Re)theorizing cities from the Global South: Looking beyond neoliberalism. Urban Geography, 33(4), 593-617. google scholar
  • Parnreiter, C. (2014). Network or hierarchical relations? A plea for redirecting attention to the control functions of global cities. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 105(4), 398-411. google scholar
  • Parnreiter, C. (2013). The global city tradition. In M. Acuto & W. Steele (Eds.), Global city challenges: Debating a concept, improving the practice (pp. 15-32). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  • Parnreiter, C., Haferburg, C., & OBenbrügge J. (2013). Shifting corporate geographies in global cities of the South: Mexico City and Johannesburg as case studies. Die Erde, 144(1), 1-16. google scholar
  • Pike, A. (2020). Coping with deindustrialization in the global North and South. International Journal of Urban Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2020.1730225 google scholar
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers and Urban Land Institute (2019). Emerging Trends in Real Estate: Europe. İstanbul: Urban Land Institute. google scholar
  • Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21 (1), 1-33. google scholar
  • Roy, A. (2016). Who’s afraid of postcolonial theory?. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 200-209. google scholar
  • Sanderson, M. R., Derudder, B., Timberlake, M., & Witlox, F. (2015). Are world cities also world immigrant cities? An international, cross-city analysis of global centrality and immigration. International Journal ofComparative Sociology, 56(3-4), 173-197. google scholar
  • Sarkis, H. (2009). It’s Istanbul (Not Globalisation). In R. Burdett (Ed). Istanbul: City of ıntersections (pp. 14-15), London: London School of Economics and Political Science. google scholar
  • Sassen, S. (1991). The Global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • Sassen, S. (2001). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. 2nd edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • Sassen, S. (2016). The global city: Enabling economic intermediation and bearing its costs. City & Community, 15(2), 97-108. google scholar
  • Sassen, S. (2019). Cities in a world economy. 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, UK: SAGE. google scholar
  • Saito, A. (2003). Global city formation in a capitalist developmental state: Tokyo and the waterfront sub-centre project. Urban Studies, 40(2), 283-308. google scholar
  • Savitch, H. V., Gross, J. S., & Ye, L. (2014). Do Chinese cities break the global mold?. Cities, 41, 155-161. google scholar
  • Sayın, Ö., Hoyler, M., & Harrison, J. (2020). Doing comparative urbanism differently: Conjunctural cities and the stress-testing of urban theory. Urban Studies, DOI: 10.1177/0042098020957499 google scholar
  • Sayın, Ö. (2020). Bir küresel kent olarak İstanbul’un küresel ekonomideki konumu ve işlevlerine dair kısa bir değerlendirme. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 125(246), 109-128. google scholar
  • Schindler, S. (2017). Towards a paradigm of Southern urbanism. City, 21(1), 47-64. google scholar
  • Schindler, S., Gillespie, T., Banks, N., Bayırbağ, M. K., Burte, H., Kanai, J. M., & Sami, N. (2020). Deindustrialization in cities of the Global South. Area Development and Policy, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/23792949.2020.1725393 google scholar
  • Scott, A. J., Agnew, J., Soja, E. W., & Storper, M. (2001). Global city-regions. In Scott, A. J. (Ed.), Global city-regions: Trends, Theory, Policy (pp. 11-32). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2015). The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory. International journal of urban and regional research, 39(1), 1-15. google scholar
  • SGK (2020). Kayıtdışı İstihdam Oranı. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu. 10 Şubat 2021 tarihinde http://www.sgk.gov.tr/ wps/portal/sgk/tr/calisan/kayitdisi_istihdam/kayitdisi_istihdam_oranlari adresinden erişildi. google scholar
  • Sheppard, E., Leitner, H., & Maringanti, A. (2013). Provincializing global urbanism: A manifesto. Urban Geography, 34(7), 893-900. google scholar
  • Sputnik (2019, 20 Aralık). Türkiye’de beyin göçü ilk kez lise seviyesine indi. Sputnik. 20 Ocak 2021 tarihinde https://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/201912201040880571-turkiyede-beyin-gocu-ilk-kez-lise-seviyesine-indi/ adresinden erişildi. google scholar
  • TCEB (2017). Uluslararası doğrudan yatırımlar 2016 yılı raporu, Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ekonomi Bakanlığı. google scholar
  • TCKB (2015). Onuncu kalkınma planı 2014—2018. Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kalkınma Bakanlığı. google scholar
  • TCTB (2020). Yurtdışında yerleşik gerçek ve tüzel kişilerin türkiye’deki yatırımları. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ticaret Bakanlığı. 15 Şubat 2021 tarihinde https://www.ticaret.gov.tr/hizmet-ticareti/yurtdisi-yatirimlar/uluslararasi-yatirim-istatistikleri/yurtdisinda-yerlesik-gercek-ve-tuzel-kisilerin-turkiyedeki-yatirimlari adresinden erişildi. google scholar
  • Tekeli, İ. (2010). The story of Istanbul’s modernisation’, Architectural Design, 80(1), 32-39. google scholar
  • Temurçin, K. & Aldırmaz, Y. (2017). İstanbul ilinde sanayi: Tarihsel gelişim, yapısal değişim, mekânsal dönüşüm. K. google scholar
  • Temurçin, & MA Dulupçu (Eds.), Türkiye’ de mekânsal ve bölgesel dönüşümler kitabı içinde (s. 1-14). Isparta: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi. google scholar
  • Timberlake, M., Sanderson, M. R., Ma, X., Derudder, B., Winitzky, J., & Witlox, F. (2012). Testing a global city hypothesis: An assessment of polarization across US cities. City & Community, 11(1), 74-93. google scholar
  • Timberlake, M., Wei, Y. D., Ma, X., & Hao, J. (2014). Global cities with Chinese characteristics. Cities, 41, 162-170. google scholar
  • TMMOB (2017). Oda raporu: Organize sanayi bölgeleri, küçük sanayi siteleri ve teknoparklar. İstanbul: TMMOB Makine Mühendisleri Odası Yayınları. google scholar
  • Toksöz, G., Erdoğdu, S. & Kaşka, S. (20212). Irregular labour migration n Turkey and situation of migrant workers in the labour market. Ankara: International organization for Migration (IOM). google scholar
  • TÜİK (2016). İl bazında gayrisafi yurtiçi hasıla, 2004-2014. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. 15 Ocak 2021 tarihinde https://tuikweb.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24920 adresinden erişildi. google scholar
  • TÜİK (2019). İl bazında gayrisafi yurtiçi hasıla, 2015-2017. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. 15 Ocak 2021 tarihinde https://tuikweb.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=30888 adresinden erişildi. google scholar
  • TÜİK (2019). İl bazında gayrisafi yurtiçi hasıla, 2018. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. 15 Ocak 2021 tarihinde https:// tuikweb.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=30889 adresinden erişildi google scholar
  • Tümertekin, E. (2010). İstanbul insan ve mekan. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. google scholar
  • Türkün, A., Aslan, S. & Şen, B. (2014) 1923-1980 döneminde kentsel politikalar ve İstanbul’da konut alanlarının gelişimi: Mevzuat, aktörler ve hakim söylem. A. Türkün (Ed.). Mülk, mahal, insan: İstanbul’da kentsel dönüşüm kitabı içinde (s. 43-69). Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Üçoğlu, M. (2019). Massive housing and nature’s limits? The urban political ecology of Istanbul’s periphery. In K. M. Güney, R. Keil & M. Üçoğlu (Eds.). Massive suburbanization:(Re) building the global periphery (pp. 181200). Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press. google scholar
  • Verginer, L., & Riccaboni, M. (2021). Talent goes to global cities: The world network of scientists’ mobility. Research Policy, 50(1), 104127. google scholar
  • Walker, D.R.F., & Taylor, P. J. (2000). Istanbul: Gateway between east and west under conditions of contemporary globalization?, Globalization and World Cities Network. Retrieved from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/projects/ project9.html google scholar
  • Wei, Y. D., & Leung, C. K. (2005). Development zones, foreign investment, and global city formation in Shanghai. Growth and Change, 36(1), 16-40. google scholar
  • Wei, Y. D., & Yu, D. (2006). State policy and the globalization of Beijing: Emerging themes. Habitat International, 30(3), 377-395. google scholar
  • Wei, Y. D., Leung, C. K., & Luo, J. (2006). Globalizing Shanghai: Foreign investment and urban restructuring. Habitat International, 30(2), 231-244. google scholar
  • Yeandle, M., Wardle, M., & Mainelli, M. (2018). The global financial centres index 24. The Global Finance Centres Index (GFCI)-Long Finance. google scholar
  • Yetişkul, E., & Demirel, S. (2018) ‘Assembling gentrification in Istanbul: The Cihangir neighbourhood of Beyoğlu’, Urban Studies, DOI: 10.1177/0042098017746623 google scholar
  • Zhang, L. Y. (2014). Dynamics and constraints of state-led global city formation in emerging economies: The case of Shanghai. Urban Studies, 51(6), 1162-1178. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Sayın, Ö. (2022). Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 0(65), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837


