Intro
This paper is a strategic plan in resolving the gecekondu issue within the city of Ankara. This plan provides a brief history on how the issue came to existence, importance of a partnership between all stakeholders within the city, and a description of the Ankara Network model. The purpose of this plan is not to obtain commitment from involve network stakeholders, but to emphasize that success will only come with cooperation, collaboration, and coordination amongst all members in meeting the goals of the Ankara Network Model. This plan argues how such objectives can be implemented.
City of Ankara
Ankara is Turkey’s capital and was a vital strategic city for Mustafa Kemel Ataturk’s victory for Turkey’s independence against the allies of World War I. Ankara today is Turkey’s second largest city after Istanbul with a population of 4,751,360 as of 2007 (Ankara Demographics, n.d., para. 1). As for demographics, no in-depth available data is provided for the city other then national numbers which the information below provides. Ethnically, the country is made up of 70-75% Turkish, 18% Kurdish, and 7-12% other minorities (Turkey CIA, 2009, People). As for religion, 99.8% of the population is Sunni Muslim, and the other 0.2% is mostly Christians and Jews (Turkey CIA, 2009, People). As for literacy, 87.4% of the country’s population can read and write, but a disparity exists between gender with 95.3% male and 79.6% female reading and writing (Turkey CIA, 2009, People). For school life expectancy (primary to tertiary education), the total population have 11 years of total education with male completing 12 years and female at 11 years (Turkey CIA, 2009, People). Ankara’s economic activities are the government and business, and it is Turkey's second most important industrial city after Istanbul. The various industries operating in the city are wine and beer manufacturers, flour, sugar, macaroni products, biscuits, milk, cement, mosaic paving, construction materials, tractors, carpets and leather goods. In recent decades, tourism has become an important industry (Ankara, 2009, para. 2). As for the labor force, 24.06 million are employed with 29.5% at agriculture, 24.7% at industry, and 45.8% at services (Turkey CIA, 2009, Economy). The Turkish population who are in poverty is 20%, unemployed at 11% with 9.9% underemployed (Turkey CIA, 2009, Economy).
Issues
How gecekondus came to existence
Since the 1950s, when Turkey’s government adapted market-oriented policies, many migration workers left their villages for the city seeking a new livelihood. According to 2002 estimates, 27 percent of Turkey’s urban population resides in gecekondus but figures increase within metropolitan areas such as Ankara where 62.5 of the city’s population resides in gecekondus (Baslevent and Dayioglu, 2005, p. 34). Gecekondu are a form of “make-shift housing, rapidly built by the incomers, developed into extensive neighborhoods constructed on vacant or public land or on farms under absentee ownership surrounding the urban cores” (Dundar, 2001, p. 391). When the gecekondus first became visible, local government wanted to demolish these makeshift homes and replace them with government-funded housing. However, the government tolerated the gecekondus due to the political and industrial benefit it provided. The migrant population and their shanty towns
“Were tolerated by the government and by the private sector as they contributed their cheap and flexible (unorganized) labor to the industrialization process. Also, [Political Parties] are well aware of the voting potential of this large number of people and, through its populist policies, was able to gain their political support for they were content with the promises of title deeds, and infrastructure and services their settlements , made by the leader of the political party holding office” (Erman, 2001, p. 985).
Another element that helped reinforce the establishment of the gecekondus in Ankara was the lack of law enforcement on illegal housing. Migrants took advantage of “the lack of strict law enforcement and deliberate negligence by local authorities for political concerns, most immigrants invaded public land and became owners of gecekondus, located generally at the outskirts of the city” (Baslevent and Dayioglu, 2005, p. 33). As a result, these settlements have helped rural migrants easily establish themselves within the city.
