Introduction

Diversity has become an important phenomenon in metropolitan cities. Due to the rise of international migration flows, urban centers have become areas of confluence with increasingly diverse residents and a growing number of newcomers. Globalization, conflicts and severe living conditions in various countries have fostered these flows (U.N. Habitat 2008). Such dynamics add an extra burden to local municipalities whose mission is to respond to the needs of increasingly diverse communities. These pressures are more acutely felt in municipalities that form the core of global metropolitan cities, as they accommodate primary functions such as administration, tourism, business and entertainment that are frequented by both established residents and newcomers.

Due to contemporary conditions, which necessitate a broader analysis of diversity, this study contributes to diversity literature in Istanbul by focusing on policies that address social diversity such as age, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc. The municipalities’ approach to social integration for all its residents is better understood and assessed from this perspective. Our findings demonstrate that migrants from different parts of Turkey as well as from other countries are regarded as diverse groups, which indicate notions of super diversity and hyper-diversity. Istanbul has hosted various kinds of diversities throughout its long history (minorities, internal migrants from small towns, etc.). This work offers insights to debates on equality and on the value of the concept of ‘public benefit’ (kamu yararı) within policy making and planning in Turkey. In this regard, this paper aims to explain the role of local municipalities in addressing diversity in Istanbul and reflect the municipalities’ involvement with EU-related municipal networks and projects that focus on the issue of diversity. The article principally addresses two questions: how do local municipalities perceive and interpret diversity? And, how do international diversity policy networks influence practices in three core municipalities of Istanbul? In addition, we will discuss the efficacy of local policy on accommodating diversity and the relationship between planning and diversity.

This article is based on a research project comprised of three case studies in the central area of Istanbul. In order to compare each municipality’s definition of diversity and its inclusionary practices, we chose to focus on the following three districts: Beyoğlu, Beşiktaş and Fatih. Each of the three municipalities has different constituents and occupies a central part of Istanbul. Furthermore, the study investigates the local municipalities’ membership to international networks by comparing two EU-supported local governance network member municipalities (Beşiktaş, Beyoğlu) with a nonmember municipality (Fatih). Although there are a number of networks within the UN and EU that have been instrumental in creating and spreading diversity-related practices, this study examines UCLG-MEWA, Euro­cities and ICC, which have memberships in Turkey, in order to illustrate the key actors and the main elements in creating successful diversity practices.

In the study, the perception of diversity by municipal administrators and officials and inclusionary practices of each municipality were evaluated by examining each municipality’s strategic development plan and related activity and performance reports. To analyze the practices of the municipalities, we conducted in-depth interviews with various planning and service directorates in these municipalities.

To better understand global cities, it is critical to examine the notion of urban diversity. Due to shifts in capital and changing modes of production, globalization has triggered the flow of people in today’s capitalist system (Koenig and de Guchteneire 2007). Urban diversity can be defined through physical (density, mix-use, etc.), social (ethnic, socio-cultural, socio-demographic, socio-economic diversity) and economic parameters (economic growth, creativity, innovation). In this study, we focus on social diversity in three core districts of Istanbul, Turkey.

As stated by McDowell (1999), cities are the places where intersections of global movements occur. In this sense, global cities gain importance, since the global economy depends on these cities (Sassen 1994). Within large global cities such as Istanbul, the existing inhabitants have differing social characteristics (age, gender, financial situation, dis/ability, etc.) that create a diverse structure; however, the addition of people from different nations and ethnicities brings new and already-existing divisions amongst inhabitants to the fore and leads to a higher potential for conflict among various social groups. In cities that have received larger numbers of migrants, such as Istanbul, changes in social demographics necessitated the creation of inclusive policies. In this sense, policy approaches to diversity evolved from assimilation to multiculturalism in Europe. Assimilation can be defined as an acceptance of the majority group’s cultural identity (Berry 2011), whereas multiculturalism offers the recognition and participation of cultural minorities in society (Faist 2009). Today, multiculturalism has shifted toward interculturalism, which focuses on the importance of cultural dialogue and encourages difference while also emphasizing the importance of common interests and mutual understanding (Amin 2002; Stevenson 2013). Global cities’ dynamic sociodemographic structure allows us to follow the trajectory of diversity policies.

