CHAPTER 3
Urbanization Transition in Turkey:  Towards Globalization
 by
Zeynep Asligul Gocmen
 

1. Introduction

Having land in Europe, the government of Turkey has been longing for joining the European Union since 1963 when it was accepted as an associate candidate. Now, in 1998 Turkey is still not a member, indeed it has been degraded to be considered in a special category, as the 12th applicant country.

The intention of this paper is not to suggest why Turkey is not being considered for full membership or what it should do to be considered for full membership. It will examine the urbanization transition in Turkey and will suggest the future for Turkish cities with the implications of joining the European Union.

In order to be able to make such a suggestion on implications, examining the urbanization transitions not only in Turkey but among the member countries is necessary as well. In addition, the factors shaping such an urban pattern are examined. Given the broadness and the intricacy of the topic, it is suggested that further investigation is needed.

1.A. Basic Issues in Turkey's Joining European Union

As was mentioned earlier, Turkey is not a full member of the European Union. The main issues sited in this fact are the conflicts with another member state (Greece), not having a full-functioning democracy, and violation of human rights. These issues are basically political.

However, there are other issues not as frequently sited or sited at all. These are mainly in the social and economic arenas. Turkey is a less developed country compared to the current members, displaying various characteristics of developing countries such as high population and urbanization rates, unstable economy with a low gross national product and gross domestic product per capita. Some member states do not want to disturb the balance of the Union by allowing in a less developed country which could cause high migration rates among the members and less stability among the current ones (Yalev 1998).

The facts on the Turkish economy and demography will be presented in the following sections. A comparison between Turkey and European Community members will also be available. However, the political issues sited as primary cause for not being admitted to the European Union are not going to be discussed in this paper.

1.B. Turkey

Turkey is a very strategically located country with very apparent differences among the geographical regions. It is surrounded by the Black Sea on the north; Bulgaria, Greece and the Aegean Sea on the west; the Mediterranean Sea, Syria, and Iraq on the south, and Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia on the east. With such a location, it is a unique country. It is many things: European, Asian, Middle Eastern, Balkan East European, and Mediterranean (see Map 1.1).

The country has 63 million population and 774,000 square kilometers of land. It is divided into seven geographical regions. There are clear physical differences among these regions. The eastern and the northeastern parts of the country are very hilly, not providing a good basis for infrastructure and transportation network. This geographical disadvantage clearly shows itself in the development pattern in Turkey. In addition to the mentioned differences, there are disparities in the socio-economic aspects and urbanization levels among the regions. These aspects will be discussed later.

2. Urbanization Transition in Turkey

In order to be able to define the urbanization transition in Turkey, first a discussion of urbanization transition in general, particularly in developing countries will be presented.

 2.A. Urbanization Transition

As Drake suggests, urbanization transition is a visible and dramatic member of the family of transitions. It is almost parallel with industrialization and exhibits itself clearly with the level of industrialization, which is seen as economic development in general. Most industrialized, in other words, developed countries, have reached high levels of urbanization and the developing or underdeveloped countries are experiencing urbanization. This does not necessarily mean that less developed countries have lower rates of urbanization than the developed countries because there are several countries that have as high rates, such as Brazil with an urbanization rate reaching 75% (Jones and Visaria, 1997).

When examining the rates of urbanization, it is very important to look into the growth of the population in urban areas and more importantly to the rising share of the total population in urban areas. The latter signifies other factors than natural increase in urban population, namely rural-urban migration. There are various reasons for the rural-urban migration, in other words, rural push urban pull.

The population in the rural areas does not have the same kind of opportunities as the population in urban areas. In rural areas, there are not many job opportunities (especially with decline in agricultural land and employment), good education and healthcare facilities, namely better quality of life and future for the households, as can be found in urban areas. On the other hand, whether the migrant population in the urban areas obtains the level of living they fantasize about is questionable. Another major factor in migration to the urban areas is the social connections that the migrants have in the cities. A significant ratio of the migrants usually has a family member or friend who have migrated to the city they leave their rural homes for.

Jones and Visaria argue that besides the growth of urban population; growth of large metropolises and urban primacy; problems of providing minimal urban infrastructure; issues in rural-urban labor transfer and employment; and the linkages between urbanization and regional development issues are among the general interest and concern with issues of urbanization in developing countries.

