Neoliberalism,logistics and the treadmill of production in metropolitan waste management: A case of Turkish firms

Abstract

This paper examines the domestic growth and overseas expansion of Turkish firms as part of the treadmill of production. The treadmill of production is an environmental and political-economy approach to society’s insatiable hunger for material goods. In this approach, economic growth leads to withdrawals of natural resources, and the addition of waste to the environment that stresses both nature and society. Drawing on the treadmill of production approach, I argue that logistical service providers are a coping and modernisation mechanism for accelerated urban growth and economic expansion. This process is visible in the expansion of privatised waste management, and even more so in rapidly urbanising regions where growth and modernisation are of great importance to policy-makers. Owing to the importance of growth and expansion, logistics firms in newly industrialised countries, like their counterparts in the Global North, increasingly export logistical services overseas. This, in turn, accelerates the treadmill of production internationally. As such, this paper will also look at the expansion of Turkish firms into Pakistan.

Keywords

economic development growth Istanbul Pakistan sociology sustainability urbanisation and developing countries waste management

Introduction

On a summer day in 2013, a trailer for the Beykoz vocational school sits in a public square in the Beşiktaş district of Istanbul, Turkey. The trailer prominently states, ‘Profession of the Future, Sector of the Future, Logistics’ (Geleceğin Mesleği, Geleceğin Sektörü, Lojistik). On an attached banner, logistics tops the school’s list of training programmes, which also include business management, energy, computer engineering, air and maritime industries. The advertisement of logistics is tied to Turkey’s recent economic growth. A 2010 Deloitte study commissioned by the Turkish government noted transportation and logistics amount to 8–12% of Turkey’s GDP (see Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2010a). The importance of logistics is visible in the physical landscape around the city of Istanbul. Alongside the highway that runs along the Marmara Sea – between Istanbul and Gebze toward Izmit – are the facilities of logistics firms. These warehouses, truck depots and repair shops are in a highly industrialised region that are only minutes away from concrete factories, waste management facilities and processing plants for a variety of industries.

This rapid growth has had significant consequences for Istanbul’s waste management and the Turkish government’s environmental policy (Metin et al., 2003; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2008; Turan et al., 2009). In 2010, Turkey’s metropolitan solid waste (MSW) production was more than that of either South Korea and Mexico (OECD, 2013). Not only did this affect national environmental policy, but also waste became an opportunity for Turkish logistics service providers (LSPs). In addition to providing infrastructure to move waste, LSPs transformed ‘waste’ into a commodity, making waste management a lucrative sector (de Kadt, 1999; also see Hingley et al., 2011).

Using corporate press releases, government data and reports, as well as data from international organisations, this article examines the growth of Turkish LSPs and their expansion into Pakistan as part of a global treadmill of production. Developed by Allan Schnaiberg, the ‘treadmill of production’ is a model that explains the insatiable and growing hunger for material goods. This hunger creates environmental withdrawals of natural resources and the addition of waste to the environment (Gould et al., 2004; Schnaiberg, 1980). Drawing on Schnaiberg’s theoretical approach, I argue that logistics lubricate the treadmill of production. The management of withdrawals and additions are central to logistics. Correspondingly, waste management by LSPs is particularly important in rapidly urbanising areas where the modernisation of infrastructure is of great importance to policy-makers.

Another component of the treadmill of production is speed and growth. Notably, consumer hunger drives economic expansion and this growth-logic permeates society – economically, politically and culturally. Schnaiberg notes that actors such as the state, private sector and organised labour buy into growth and accelerate the treadmill of production. For instance, states have historically built infrastructure and provided public goods to facilitate growth (Marx, 1993). Workers buy into the treadmill through consumption and the ideology of national economic development. However, as the treadmill runs faster, two things happen. The first is private companies become larger and gain relative autonomy from the state. This is encouraged by neoliberal ideology in which corporations increasingly provide services such as waste management on behalf of the state (Anderson et al., 2005; Muñuzuri et al., 2005). The second phenomenon is states and corporations eventually look overseas to grow. As Bunker (2005) points out, uneven development is an important component of the treadmill’s global operation. As such, this paper will first look at the growth of these firms in Turkey and later their expansion into Pakistan.

Additionally, Bunker (2005: 39) argues, ‘physical, technical, and organizational changes’ are key to the treadmill of production’s global operation. The research on global waste management focuses greatly on the export of hazardous wastes from wealthy to poor nations (Baggs, 2009; Frey, 1998, 2003). However, the flow of waste management and logistical services between newly industrialised countries (NICs), as well as between semi-peripheral and peripheral countries, or South–South relationships are overlooked (Bjerkli, 2013; see Horen, 2004; Lawhon, 2013). There is even less work on NICs (other than the BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China) exerting political and economic influence over other developing nations through growth oriented urban policy. Thus, an analysis of material, practical and structural developments in Turkey and Pakistan reveal a great deal about the treadmill of production’s international operation.

Turkey is a prime example of South–South economic expansion. Moreover, it provides an interesting case of logistics and domestic urban growth operating within the world economy. According to the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index, Turkey went from being ranked 39th in the world (behind Slovakia) in 2010 to 27th in 2012 (behind China). Amongst middle income countries, it is ranked only behind South Africa and China in clearance processes, infrastructure, speed, operations and tracking (World Bank, 2012). The expansion of logistics is part of an aggressive Turkish growth policy, which has been described by some scholars as neo-Ottoman. This term is a critique of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s attempt to grow domestically and expand its political and economic influence abroad amongst countries with Sunni Islam brethren (see Lovering and Türkmen, 2011; Sözen, 2010). This paper will discuss how LSPs aided this Turkish expansion into countries such as Pakistan within this context.

