İstanbul has undergone a neoliberal restructuring over the past two decades. In this paper, we focus on two urban spaces that we argue to have emerged as part of this process—namely Göktürk, a gated town, and Bezirganbahçe, a public housing project. We examine these spaces as showcases of new forms of urban wealth and poverty in İstanbul, demonstrating the workings of the neoliberalization process and the forms of urbanity that emerge within this context. These are the two margins of the city whose relationship with the center is becoming increasingly tenuous in qualitatively different yet parallel forms. In Göktürk's segregated compounds, where urban governance is increasingly privatized, non-relationality with the city, seclusion into the domestic sphere and the family, urban fear and the need for security, and social and spatial isolation become the markers of a new urbanity. In Bezirganbahçe, involuntary isolation and insulation, and non-relationality with the city imposed through the reproduction of poverty create a new form of urban marginality marked by social exclusion and ethnic tensions. The new forms of wealth and poverty displayed in these two urban spaces, accompanied by the social and spatial segregation of these social groups, compel us to think about future forms of urbanity and politics in İstanbul.

This article assesses the recent performance of the Turkish economy, questioning whether the currently observed unusual boom conditions will lead to a process of sustainable growth. The latest phase of Turkish neo-liberal transformation in the post-2001 era is placed in a broader historical and global context; at the same time, the performance of the economy in recent years is compared with that of other key emerging markets, based on selected macroeconomic indicators. Utilizing the East Asian experience as the principal benchmark for comparison, this paper examines whether Turkey is on its way to accomplishing tiger-like development performance. Given the current challenges to sustainable growth, we conclude that it is premature to suggest that the impressive performance of the recent years will lead to durable success and tiger-like performance. While the focus is on the Turkish experience, the paper also probes the very nature of tiger-like performance itself, highlighting the fact that in setting standards for exceptional economic performance we need to extend our horizons beyond high rates of economic growth sustained over time, to broader indicators of social, political and human development.

Ziya Öniş and İsmail Emre Bayram seek to assess whether the rapid rates of growth experienced by the Turkish economy since it weathered a severe crisis in 2001 as measured by several indices—high levels of investment, especially foreign investment; sustained “export orientation;” increased outlays for education, research and development; sustained economic and political stability, and “favorable regional dynamics” as the European Union (EU) enlargement process—are merely a flash in the pan or sustainable over the long-run. To do this they cast the Turkish trajectory against the “miracle economies” of East Asia, as well as some other middle-and low-income economies in Latin America and elsewhere. Based on this analysis, they conclude that while there are some serious concerns—low domestic savings rate, large deficits in the current account, tapering off the EU accession process, dependence on foreign capital and export markets— long-term sustainable growth can be achieved in Turkey if these vulnerabilities are addressed.

This essay seeks to analyze the daily reproduction of inequalities in and around a contemporary İstanbul civil courthouse. Based on an ethnographic study in three poor urban neighborhoods and their civil courthouse, I examine the mode of conduct in the latter and the ways in which this mode is perceived. This study shows that routinized divergences from formalistic premises in the courthouse are not perceived as flaws, but placed within informal relations. This enmeshing of formal and informal practices is considered normal by both the legal professionals and lay low-income litigants. These constituencies, however, perceive this conduct rather differently in relation to their own and others' attributes. Lay low-income litigants locate it within a broader idiom of “doing administration,” a series of tactics to engage within a horizon of perpetual injustice. For legal professionals, on the other hand, the daily mixing of formal and informal practices has to do with their mission of “educating” and transforming those in need to participate in the culture of the state. I discuss the particular relation of these two perceptions in normalizing the view of the law as a site, not of formal egalitarianism, but of hierarchical social engagements.

This paper surveys the private lands owned by of Sultan Abdülhamid II in Palestine and analyzes their spatial distribution and impact, in the context of regional imperial policy. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire faced serious external and internal problems. Sultan Abdülhamid II (r. 1876-1909) used various traditional and modern methods in order to increase the internal cohesion of the empire and strengthen it vis-à-vis external threats.

One unique measure taken by the sultan was the purchase of large tracts of land. He became one of the largest landowners in the empire. In Palestine alone, the sultan purchased around 3% of the total area and initiated measures to increase these lands' productivity for his Privy Purse. In addition to gaining economic profit, Abdülhamid II employed his private lands to solve problems which challenged the sovereignty of the empire. These included attempts to settle the Bedouins, the establishment of new towns in order to subjugate nomads in regions where they threatened rural settlements, settling Muslim refugees from the Caucasus and the Balkans, and protecting strategically sensitive lands located on the frontiers, by purchasing them and thus keeping them out of the hands of others.

This article analyzes the practice of suretyship (kefalet), surveillance and taxation in early nineteenth-century İstanbul. It deals with how the practice of suretyship functioned to achieve social control; it provided shelter for some but at the same time marginalized others with little or no social status. This article also analyzes the extent to which the state maintained order through suretyship. In this way, it intends to capture where and how state and society interacted through social and state control mechanisms. To this end, this article takes into consideration two particular events, the Greek uprising of 1821 and the abolition of the Janissary Corps in 1826, and demonstrates a growing tendency towards impersonal relations in terms of governmental practices of surveillance. Briefly, it illustrates how suretyship changed over time and how a gradual transition took place from personal to impersonal relations as well as within governmental practices. Furthermore, this article provides examples of similar practices by focusing on an institutional development that involved the government systematically accumulating knowledge about the population. Finally, it explores taxation practices by the government in order to. show how the pre-modern (contractual) and the modern (statutory) state were not substitutes for each other, but rather shaped each other.