Drake suggests that urbanization transition is characterized by early stages in which there is rapid growth of urban population, and later stages, where decline in this growth can be observed. Although developing countries are expected to observe the earlier stages and likewise, the developed countries are expected to observe the later stages or urbanization transition, it should be stressed that the levels among different countries could vary significantly.

In my opinion, there is a very important issue in this transition, mainly in the definition. What is urban? Is it an administrative term, or an area where the majority of the labor force is employed in formal urban sectors not in rural or agricultural sector, a population density of certain number of people, an area with various urban facilities, or is it simply a number of people? Assuming that it is a number, what is that number?

The transitions observed in different countries are very dependent or rather biased on this number. For example, this number in Turkey (although the main criterion is based on administrative status as will be discussed in the following section) is 10,000 people. On the other hand, the urban definition requires a population of 20,000 people in Brazil and Indonesia, 5,000 people (besides other factors) in India and 2,000 people in China (Jones and Visaria, 1997). If some of these countries changed the size requirement to be classified as urban, we could observe much different levels of urbanization. In such a scenario, India would have been observing a much lower rate than 27% of 1991 and on the contrary, Brazil a higher rate than almost 75%.

There is also the question of edge cities, existing particularly in developed countries. These can simply be defined as economically self-sufficient settlements distant from central cities. If we just take into account the number of persons living in the edge cities, it is likely that these settlements may not be able to step the threshold to be categorized as urban although there may be no rural character within these.

However, there are examples for non-number related definitions. In Chinese case, the sudden jump of the level of urbanization from 23.5% in 1983 to 49.3% in 1988 is attributable to the change in the definition of "urban" in 1984 from an administrative perspective.

Another point to stress is that while examining the urbanization transition in developing and developed countries, it should not be seen as an independent transition. Rather, the roots of this transition can be traced in mainly the demographic, technological, and industrialization transitions. Moreover, the consequences of the urbanization transition can be observed in toxicity, epidemiological, and fossil fuel transitions. Therefore, it should be seen as a member of closely-knit transitions.

2.B. Urbanization in Turkey

As is expected from a developing country, there is a high rate of urbanization in Turkey. The transition can be traced down to the earlier years of the republic. Turkish Republic was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk after the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Ankara was established as the capital city, replacing Istanbul, which served as the capital for the empire for over 450 years. With the establishment of the republic, Turkey started experiencing new stages of transitions among different members. The basic cause was the goal "modernization" which led to a major transformation in particularly agricultural, industrial, technological, and educational transitions as well as urbanization.

Table 2.1 displays the population of Turkey with a breakdown of urban and rural population since 1927. Here, the urban definition requires a minimum of 10,000 people, although there is another definition, which takes urban from an administrative perspective defined by "population of the localities within the municipality limits of administrative centers of provinces and districts" (United Nations, 1992). The differences in the urbanization levels due to the differences in definition are not large but not insignificant either. For example, for 1985, urbanization level as defined by the 10,000 population is 50.9%, whereas this percentage is 53% for the administrative definition.
 
Table 2.1: Urban and Rural Population: 1927-1997
Total Urban Percent Rural Percent
Year Population Population Urban Population Rural
1927
13,648,000
2,236,000
16.40
11,412,000
83.60
1940
17,821,000
3,234,000
18.10
14,587,000
81.90
1950
20,947,000
3,884,000
18.50
17,063,000
81.50
1960
27,755,000
7,189,000
25.90
20,566,000
74.10
1970
35,605,000
11,821,000
33.20
23,784,000
66.80
1980
44,737,000
20,330,000
45.40
24,407,000
54.60
1990
56,473,000
33,326,000
56.20
23,147,000
43.80
1997
62,810,000
40,630,000
65.00
22,180,000
35.00
Source: State Statistical Institute, population censuses
It has to be noted that the reclassification of some settlements after reaching the 10,000 threshold has attributed 4, 050,000 additional population in the urban areas since 1950. Furthermore, the migration from particularly the former Soviet Union Republics, Bulgaria, and former Yugoslavia account for around half a million population in the urban areas since mid-1980s because these migrants have preferred to move to the cities (DIE, 1994).

It is interesting to see that in 70 years, the urbanization level has quadrupled throughout the country. The growth has been higher since 1950, particularly since 1960, which also corresponds to the beginning of the five-year development plans which will be discussed later. During the last almost four decades, the urban population growth rate has been higher than 1 % annually. Graph 2.1 indicates that the urban population has been growing almost steadily.