While Turkey and Pakistan have historical and religious ties, uneven development greatly influences their economic relationship. According to World Bank data, between 2004 and 2012, Pakistan’s urban population increased from 53 million to 65.5 million people. In the same period, Turkey’s urban population grew from 44.4 million to 53.5 million people. While both countries’ cities saw tremendous growth, Pakistan lags behind Turkey in regard to improved sanitation access and logistics infrastructure (World Bank, 2012, 2013). In addition to having a weaker state, there are also problems in the organisation of finance at the subnational level, as well as political conflict between different local organisations such as Municipal Administrations and Development Authorities (see Ahmad and Anjum, 2012; Haider and Badami, 2010). Nonetheless, the Punjab province has seen urban growth take place at nearly double the national rate throughout the 2000s (Dowall and Ellis, 2009). This rapid growth creates a logistical nightmare with regard to the material, practical and structural dimensions of urban growth. It is in this region that Turkish LSPs have become involved in various projects to modernise Pakistan’s urban infrastructure.

The treadmill of production and neoliberalism

Prior to the neoliberal era, MSW management was generally considered a municipal responsibility, or a public good that required government involvement. The state and growth coalitions historically provided both direct and indirect forms of support for the treadmill through public goods, social welfare and infrastructure – such as waste management. This helped firms externalise costs and allowed for the expansion of economic activities in various sectors (Logan and Molotch, 1987; Molotch, 1976; Schnaiberg et al., 2002). However, by the end of the 20th century, cities learned to generate revenue from landfills and ‘green’ activities such as recycling. While generating revenue from trash is not a new phenomenon, the recent transfer of MSW management from municipal authorities to the private sector allowed for larger firms to secure more and more contracts and licenses to handle MSW. In turn, garbage became a commodity as corporations transformed ‘waste’ into a source of profit by integrating it into their supply chains (de Kadt, 1999).

This shift allowed for the corporatisation, financialisation and securitisation of public goods such as MSW management. The treadmill of production drives the growth of firms. Correspondingly, firms increasingly gain autonomy from local and national governments (Schnaiberg et al., 2002). However, as Smith (2004) importantly notes, contemporary neoliberal policy is much more than just rolling back the state (also see Peck and Tickell, 2002). States continue to enact laws that govern these processes. Bunker (2005: 40) notes that, ‘the laws regulating the action of states, firms, and raw materials, and the characteristics of the technologies of extraction, processing, transport, transformation, and distribution, all obey distinct logics’. Thus, deregulation does not mean the absence of regulation. Rather, neoliberalising policies give private firms reign over increasingly overlapping sectors. In the case of waste materials, LSPs coordinate, process, transport and sell wastes. Increasingly, LSPs offer more than first-party services such as shipping goods and transporting labour. Rather, LSPs have organising and consulting roles, as well as contracts to construct the infrastructure behind supply chains – what some would call third or fourth party roles (Bolumole, 2001; Hingley et al., 2011).¹

Neoliberalism has embraced ‘green’ urban development in the Global South just as it has in the North. Just like the North, such developments are more about economic ‘efficiency’ than environmental ‘sustainability’ (McCarthy, 2004; Obeng-Odoom, 2014; Perkins, 2009). Privatised service delivery via LSPs emphasises ‘technical intervention that places a premium on efficiency’ (Smith, 2004: 382). It is also legitimised by discourses concerning ‘cost’ and ‘value’ in which the private sector is sold as superior to state-run enterprise (Walls et al., 2005). Supporters of privatisation in service delivery sectors such as MSW, water and energy argue that they offer greener services than the state. This discourse not only encourages privatisation and the acceleration of the treadmill of production, but what some call the ‘hijacking sustainability’ (Parr, 2009; also see Fletcher, 2013). Growth-oriented neoliberal policies are commonly green-washed as to hide their unsustainability (also see: Miraftab, 2004; Oteng-Ababio, 2010; Wilson et al., 2006). Thus, waste management (which includes disposal, recycling, waste-to-energy, etc.) is not necessarily conservation. Rather it is supply chain management in support of capital accumulation, growth and the acceleration of the treadmill of production (de Kadt, 1999; Weinberg et al., 1995).

LSPs began bundling construction, real-estate and property management services in the 1990s. This bundling evolved from the management of construction site logistics such as bringing materials in (e.g. concrete) and out (e.g. rubble) for disposal or reuse (Guffond and Leconte, 2000). As LSPs expanded their role in construction, they became involved in much more than transporting construction materials on and off site. They began to build infrastructure, manage labour and resources (e.g. water and energy), as well as maintain facilities such as airports, ports and warehouses. Given the diverse roles LSPs play, most are part of large holding groups. For instance, well-known electronics company Toshiba is actually part of the larger Toshiba holding group, which has its own logistics division that assists its real-estate division in developing retail and office space. In the UK, the Clugston Group is involved in construction, property development, facilities and waste management, as well as logistics. ORTEC in the Netherlands and GSE Group in France are also prominent multinationals involved in every stage of the treadmill. In Turkey, Albayrak Group’s divisions include energy, port management, real-estate, tourism, logistics and waste management. Özkartallar Group’s emphasis is on waste management, real-estate and construction. Cam Pak Group, on the other hand, is personnel-oriented with emphasis on catering, cleaning, technical training, waste management and security. These firms, and in particular Albayrak, are very active overseas. This includes offering logistical services, waste management and mass transit in Pakistan.

