The Role and Capacity of Local Government in Managing Migration in Istanbul

Abstract

Turkey is the first country of reception for Syrians refugees escaping the civil war. It hosts 3.6 million Syrian refugees, more than 90% of whom are living in urban and peri-urban areas. However, Turkey is among the countries preserving “geographic limitation” of the 1951 Convention, which prevents asylum-seekers coming from non-European countries from being granted refugee status. The Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP), adopted on 4 April 2013, keeps Syrians under “temporary protection” with access to health and education systems, labour markets, social assistance, and some other services. The lack of financial resources and legal clarity regarding the responsibilities of local administrations concerning refugees is a major obstacle to the enhancement of local action. These administrations have had to accept large refugee communities and are attempting to meet their needs without a well-defined legal framework concerning the assistance and services they should deliver to refugees. This is why the solutions we found vary from one municipality to another, depending on the local administration’s willingness, creativity, financial resources they can deploy, and building capacity. International funding is clearly the most important means of building the capacity of local administrations to deal with refugees effectively. Although it is not possible to determine the exact financial burden refugees impose on municipalities, it is clear that they require financial support from the central budget in order to be able to plan and carry out necessary policy actions to deal with refugee issues.

Residing without settling: Housing market and tactics of Syrian forced migrants in Turkey

“…Studies on the Turkish forced migration context and housing mainly focus on the early settlement practices of Syrian forced migrants. They identify the structural challenges in accessing formal housing (Akgündüz et al, 2015; Balkan & Tumen, 2016; Tumen, 2016) and the problems with housing conditions including substandard habitats (Baban et al, 2017; Elicin, 2018: 92; Erdoğan, 2017: 78; Gültekin et al, 2018; Jauhiainen, 2018: 45; Oner et al, 2021; Türk, 2016: 148). However, none of these studies focuses on the trajectory and the transformation in the housing experience of Syrian forced migrants beyond housing conditions.…”

Expanding the boundaries of the local: entrepreneurial municipalism and migration governance in Turkey

“…Paradoxically, municipalities continue to be deprived of the legal authority and the policy capacity to intervene immediately in international protection practices at the local level. Research points out the ongoing deficiencies of local governments in Turkey particularly in terms of financial and human resources and policy-making capacities in the area of migration governance (Eliçin 2018; Genç 2018; UNDP 2018). Their findings highlight that municipal policy processes can best be described as “muddling through” (Eliçin 2018, 95), which might have negative repercussions for the sustainability of the current social cohesion schema in the medium and long term.…”

“…Research points out the ongoing deficiencies of local governments in Turkey particularly in terms of financial and human resources and policy-making capacities in the area of migration governance (Eliçin 2018; Genç 2018; UNDP 2018). Their findings highlight that municipal policy processes can best be described as “muddling through” (Eliçin 2018, 95), which might have negative repercussions for the sustainability of the current social cohesion schema in the medium and long term. In this context, despite the efforts directed toward capacity building, “institutionalization of the support and full acknowledgement of municipalities as a key actor of migration management and social inclusion” (Callet-Ravat and Madore 2016, 24) has not yet been achieved.…”

“…More recent research attributes the success of the municipalities to the willingness of the mayors to take action (Betts et al 2021; Eliçin 2018). This connection is made stronger particularly in those provinces or districts that share the same ideological stance with the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP), such as in the cases of Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality or Sultanbeyli District Municipality (Özçürümez and İçduygu 2020).…”