{"word_count": 967, "character_count": 6110}
Sule ÖZÜEKREN, ITÜ, Faculté d'architecture, Istanbul The word cooperative is undoubtedly one that is internationally known yet the ways in which housing cooperatives are organized and operated throughout the world show wide variations. The most important distinction is between collective ownership and individual ownership cooperatives. For example, after the construction phase, the cooperative may maintain the ownership or may transfer ownership of the housing to its members. Or, where individuals own their dwellings separately, a different type of cooperative could be formed to provide managerial services for its individual members. Such management cooperatives would not be involved in building. Another type of housing cooperative also generally not involved in construction is, the building credit cooperative, the main purpose of which is to provide or organize financial support for housing. If the term housing cooperative needs some clarification, this is also true for the position of housing cooperatives in the housing sector. Cooperative solutions have sometimes been considered as a third or middle way between the two traditional ways to organize production and distribution, between capitalism and socialism, plan and market, collectivism and individualism (Bengtsson, 1992). In a pragmatic version, the notion of a third way means a compromise between the state and market. In a more utopian version neither money, nor power is seen as the driving force of the cooperative economy, but social norms promoting mutual self-help in a communitarian spirit (Silver, 1991). This emphasizes not only that cooperative solutions wish to keep free market forces out of the housing sector but also aim a socially acceptable solution based on a non-profit form of organization and democratic control. Cooperatives in their efforts to find collective forms of financing which can serve to reallocate social benefits on a more equitable basis imply that they have a social dimension. The goal of the provision of good and affordable housing not aiming at making a profit has sometimes led to their being regarded to stand for social housing. However, in practice the position of housing cooperatives in housing sector in different countries shows wide variations. In some countries housing cooperatives stand on very close to the private sector side while in others they continue their activities beyond the market. In some countries, housing cooperatives can be as commercial as the private sector while in some others, the main diference between the public sector and cooperative sector is that the latter is a solution based on civil society and on face to face relations. Whatever the differences, however, the social and democratic values of housing cooperatives are often highly praised in housing debate. Cooperatives with their principles of open membership of open membership and democratic control are not reserved for one group at the exclusion of others. However, ther are many people who also claim that housing cooperatives do not reach the poorest of the poor. This indirect exclusion is understood as being those who have no regular income or any assets to make a capital payment even with the help of a financing schem. Moreover, authors, especially those from the welfare states claim that it is the duty of local authorities to provide people with particular needs with a place to live because persons who have difficulty in adapting to a society or who deerve assistance such as the disabled and widows with small children will find it hard to take part in housing cooperative schemes. In Turkey where the needs far exceeds the resources of governments neither the people who deserve assistance nor the poor have significant opportunities to obtain a dwelling in a conventional housing scheme. Most private housing developments in urban areas are intended for middle income or high income groups. The share of governmental housing developments in the total is small. As a consequence, the urban poor tend to live as tenants in dilapidated dwellings or either as tenants or squatters in settlements developed without authorization from the local governments. It appears that Turkey should try to find ways to extend the possibilities for the low income groups to protect them from the speculative formal and informal housing markets and from squatting. In this context housing cooperatives may provide an alternative to public social housing which traditionally takes a very insignificant share in housing stock in Turkey. A general response to the question why cooperatives ? may be found in the general but ideal principles of cooperatives. The point is that it is not clear to what extend all housing cooperatives follow the general principles in practice. The real question that needs to be discussed here is what is in practice the role of housing cooperatives in Turkey in addressing the housing needs of low income groups ? The answer to this question is also expected to clarify the position of housing cooperatives in the housing sector in Turkey. This is the first theme discussed in this paper.  The second theme concerns problems created by the legal framework and by the various factors which shape the housing demand in Turkey. The discussion of this theme is expected to indicate a need for the introduction of different models to enable lower income groups to acquire decent housing through cooperatives.  The outline is as follows: after an introductory overview of the sector, the paper will present data on both dwellings produced by cooperatives and users, and attempt to locate housing cooperatives in their niche in the housing sector. Then the paper will focus on the second theme and attempt to make some proposals to expand the possibilities of housing cooperatives to protect the low income groups from the speculative housing markets in Turkey. The empirical evidence referred to is based on field studies carried out by the author. For a more comprehensive evaluation on housing cooperatives in Turkey, the reader is referred to Özüekeren 1990 and 1994.