MSW and LSP together represent a form of ecological modernisation in service delivery (see Mol, 2003; Scheinberg and Mol, 2010). The logistics industry has modernised and commodified the process of handling waste so that waste is re-purposed. This has facilitated greater productivity in spite of higher demand for natural resources, and increased waste production. In turn, profitability is increasingly tied to the efficient production, distribution and rapid consumption of goods and services as well as the handling of waste (Hesse, 2008; Hesse and Rodrigue, 2004; Robinson, 2002; Rodrigue, 1999; Swanstrom, 1993). This is of particular concern in NICs with rapid urban growth, and where ‘modernisation’ is a political objective (Arsel, 2005). While cities in the North have seen the privatisation of municipal services since the 1980s, cities in NICs are catching up not just in their own privatisation of domestic public goods, but the selling of services overseas (Batley, 1996). Companies from NICs are not just developing MSW strategies domestically, but are also exporting privatisation to lesser developed countries (Cointreau-Levine, 1994; Post et al., 2003).

Turkish waste management

The population of Turkey has grown by 16 million or 29% since the 1990s and continues to grow. As with most countries, the nation’s population is heavily concentrated in urban areas. Istanbul, for example, is home to over 13 million people or 18% of Turkey’s 74 million people. Consequently, construction and related industries have seen incredible growth (Balaban, 2012). At the same time, Turkey generates approximately 30 million metric tonnes of MSW per year and that is expected to increase with its population (Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2010b; Turan et al., 2009). While population growth plays a significant role in waste generation, the push toward growth-oriented ‘entrepreneurialism’ and the goal of ‘modernisation’ has affected waste production and management in Turkey (Adaman and Arsel, 2005).

The growth of Istanbul has been associated with neoliberal policies and internal migration (Candan and Kolluoğlu, 2008; Karaman, 2013; Kuyucu & Ünsal, 2010). Yet, the physical growth of the city – whether it is in the form of shopping malls, gated communities or housing projects – could not be possible without significant changes in the policies and practices that manage basic needs and public goods. We see the greatest expansion of formal MSW management alongside the incumbency of the AKP. Throughout the 2000s, urban growth went hand-in-hand with the AKP’s neoliberal policies, which saw deregulation and the privatisation of a number of sectors (Balaban, 2012; Öktem, 2011). This is visible in the privatisation of telecommunications (Turk Telekom), electricity (TEDAŞ), water,² contracts for public transit (railway and subway system),³ as well as the construction, maintenance and management of cross-continental bridges in Istanbul. As Karaman (2013: 5) notes, the ‘parameters of urban governance’ were redefined by the AKP as to encourage municipalities to privatise assets and enter into contracts with private firms.

The increased role of LSPs in waste management is as much a part of Istanbul’s growth as it is part of the drive toward neoliberalism in urban governance. Established in 1994, İSTAÇ (Istanbul Environmental Protection and Waste-Processing Corporation) was to bring Istanbul in line with European Union (EU) environmental standards. İSTAÇ coordinates the disposal of waste, landfills, as well as recycling in Turkey’s largest city. The influence of the EU is not only seen in the creation of İSTAÇ, but in environmental legislation, impact studies and action plans (Izci, 2005; Kanat, 2010). In 2001, the State Planning Organisation’s 5-year plan issued a report regarding solid waste control, making it a priority. Passed in 2006, Environment Law no. 2872 requires municipalities to build and manage MSW facilities. This included the regulation of MSW, as well as provisions regarding waste generated from excavation, demolition and construction (Esin and Cosgun, 2007). In 2008, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry approved a Solid Waste Action Plan, that once again emphasised municipal MSW regulatory compliance (see Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı, 2008; Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2010b).

Figure 2 reveals the growing percentage of the Turkish population served by formal waste disposal and recovery facilities amidst the aforementioned policy changes. This, however, does not mean that large segments of population are completely unserved. Informal and small-scale operators such as collectors of recyclables (eskici or hurdacı) are still visible in most neighbourhoods, as are employees of smaller waste collection firms who sort material in dumpsters late at night (also see Wilson et al., 2006). As Kalaycıoğlu and Gönel (2005) argue, small and medium enterprises play a significant role in the effectiveness of environmental policy. Nonetheless, increased environmental concern in conjunction with neoliberal policies have allowed for corporations and large holding groups to expand into MSW management. Specifically, it can be argued that policies emphasising municipal responsibility have encouraged the privatisation of MSW at the local level.

For instance, the Albayrak Group has contracts with the Istanbul municipalities of Arnavutköy, Beyoğlu, Esenyurt, Kağıthane, Sarıyer and Üsküdar. It also manages the transfer station at Şile/Kömürcüoda, and stations in Ankara, Kocaeli, Gaziantep and Şanlıurfa. Özkartallar and Cam Pak have contracts in Ümraniye, Çekmeköy, Sancaktepe, Sultanbeyli, Başakşehir, Beşiktaş and Maltepe (see Figure 1). They also operate in other cities such as Ankara, Sivas, Yalova, Kocaeli and Antalya.⁴ The Turkish Court of Accounts reported that between 2003 and 2007, 81 licenses were issued to private contractors for sorting services and 56 licenses were issued for recycling facilities (Turkish Court of Accounts, 2007). As seen in Figure 2 and Table 1, there was a substantial jump in the percentage of population served by formal waste disposal, as well as in the number of landfills. Of Turkey’s US$872 million in private environmental expenditure in 2008, 34.2% was spent on solid waste management (Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2010b).

Figure 1.

Municipal contracts in Istanbul (2012).

Figure 2.

Population served by waste disposal and recovery facilities in Turkey 1995–2010.

Table 1.

Controlled landfills in Turkey.

Year	Number of landfills	Capacity (1000 tonnes)	Area (hectares)	Amount disposed/recovered waste (1000 tonnes)
1992	1	75,000	90	–
1995	5	240,277	670	1444
2000	10	303,795	1340	–
2005	18	309,513	1396	7078
2006	22	376,974	2419	9942
2008	37	390,478	2946	10,037
2010	52	423,142	3421	14,309

Source: Turkish Statistic Institute (TURKSTAT): Municipal Waste Statistics: Waste Disposal and Recovery Facilities. Available at: http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/cevredagitimapp/katiatik_ing.zul.