The efforts of intergovernmental organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) and its subsidiary organizations have had a significant impact on the formation of policies on diversity and inclusion, particularly regarding anti-discrimination and equality principles. The combination of these efforts with international agreements has created a “human-rights revolution”, which demonstrates the new policies’ influence and their increased emphasis on culture, especially in Europe (Kymlicka 2012). International agreements and commitments in recent decades have led to the creation of documents such as ‘Our Creative Diversity Report’(1996), ‘Declaration on Cultural Diversity’ (2000), ‘Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions’ (2005), and the ‘White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue’ (2008), which all underline the importance of policies to accommodate diversity, with an emphasis on cultural diversity. The idea of interculturality and subsequent diversity policies emerged to counter criticism on multiculturalism and assimilation (Schiller 2016). Convergence policies in Europe started to emerge with the notion of interculturalism, with particular influence on shared values. Interculturalism also brought about local practices in accommodating diversity. Emphasizing interculturalism, Amin (2002, 2013) focuses on the importance of negotiating difference in everyday interactions. In this regard, he stresses the importance of shared activities in communal spaces, which can occur in workplaces or through community organizations. Since spatial identities are composed of interactions from global to local (Massey, 2004), multi-tiered models of governance emerged for pioneering diversity (Sandercock 2003). Diversity policies and practices can be influenced by national legislation, funds or policies, or through exchanges between cities. However, due to decentralization policies, especially after 1990s, the influence of national and regional laws have had a decreasing effect on local policies (Schiller 2016). Therefore, local municipalities in European cities have come to the forefront in putting diversity policies into practice.

Policy and ideas are dispersed globally and cities act autonomously in policy development and implementation (Faist and Ette 2007). Therefore, international municipal networks have taken shape to promote policy exchanges and knowledge-sharing of best practices, as well as to enable the exchange of ideas among local municipalities. These networks are important, as they create an environment for cities to share their ideas, experiences, knowledge. Joint actions allow municipalities to adopt common policies and actions. Such alliances also have the potential to influence supranational and international policies (Duxbury and Jeannotte 2013). These networks increase the status of these cities and they become more like “supranational authorities,” creating an opportunity for cities to connect with these “authorities” and with other cities to create partnerships (Payre 2010). These networks can become key actors for creating multilevel governance of diversity by emphasizing “interdependence, consensus, and cooperation” instead of “hierarchy, imposition and power” (Caponio 2018). Sometimes these international municipal networks have very little effect on cities, however, as the policies triggered by these networks are not implemented due to the indifference of the administrative bodies (Downing 2015). In this regard, policy convergence could be a solution to make these networks more effective, by preventing attempts to undermine their role by local actors due to the lack of consensus and coordination (Caponio 2018). Policy convergence would be achieved through the initiative of national governments in promoting diversity in supranational institutions such as the EU.

The terms super-diversity and hyper-diversity have been used to reflect recent changes in world demographics. As international migration flows increased in the 21st century, it was insufficient to simply focus on race and ethnicity, as there can be differences between migrants coming from the same country of origin. This realization brought multiple identifications and differentiations among these migrants that created the term super-diversity (Vertovec 2007). In addition to super-diversity, the term hyper-diversity also emphasizes that differences can occur both within and among local people and newcomers (Tasan-Kok et al 2014). Kraus (2012) has mentioned the difficulty of defining cultural identity as a specific category, even when talking about a single nation. These multi-faceted diverse identities could be better defined by using super-diversity and hyper-diversity. In this regard, the EU’s latest perspective on diversity could overlap with the understanding of interculturalism which focuses on the importance of dialogue in solving conflicts in these super-diverse environments. As mentioned by Abdou and Geddes (2017), the EU’s intercultural turn focuses on the economic benefits of diversity and its potential to solve conflicts. Moreover, the positive assets of diversity can contribute to the provision of social cohesion and local identity if a rights-based approach is adopted in policy-making.

In Turkey, the ongoing migration from neighboring countries has been studied within the fields of sociology, geography, planning, etc. The number of studies has increased in the aftermath of migration from Syria after 2011. These studies focus on several topics such as changing migration trends and demographics, problems related to integration/adaptation and policies, and strategies implemented by the national government (Erdoğan and Kaya 2015, AFAD 2013, Içduygu and Aksel 2013, Içduygu 2015, Kirisci 2014, Erdoğan 2015). There have also been studies focusing on the role of local actors (municipalities, non-profit organizations) in responding to the newcomers (Erdoğan 2017, Woods and Kayalı 2017, Koca et al. 2017, Danış and Nazlı 2019). These studies show different approaches of municipalities toward Syrian migrants. There have also been some studies that have focused on migration from a diversity perspective. The multinational “Divercities” study (Eraydın et al. 2014, Yersen 2015, Eraydın et al. 2017) examines the governance of urban diversity through the lens of various actors (central government, municipalities, non-governmental agencies)in Istanbul by focusing on Beyoğlu municipality. Furthermore, Biehl (2015) examined the diversification of local space by focusing on the Kumkapı neighbourhood in Istanbul through the lens of super-diversity.