The evolution of gecekondus
Since the 1980s, Ankara and other Turkish cities have succeeded in attracting investments but have proved unsuccessful in improving their social service infrastructure especially within the gecekondus. Such failure trickles down to the local governments’ inability to replace the make-shift houses with public-sponsored housing. Reason for the government’s failure is their emphasis in pleasing special interest rather than the concern of the public. If home-ownership is widely spread out
“Across urban households because of the availability of government-supported, low-cost housing projects, we would see a fairly uniform distribution of home-ownership across quintiles which would in turn have a favorable impact on income distribution. However, such projects that aim to provide affordable housing to the urban poor are non-existent in Turkey” (Baslevent and Dayioglu, 2005, p. 37-39)
Hence, many of the housing acts, such as Turkey’s Mass Housing Act or Ankara’s Urban Transformation Projects (UTPs)[1] have failed to assist the Gecekondus. An example of failed initiatives is the State Housing Bank (Emlak Bankasi) which was established to provide housing credit, and the Workers Social Security Fund (SSK) that provided housing credit but only to its members (composed of formal-sector wage-earners) have hardly served the poor (Baslevent and Dayioglu, 2005, p. 39). Instead, such initiatives have mostly served the needs of the middle and upper-income groups.
Ankara’s lack of law enforcement on illegal housing did not only benefit both the private and political sector, but also the government. By the time gecekondus covered almost half of the urban space in Ankara, the government discovered a new source of income by obtaining a share of location rent. The government “changed their attitudes and developed new measures to obtain a share, preferably the largest share from rent” (Dundar, 2001, p. 392). As a result, the government commercialized the construction of gecekondus which created strong political influence from developers. Developing firms transformed the gecekondu areas into high-rise prestigious residential neighborhoods or transformed “existing stock into small-scale, four to five storey family houses in exchange for a few apartments which they obtained and eventually sold for profit” (Dundar, 2001, p. 393). These transformations took place due to the political influence and financial power that developers had over government, thus intensifying mistrust between the government and the residents from the gecekondus.
Poverty within gecekondus
Gecekondus are experiencing numerous problems such as a poor standard of living, increase of population, poverty, and negligence from the rest of society. With many rural migrants moving to Ankara for work, some gecekondu districts have experience enormous increases in population such as the Etimesgut district where its population increased to outstanding 810.76 percent (Dundar, 2001, p. 393). With overcrowded blocks within the gecekondus, it is creating an unsustainable environment. The realization of low standard living spaces,
“resulting from limited social services and green area usage proposals, to obtain extra shares of the increasing rent of the area…But the current rapid and unqualified dense constructions will eventually impoverish living conditions, and concrete constructions are not able to be corrected” (Dundar, 2001, p. 393).
The cause of both the population increase and poor living standards can be directed at the lack of government policies and intervention. However, political bribes can also be the cause of blame why gecekondus are in a poor state. The governing political parties “bribed the gecekondu population in order to keep them from political activism against the state” (Erman, 2001, p. 987). This explains why the government has not improved the conditions within the gecekondus because they portray a rosy scenario for the public that such issues do not exist.
Another concern with many gecekondus is income disparity and a high level of poverty. Turkey, like all developing nations, is known for their highly unequal income distribution where “the top 20 percent of households receive 55 percent of the total income while the bottom 20 percent had less than 5 percent” (Baslevent and Dayioglu, 2005, p. 31). Not surprisingly, many from the bottom 20 percent originate from the gecekondu districts. Hence, Turkey’s income disparity makes it one of the highest within OECD countries. Many gecekondu residents live in poverty due to the lack of low-skill jobs within the labor market. The attempts of the government to develop a liberal market economy
“shook society deeply, increasing migration to large cities and unemployment rates. The lower-level jobs in the public and private sector, which once provided favorable employment opportunities for the gecekondu people, became very competitive” (Erman, 2001, p. 987).
Consequently, with high unemployment rates and acute poverty in the gecekondu population, the economic gap between rich and poor has widened thus intensifying discontent amongst the poor.
Gecekondus and social integration
With lack of government intervention to improve the conditions within the gecekondus, many residents are having a hard time adapting into society, thus creating a negative perception towards the government. This mistrust can be explained from Ankara’s failed policies (such as the UTPs) that made living conditions worse than before. The implementation of UTPs increased the existing economic and social problems, which spread throughout the different gecekondus within the city making integration difficult. In addition, many gecekondus fail to integrate into society due to discrimination they receive from both the government and the rest of society. The government view gecekondus as a threat to modernization and the existence of the republic, while the rest of society views them as a threat to Turkish ideology and an intrusion to society. They believe that members from the gecekondus are not constructed any more as a rural population
“that failed to become urban, but as a population that is attacking the city, its values, its political institutions and, more importantly, the very core of its ideology [a secular and democratic society built on consensus and unity] and its social order. They were once kept ‘outside the city walls’, but they are now inside: inside the city, inside its institutions, inside its political system – and yet they are against these values, trying to destroy them [‘inside yet against’]” (Erman, 2001, 996).
