Housing Supply under Different Economic Development Strategies and the Forms of State Intervention: The Experience of Turkey

Habitat International

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 43-60

  Baharoglu, Deniz ^a  

^a NONE   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC POLICY; ECONOMIC STRATEGY; GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION; HOUSING PROVISION; HOUSING SUPPLY; STATE INTERVENTION; STRUCTURAL CHANGE;

TURKEY;

EID: 0029728916     PISSN: 01973975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0197-3975(95)00033-X     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. This paper is based on a chapter of the author's PhD thesis submitted to the University of Kent at Canterbury (1994).
2. For further discussion on urbanisation and formation of unauthorised land markets, see K.H. Karpat, "The Gecekondu", Rural Migration and Urbanisation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976).
3. Our main sources of data on land and housing supply conditions in Turkey were national statistics. In order to clarify some of the issues shown by the national statistics, supplementary data were collected through interviews with private-sector constructors and Real Estate Bank managers.
4. A. Oncu, "The Politics of Urban Land Markets in Turkey, 1950-1980", International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies 12, 1 (1988), pp. 38-63.
5. A. Turel, "1980 Sonrasinda Konut Uretimindeki Gelismeler", Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi Mimarlik Fakultesi Dergisi 9, 2 (1989), 137-154.
6. Due to lack of relevant statistical information, estimates of housing need are approximate (see footnote, Table 1) but they are given as a rough guideline in order to evaluate the increase in production relative to need and to observe the trend between 1964 and 1980.
7. Source: Statistical Year Book of Turkey (1985), p. 385, table 317. Data are compiled by the evaluation Department of Under-secretariat of Treasury and Foreign Trade, Prime Ministry.
8. R. Keles, "Housing Policy in Turkey", in G. Shildlo (ed.), Housing Policy in Developing Countries (London, Routledge, 1990).
9. Oncu (1988), see note 4.
10. Oncu (1988), see note 4, table 1, p. 43.
11. Keles (1990), see note 8.
12. In the 1980 household consumption survey by the State Institute of Statistics the ratio in big cities is given as around 50%. Although this figure includes both authorised and unauthorised stock, since the tenancy ratio in the unauthorised stock was estimated at 50% in Ankara and Istanbul, for the late 1970s and early 1980s one can deduce that the tenants in the authorised stock comprised around half of the total households.
13. Keles (1990), see note 8.
14. Source: Statistical Year Book of Turkey (1981); State Institute of Statistics, table 355, p. 362. Data compiled by the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce.
15. K. Boratav, Turkiye Ikdisat Tarihi (Gercek Yayinevi, Istanbul, 1985). Also see I. Tekeli, "Ekonomik Bunalim ve Bunalimdan Cikmak Icin Izlenen Politikalarin Toplumsal Sonuclari", in I. Tekeli (ed.), Turkiye'de ve Dunyada Yasanan Ekonomik Bunalim (Yurt Yayinlari, Ankara, 1984).
16. K. Boratav, Turkiye Ikdisat Tarihi (Gercek Yayinevi, Istanbul, 1985). Also see I. Tekeli, "Ekonomik Bunalim ve Bunalimdan Cikmak Icin Izlenen Politikalarin Toplumsal Sonuclari", in I. Tekeli (ed.), Turkiye'de ve Dunyada Yasanan Ekonomik Bunalim (Yurt Yayinlari, Ankara, 1984).
17. Until the beginning of the recent decade, large construction companies mainly undertook State tenders for civil works and development projects in the Middle East countries.
18. One-man construction firms are called yap satci in Turkish, which means a constructor who builds and sells each flat immediately.
19. H. Bickicioglu, Housing Producers in Ankara in the 1980s, MSc Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara (1987).
20. Until 1980 bank interest rates were subject to State regulations. Oncu (1989), see note 5, also indicated that it was State policy to maintain a highly complex system of preferential interest rates on credits to priority sectors, mainly to industry. Housing construction was not a priority sector, and credits for housing construction were limited and interest rates were higher than for the priority sectors.
21. M. Balamir, "Kentlesme, Kentsel Surecler ve Kent Yapisi", in Y. Guloksuz (ed.), Turkiye 1. Sehircilik Kongresi, Vol. I (ODTU, Ankara, 1982), pp. 13-54.
22. By increasing building densities the State also encouraged owners of single- or two-storey houses to make agreements with constructors in order to acquire more units in return for their land. So not only empty plots, but also land comprising low-density buildings were incorporated into this particular mode of housing provision.