This is not a mere product of population growth necessitating infrastructure. As Figure 3 illustrates, since the 1990s a major issue was educating municipalities about MSW laws. In the 2000s, alongside the issuance of licenses, we see improvements in municipal compliance across the country, but there are still issues. According to the Turkish Statistical Institute, municipalities report logistical reasons (staffing, technical reasons and vehicles) as the primary cause of non-compliance. The second reason most reported by municipalities to the national government is financial.

Figure 3.

Reasons for municipal non-compliance with national MSW regulations (1994–2008), all of Turkey.

Owing to the legislative changes that place MSW responsibility on municipalities, we see that national growth-oriented policy is informing local-level development of infrastructure. This is reflected in how 78.2% of Turkey’s US$9.9 billion spent on environmental technologies in 2008 was at the municipal level (Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2010b). However, logistics expertise and MSW management is unevenly distributed throughout the country (Özdemir and Darby, 2009; also see Yavan, 2010). A major component of logistics is human and physical capital, thus municipalities in Istanbul and Ankara report significantly different reasons for non-compliance with MSW regulations (see Figures 4 and 5). Despite Istanbul (the country’s largest city) generating more waste than Ankara, Istanbul does not have the same logistical problems as the nation’s capital. In the case of Istanbul, it still has an industrial base to power the treadmill as well as the logistical expertise to lubricate it. This unevenness further encourages growth-oriented policies in Turkey. Specifically, the Investment Support and Promotion Agency of the Prime Ministry has called for investment in both environmental technologies and logistics (Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2010a, 2010b). As Özdemir and Darby point out, the development of logistics in conjunction with manufacturing and service projects encourages FDI flow (Özdemir and Darby, 2009; also see Yavan, 2010).⁵

Figure 4.

Reasons for municipal non-compliance with national MSW regulations (1994–2008), Istanbul.

Figure 5.

Reasons for municipal non-compliance with national MSW regulations (1994–2008), Ankara.

Furthermore, the long-term agenda of the AKP has been to shift Istanbul toward service-oriented sectors to further its development (Karaman, 2013; Keyder, 2005a). Logistics are both service- and production-oriented industries that aid growth domestically and abroad. MSW management and LSPs illustrates the material, practical and structural changes informed by global economic conditions (Keyder, 2005a, 2005b; Keyder and Öncü, 1994). This is not simply the ‘modernisation’ of its infrastructure and economy, but pushing the treadmill to run faster in the world economy (Arsel and Adaman, 2005; Öktem, 2011). It is also about growth and expansion being integral to the treadmill of production. LSPs support the urban growth machine by shifting resources toward policies and technologies that encourage the consumption and expansion that drive the treadmill (Molotch, 1976; Schnaiberg, 1980).

The goal is to not only create world-class infrastructure domestically, but also sell itself as a regional and global leader. To sell itself as a major player in MSW, Istanbul has hosted an annual International Waste to Energy Symposium since 2009.⁶ İSTAÇ also co-sponsors the annual EurAsia Waste Management Symposium and Istanbul International Solid Waste, Water and Wastewater Congress. The driving message, however, is not sustainability or going ‘green’. Rather, it is about promoting expansion. Government press releases noting such events often reference Istanbul’s (now failed) bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics and the nation’s 2023 centennial. Such events are domestic and global statements of the country’s overall economic growth and international relevance.

The desire to be ‘world-class’ and a regional power has consequences. Typical with privatisation are issues of accountability and the undermining of local labour. Politically, we cannot ignore that 83% of employees working in MSW collection services are in the private sector and increasingly in large firms (Doğan and Süleyman, 2003). Those who work in the public sector, in turn, are under threat of losing their jobs amidst this push for continued privatisation. For instance, in April 2010, laid off workers attempted to occupy an İZAYDAŞ (Izmit Waste and Residue, Treatment, Incineration and Recycling, Co.) sorting facility following its sell off to the Albayrak Group. Additionally, the formalisation of waste management, and its increasingly lucrative nature, has correspondingly led to violent reprisal against informal collectors by local police (Koçaslan, 2013).

Furthermore, İZAYDAŞ handles most of the hazardous waste in Turkey and was at one point the country’s only hazardous waste centre. Correspondingly, it frequently faced backlogs of dangerous materials (see Hurriyet Daily News, 2006). Located in the Kocaeli region of Turkey, this is a region that has gained scrutiny following reports of increased cancer risk because of its concentration of industrial pollution (Hamzaoğlu et al., 2011). In addition to increased pollution, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry authorised the removal 50,000 trees in 2009 to allow for the construction of a landfill (Hurriyet Daily News, 2009). In general, the Ministries of Environment and Forestry as well as the Ministry of Environment and City Planning have favoured development over environmental protection. This includes the designation of forests for urban development following wildfires (Balaban and Fu, 2014).

Ultimately, contracts given to large firms subsidise their growth both domestically and overseas. Turkish firms providing construction services overseas is not new (Öz, 2001). In 2009, Turkey exported US$544 million in environmental technologies (Investment Support and Promotion Agency, 2010b). However, the growing integration of construction, waste management, urban development, as well as providing logistical support connecting all these sectors is exemplary of the way in which multinational enterprises now operate in Western ‘core’ nations and in NICs (Guillén and García-Canal, 2009; Narula and Dunning, 2000).