Such perception encourages hate and distrust between the gecekondus and the rest of society, thus creating an unstable environment within Ankara and the country.
Opportunities
Need for a partnership
To alleviate relations between the gecekondus and the rest of society, it is important for Ankara’s government to develop a trusting partnership with the gecekondus. The government must prioritize with the concerns of the gecekondus not just special interest. Ankara’s government must infuse the character of democratic citizenship, “administrators must be committed to end the isolation, to expand the range of choice, to respect the solitude of the lost ‘neighbors’ who are furthest away from us” (Gawthrop, 2005, p. 251). In other words, the government must be made available to all classes of society and immerse them within the democratic framework. Past Turkish housing policies and Ankara’s UTPs failed due to the lack of communication between stakeholders. With an establish partnership, “public administrators are linked to their clientele groups to solve problems, share ideas, set standards, build tools, and develop relationships with peers and stakeholders” (Gawthrop, 2005, p. 252). In having a partnership focus on citizen input, especially within the creation of policy, Ankara’s government is able to avoid implementing fail hierarchical policies that can neglect the gecekondus.
Benefits of a partnership
Many positives can arise from partnership such as citizen engagement, community outreach, and cooperation. For Ankara’s government, a partnership can help change their governmental managerial approach concentrated on hierarchy. In contrast to traditional public administration and new public management, in which politics is hedged in and confined,
“politics can breathe life into administration by broadening the concept of legitimacy to include a wide range of stakeholders and reorienting the administrative role. Politics infuse public value management through networks of deliberation and negotiation [establishing public policy goals] and service delivery [production]. Network governance re-politicizes public administration in a healthy manner by broadening the conceptualization of politics beyond the party. In this way, new public management provides opportunities for cooperation, flexible responses, and collective social production” (Bogason and Musso, 2006, p. 6).
The NPM approach does not only create opportunities for participation, it also educates the individual on the workings of government and their roles as citizens. Democratic governance from citizen participation builds social capital by “promoting strong democratic talk [face-to-face discourse on the issues] which instill civic competence and socialize people to an ‘ethic of citizenship’” (Bogason and Musso, 2006, p. 6). Hence, an ethic of citizenship can ease relationships between the gecekondus and the rest of society by constructing a dialogue of understanding.
With educated citizens, partnerships can develop a culture of transparency, thus strengthening trust. Transparency can be made easier with Ankara’s government advocating and implementing a system of e-governance (E-gov). With E-gov, citizens can easily obtain government documents or keep up to date with current policy events taking place in Ankara’s government. However, what is more important is that all information and communication technologies “are increasingly being used to replicate traditional participation activities” (Brown and Keast, 2003, p. 111). With tools such as E-gov, it develops processes and mechanisms aim to “engage and link community organizations and citizens in the processes of government which establishes greater participation and thus decrease dissatisfaction and enhanced outcomes for the community” (Brown and Keast, 2003, p. 111). This linkage between stakeholders develops a more fluid and responsive government in solving the issue inflicting the community.
Framework of the Ankara Network Model
Type of network
It is important for the network manager to understand the objectives of the interested parties, the necessity of building a stable alliance, and understand the type of network that will meet the goals of all stakeholders involved. Furthermore, in resolving the gecekondu problem within Ankara, elements of trust and reciprocity must exist within the network, thus “the greater the ability of the network to accomplish shared goals” (Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 10). From this, Ankara’s network administrator can build a relationship between stakeholders. Once trust and reciprocity is instilled between stakeholders, it is important to establish the “3Cs”, which is cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. Cooperation is the establishment of relations between organizational entities. In cooperative relationships, “participants agree to share information, space or referrals, however no effort is made to establish common goals and each agency remains separate, retaining their own autonomy and resources” (Brown and Keast, 2003, p. 116). Coordination implies the use of mechanisms that are tight and formally link together different components of a network. Coordination involves “strategies that require information sharing as well as joint planning, decision-making and action between organizations” (Brown and Keast, 2003, p. 116). Collaboration is “the most stable and long-type integration arrangement that requires the strongest linkages and tightest relationships amongst members” (Brown and Keast, 2003, p. 116). The principles of the 3Cs can establish the foundation that the Ankara Network needs to succeed in resolving the concerns within the Gecekondus.