23. I. Tekeli, Turkiye'de ve Dunyada Yasanan Ekonomik Bunalim (see note 15).
24. Oncu (1988), see note 4 and I. Tekeli, "On the Dynamics of Experience of Urbanisation in Turkey", Sijtoff Alphen Aarden Ryn, 1981.
25. Oncu (1988), see note 4 and I. Tekeli, "On the Dynamics of Experience of Urbanisation in Turkey", Sijtoff Alphen Aarden Ryn, 1981.
26. Building construction could not expand outward from the city easily since serviced land supply was not demand elastic. Considering that these small constructors would not have enough influence over officials to provide services for their plots, and that they would not have sufficient capital to enable them to stand empty while waiting for the services, they were reluctant to invest their capital in unserviced land. Moreover, if they did find serviced land on the outskirts of the city and could start construction immediately, the price of the flats they produced would be lower than the ones they could sell in central areas, hence their profits would be lower, while the ratio of flats that the landowners were demanding would be increasing on the outskirts of the city as well. In order to increase their profit level they would have to enlarge the scale of construction, but in this case they would need larger amounts of land, and would have to achieve economies of scale which were not possible due to their conventional production techniques.
27. Oncu (1988), see note 4.
28. M.N. Danielson and R. Keles, The Politics of Rapid Urbanisation - Government and Growth in Modern Turkey (Holmes and Meier, New York, 1980).
29. For a detailed explanation of the reasons of this situation see Danielson and Keles (1980), note 26 and Turel (1989), note 5.
30. For a detailed explanation of the reasons of this situation see Danielson and Keles (1980), note 26 and Turel (1989), note 5.
31. Kent-Koop, News Bulletin p. 12.
32. Keles (1990), see note 8, p. 155.
33. B. Danisoglu, "Konut Yatirimlarinin Bugunku Durumu ve Finansmanina Iliskin Bazi Oneriler", paper presented at TUBITAK Conference on Housing Supply for Low income Groups, 1986. Also see Keles (1990), note 8.
34. B. Danisoglu, "Konut Yatirimlarinin Bugunku Durumu ve Finansmanina Iliskin Bazi Oneriler", paper presented at TUBITAK Conference on Housing Supply for Low income Groups, 1986. Also see Keles (1990), note 8.
35. Bankrupt 'money-dealers' (bankers) often made the headlines of the press in those days. Most of them were arrested or escaped abroad.
36. In a survey carried out by the Turkish Industrialists & Businessmen's Association in Ankara and Istanbul in 1986, it was reported that home-ownership occupied the top priority among needs, 28% of households defined becoming an owner-occupier as their most urgent need. Thirty-six per cent of the households made housing their preference when they were asked how they would spend a large amount of money from an unexpected source. It is a very well known fact from the party programmes and propaganda that the urban middle classes were defined as the primary target group by the first party government after the coup. The Middle Pillar' was the popular term used by party workers in their speeches.
37. Data compiled by the State Planning Organisation.
38. In research by Bickicioglu (1987), see note 18, interviews with 25 yap satci showed that 11 of them were in the same business before the recession. They closed their business for a few years during the recession and started again.
39. O Isik, The Penetration of Capitalism into Housing Production: Speculative House Building in Ankara, Turkey, Ph.D. Thesis, University College London Bartlett School of Architecture (1992). Also see Turel (1989), note 5.
40. O Isik, The Penetration of Capitalism into Housing Production: Speculative House Building in Ankara, Turkey, Ph.D. Thesis, University College London Bartlett School of Architecture (1992). Also see Turel (1989), note 5.
41. Source: Statistical Year Books 1987, 1989 and 1993, tables 309 and 306 respectively. Data compiled by the Evaluation Department of the Undersecretariat of Treasury and Foreign Trade, Prime Ministry.
42. Keles (1990), see note 8.
43. Turel (1989), see note 5.
44. As cited in the previous section, Bickicioglu (1987), note 18, also reported a similar ratio for the initial payment of total price.
45. Karpat (1976), see note 2. Also see T. Senyapili, "Gecekondu: Cevre Iscilerin Mekani", (Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi, Ankara) (1982).
46. Karpat (1976), see note 2. Also see T. Senyapili, "Gecekondu: Cevre Iscilerin Mekani", (Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi, Ankara) (1982).
47. Keles (1990), see note 8. Also see G. Payne, "The Gecekondus of Ankara", Process of Architecture 14 (1980), pp. 78-105.
48. Keles (1990), see note 8. Also see G. Payne, "The Gecekondus of Ankara", Process of Architecture 14 (1980), pp. 78-105.