In addition to companies working in Pakistan, Turkish firms are also active in Eastern Europe and Africa. Turkish firm Evciler, which began working with the reclamation of chemicals and precious metals in the 1980s, has since moved on to e-waste and recycling. Hakan Madencilik, a former importer of Russian coal and mining company, now exports logistical expertise in energy and infrastructure development to developing nations such as Rwanda. Energy, real estate and construction company Atayol Group operates in Ethiopia. Like Western nations, economic growth in Turkey is increasingly driven by neoliberal policy at home and expansion into overseas markets. Thus, the growth of such industries reveal the material and physical dimensions of ‘actually existing’ globalised neoliberal policies NICs (Brenner and Theodore, 2002).

From Istanbul to Pakistan

In 2011, the Lahore Waste Management Company (LWMC) was created to modernise the municipal solid waste system of the city. Lahore is home to approximately 8 million residents. Waste management offers not only economic potential, but the potential to offset many of the problems urban growth has caused (Batool and Chuadhry, 2009; Batool et al., 2008; Khan et al., 2012). From its inception, LWMC have worked with its Turkish counterpart İSTAÇ, as well as Turkish firms Özpak and the Albayrak Group to create, implement and assist in the management of MSW. While we have seen improvements in Pakistan’s infrastructure, this relationship has been particularly beneficial to Turkish firms.

Prior to the contracting of Turkish firms, the MSW situation was dire in Lahore. For instance, in Lakhodher (in the periphery of Lahore) the Mehmood Booti Landfill had reached capacity (Malik, 2012b). Moreover, the landfill – the only official dumping site owned by City District Government Lahore – was polluting nearby water sources. İSTAÇ’s original commission involved the ‘rehabilitation’ of Mehmood Booti as well as the construction of a new sanitary landfill. Yet, İSTAÇ’s role in Lahore’s MSW management quickly expanded to include consultation on waste collection, disposal, recycling and coordination with other Turkish firms. Of particular interest is the statement by the LWMC that it will work with İSTAÇ on introducing accounting systems in various union councils (city districts). Turkish firms Albayrak and Özpak (a joint venture between Özkartallar and Cam Pak) were tasked with logistical support by providing trucks, personnel training, as well as constructing facilities in different union councils not unlike the municipal contracts in Istanbul. More than just emphasising logistics, both firms are involved in public awareness campaigns including: helplines, programmes for children and campaigns against plastic bags. The 7-year contract between LWMC and the Turkish firms is worth US$310 million.

The goal of the LWMC was always to spread its influence throughout the province and into the cities of Gujranwala, Sialkot, Rawalpindi, Multan, Sargodha, Dera Ghazi Khan and Bahawalpur (Malik, 2012a). The local government has since decided to outsource waste management in Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Gujranwala and Multan (see Figure 6). These cities, like Lahore, have had MSW problems associated with urban growth and inequality (Altaf and Deshazo, 1996; Beall, 1997; Dowall and Ellis, 2009). The apparent success of the Turkish firms and Lahore’s waste management system has become a major selling point to local leaders. Five companies bid for this project, with only Albayrak, Özpak and another Turkish firm Çevre qualifying to service six cities in the region. No Pakistani companies were given contracts (Raja, 2012). As with Lahore, these new projects are not limited to just MSW collection and disposal, but include contracts for street sweeping and power generation from solid waste. LMWC has since sent delegations to Ludhiana and Jalalabad to continue exporting their MSW expertise throughout the Punjab province (Sharma, 2013).

Figure 6.

Cities in Punjab region with Turkish contracts (2012).

The alliance between Turkish firms and the LMWC has allowed growth in partnerships aiming at other services. In addition to waste management, Albayrak (with help from Istanbul Ulaşım Inc.) aided the Lahore Transport Company in developing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System. The LWMC even has plans to develop real-estate in rehabilitated areas near landfills (Malik, 2012b). Moreover, Turkish construction companies are active in the region offering logistical support. For instance, in Rawalpindi, elite enclaves such as Bahria Town and Garden City are built alongside irrigation projects with help from Areaa İnşaat. According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, construction projects of all types by Turkish contractors since the 1990s are worth over US$1.8 billion. Correspondingly, in December 2013, Turkish Prime Minister and AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Pakistan to promote trade and temper a conflict between the Pakistani government and a Turkish energy provider.

The expansion of Turkish firms into Pakistan is part of Turkey’s and more specifically the AKP’s expansionist agenda. The Albayrak Group is of particular interest, because of its ownership of Turkish newspaper Yeni Şafak and its support of the AKP’s neoliberal Islamist policies. Albayrak’s ‘green’ strategies in Lahore are very much in line with the AKP government’s neo-Ottoman expansion into fellow Islamic countries. The ‘green’ connection is not surprising given the financial and business connections in the Islamic world (Adas, 2006; Bassens et al., 2010; Bugra, 1998). Karaman (2013) argues that the AKP has been especially successful in working with the emergent Islamic capitalist class. Mosques, for example, have played a role in campaigns publicising the new MSW projects in Lahore.⁷ A replica of Istanbul’s Blue Mosque was built in honour of Istanbul’s AKP affiliated mayor Kadir Topbaş and opened during the ribbon cutting of Lahore’s new MSW management system. Celebrating this opening, an Özpak programme coordinator, referencing the pan-Islamic Khilafat Movement of the early 20th century, noted that, ‘We cannot forget when the Muslims of South Asia helped Turkey. Our government will always extend its full cooperation, especially towards Lahore’ (quoted in Malik, 2012a).

The concern here is that the growth of such industries is not merely that of necessity, or for cities and their contractors to sell themselves as ‘green’ (Srivastava, 2007). Privatised MSW transforms a city’s metabolism and accelerates the treadmill of production. Not unlike Turkey, the threat of privatisation and threat of losing jobs to Turkish workers led to strikes by the Mazdoor Ittihad Union in Faisalabad and sanitation workers in Ludhiana (The Express Tribune, 2013). In Rawalpindi, municipal workers ranging from truck drivers to supervisors and inspectors also threatened to strike (Raja, 2012).