With the establishment of the 3Cs, the Ankara Network should be a fusion of Problem Solving Network and Community Capacity Building Network. A Problem Solving Network can assist managers “set the agenda in regard to policy toward a critical national or regional problem…it can help to shape the implementation of a new policy” (Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 14). Community Capacity Building Networks builds “social capital so that communities will be better able to deal with a variety of problems related to education, economic development, crime, and etc.” (Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 16). Below is a detail description of the two networks:
Problem Solving Networks
- Primary purpose is to help organizational managers set the agenda for policy related to a critical national or regional problem.
- Focus is on solving existing complex problems rather than building relationships for future problems.
- Often emerges from information diffusion networks.
- Relationships may be temporary, to address a specific problem, and then become dormant after the problem is resolved.
- May be either designed or emergent.
Community Capacity Building Networks
- Primary goal is to build social capital in community-based settings.
- Network purpose is both current and future oriented (i.e., to build the capacity to address future community needs as they arise).
- May be created by participants (bottom-up) or by private and government funders (top-down).
- Often involves a wide range of agencies with many emergent sub-networks to address different community needs that may arise.
(Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 11).
This fused network made up of both the problem solving and community capacity building elements, the Ankara Network can resolve the issues the Gecekondu population is experiencing.
To oversee the Ankara Network, the city’s government should consider in creating a new entity to oversee that the network work participants are committed and accountable in meeting the objectives of the network. Similar to a Business Improvement District Model (BID)[2], the new entity will use a Network Administrative Organization Model (NAO). However, rather than being a private led entity, the BID style entity will be a public led one with a public-private partnership. The structure of an NAO is a distinct administrative entity set up to manage the network (not a “service provider”) where a manger is hired (or in this case, a new entity is created). Below is a relationship flow of a NAO model:
(Adapted from: Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 23)
An NAO have many members involved with share decision making along the policy process/program implementation. The advantage of NAO is the efficiency of day-to-day management, strategic involvement by key members, and sustainability of the network.
However, issues can arise within NAO such as the perception of hierarchy, cost of operation, and complex administration (Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 22). Even with these concerns, the NAO can still be successful if the network manager works in making all the stakeholders agree in meeting the projects goals. Below is a description of the functions of an NAO:
“The solution was to form a network administrative organization. The NAO was set up as a 501(c) 3 nonprofit corporation with a governing board consisting of representatives from the most active network organizations. The network also had its own executive director, with a part-time administrative assistant. The governing board considered all strategic-level decisions while the executive director addressed all operational decisions, sought additional grant funding, resolved conflicts, and kept the network going on a day-to-day basis. Some members of the network were still somewhat skeptical about the arrangement, thinking that the new NAO smacked of the very sort of hierarchy they had tried to avoid through self-governance. However, over time, the smoothness of the operation won over most members” (Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 23).
A more centralized structure in the Ankara Network can make coordination, collaboration, and cooperation easier due to the current state of relations between the gecekondus and other participants. Network participants will have to accept the fact that “decisions will be made by network-level mangers [from the new entity] that are not necessarily in the best interests of individual network members” (Milward and Provan, 2006, p. 24). This loss of control is needed for the network to be whole, sustainable, and effective in accomplishing its goals.
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) of the Ankara Network
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a description of the tasks that must be done to complete the projects within the network. The WBS breaks down the activities, task, and work packages of the overall project plan so the Network Manager can “estimate the duration of the project, determine the required resources, and schedule of work” (Wysocki, p. 141). In this section, I will discuss the breakdown of project activities for the Ankara Network Model.