Diversity as a Positive Asset for Cities

As diversity has increased through migrant flows, various policy approaches have been developed to address it (Figure 1). In the 19th and 20th centuries, assimilation policies were implemented by nation states such as Western European countries like Germany or France since newcomers were seen as a threat to the host country. After World War II, although assimilationist policies were still ongoing, their influence started to decrease. The anti-nazism sentiment and an emphasis on equality created the environment for a reevaluation of human rights (Kymlicka 2012). The UN encouraged minority identities by accepting anti-discrimination and equality principles (Koenig and de Guchteneire 2007). Multi­cultural policies in Western Europe increased particularly after the 1960s and the human-rights revolution. International agreements were signed for promoting anti-discrimination and equality such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Yersen 2015; Koenig and Guchteneire 2007). Multicultural policies were supported and adopted by several nations until the mid-1990s. However, backlash toward multiculturalism shifted diversity approaches towards “civic integration,” “social cohesion,” “common values,” and “shared citizenship” (Kymlicka 2012). In this regard, the EU sought to implement convergence policies and the European Council accepted the “Common Basic Principles of Immigrant Integration Policy” in 2004 to create a path and context for integration policy (Joppke 2007). These approaches were also supported by interculturalism which emphasized the importance of shared values in diversity policies.

Diversity in cities has been portrayed by academics within two opposing frameworks: its benefits to socio-economic vitality, economic development and social equity, and its detrimental effects on social cohesion and social capital. Diversity has been shown to increase economic vitality, economic growth, innovation, creativity, economic productivity and decrease unemployment (Jacobs 1961; Talen 2006; Florida 2012; Granovetter 1983; Putnam 2007). From this perspective, diversity has been beneficial to the economy by increasing economic growth and productivity (Landry and Wood 2012; Talen 2006; Putnam 2007). Talen (2006) emphasizes the importance of diversity on equality, as investments to diverse enclaves would be much higher compared to segregated low-income enclaves. According to Beatley and Manning (1997), stimulating diversity can have a positive effect on urban sustainability by preventing segregation and enabling equal access to basic services and facilities. However, some contradictions have arisen in terms of the relationship between social cohesion and diversity. Diversity has the potential to lead to conflict (Tasan-Kok et al 2014) and decrease social capital (Putnam 2007). In order to overcome these potential outcomes, it is necessary to focus on local policies to decrease conflict (Tasan-Kok et al 2014), promote inclusivity and solidarity (Putnam 2007) and provide equal access to basic services and facilities (Beatley and Manning 1997). This process could be accelerated if the benefits of diversity were perceived by the communities in question.

Local policies can promote the beneficial effects of diversity and minimize short-term deficiencies. Policies and practices that promote diversity and inclusion can increase the well-being of local communities and strengthen the social fabric of the city. Furthermore, the creation of public spaces, which are the primary areas where encounters take place, and the establishment of the idea of a common public interest, require inclusive planning. However, ethnic diversity and population mobility alongside other social, political and economic barriers have created constraints in creating more inclusive cities (CLG 2010). Several models have been suggested to solve the conflicts that may arise due to diversity and at the same time create inclusive public spaces. Young (1990), Healey (1997), Sandercock (2000) and Fainstein (2005) suggest the importance of interaction to solve injustices in society through mediation, collaborative and communicative planning and dialogue. There is also a debate between equality and diversity because interactions among different groups, especially immigrants and minorities, are fragile; here, equality is a concern. While some scholars state that diversity and equality cannot be separated from each other, others state that equality and diversity cannot occur at the same time. As emphasized by Reeves (2004) and Fainstein (2005), by ensuring equal opportunities, diversity can increase power and reduce the unequal competitiveness among different social groups. On the contrary, McDowell (1999) and Fraser (1990) claim that since not everyone has equal access to public space, the citizenship idea that is derived from equality actually creates exclusions and segregation in public space. Young (1990) also claims that equality can only exist in an ideal community and not in a diverse community. While some scholars claim that equality addresses issues of access to resources in cities, others cite the importance of addressing diversity separately from equality in order to overcome differences in power.

Local municipalities stand out as the primary responsible institution in designing, planning and regulating inclusive public and community spaces and providing services to a diverse range of local inhabitants. Local municipalities have countered exclusionary practices by identifying best-practices, articulating problems that rise from exclusion, and by raising the general public’s awareness. Although these practices have had some effect on decreasing exclusion, examples from the UK suggest that local interventions were more successful when social and physical renewal was accompanied by neighborhood management, resident involvement, local leadership and partnership, the availability of funding, and supportive national policies (CLG 2010).

International organizations such as the UN and the EU have also contributed significantly to a positive reception of diversity, either through international agreements or through the creation of various institutions and networks that have allowed member states to come together to discuss and further the ideas that have been established in these agreements. Furthermore, the programs such as Inticities, Dive, Mixities and ImpleMentoring created by these organizations have provided an opportunity for policies to be put into practice and to be evaluated. This has created an exchange of best-practices amongst participating authorities at various level of governance¹.