I am grateful to Çağlar Keyder, Sibel Yardımcı, Volkan Yılmaz, Bülent Küçükaslan, Tuna Kuyucu, and Yıldırım Şentürk for their comments and contributions, and to the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for its financial support of this study (project number 109K074).
Urban Citizenship, the Right to the City and Politics of Disability in Istanbul
Article first published online: 2 DEC 2012
© 2012 Urban Research Publications Limited
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 93–114, January 2013
How to Cite
Bezmez, D. (2013), Urban Citizenship, the Right to the City and Politics of Disability in Istanbul. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37: 93–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01190.x
- Issue published online: 21 DEC 2012
- Article first published online: 2 DEC 2012
- Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK). Grant Number: 109K074
- urban citizenship;
- right to the city;
Since the late 1990s, the ‘urban citizenship’ literature has accentuated the burgeoning potential of the city as host to more democratic interpretations of citizenship. A more recent literature highlighted the ‘local trap’ in such assumptions, arguing that the local cannot exist outside of neoliberalization. This article examines some of the recent institutional transformations in Istanbul's local government and seeks to understand where these might be situated in this discussion. Three institutions dealing with disability are scrutinized with regard to their power dynamics, discourses and practices. The argument is that, although superficially such developments seem to represent some of the tendencies highlighted by the urban citizenship literature (in terms of their scale, timing and appeal to a group previously excluded from modern citizenship), deeper analysis shows that these often promote charity- rather than rights-based approaches. This is because the push factors in the emergence of these institutions are not the urban struggles on the part of the disability community, but rather the ruling party's populism, the impact of supranational agencies and the demands of non-disabled residents at district level. Each of the three institutions examined is shaped primarily by one factor, leading to differing degrees of charity- and rights-based practices. Arguments concerning the prospects of more democratic interpretations of citizenship at local level need to consider experiences in diverse settings.