· Joint Project Planning (JPP)
The WBS model starts with a Joint Project Planning (JPP) session in which it assembles a group made up of “a facilitator, project manager, the core members of the project team, and all other managers who might be affected by the project” (Wysocki, p. 153). The key actors for this project are the stakeholders within Ankara Network which are the gecekondu leaders, non-profits/non-governmental organizations, private entities, academic institutions, and government. Furthermore, the Ankara Network will contract Subject Matter Experts (SME), whom will be known as the Advisory Team throughout the project, to provide consultation and guidance to the network manager[3] and team members. The Advisory Team is made of experts within community-development, economic development, and urban planning from policy/program implementation arena. Their knowledge and experience will help the network understand the important significance in comprehending the Ankara gecekondu issue.
· Work Breakdown Structure
Once the JPP session concludes, the network manager and other stakeholders will implement a structure model for the overall project. For the beginning phase, the network manager will use the incremental approach to create objectives for the next level. The WBS will follow a top-down approach at first but still focus on the 3Cs and NAO structure. Once the first activity level is complete, the second activity level will switch to a bottom-up approach structure and use the Adaptive Project Management method.
With the bottom-up approach, the network manager will create a work environment that puts responsibility on each member’s performance and commitment to the task. Commitment makes the team be “proactive in fulfilling their responsibility without the need for constant reminders of schedule and deliverables from the network manager” (Wysocki, p. 252). In addition, the network manager will switch to the Adaptive Project Management (APM) approach from the Incremental Approach because it “adapts to the unique character of the specific business situation as it learns more about that business situation” (Wysocki, p. 38). For this topic, business translates to the social situation. The APM creates a shared partnership with shared responsibility between the requestor and provider. Importantly, it calls for client involvement (stakeholders) to provide feedback on changes they would like to see to meet their specification.
Below is an overlook of the WBS structure:
Activity Level 1:
Subteam 1 – Subteam one will focus on raising money through fundraising and obtain federal and state grants to fund the project. The funding will assist in funding programs such as job-skills training, affordable housing, business incubators (i.e. promote small businesses within the gecekondus), education programs, and other social programs. Furthermore, this funding will also focus on e-gov implementation (i.e. website building, computer training centers), staff training to deliver services, SMEs’ consultation, and community outreach events.
Subteam 2 – Ankara’s judicial division will work with an SME judicial expert in creating a legal center to provide guidance and support to the gecekondus on human rights, real estate laws, and other concerns. Furthermore, Ankara’s judicial division and the SME will work together to gather material regarding law on gecekondus and work on reviewing/changing policies that neglect concern population.
Subteam 3 – Ankara’s IT department will implement E-gov on its main website that will discuss the features of the gecekondu social programs. Subteam 3 will also work with both the Turkish and Ankara’s ministry of judiciary on material for the website, and consult with the SMEs’ if the material meets human equality issues.
Activity Level 2:
Once all the subteams complete their first level activity, they commence work on the second activity level. In this phase, stakeholders will work with the network manager to review if all the activities were completed correctly and the overall project is meeting the Ankara Network Model objectives.
Activity Level 3 and 4:
In this level, all network participants will gather for a performance test run to review if the project is meeting the Conditions of Satisfaction (COS). In this phase, the client will provide feedback if the project is in accordance to their satisfaction. The APM framework will take effect to make the proper changes if the client is not content. If the client is not pleased with the specifications (i.e. gecekondu concerns) of the project, then the project will go back to the JPP level to discuss alternative solutions for successful results. When the overall project passes the test run, the project will go on to activity level 4 where the programs begin operations. At the same time, the network manager will conduct a post implementation meeting with involved stakeholders to discuss the success and failures of the project and document the project’s history into its data base as a point of reference for future projects.
Management
Even though the project uses a bottom-up approach, the network manager is still responsible for the overall project. The reason in using the bottom-up approach is to promote team structure were “everyone has an opportunity to participate, commitment will be much stronger than in the directive approach” (Wysocki, p. 265). The bottom-up approach helps the network manager remind team members to be “responsible for completing their assigned task within schedule and specification” (Wysocki, p. 259). Furthermore, the SMEs are not in charge of the overall project, the responsibility and authority to make final decisions still lies with the network manager. The SMEs main responsibility is to be a source of consultation and guidance to support the network manager and stakeholders throughout the project.
