Downloaded for Personal Non‐Commercial Research Or Study, Without Prior Permission Or Charge
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Oprisan, Anisoara (2018) The Roma in Turkey: from survival mechanisms to development strategies. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/30304 Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. THE ROMA IN TURKEY FROM SURVIVAL MECHANISMS TO DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ANISOARA OPRISAN Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD 2017 Development Studies Department SOAS, University of London 1 Abstract “Allaha şükürler olsun. Beterin beteri var”1 [Praised be God. It could be worse than that] This dissertation examines the extent in which state policies have affected the Roma in Turkey by looking into the reasons for their poverty and social exclusion as well as into the survival mechanisms and livelihoods strategies they have employed as a response. The study addresses the situation of the Roma from the perspective of the approach the Turkish state has had on ethnicities, the accession conditionalities imposed by the European Union and the neo-liberal policies implemented by the government after 2002. Broadly, the study illustrates the impact of long-lasting structural invisibilization towards the Roma as well as the manner in which the Roma have positioned themselves and negotiated with power in order to survive. Having in mind that the first official measure of the 2010 Roma Opening initiative of the AKP Government was the provision of housing, the dissertation focuses particularly on the housing policies that have had an impact on the livelihoods strategies of the Roma in Turkey: the “housing for the Roma” [Tr. Roman konutları] initiative and the urban regeneration [Tr. kentsel dönüşüm] projects run by the state authorities all over Turkey. The research shows that, while the Roma have been long affected by the invisibilisation and exclusion of the state policies, the provision of housing alone, without accompanying measures and without taking into account the needs and specificity of the communities targeted, does not have the potential to get the Roma out of poverty nor to tackle their exclusion. Moreover, the demolition of the gecekondu settlements and its consequential displacement sets poor Roma on a more vulnerable path from which they have difficulty to recover and to find sustainable livelihoods strategies. 1 60 year old Roma man in Istanbul displaced due to urban regeneration 3 TABLE OF CONTENT Acronyms………………………………………………………………………….p6 Elmas’ View: The Experience of Being a Roma – Reminiscence and Reflection….p7 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….………..p8 1.1. Background and Context…………………………………………………..…..p8 1.1.1. Orientation of the Research……………………………………….....p8 1.1.1.1. The Focus of the Case Studies…………………………..…p9 1.1.2. Perspectives on Approaching the Roma………………………….…p11 1.2. Theoretical Framework: Perspective on Roma Poverty and Social Exclusion……………………….……………………….………………….....p22 1.2.1. Inter-relation between the Concepts of Poverty and Exclusion……….……………………………………………....p22 1.2.2. Implications on the Status of Roma………………………………....p29 1.3. The Organization of the Study………………………………………………...p34 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.…….…………………………………........p38 2.1. Research Questions…………...……………………………………………….p38 2.2. The Case Studies……………………………………..…………………..……p39 2.2.1. Case Studies’ Locations and Context….……………………….…...p40 2.2.1.1. Küçükbakkalköy case in Istanbul…………………….…...p40 2.2.1.2. The “200 Houses” Scheme in Samsun………………..…...p42 2.3. Data Collection and Processing.………………………………………….…...p45 2.3.1. Preliminary Research Methods and Approaches……………….…..p.45 2.3.2. Details of Field Research…………………………………………....p46 2.3.3. Field Data Recording and Processing……………………………….p48 2.3.4. Anonymization of Data and Ethics……………………………...…..p49 2.4. Access to Data and Challenges..........................................................................p50 2.5. Research Implications…………………………………………………..…......p54 3. BETWEEN DIVERSITY AND POWER: NEGOTIATING ROMA IDENTITIES…………..……………………………………………………….....p56 3.1. Benchmarks of Roma Identity Formation and Emancipation in Europe……..p56 3.1.1. Debated Origins and Historical Shapers of Roma Identity………....p56 3.1.2. Venues of Collective Emancipation and Identity Expression……....p61 3.2. Paths of Framing the Roma in Policies, in the EU and Candidate Countries...p64 3.2.1. Conditions Defining the Status of the Roma in Europe…………….p64 3.2.2. Impact of “Roma Singling-Out” Policies…………………………...p69 3.2.3. Inclusive Citizenship vs. Excluding Regulations in Turkey…….