  .

Note: The definition for urban is based on having at least 10,000 inhabitants

In order to be able to define the underlying causes of this pattern, other factors, such as the demography and the economic structure as well as the development plans should be examined.

In graph 2.1, we can see that the total population has been growing almost steadily as well and almost parallel to the urban population. Until 1980s, the rural population also grew but with a much less significant rate than the urban population. However, since 1980s, it has been declining. I believe this is mostly due to rural-urban migration, not due to natural decline of population growth. Although, there have been extensive efforts in family planning since 1965, especially in the eastern regions and rural areas, the fertility rate is presumed to be higher in rural than in urban areas.

Turkey exhibits another characteristic of urban pattern in developing countries: the existence of a primate city. Istanbul is the largest city in terms of population as well as the most viable in terms of economics (table 2.2 and graph 2.2). It has 8.3 million people as off 1997 and is still growing. Ankara, the second most populous city only has 35% of what Istanbul has. Istanbul, actually, is a mega-city covering the land between Tekirdag and Kocaeli and accounting for almost one fifth of the nation’s population. Other characteristics of Istanbul are discussed in the section dealing with regional disparities.
 
Table 2.2: The Growth of Turkey's Five Largest Cities: 1950-97
City
1950
1960
1970
1980
1997
Istanbul
983
1,467
2132
4,433
8294
Ankara
289
650
1236
1,878
2984
Izmir
228
361
521
1,096
2082
Adana
118
232
347
575
Bursa
104
154
276
445
Source: State Statistical Institute, population censuses
Note: In 1980, 1.6 million was added by the incorporation of 25
suburbs in Istanbul
 

 

Another characteristic is seen in the distribution of the urban population by city size in Table 2.3. The share of larger cities have inclined over the past decades and reached almost two-thirds of the entire urban population by 1980. Unfortunately, the data is not available for more recent years. However, currently, there are five cities, Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Adana, and Bursa that have over 1 million people living in their central cities. The increasing gap between the largest cities and the cities with a population of 50,000 and 100,000 (graph 2.3) suggest that metropolises will gain more population until they reach the saturation points.
 
Table 2.3: Distribution of Urban Population by City Size: 1927-1980
Size
1927
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
10,000 - 20,000
24
23.80
22.90
15.80
12.70
10.80
20,000 - 50,000
28.90
28.70
23.20
21.90
13
15.20
50,000 - 100,000
9.30
12.20
10.10
17
11.60
10.70
100,000 and over
37.80
35.30
43.80
45.30
56.70
63.30
Source: State Statistical Institute, population censuses
 

 

There is an important point that needs to be stressed. Although all the larger cities are growing, Istanbul is experiencing the highest of this share. It is one of the few cities that have low outmigration rates and it has the highest inmigration rate. A study prepared by the State Statistical Institute showed that the natural increase of the population in Istanbul accounted for 40% of the population increase while migration accounted for 60% of it. Although there is no data on the breakdown of the origin of migration (whether rural or urban and localities), it should be noted that Istanbul attracts population even from Ankara. It does not only attract disadvantaged unemployed population but the best-educated ones as well, due to being the economic capital of the nation.

The rapid increase of population brings its problems to Istanbul. It has become a city of disorder with massive problems in urban sprawl, squatter housing, traffic, marginal employment, street children, infrastructure (particularly water) provision, environmental degradation and pollution, and high cost of living. The urban sprawl issue is so immense that with the traffic added to it, average travel to work during the peak hours exceeds an hour.

The new urban pattern in Ankara is a little different than Istanbul’s. There, urban sprawl is an important issue as well. It is experiencing high rate of suburbanization and low rate of deurbanization. The emerging suburbs are high-density, high-rise suburbs with very little attention to the environment.

In summary, as expected from a developing country, urbanization has not declined or come to stability. In other words, Turkey has been observing the early stages of the urbanization transition; it has not reached the later stages yet. However, having a 65% urbanization level, Turkey promises to reach the later stages in the near future. Moreover, the analysis shows that the larger cities are going to get more populated unless preventive measures are taken.

2.C. Factors Shaping Urbanization Pattern in Turkey

In this section, economic structure of the country, regional disparities in terms of geographical, socio-economical, and urbanization aspects, and national urbanization and regional development strategies will be examined

2.C.1. Economic Structure of the Country

The economy of Turkey has been changing basically since 1950s as was discussed under the "modernization" policy of Turkey. During the 1950s, the most important economic goal was to promote industrialization as well as modernization of agricultural techniques.

