Residential Segregation in a Highly Unequal Society: Istanbul in the 2000s

Abstract

Contrary to trends in many European countries, income inequality in Turkey, measured by the Gini coefficient, has declined between 1994 and 2014, with a small but consistent increase since then. Turkish income inequality is among the highest in OECD countries, with levels not lower than 0.4. This chapter will examine residential socio-economic segregation in Istanbul against the backdrop of this relatively stable and high-income inequality. The chapter shows signs that residential segregation is on the rise. Istanbul has undergone a radical change in the 2000s thanks to active intervention by the state in the real estate market by opening up large pieces of land in the outskirts and gentrifying inner-city areas once occupied by unauthorized settlements that once were home to the poor. Dynamics of urban development, fueled by rapid urban sprawl in peri-urban areas and ceaseless gentrification of inner-city areas, gave way to diverse patterns of segregation depending on the already existing divisions and physical geography of cities. Given the lack of neighbourhood level data on either occupations or income, this chapter analyses segregation through indices based on fertility and educational level, which we know from detailed household microdata are closely correlated with income. On the basis of 2000 and 2017 neighbourhood data, we show that in Istanbul, there is a clearly visible pattern where the poor are progressively pushed further to the city limits, while some parts of built-up areas once home to middle classes, were recaptured by the poor. The result in some parts of the city is a juxtaposition of seemingly conflicting patterns: parts of the inner city were reclaimed by the poor while some parts were gentrified led by the nascent urban elite. The urban periphery was partly occupied by the bourgeoning middle classes and was also home to the urban poor who were displaced by urban transformation projects.

Faktör Analizi ile Anket Verilerine Dayalı Sosyoekonomik Kırılganlık Değerlendirmesi: İzmit Örneği

“…These districts, despite their high population density, are short of basic facilities. The findings show that there is a clustering and segregation as most studies suggest in the literature conducted for the Turkish cities (Akyol-Altun 2010; Işik and Pinarcioğlu, 2015;Mutlu and Varol, 2017;Işik, 2021;İncedere, 2022). Empirical results show a pattern of clustering that is also an indication of spatial segregation.…”

“…Particularly, Factor 1, and 3 that are representing micro variables that characterize individual and household structure. However, this pattern is not very regular and may be conflicting in parts that are quite similar to the findings of Işik (2021) for residential segregation in İstanbul, where he reported that the inner city was partially reclaimed by the poor while some parts were gentrified led by the nascent urban elite. The urban periphery was partly occupied by the growing middle classes and was also home to the urban poor who were displaced by urban transformation projects.…”

“…(2) Micro and macro variables comparison show that m2sale is only negatively correlated with the age group elderly, which indicates the districts where elderly people reside are commonly offering low-priced housing, probably low-quality old housing as well. Significant empirical studies show that CWR is negatively correlated with income and used as proxy for income in its lack (Işik, 2021). Higher childrate together with high CWR is an indication of low socioeconomic status and they are negatively correlated with important macro-level facilities including education, health, and recreation.…”

The firm geography of Central and Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans

“…In the Balkans, post-socialist development has exhibited levels of informality resembling those of the Global South more than Western Europe, highlighting the unique nature of urban development in this region [66]. The territorial development of large cities in Central and Eastern Europe, exemplified by cities like Wrocław, has demonstrated a cyclical nature, with processes of urban sprawl and prosperity shaping the urban landscape [67]. Residential segregation has also been a significant issue, with the urban periphery being occupied by both the burgeoning middle classes and the urban poor displaced by transformation projects.…”