AMA

Sayın Ö. Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City. Journal of Economy Culture and Society. 2022;0(65):329-349. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837


ABNT

Sayın, Ö. Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 65, p. 329-349, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Sayın, Özgür,. 2022. “Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City.” Journal of Economy Culture and Society 0, no. 65: 329-349. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837


Chicago: Humanities Style

Sayın, Özgür,. Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City.” Journal of Economy Culture and Society 0, no. 65 (Oct. 2022): 329-349. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837


Harvard: Australian Style

Sayın, Ö 2022, 'Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City', Journal of Economy Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 65, pp. 329-349, viewed 5 Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Sayın, Ö. (2022) ‘Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City’, Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 0(65), pp. 329-349. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837 (5 Oct. 2022).


MLA

Sayın, Özgür,. Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City.” Journal of Economy Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 65, 2022, pp. 329-349. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837


Vancouver

Sayın Ö. Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City. Journal of Economy Culture and Society [Internet]. 5 Oct. 2022 [cited 5 Oct. 2022];0(65):329-349. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837 doi: 10.26650/JECS2021-881837


ISNAD

Sayın, Özgür. Istanbul: A Global, but Still Industrial, City”. Journal of Economy Culture and Society 0/65 (Oct. 2022): 329-349. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-881837



TIMELINE


Submitted17.02.2021
Accepted16.07.2021
Published Online24.01.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.