Although there is no data on Gross Domestic Product by sectors as early as 1950 in Table 2.5, table 2.4 demonstrates that indeed, before 1950, the labor force employed in the industry sector was only 7%. Since than, both industry and service sectors have been attracting labor force from agriculture which has last 33% labor force between 1950 and 1990 (graph 2.4).
 
Table 2.4: Distribution of Labor Force in Different Sectors (Percentages)
Sector
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Agriculture
87
78.7
70.7
60.3
53.6
Services
6.6
10.9
17.4
23.8
28.3
Industry
6.4
10.4
11.9
15.9
18.1
Source: World Resource Database
 

Gross Domestic Product exhibits similar results. The share of the agricultural sector has been decreasing since 1970s and has observed the most severe decrease between 1975 and 1985. After 1985, the rate of the decrease of the share has been at a slower rate. The service and the industry sectors have experienced increasing share of the GDP. It seems like all the sectors are coming to a stability, indicating a transition to the later stages (see Graph 2.5). Service is the leading sector in the country and has experienced a higher rate of increase than industry. The changes starting 1980s are attributable to the "market economy" introduced during these years.
 
Table 2.5: Distribution of Gross Domestic Product (Percentages)
Sector
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Agriculture
39.5
35.8
26.4
20.4
18.3
15.9
Service
40.3
44.3
51.4
52.5
51.9
53.5
Industry
20.1
19.9
22.2
27.1
29.8
30.6
Source: World Resource Database
 

The increasing share of industry in the national economy usually lead to increases in the gross national product as well as the gross domestic product. In the case of Turkey, although the GNP increased from 12 million US$ to 128 million US$, increasing more than ten times, and although GDP increased from 17 million US$ to 151 million US$, between 1970 and 1995, GDP per capita and GNP per capita increased much less (Tables 2.6 and 2.7). This is mainly an outcome of high rates of population growth.

The tables also show that Turkey always had lower GDP per capita and GNP per capita than the world’s average. However, if the graphs are examined, a pattern can easily be seen. Although these indicators in Turkey were not much lower than the world between 1970 and 1975 (in the case of GNP, until 1980), the difference gets wider afterwards (see graphs 2.6 and 2.7). This can be explained by increase of the population in Turkey as well but mainly with the political status of the nation during those years. There was a coup-de-etat in 1980 followed by a three-year long military government. The political unrest needs to be stressed for Turkey because during the 75 years of republic, Turkey experienced three coups and particularly in the recent years, at least yearly changes in the government.
 
Table 2.6: Gross Domestic Product per Capita (in current US$)
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Turkey
506
1166
1548
1335
2686
2708
World
785
1390
2421
2547
3982
4896
Source: World Resource Database
 
Table 2.7: Gross National Income per Capita (in current US$)
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Turkey
340
1030
1940
1320
2280
2780
World
780
1480
2560
2550
3960
4880
Source: World Resource Database
 

 

Looking back at the urbanization of the nation, a close link with the industrialization process is seen as is expected. It is very difficult to establish a relationship between the distribution of the labor force or the gross domestic product and urbanization. Nevertheless, a numerical relation exists in this case, although it may not be significant. Between 1950 and 1990, the nation gained almost 34% labor force in industry and service, and the percentage of urban population increased by 37% (Table 2.5).

2.C.2. Regional Disparities

Turkey is composed of seven geographic regions (see map 2.1) and there is an evident disparity in physical, demographic, and economic structure among these regions.

The regions are subject to different climates therefore different vegetations. For example, while Aegean and Mediterranean regions have a mild climate throughout the year, whereas the Eastern Anatolia gets sever winters, East Black Sea region gets heavy rain, and Southeastern Anatolia does not get much rainfall. In addition, the topography in the Black Sea and Eastern Anatolia regions is unsuitable for transportation networks (map 2.2).

In 1985, Istanbul accommodated 49% of the nation’s industries whereas the entire Eastern Anatolia and Eastern Black Sea Region accommodated 3%. A socio-economic development study conducted in 1980 showed that the eastern regions had 34% development level compared to 100% nation average, and that Istanbul was 11 times more developed than Hakkari, a middle sized city in Southeastern Anatolia. In addition, while the western cities accommodated 70% of the nation’s hospital beds and 57% nation’s physicians, these percentages were 7% and 3% for Eastern Anatolia.