Conclusion: Growth, global ties and sustainability

This examination of Turkish firms both domestically and overseas reveals many of the physical, technical and organisational dimensions of neoliberalism in the Global South. The ‘treadmill of production’ model describes the ravenous hunger for growth and expansion. At the centre of this is urban growth. Cities are where most of the world economy’s logistical resources concentrated. Logistics lubricate the treadmill of production, aiding in the exploitation of natural materials and the movement of wastes.

LSPs lubricate the treadmill of production and the urban growth machine, which in turn allow for the material, practical and structural changes that support expansion. The case of Turkish firms reveals how domestic neoliberal changes can affect urban development in the Global South – not just domestically, but internationally. In the case of Turkey, we see that LSPs with help from neoliberal policies played a practical and structural role by helping local growth and overseas expansion. Essentially, such LSPs aid the treadmill of production by providing infrastructure and expertise in Turkey and Pakistan.

While this paper has focused on waste management, an examination of sectorial changes as it pertains to neoliberal policy allows us to understand the international dynamics of urban growth. Powerful cities came to be through their local logistical advantage. However, the acceleration of the treadmill and increased consumption necessitates overseas expansion. This expansion will undoubtedly be in less developed nations. As such, this logistical advantage is exploited by NICs (just as it is by core countries) via uneven development (Bunker, 2005; Bunker and Ciccantell, 2003). While a great deal has been written regarding North–South relationships, much more research should be conducted on South–South relations between NICs. Moreover, there is even less work on NICs exerting political and economic influence over other developing nations through growth-oriented urban policy. This article is a start in this regard.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, S Hande Ogutcu-Fu, and my Summer 2013 Environment & Society students at Boğazici University for their valuable feedback.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Adaman

Arsel

(2005) Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Adas

(2006) The making of entrepreneurial Islam and the Islamic spirit of capitalism 1. Journal for Cultural Research 10(2): 113–137.

Ahmad

Anjum

(2012) Legal and institutional perplexities hampering the implementation of urban development plans in Pakistan. Cities 29(4): 271–277.

Altaf

Deshazo

(1996) Household demand for improved solid waste management: A case study of Gujranwala, Pakistan. World Development 24(5): 857–868.

Anderson

Allen

Browne

(2005) Urban logistics – How can it meet policy makers’ sustainability objectives? Journal of Transport Geography 13(1): 71–81.

Arsel

(2005) Reflexive developmentalism? Toward an enironmental critique of modernization. In: Adaman

Arsel

(eds) Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 15–34.

Arsel

Adaman

(2005) Development and democratization in an era of environmental crisis. In: Adaman

Arsel

(eds) Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 292–298.

Baggs

(2009) International trade in hazardous waste. Review of International Economics 17(1): 1–16.

Balaban

(2012) The negative effects of construction boom on urban planning and environment in Turkey: Unraveling the role of the public sector. Habitat International 36(1): 26–35.

10.

Balaban

(2014) Politics of urban development & wildfires in California & Turkey. Environment and Planning A 46(4): 820–836.

11.

Bassens

Derudder

Witlox

(2010) Searching for the Mecca of finance: Islamic financial services and the world city network. Area 42(1): 35–46.

12.

Batley

(1996) Public–private relationships and performance in service provision. Urban Studies 33(4–5): 723–751.

13.

Batool

Chuadhry

(2009) The impact of municipal solid waste treatment methods on greenhouse gas emissions in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Management 29(1): 63–69.

14.

Batool

Chaudhry

Majeed

(2008) Economic potential of recycling business in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Management 28(2): 294–298.

15.

Beall

(1997) Thoughts on poverty from a South Asian rubbish dump: Gender, inequality and household waste. IDS Bulletin 28(3): 73–90.

16.

Bjerkli

(2013) Governance on the ground: A study of solid waste management in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Solid waste management in Addis Ababa. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(4): 1273–1287.

17.

Bolumole

(2001) The supply chain role of third-party logistics providers. International Journal of Logistics Management 12(2): 87–102.

18.

Brenner

Theodore

(2002) Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode 34(3): 349–379.

19.

Bugra

(1998) Class, culture, and state: An analysis of interest representation by two Turkish business associations. International Journal of Middle East Studies 30(4): 521–539.

20.

Bunker

(2005) How ecologically uneven developments put the spin on the treadmill of production. Organization & Environment 18(1): 38–54.

21.

Bunker

Ciccantell

(2003) Generative sectors and the new historical materialism: Economic ascent and the cumulatively sequential restructuring of the world economy. Studies in Comparative International Development 37(4): 3–30.

22.

Candan

Kolluoğlu

(2008) Emerging spaces of neoliberalism: A gated town and a public housing project in Istanbul. New Perspectives on Turkey 54: 5–46.

23.

Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı (2008) Atık Yönetimi Eylem Planı (Waste Management Action Plan 2008–2012). Ankara: Çevre Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü. Available at: http://atikyonetimi.cevreorman.gov.tr/atikyonetimi/Files/Belgeler/sagmenu/atikeylemplani.pdf (accessed 15 August 2013).

24.

Cinar

(2009) Privatisation of urban water and sewerage services in Turkey: Some trends. Development in Practice 19(3): 350–364.

25.

Cointreau-Levine

(1994) Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Services in Developing Countries. Urban Management Programme. Available at: http://www.ifeanet.org/temvar/AmGeogHumC-27.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).

26.

De Kadt

(1999) Solid waste management at a crossroads: Recycling on the treadmill of production. Capitalism Nature Socialism 10(3): 131–160.

27.

Doğan

Süleyman

(2003) Report: Cost and financing of municipal solid waste collection services in Istanbul. Waste Management & Research 21(5): 480–485.

28.

Dowall

Ellis

(2009) Urban land and housing markets in the Punjab, Pakistan. Urban Studies 46(11): 2277–2300.