…..p71 3.2.4. Difference of Status - Similarity of Condition……………………....p75 3.3. Specificity of the Roma in Turkey………………………………………...…..p77 3.3.1. Groups Diversity and Interrelation………………………………….p77 3.3.2. From Stigmatization to a Sense of Belonging……………………....p80 3.4. Constructing the Roma Issue after 2002 in Turkey…….…………...…….…..p84 3.4.1. AKP Political Change and Structural Reforms after 2002……….....p84 3.4.2. Roma Civil Society Formation……………………………...……....p86 3.4.3. The AKP Roma Opening [Roman Açılımı]…………………………p88 3.4.4. Governmental Attempts to Include Roma in Social Policies……….p90 4 3.4.5. EU Pressure for Targeted Policies on Roma…………….…………..p92 3.5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….............p93 4. MECHANISMS OF SURVIVAL AND LIVELIHOODS STRATEGIES OF THE ROMA…………………………...……………………………………...p96 4.1. Invisibility as Vulnerability and as Coping Mechanism……………...……….p96 4.1.1. Structural Invisibilization of Roma………………………………….p96 4.1.2. Invisibility as Mechanism of Survival………………………………p99 4.1.3. The Gatekeepers and the Lucrative Politics of Roma Visibility…...p103 4.2. The Path from Vulnerability to Sustainability of Livelihoods…………….....p108 4.2.1. The Visible Vulnerability of the Roma…………………………….p108 4.2.2. Livelihoods Assets of the Poor………………………………….....p113 4.2.3. Framing the Sustainability Prospects of Roma Livelihoods……….p116 4.2.3.1. Income Generation in Urban Settings – Exploiting Limited Assets for Survival……………………………………….p117 4.2.3.2. Housing as a Dignifying Capital…………………….…...p124 4.2.3.3. The Roma in the Framework of the Social Welfare System in Turkey………………………………………………....p127 4.2.4. From Survival Mechanisms to Livelihoods Strategies of Urban Roma…………………………………………………....p130 4.3. Conclusion…………………………………………………………..…...….p135 5. INFLUENCE OF HOUSING POLICIES ON THE VISIBILITY AND THE VULNERABILITY OF THE ROMA………………………………………….p138 5.1. The Housing Prerequisite for the Roma Inclusion Policies in Europe..……..p139 5.2. Dimensions of Housing Policies in the Neoliberal Turkey……………....….p145 5.2.1. Housing Provision as the Social Welfare Arm of Neoliberalism in Turkey and its Enabling Stakeholders..……………...………….p145 5.2.1.1. The Gecekondu Space…………………………………....p145 5.2.1.2. “Roma Housing” Policy……………………….………....p149 5.2.1.3. TOKI Authority………………………………………….p151 5.2.1.4. Municipalities as Market Facilitators…………………....p155 5.2.2. Neoliberal Urbanization: Implications of Urban Transformation....p158 5.2.2.1 Selling the “Soul” of the City…………………………….p158 5.2.2.2. Neoliberal Redistribution of Power in the Urban Context…………………………………….……………...p165 5.2.2.3 The Hidden Disempowered and Excluded………....…….p165 5.2.2.4. Enforced Vulnerability of Women in Spaces of Exclusion………………………………………....…...p171 5.3. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….....…..p173 6. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………...……....p176 Further Research………………………………………………………………..p182 LIST OF REFERENCES…………………………………………………….....p183 5 Acronyms AKP [Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi] Justice and Development Party CHP [Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi] Republican People Party CoE Council of Europe CPRC Chronic Poverty Research Centre DW Deutsche Welle EC European Commission ECRI European Commission Against Racism ECSR European Charter for Social Rights EDROM Edirne Roma Association EEC European Economic Community EECARO Eastern Europe and Central Asia Regional Office EP European Parliament ERGO European Roma Grassroots Organisation EU European Union ERTF European Roma and Travellers Forum HE [Halk Evi] Community House HRW Human Rights Watch ID Identification Document INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession iRSN Istanbul Romani Studies Network IRU International Roma Union ISMEP Istanbul Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project İŞKUR [Türkiye İş Kurumu] Turkish Employment Agency JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency MGD Millennium Development Goal MG-S-ROM Committee of Experts on Roma and Travellers (MG-S-ROM) MoE Ministry of Education MP Member of Parliament NGO Non-Governmental Organization ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OSF Open Society Foundation OSI Open Society Institute RNC Roma National Congress STK [Sivil Toplum Kuruluşu] Civil Society Organization TAIEX Technical Assistance and Information Exchange TC [Türkiye Cumhuriyeti] Turkish Republic TL Turkish Lira