Throughout the project, stakeholders will provide monthly status reports with the network manager to discuss and review if any changes are needed to correct the task within a particular activity level. The network manager will use a Current Period Report to monitor progress on activities that were open or scheduled for work during an exact period. The benefit of using current period reports is “if any activities did not progress according to plan, the report should include the reasons for the variance and the appropriate corrective measures to fix the issue” (Wysocki, p. 321). To follow the trend of the project, the team will use the Milestone Trend Charts, which “plots the difference between the planned and estimated date of a project milestone at each project report period (Wysocki, p. 329). The Milestone Trend Charts will assist in keeping track on all activity performances such money raised/received, status of network programs, the network’s progress in satisfying the concerns of stakeholders, website development, and government employee training.
Total Project Duration: The overall project would have 8 years to start, grow, and mature. If changes are needed to meet specification, overall project would last 10 years to meet client’s Conditions of Satisfaction (COS).
Funding
For the Ankara Network to fulfill its objectives, funding plays a critical role. Since this is a public-private project, much of the project will be funded through bonds via from the Turkish national government and municipality of Ankara. Contracts for physical infrastructure improvements such new buildings for public services will be at distributed through at-bid contracts to private developers, urban planning, and architecture. For the social programs, the government will fund these programs to cover head costs such as building operations, supplies, salaries, and benefits. For public-private programs (but fall at the realm of public services) such as business incubators, job training skills, and adult education, private entities will fund these programs for supplies, training, and operation costs. Furthermore, if it is a fully owned private non-profit, the private sector will be employee salaries and benefits, and fund the entity as a subsidiary of the company. Below is a pie graph describing how funding is distributed for this project:
Conclusion
The discussed framework is a good model not just to get all of Ankara’s stakeholders involved, but it is also a performance measurement model to measure the 3Cs of each participant involved within the network. Past acts failed due to the lack of 3Cs from all involved parties, but with a performance measurement system, it reminds each member that mediocre performances or false promises can have rough consequences on their organization’s reputation. This strategic plan will not just improve the conditions in the gecekondus, but it will create a sustainable community with the integration of the individuals living within the community. It is vital to have an harmonious environment within the city due to lessons learn from the Paris riots of 2006 where certain sectors of the minority population vented violently due to the neglection they receive from the rest of society. This strategic plan is the first step in establishing healthy relations between the gecekondus, government, and society.
References
Ankara. (2009). Retrived January 26, 2009, from Looklex Encyclopaedia. Website: http://i-
cias.com/e.o/ankara.htm.
Ankara Demographics. (n.d.). Retrieved from Demographics Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara.
Baslevent, C., & Dayioglu, M. (2005). The Effect of Squatter Housing on Income Distribution in
Urban Turkey. Urban Studies, 42(1), 31-45.
Brown, K., & Keast, R. (2003). Citizen-government engagement: Community connection
through networked arrangements. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 25(1), 107-131.
Dundar, O. (2001). Models of Urban Transformation - Informal Housing in Ankara. Cities,
18(6), 391-401.
Erman, T. (2001). The politics of squatter (gecekondu) studies in Turkey: The changing
representations of rural migrants in the academic discourse. Urban Studies, 38(7), 983-1002.
Hoyt, L., & Gopal-Agge, D. (2007). The business improvement district model: A balanced
review of contemporary debates. Geography Compass, 1(4), 946-958.
Milward, H. B. & Provan, K. G. (2006). Public Management Networks: Types and Purpose.
IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington, DC. Web site: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/ProvanReport.pdf.
Turkey Economy and People. (2009). Retrived January 16, 2009, from CIA: The World
Factbook. Website: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html.
[1] In the second half of the 1980s, the government implemented large scale urban renewal projects of slum areas of city centers known as UTPs. The UTPs brought new concepts like public-private partnerships between the government and gecekondus in bringing different solutions in improving the slum districts.
[2] BIDs are privately directed and publicly sanctioned organizations that supplement public services within geographically defined boundaries by generating multiyear revenue through a compulsory assessment on local property owners and/or businesses (Hoyt and Gopal-Agge, 2007, p. 946).
[3] Network Manager is also referred to as the new public-private entity
Please excuse the white highlight, the blog is not attempting me to post within a normal context. Thank you and enjoy.
ReplyDelete