Turkish-Style Segregation

Socio-Economic Divisions in Seven Metropolitan Areas

in Asian Journal of Social Science
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Research into social and spatial segregation in urban areas has a very long tradition in the Anglo-Saxon geography. Even after the 2000s only a few researchers have turned to the non-Western countries to understand and explain segregation in different geographies. As a country in-between the East and the West, in Turkey, where segregation reveals itself in many forms there are very few studies dealing directly with the question of segregation. The article thus deems it crucial to shed light on a rarely-known geography in terms of residential and socio-economic segregation practices focusing on a larger Anatolian geography. Key findings show that as far as residential segregation is concerned among socio-economic status groups, Turkish cities have a characteristic pattern where the highest and the lowest status groups never share a common border in urban areas. But, it is also seen that socio-economic groups behind this common pattern exhibit completely different characteristics.

Turkish-Style Segregation

Socio-Economic Divisions in Seven Metropolitan Areas

in Asian Journal of Social Science

Sections

Figures

  • View in gallery
    Figure 1

    Geographical distribution of the cities

  • View in gallery
    Figure 2

    Ethnic segregation maps of Chicago and Los AngelesFosset, 2001

  • View in gallery
    Figure 3

    Ethnic segregation maps of LondonOffice for National Statistics, 2013

  • View in gallery
    Figure 4

    The spatial distribution of higher strata households in Santiago case in ChileSabatini et al., 2001

  • View in gallery
    Figure 5

    Segregation maps of post-socialist cities: Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan on the left, Tallinn, Estonia on the rightmap of income groups: Gentile, 2003; map of occupational groups: Ruoppial and Kahrik, 2003

  • View in gallery
    Figure 6

    Decision tree used for defining status groups

  • View in gallery
    Figure 7

    Segregation map of Istanbul

  • View in gallery
    Figure 8

    Segregation map of Ankara

  • View in gallery
    Figure 9

    Segregation map of Izmir

  • View in gallery
    Figure 10

    Segregation map of Kayseri

  • View in gallery
    Figure 11

    Segregation map of Mersin

  • View in gallery
    Figure 12

    Segregation map of Diyarbakır

  • View in gallery
    Figure 13

    Segregation map of Samsun

  • View in gallery
    Figure 14a

    Shares of university graduates in the highest status groups (Group A)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 14b

    Shares of native population in the highest status groups (Group A)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 14c

    Average child-woman ratios in the highest status groups (Group A)

  • View in gallery
    Figure 14d

    Female participation rates to labour force in the highest status groups (Group A)

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 27 27 11
Full Text Views 78 78 61
PDF Downloads 6 6 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0