29.

Esin

Cosgun

(2007) A study conducted to reduce construction waste generation in Turkey. Building and Environment 42(4): 1667–1674.

30.

Fletcher

(2013) How I learned to stop worrying and love the market: Virtualism, disavowal, and public secrecy in neoliberal environmental conservation. Environment and Planning D 31(5): 796–812.

31.

Frey

(1998) The export of hazardous industries to the peripheral zones of the world-system. Journal of Developing Societies 14(1): 66–81.

32.

Frey

(2003) The transfer of core-based hazardous production processes to the export processing zones of the periphery: The maquiladora centers of northern Mexico. Journal of World-Systems Research 9(2): 317–354.

33.

Gould

Pellow

Schnaiberg

(2004) Interrogating the treadmill of production. Organization & Environment 17(3): 296–316.

34.

Guffond

J-L

Leconte

(2000) Developing construction logistics management: The French experience. Construction Management and Economics 18(6): 679–687.

35.

Guillén

García-Canal

(2009) The American model of the multinational firm and the ‘new’ multinationals from emerging economies. The Academy of Management Perspectives 23(2): 23–35.

36.

Haider

Badami

(2010) Urbanization and local governance challenges in Pakistan. Environment and Urbanization Asia 1(1): 81–96.

37.

Hamzaoğlu

Etiler

Yavuz

. (2011) The causes of deaths in an industry-densed area: Example of Dilovası (Kocaeli). Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 41: 369–375.

38.

Hesse

(2008) The City as a Terminal: The Urban Context of Logistics and Freight Transport. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

39.

Hesse

Rodrigue

J-P

(2004) The transport geography of logistics and freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography 12(3): 171–184.

40.

Hingley

Lindgreen

Grant

. (2011) Using fourth-party logistics management to improve horizontal collaboration among grocery retailers. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16(5): 316–327.

41.

Horen

(2004) Fragmented coherence: Solid waste management in Colombo. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(4): 757–773.

42.

Hurriyet Daily News (2006) İzmir facing threat from hazardous waste. Available at: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/izmir-facing-threat-from-hazardous-waste.aspx?pageID=438&n=izmir-facing-threat-from-hazardous-waste-2006–11–15 (accessed 16 July 2013).

43.

Hurriyet Daily News (2009) Forestry ministry fells thousands of trees. Available at: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/forestry-ministry-fells-thousands-of-trees.aspx?pageID=438&n=ministry-of-anti-forestry-2009–08–24 (accessed 16 July 2013).

44.

Hurriyet Daily News (2013a) Turkey plans to open its railways to private sector. Available at: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-plans-to-open-its-railways-to-private-sector.aspx?pageID=238&nID=42542&NewsCatID=344 (accessed 21 July 2013).

45.

Hurriyet Daily News (2013b) Transportation projects to bolster trade relations. Available at: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/transportation-projects-to-bolster-trade-relations.aspx?pageID=238&nID=43135&NewsCatID=344 (accessed 21 July 2013).

46.

Investment Support and Promotion Agency (2010a) Transportation & Logistics Industry Report. Ankara: Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry. Available at: http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/publications/Documents/TRANSPORTATION.LOGISTICS.INDUSTRY.pdf (accessed 29 August 2013).

47.

Investment Support and Promotion Agency (2010b). Turkish Environmental Technologies & Renewable Energy Industry Report. Ankara: Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry. Available at: http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/publications/Documents/ENVIRONMENTAL.TECH.RENEWABLE.ENERGY.PDF (accessed 29 August 2013).

48.

Izci

(2005) The impact of the European Union on environmental policy. In: Adaman

Arsel

(eds) Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 87–100.

49.

Kalaycıoğlu

Gönel

(2005) The role of business in environmental policy-making. In: Adaman

Arsel

(eds) Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 117–130.

50.

Kanat

(2010) Municipal solid-waste management in Istanbul. Waste Management 30(8): 1737–1745.

51.

Karaman

(2013) Urban neoliberalism with Islamic characteristics. Urban Studies 50(16): 3412–3427.

52.

Keyder

(2005a) Globalization and social exclusion in Istanbul. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(1): 124–134.

53.

Keyder

(2005b) Transformations in urban structure and the environment in Istanbul. In: Adaman

Arsel

(eds) Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 201–216.

54.

Keyder

Öncü

(1994) Globalization of a third-world metropolis: Istanbul in the 1980’s. Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 17(3): 383–421.

55.

Khan

Ghafoor

Iftikhar

. (2012) Urban annoyances and mental health in the city of Lahore, Pakistan. Journal of Urban Affairs 34(3): 297–315.

56.

Koçaslan

(2013) Çöpten para kazanma savaşı. soL. Available at: http://haber.sol.org.tr/sonuncu-kavga/copten-para-kazanma-savasi-haberi-77463 (accessed 15 August 2013).

57.

Kuyucu

Ünsal

(2010) ‘Urban transformation’ as state-led property transfer: An analysis of two cases of urban renewal in Istanbul. Urban Studies 47(7): 1479–1499.

58.

Lawhon

(2013) Dumping ground or country-in-transition? Discourses of e-waste in South Africa. Environment and Planning C 31(4): 700–715.

59.

Logan

Molotch

(1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

60.

Lovering

Türkmen

(2011) Bulldozer neo-liberalism in Istanbul: The state-led construction of property markets, and the displacement of the urban poor. International Planning Studies 16(1): 73–96.

61.

McCarthy

(2004) Privatizing conditions of production: Trade agreements as neoliberal environmental governance. Geoforum 35(3): 327–341.

62.

Malik

(2012a) Waste management: Turkish companies to help clean Lahore. The Express Tribune. Available at: http://tribune.com.pk/story/346959/waste-management-turkish-companies-to-help-clean-lahore/ (accessed 10 July 2013).

63.

Malik

(2012b) LWMC to set up new dump site at Lakhoder. The Express Tribune. Available at: http://tribune.com.pk/story/348648/lwmc-to-set-up-new-dump-site-at-lakhoder/ (accessed 15 July 2013).

64.

Marx

(1993) Capital : A Critique of Political Economy. ( Fernbach

, Trans.) New York: Penguin Classics.

65.

Metin

Eröztürk

Neyim

(2003) Solid waste management practices and review of recovery and recycling operations in Turkey. Waste Management 23(5): 425–432.

66.

Miraftab

(2004) Neoliberalism and casualization of public sector services: The case of waste collection services in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(4): 874–892.

67.

Mol

(2003) Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

68.

Molotch

(1976) The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. The American Journal of Sociology 82(2): 309–332.

69.

Muñuzuri

Larrañeta

Onieva

. (2005) Solutions applicable by local administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities 22(1): 15–28.

70.

Narula

Dunning

(2000) Industrial development, globalization and multinational enterprises: New realities for developing countries. Oxford Development Studies 28(2): 141–167.

71.

Obeng-Odoom

(2014) Green neoliberalism: Recycling and sustainable urban development in Sekondi-Takoradi. Habitat International 41: 129–134.

72.

Öktem

(2011) The role of global city discourses in the development and transformation of the Buyukdere–Maslak Axis into the International Business District of Istanbul. International Planning Studies 16(1): 27–42.

73.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Turkey 2008. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/9789264049161-en (accessed 19 January 2014).

74.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013) OECD Factbook 2013. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/factbook-2013-en (accessed 19 January 2014).

75.

Oteng-Ababio

(2010) Private sector involvement in solid waste management in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area in Ghana. Waste Management & Research 28(4): 322–329.

76.

Öz

(2001) Sources of competitive advantage of Turkish construction companies in international markets. Construction Management & Economics 19(2): 135–144.

77.

Özdemir

Darby

(2009) One less barrier to foreign direct investment in Turkey? Linkages between manufacturing and logistics operations in Istanbul and the Marmara region. European Urban and Regional Studies 16(1): 87–99.

78.

Parr

(2009) Hijacking Sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

79.

Peck

Tickell

(2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34(3): 380–404.

80.

Perkins

(2009) Out from the (Green) shadow? Neoliberal hegemony through the market logic of shared urban environmental governance. Political Geography 28(7): 395–405.

81.

Post

Broekema

Obirih-Opareh

(2003) Trial and error in privatisation: Experiences in urban solid waste collection in Accra (Ghana) and Hyderabad (India). Urban Studies 40(4): 835–852.

82.

Raja

(2012) Solid waste management project: Three Turkish firms get the nod. The Express Tribune. Available at: http://tribune.com.pk/story/486474/solid-waste-management-project-three-turkish-firms-get-the-nod/ (accessed 10 July 2013).

83.

Robinson

(2002) Remapping development in light of globalisation: From a territorial to a social cartography. Third World Quarterly 23(6): 1047–1071.

84.

Rodrigue

J-P

(1999) Globalization and the synchronization of transport terminals. Journal of Transport Geography 7(4): 255–261.

85.

Scheinberg

Mol

(2010) Multiple modernities: Transitional Bulgaria and the ecological modernisation of solid waste management. Environment and Planning C 28(1): 18.

86.

Schnaiberg

(1980) The Environment, from Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.

87.

Schnaiberg

Pellow

Weinberg

(2002) The treadmill of production and the environmental state. In: Mol

APJ

Buttel

(eds) The Environmental State Under Pressure Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, pp. 15–32.

88.

Sharma

(2013) Punjab to have solid waste management like Lahore. Hindustan Times. Available at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Ludhiana/Punjab-to-have-solid-waste-management-like-Lahore/SP-Article1–1038104.aspx (accessed 10 July 2013).

89.

Smith

(2004) The murky waters of the second wave of neoliberalism: Corporatization as a service delivery model in Cape Town. Geoforum 35(3): 375–393.

90.

Sözen

(2010) A paradigm shift in Turkish foreign policy: Transition and challenges. Turkish Studies 11(1): 103–123.

91.

Srivastava

(2007) Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(1): 53–80.

92.

Swanstrom

(1993) Beyond economism: Urban political economy and the postmodern challenge. Journal of Urban Affairs 15(1): 55–78.

93.

The Express Tribune (2013) Privatisation: Solid waste management staff on strike. Available at: http://tribune.com.pk/story/491110/privatisation-solid-waste-management-staff-on-strike/ (accessed 22 July 2013).

94.

Turan

Çoruh

Akdemir

. (2009) Municipal solid waste management strategies in Turkey. Waste Management 29(1): 465–469.

95.

Turkish Court of Accounts (2007) Waste Management in Turkey: National Regulations and Evaluation of Implementation Results. Ankara: T.C. Sayıştay Başkanlığı. Available at: http://www.sayistay.gov.tr/english_tca/Performance/TCA_Waste_Management_Report.pdf.

96.

Walls

Macauley

Anderson

(2005) Private markets, contracts, and government provision what explains the organization of local waste and recycling markets? Urban Affairs Review 40(5): 590–613.

97.

Weinberg

Schnaiberg

Gould

(1995) Recycling: Conserving resources or accelerating the treadmill of production? Advances in Human Ecology 4: 173–205.

98.

Wilson

Velis

Cheeseman

(2006) Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat international 30(4): 797–808.

99.

World Bank (2012) Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

100.

World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators (accessed 30 January 2014).

101.

Yavan

(2010) The location choice of foreign direct investment within Turkey: An empirical analysis. European Planning Studies 18(10): 1675–1705.