Informed by the debates on the transformation of welfare states in advanced industrial economies, this article evaluates the changing role of the state in welfare provision in Turkey. Turkey's welfare state has long been limited and inegalitarian. Strong family ties coupled with indirect and informal channels of welfare (ranging from agricultural subsidies to informal housing—both costly but politically expedient) have compensated for the welfare vacuum. At first glance, Turkey's welfare reform that emerged from the 2000-2001 fiscal crisis appears like a classic case of moving towards a minimalist, 'neoliberal' welfare regime—with increasingly privatized health care and private social insurance. The state retreats via the subcontracting of welfare provision to private actors, growing involvement of charity organizations, and increasing public-private cooperation in education, health, and anti-poverty schemes. Yet, there is also evidence of the expansion of state power. The newly empowered 'General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity (SYDGM)' manages an ever-increasing budget for social assistance, the number of mean-tested health insurance (Green Card) holders explodes, health care expenditures rise substantially, and municipalities become important liaisons for channeling private money and donations for antipoverty purposes. The cumulative effect is an 'institutional welfare-mix' that has actually mutated so as to compensate for the absence of the earlier, politically attractive but fiscally unsustainable welfare conduits. The result has so far been the creation of immense room for political patronage, the expansion of state power, and no significant improvement of welfare governance.

This is a study of Istanbul's periodic bazaars and an attempt to place them in the context of contestation over urban space, urban poverty and informality. The periodic bazaars in the city are either disappearing or being moved to the outskirts. These trends reflect and reproduce spatial unevenness in the city, manifesting new forms of social exclusion and polarization. The city's increasingly commodified urban space has become an arena of social and economic contestation. We address these questions by focusing on the story of the relocation of one of Istanbul's most popular periodic bazaars, the Tuesday bazaar in Kadıköy. Our analysis reveals that the relocation and reorganization of bazaars in Istanbul in the 2000s have largely been driven by rising real-estate prices in the city: land has simply become too precious a commodity to be left to the bazaaris. Furthermore, in the context of a pervasive neoliberal discourse on urban renewal and modernization that promotes the notion of a hygienic city, the bazaaris, it seems, have become the new undesirables of the urban landscape, leaving them under double siege from the commodification of public land and from spatially defined social exclusion.From the emergence of upscale shopping centres to luxury office and residential developments, from the beginnings of gentrification of the old neighbourhoods to packaged tourist sites, Istanbul has been undergoing major transformations, particularly since the mid-1980s (Keyder, 2005a. It is against this background, which in fact parallels the kind of transformations under way in some other globalizing cities (Sassen, 1991), that this study sets out to map and discuss the changes witnessed in Istanbul's periodic bazaars, which have consisted of either downsizing them or removing them from the city centre. This is an attempt to uncover the underlying dynamics at work, not only with regard to contested urban space but also to urban poverty and informality. 1 Though similar in many ways to events elsewhere, the relocation and resizing of Istanbul's periodic bazaars involves a unique combination of commodification and resistance, and helps underscore the contextual and contingent nature of neoliberalism on the ground.We are indebted to Istanbul's bazaaris and their representatives for their time and for their engagement with our study. Our work benefited from the insightful criticisms of Professor Caglar Keyder as well as the comments of the three IJURR reviewers. We would also like to thank Yeliz Günel for helping us with maps and figures. Finally, Özlem Öz would like to thank the Turkish Academy of Sciences for its financial support, and Mine Eder thanks the Council for Middle East Studies at Yale University. 1 Please note that by periodic bazaars we refer to open-air markets set up on specific days of the week in specific neighbourhoods. Unlike their counterparts in Eastern Europe or the famous Tehran bazaars, Turkish bazaaris move from one neighbourhood to another throughout the week.

This article shows how the transformation of Istanbul's entertainment industry and of Beyoğlu, Istanbul's oldest, largest and the most diverse entertainment district, represents and reproduces spatial and economic divisions in the city. We argue that these differences also become compounded and intertwined with distinctions in consumption and taste. Taking a simultaneous look at the spatial, economic and symbolic transformations of the entertainment industry enables us to understand how and why these intense divisions emerge, and what kind of contestations, rationalizations and resistance strategies are at work in this transformation. A major contribution of this article is to document and discuss the political economy of the process of urban transformation in the city through the lens of the entertainment industry, providing an interesting case of 'neoliberalism on the ground'. Examining the neoliberalization of nightlife in a relatively understudied context, Istanbul, also reveals that its segmentation and spatial inequality are not just determined by political economy but are also constitutive of it. By adding the concept of 'image consumption' and taste distinctions into the analysis, the article also uncovers the symbolic nature of the ongoing transformations. Finally, exploring Beyoğlu as a district in transition with persistent contestations contributes, in turn, to the right to the city debate.

Focusing on everyday life and the dynamics of contestations between very different groups thrown together in dangerous proximity in a neighborhood of Istanbul called Tophane, this article contributes to debates on urban transformation, political aspects of gentrification and the right to the city, with a focus on how to live differentially. Amidst rising political tensions and polarization in Turkey, competing economic interests, gentrification pressures and/or ultimate clashes over norms and values have fueled these contestations, which have degenerated into violent encounters. Calling for a re‐evaluation of ‘the right to the city’, we argue that, unless the concept of right to the city is complemented by a commitment to live differentially—that is, by a right to difference—mediating and addressing these contestations will be difficult. Whether clashes over the right to the city and everyday encounters can lead to a new politics committed to resisting urban transformation that pushes the boundaries of urban citizenship, or whether these uncomfortable encounters will continue to escalate, with one group claiming hegemony over space until the neighborhood is finally and fully gentrified, remains very uncertain. But it will, ultimately, be the litmus test of the country's democracy and inclusive citizenship.

No abstract