These differences are reflected in the demographic and the urbanization areas as well, as in tables and graphs 2.8 and 2.9. The eastern regions including Black Sea, hold 30% of the population, where as Marmara region only houses 26% of the total population. However, there is a trend of decrease in population in Marmara region. There are several factors contributing to the decrease including the high cost of living, different economic incentives provided in other regions, and the over-crowdedness and all the ills associated with it.
 
Table 2.8: Population Growth by Region (1000s)
Region
1,950
1,980
1,990
1,997
Marmara
1,392
6,488
13,296
16,187
Aegean
532
2,243
7,595
8,452
Mediterrenaen
445
2,732
7,026
8,058
Central Anatolia
944
4,711
9,913
10,581
Black Sea
326
1,861
8,137
7,844
Eastern
205
1,259
5,346
5,615
Southeastern
170
1,066
5,159
6,129
Source: State Statistical Institute

 
Table 2.9: Urban Growth by Region:1950-1980 (Perccnetages)
Region
1940
1950
1960
1980
1985
Marmara
35.10
36.50
43.30
68.70
74.10
Aegean
23.30
24.10
30.30
48.60
54.80
Mediterrenaen
20.10
21.70
31.60
49.80
52.70
Central Anatolia
14.80
19.90
24.80
47.60
53.30
Black Sea
7.20
5.70
11.40
24.30
29.20
Eastern
9.30
8.50
13.40
27.20
31.10
Southeastern
15.80
15.10
16.10
36.50
39.90
Turkey
18
18.50
25.20
45.40
50.90
Source: State Statistical Institute and Keles, 1990 p. 31
 

Although there is no data on whether the migration is happening from city to city or only from rural areas, a study prepared by the State Statistical Institute (1994) displays other interesting results. Other than Istanbul, the cities that have low outmigration rates are cities which accommodate many inmigrants like Ankara and cities which are not well networked such as Hakkari and Van in Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia. Most of the outmigration happened from East Black Sea region and Thrace (western Marmara region, which is the European section of Turkey). Inmigration is mostly to the largest five cities, which led to the saturation of population in these cities and a spillover effect to the neighboring communities.

When the regions are compared over time, there is only one region that has been steadily gaining population, Southeastern Anatolia region. This captures attention because, there are three important issues about Southeastern Anatolia region. One of them is the ongoing terrorism from the Kurds, which is a major cause for population loss, including deaths and migration to other regions. Another issue is the high fertility rates in the region. While the fertility rate is 2.65 throughout the nation, is 5.7 in the region (DSI, 1998).

The other issue is the Guneydogu Anadolu Projesi (GAP standing for Southeastern Anatolia Project), a major development project covering 75,000square kilometers of Upper Mesopotamia covering Tigris and Euphrates river basins. It includes the cities of Adiyaman, Batman, Diyarbakir, Gaziantep, Kilis, Mardin, Siirt, Sanliurfa, and Sirnak. The project started in late 1980s and aims to irrigate the and land which encompasses 20% of the fertile land in the country which would lead to a very significant level of economic and community development since most of the population resides in rural areas and could be employed in agriculture. In addition, the project aims to produce energy. It is very early to analyze the data about whether the development project has reached its goals.

Examining the urban population ratios, the difference is clear again. Although urbanization in each region has been increasing, the western regions are much more urbanized than the eastern regions. Historically, the western regions have always had higher rates or urbanization than the national average (except in one case, in 1960 Central Anatolia had 0.4% lower rate than the nation) and the eastern regions have had lower rates than the nation. The increases in the differences between the Marmara region and the Aegean and Central Anatolia as shown in the graphs implies that Marmara region may get even more share of the nation’s population. Each region is showing indications that they are going to reach stability in the urbanization transition.

2.C.3. National Urbanization and Regional Development Strategies

National urbanization policies are mainly found in the five-year development plans that are prepared by the State Planning Organization. The key elements will be discussed as follows based on Keles's book on Urbanization Policy, 1990.

The first five-year plan corresponds to the 1963-67 period. Although the first five-year plan does not particularly address the issue of urbanization, this is a very important issue in the second five-year plan. According to that, large cities were seen essential for economic development, therefore, a lot of investments were made under the name of "growth poles" in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, and Adana. In the third plan, it was apparent that the investments to the growth poles in the western region accelerated regional imbalance. For this reason, an organization was formed to help the distressed areas. The more recent five-year plans have realized that urbanization will still take place, eventually at a lower rate and have incorporated the importance of urban problems such as infrastructure, services, and housing. It is not until the sixth plan (1990-94) that urban environmental issues have taken place in the national urbanization and development strategies.

There are two important concerns in the implementation of urban and regional policies both in the national and local levels. One of them is the fiscal constraints. Usually the local governments do not have a lot of money allocated for them for development. Most of the central budget goes onto special projects. The other concern is the lack of strict regulations in the local government. Problems with housing supply, especially squatter housing, and environmental degradation are not confronted forcefully by the local authorities in a timely manner.

3. Urbanization Transition in European Union

After the investigation of the Turkish case, I can conclude that examination of the urbanization transition in EU is not very easy to accomplish. In order to define urbanization transition, many factors need to be incorporated for each country. This is even more difficult when there is not a very dependable data source (world resource database had some discrepancies with the State Statistical Institute database in the Turkish case) and not much expertise on the countries.

Despite all these disadvantages, I looked into the urbanization rates and some other indicators in the European Union. The analyses below are very general and are not very conclusive.

3.A. Urbanization Patterns in the European Union and Factors Shaping these Patterns

Before examining the pattern, it needs to be stressed once again that the definition of urban may change from one country to the other. For the purpose of simplicity, the definition is assumed to be unique throughout the Union. This issue will be inspected in the following paragraphs.

In the examination of urbanization transition, 12 countries were taken. These were chosen according to the date of their acceptance as members: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, West Germany (1957), United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland (1973), Greece (1981), Portugal, and Spain (1986).

As seen in the Graph 3.1, almost all the European Union members are in the later stage of the urbanization transition. All of the members except for Portugal have exceeded 55% of urbanization levels, among which, some are very highly urbanized, such as Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Belgium (reaching 96%). Map 3.1 displays these results.

One of the main questions of this paper was to answer whether joining the European Community had any impacts on the urbanization transition of the members. By looking at this graph, it is not possible to detect a correlation. However, this issue needs to be examined in more detail for a better conclusion.

The population graph 3.2 has a lot of similarities with the urbanization graph. Here, we can see that almost every country in the European Union has reached stability or will reach in the very near future.

Graph 3.3 shows the percentage of population living in cities of at least 750,000 population. The sudden jump in Ireland’s case can be explained by the fact that in late 1960s, Dublin gained population and became the only city in the country with more than 750,000 inhabitants. This is valid for other cases like Greece as well.
 
 

 

 

In the beginning of the paper, a discussion was made that urbanization is seen parallel with industrialization. If industrialization and Gross National Product per Capita are take as indicators of economic development, then we should expect that in countries with high levels of industrialization and GNP per capita there will be high levels of urbanization. In order to illustrate this analysis, Tables 3.1 and 3.2 and Graph 3.4 were created based on 1990 data.
 
Table 3.1: Distribution od Gross Domestic Product in 1990 (Percentage)
Country
Agriculture
Service
Industry
Belgium
1.9 
68
30.1
Denmark
4.7 
65
29.6
France
3.4 
67.4
29.2
Germany
Greece
20.4 
40.1
39.4
Ireland
Italy
3.2 
Luxembourg
1.7 
67.9
30.4
Netherlands
4.0 
67.1
28.9
Portugal
Spain
4.6 
60.4
34.9
Turkey
18.3 
51.9
29.8
United Kingdom
1.9 
62.9
35.3
Source: World Resource Database
Table 3.2: Economic Development and Urbanization in 1990
Country
GNP/Capita
% Urban
Belgium
17,770
96.5
Denmark
22,600
84.8
France
19,750
74
Germany
X.
85.3
Greece
5,920
58.8
Ireland
10,960
56.9
Italy
17,450
66.7
Luxembourg
32,240
86.3
Netherlands
18,120
88.7
Portugal
6,130
33.5
Spain
11,220
75.4
Turkey
2,280
61.2
United Kingdom
16,120
89.1
Source: World Resource Database

Although a clusteration can be traced in the relation between GNP per capita and urbanization, there are few exceptions and that suggests that the relationship is not a perfect linear fit. However, as was mentioned earlier, there is a real danger in comparisons among different countries on their urbanization levels. The data provided by the United Nations (1992) show that the definition for urban differed among countries. Although the most common definition for urban is "having at least 10,000 inhabitants" throughout EU, this is not the case for some nations. For example, in Belgium, Denmark, and United Kingdom, the definition of urban is not about the size of the population. On the other hand, population has to be greater than 2,000 in France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Netherlands to be considered as urban and 1,500 people are enough to form an urban settlement in Ireland.

In the light of these numbers the graph 3.4 needs to be revised. Nevertheless, this is an infeasible task. It is impossible to know the exact number of people who could be living in urban areas with the unique definition for urban without a real census. Therefore, graph 3.5 attempts to show possible shifts of the urbanization levels in table 3.4 if urban is defined by at least 10,000 inhabitants. Although it cannot be calculated, it should be emphasized that the linear relation that was apparent in graph 3.4 may not be visible in this case.

When the distribution of GDP in different sectors, particularly in industry is examined, a different result is detected. Although data for four countries is missing, the two (Spain and Greece) of the three countries with the highest share of industry in GDP are among the lower cluster of urbanization and GNP per capita graph. However, if the lowest shares of agriculture are taken instead of industry, we get a much different picture. Here the three countries with the lowest shares of agriculture (Luxembourg, Belgium, and United Kingdom), these are also the first, second, and fourth most urbanized countries in this selection. The notion that whether agricultural share of GPD can be an indicator of the level of urbanization and it could be used in forecasting the future of urbanization need to be examined in more detail.

In addition, when the primacy figures are examined (see graph 3.6), there is not a strong relation with the level of urbanization and primacy. It should be noted that these figures are based on the United Nations’ estimates and that data for some of the countries investigated in this paper are missing. It should be stressed that the highest levels of primacy is found in Greece and Portugal which have the lowest GNP per capita level, an indication of development. There are a few countries in EU that have two cities forming the majority of the population. An example would be Spain, Madrid and Barcelona compromised over one fourth of the nation’s entire population (Commission of the European Communities, 1992).

Another fact is that population growth in the largest cities of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands was very slow or negative during 1970s and 1980s. This is an indication that the primacy levels may decline. As well, as seen in Map 3.2, most of the countries are not experiencing high population increases in the cities greater than 100,000 population

The last point to make is about the predominant urban pattern among the members of the European Union. This pattern is a result of urbanization, suburbanization, deurbanization, and reurbanization (Commission of the European Communities, Van den Berg et.al.). This pattern can be observed in almost each member.

3.B. Comparison of Turkey and the European Community Countries

There are vast differences in some aspects of the urbanization transition and other indicators in Turkey compared with those in the members of the European Union.

The differences are especially apparent in the rapid increase of the total and the urban population, increase of population in large cities, and the very low level of GNP per capita. In addition, the growth pattern of the cities is very different.

Demographic transition displays the most visible differences. Although it was in the lower populated nations category up until 1950, now Turkey is the second highest populated country among the ones examined. For example, although Spain was more populated than Turkey in 1950, it has 23 million less population now.

Compared with few countries that are losing population in the larger cities (as discussed in the previous section), Turkish urban pattern is very different. As was shown in the urbanization in Turkey section, the highest growing cities are the larger cities, particularly the largest city Istanbul.

Another comparison can be made in the primacy issue. Although primacy is a characteristic of developing countries, this analysis showed that developed countries may experience high primacy levels as well, just like in the case of France and Denmark.

Although there are some indications that suburbanization is the new trend in large cities in Turkey, it should not be concluded that the pattern will be a replication of the European pattern. In Turkey, the suburbs are basically high-rise, high-density areas, not showing a lot of similarities with the other countries. We can suggest that because of this suburbanization, Turkey may experience the pattern of deurbanization and reurbanization like the other countries in the future. However, such a conclusion would not have a strong ground due to the high migration rate to the large cities in Turkey. Although, there might be a low rate of deurbanization (as seen in the case of Ankara), there will be a very high demand for housing, particularly in the city center, to have easy access to transportation.

4. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

This study has shown that urbanization is a very complex and a dynamic transition that needs an extensive research. While examining this transition, other members of the transition family need to be examined. Although the transition is investigated from various points in Turkey, there could be further research on the topic. Needless to say, a much more detailed research is needed for European Union members in order to able to make more meaningful comparisons.

The case of Turkey showed that although there can be differences in certain aspects, the urbanization had very similar characteristics of the phenomenon in developing countries. First of all, it is still experiencing the early stages of the transition with annual increases over 15 in urban population. Moreover, rapid increases in the urban share of the population reaching 65%, existence of Istanbul, the primate city and high population increases in the larger cities rather than smaller ones, problems with the provision of urban housing, employment, and infrastructure. In addition, the central government has not addressed the urbanization issue very effectively and the attempts at the local levels cannot overcome this issue.

The comparison of the nations in the European Union showed that with the given data, there is no evident relation between joining the Union and the urbanization transition. With this finding, it can be said that if Turkey joins the European Union, there will not be a significant change in its urbanization transition. However, the emphasis should be on the effects of globalization on developed versus developing nations. Developing nations will have to cope with the globalization issues and impacts differently than the developed nations. A further research area is the increase of investment in large cities of EU members versus smaller cities. Countries such as Greece, Spain, and Portugal will give better indications on what to expect for Turkey’s case. However, as a general assumption, larger cities, especially Istanbul is expected to attract foreign investment in the case of joining, leading to further increases in primacy and regional disparities as well as urban related problems.

The comparison of the nations also showed that in outlining the characteristics of urbanization among different countries, especially between developing vs. developed countries, there may be significant overlaps. These overlapping issues were found in the level of urbanization and the primacy issue. In addition, the definition of urban is a critical issue in comparisons and as was shown, the evidence of different definitions throughout the Union, the comparisons do not reflect unbiased results.

In summary, the future of the Turkish cities depends on various factors. In the case that Turkey is admitted in the European Union, there may be negative impacts on the primacy in Turkey and there will be a new urban pattern in the Union. However, the future of the Turkish cities is more dependent on the central and local planning issues. Unless there are more emphasis on and fiscal remedies for smaller cities in the five-year plans, larger cities will continue to grow and have larger urban problems in housing, infrastructure, and environment. Local planning authorities on the other hand, need to be more proactive and have more regulatory measures. In the planning efforts, it should be noted that the urbanization will continue but with slower rates and that the transition is expected to be more stable in the next few years. In addition, GAP (Southeastern Anatolia Project) is very likely to change the migration patterns in the country, which will have a significant impact on urbanization.

 

Reference:

Brechin, Drake, Ness, ed., 1993. Population-Environment Dynamics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Cerit, Sevil, 1986. Turkiye’de Iller Arasi Gocler (1950-1980) [Intra-provincial Migration In Turkey], The Turkish Journal of Population Studies, 8, 81-103.

Commission of the European Communities, 1992. Urbanization and the Functions of Cities in the European Community, Brussels.

Danielson, Michael N. and Rusen Keles, 1985. The Politics of Rapid Urbanization – Government and Growth in Modern Turkey, Holmes and Meier Publishers, New York.

DIE, 1994. Turkiye Nufusu, 1923-1994, Demografi Yapisi ve Gelisimi [Population of Turkey, 1923-1994, Demographic Structure and Development], Ankara.

DIE, 1998. 75.Yilinda Sayilarla Turkiye Cumhuriyeti [Turkish Republic in its 75th Anniversary], Ankara.

DSI, 1998. GAP (Southeastern Anatolia Project – Brochures obtained from GAP Administration in Ankara, Turkey published by State Water Works), Ankara.

Jones Gavin W. and Pravin Visaria, 1997. Urbanization in Large Developing Countries: China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India, Claredon Press, Oxford.

Keles, Rusen, 1990. Kentlesme Politikasi [Urbanization Policy], Ozkan Matbaacilik, Ankara.

Symposium on Turkey in Europe due to the 75th Anniversary of the Turkish Republic, Ann Arbor, November 6, 1998, featuring Hayret Yalev (Consul General), Assoc. Prof. Muge Gocek, Asst. Prof. Paul Kubicek.

United Nations, 1992. World Urbanization Prospects, United Nations, New York.

Van den Berg Leo, Drewett Roy, Klaassen Leo H., Rossi, Angelo, and Cornelis H.T. Vijverberg, 1982. Urban Europe - A Study of Growth and Decline, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

World Resource Institute: World Resource Database

World Wide Web: www.die.gov.tr

World Wide Web: www.infra.gov.tr