Concentrated Urban Poverty

This article was downloaded by:
On: 14 November 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Planning Studies

Publication 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, Turkey

Ipek 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', European
Planning Studies, 15: 3, 319 — 338
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09654310601017026
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310601017026
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
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 or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should 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 directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
European Planning Studies Vol. 15, No. 3, April 2007
Concentrated Urban Poverty: The Case

of Izmir Inner Area, Turkey
IPEK ÖZBEK SÖNMEZ

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 a
serious problem for both rural areas and the big cities that gained migration. In Turkey and
world-wide since the 1980s, however, there have been more research interests in the
concentrated urban poverty, especially along with the increase in levels of impoverishment
Downloaded At: 11:51 14 November 2010
around the world. With the help of a case study in Izmir (Turkey), this paper aims to examine the
process of concentrated urban poverty from different points of view in the literature. This is a
case study developed at the peripheries of the traditional city centre—or inner areas—of the city
of Izmir, Turkey. The paper, first, discusses the parameters of concentrated poverty according to
the 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 of
concentrated urban poverty. The macro-scale dynamics suggest that poverty in inner areas of the
city are related to the unbalanced development trends within the country, such as the overgrowth
of metropolitan cities, economic restructuring processes, migration trends and the development of
informal economy. The ecological dynamics address to the housing and job location preferences
and invasion-succession processes in the city, which emphasize that socio-economic
characteristics of inner areas of the city are different from those of other city parts. Micro-scale
dynamics are related to poors’ ability of developing solidarity relations among themselves, which
is also related to the spatial characteristics of inner areas of the city, according to this study’s
findings.
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 Özbek Sönmez, Dokuz Eylül Universitesi, Mimarlık Fakultesi/Sehir Planlama
Bolumu, Tınaztepe Kampusu, Dogus Caddesi, No:209, 35160, Kurucesme, Izmir, Turkey. Email: ipek.
sonmez@deu.edu.tr
ISSN 0965-4313 print=ISSN 1469-5944 online=07=030319–20 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080=09654310601017026
320 I. Ö. Sönmez
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

Concentrated Urban Poverty: The Case of Izmir Inner Area, Turkey 321
Figure 2. The traditional city centre of Izmir (inner city) and the survey area
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.
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
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,
Table 1. Population of the province centres by 1990 and 2000
1990 2000
İstanbul 6 629 431 8 831 805

Ankara 2 583 963 3 203 362
İzmir 1 758 780 2 250 149
Bursa 834 576 1 184 144
Adana 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
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).
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,
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).

Figure 4. Migration trends to Izmir over different periods
Table 3. Percentage of inhabitants of Izmir

born in another city
1950 27.7%
1965 35%
1980 42%
Source: Peker et al. (1997, p. 42).
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
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
İstanbul 1, 135, 884 680, 869

Ankara 270, 959 217, 474
İzmir 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 90

Domestic services 19 73
Shoe and leather production 10 38
Street vendoring 10 41
Construction 6 23
Self-employed 6 22
Salesman 6 23
Technician 4 14
Artist 2 8
Factory worker 3 11
Officers 2 8
Repairman 2 9
Government employee 2 6
Others 6 23
Unknown 2 6
Total 100 394
Source: Sönmez, I.O. (2001) (data have been collected from interviews in the survey area).
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 37

Adjacent neighborhoods to the city center 79 20
Other neighborhoods 78 20
Out of Izmir town 6 2
Street vendoring (undefined location) 20 5
Unknown 66 17
Total 394 100
Source: Sönmez, 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
Figure 5. Ratio of tenants in Izmir, 1990
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 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
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).
Altınçekıc, 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 Müdehalesi,
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 Yoksulluğu ve
Planlama (Ankara: TMMOB Sehir Plancıları Odası Yayini).
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: Iletişim Yayinları).
Ersoy, M. & Sengul, T. (Eds) (2000) Kentsel Yoksulluk ve Gecinme Stratejileri, Ankara Orneği (Ankara: ODTÜ,
Kentsel Politika Planlamasi ve Yerel Yönetimler Ana Bilim Dalı Yayini).
Ersoy, M. & Sengul, T. (Eds) (2002) Kente Goc ve Yoksulluk—Diyarbakir Ornegi (Ankara: ODTU, Kentsel
Politika Planlaması ve Yerel Yönetimler 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 Coğrafyalar Farklılıklar Benzerlikler, İstanbul, Ocak sayısı.
Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press)
Isik, O. & Pinarcioglu, M. (2001) Nobetlese Yoksulluk, Sultanbeyli Orneği (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari).
Icduygu, A., Sirkeci, I. & Aydingun, I. (1998) Türkiye’de Ic Goc, in: Turkiye’de İc Goc ve Icgocun İsci
Hareketine Etkisi (Istanbul: Turk Tarih Vakfi Yayini).
Kalaycıoglu, S. & Rıttersberg, H. (2002) Yapısal Uyum Programlarıyla Ortaya Çıkan Yoksullukla Başetme
Stratejileri, in: A. Dikmen (Ed.) Kentleşme Göç ve Yoksulluk (Ankara: Türk Sosyal Bilimler Derneği
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.Yüzyıla Türkiye Ekonomisi (Istanbul: Altın Kitaplar).
Kıray, M. (1972) Orgutlesemeyen Kent: Izmir (1998) (Istanbul: Bağlam 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) Kentleşme Sürecinde İzmir’de Toplu Konut Uygulamaları ve Sorunlar (Izmir: Ege Üniversi-
tesi Fakültesi yayını).
Peker, M., Önen, E. & Balkız, B. (1997) Göç, Kentleşme Sorunları, Yerel Siyaset, Yeni Eğilimler, Yeni Yaklaşım-
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 İzmir Tarihi Kent Merkezi, Egemimarlık,
89/5.
Sonmez, I. O. (2001) Yapısal Donusumler Surecinde Toplumsal Dıslanmisliklarin Olusumu – Izmir Tarihi Kent
Merkezi Gecis Alani Ornegi (Izmir: DEÜ, Fen Bilimleri Ens). (yayınlanmamıs doktora tezi- PhD thesis)
Sonmez, M. (2001) Gelir Uçurumu – 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 İstanbul: 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

Concentrated Urban Poverty

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Concentrated Urban Poverty

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by:

On: 14 November 2010

European Planning Studies

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

Concentrated Urban Poverty: The Case

IPEK ÖZBEK SÖNMEZ

ISSN 0965-4313 print=ISSN 1469-5944 online=07=030319–20 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

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

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

Different Perspectives on the Concentrated Urban Poverty

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

Macro-scale Structural Dynamics of Concentrated Urban Poverty in Turkey

Unbalanced development trends: overgrowth of metropolitan cities and economic

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

İstanbul 6 629 431 8 831 805

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

Table 2. Urban population growth in Izmir province

Years 1927 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1997

Source: Mutluer (2000, p. 49).

Figure 4. Migration trends to Izmir over different periods

Table 3. Percentage of inhabitants of Izmir

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

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

Provinces July 1992 January 1997

İstanbul 1, 135, 884 680, 869

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

Occupations Percentage of labour force (%) Labour force

Small scale textile production 23 90

The Ecological Dynamics of the Concentrated Urban Poverty

Table 6. Location of jobs

City center neighborhoods 145 37

Figure 5. Ratio of tenants in Izmir, 1990

Figure 6. Ratio of tenants at the inner area

Debate, 4(3), pp. 253 –302.

Figure A1. The survey area behind the blocks

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen