Regionally differentiated development dynamics in Turkey

Regionally differentiated development dynamics in Turkey

Regionally differentiated development dynamics in Turkey
Helmuth Toepfer 2006
[email protected]
www.giub.uni-bonn.de/toepfer
Age structure
Artvin
Kastamonu
Tokat
ˆ
Afyon
Kayseri
Nevsehir
¸
Usak
¸
Elazıg
Malatya
Aksaray
Izmir
Konya
ˆ
Aydın
K. Maraş
Nigde
Isparta
Denizli
Burdur
IRAQ
Burdur
ˆ
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
BLACK
Içel
1-15
(60,1-25,4)
4-6
(28-25)
16-31
(25,3-17,0)
7-9
(24-22)
32-47
(16,9-12,9)
10-13
(21-19)
48-63
(12,8-9,7)
14-17
(18-16)
64-79
(9,6-5,4)
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
Fig. 2: Regarding the indicator “immigration”, one can say that it has an accumulating effect and leads to increasing divergencies in the regional disparities (e. g. percentage of house owners (r=-0.84), agriculture and
forestry workers (r=-0.85), unpaid family workers (r=-0.85), percentage of 20-39-year-old persons (r=0.72)).
Ordu
Çankırı
Bolu
Tokat
ˆ
Afyon
Kayseri
Nevsehir
¸
Usak
¸
Elazıg
Malatya
Aksaray
Izmir
ˆ
K. Maraş
Nigde
Isparta
Denizli
Burdur
ˆ
Mugla
Aydın
Sanlıurfa
¸
Gaziantep
Karaman
Antalya
Burdur
Hatay
rank positions
(r / skm)
1-11
(1928-156)
12-23
(155-85)
24-36
(84-58)
37-49
(57-39)
50-60
(38-13)
SYRIA
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
Kastamonu
Samsun
Çankırı
Bolu
Tokat
Düzce
Manisa
Afyon
Nevsehir
¸
Kayseri
Bitlis
Izmir
Konya
ˆ
K. Maraş
Nigde
Isparta
Denizli
Osmaniye
Adana
Burdur
ˆ
Mugla
Antalya
rank positions
SYRIA
IRAN
Muş
Bingöl
Bitlis
Elazıg
Malatya
K. Maraş
Osmaniye
Adana
Burdur
Mugla
Karaman
Antalya
Hakkari
Sırnak
¸
Mardin
Gaziantep
Içel
Hatay
Batman Siirt
Adıyaman
Kilis
(in %)
Van
SYRIA
IRAQ
Sanlıurfa
¸
Marketed agricultural production
per inhabitant 2000
rank positions
( in 1000 TL)
(63,8-33,4)
1-16
(104,5-45,5)
17-32
(33,3-28,4)
17-32
(45,4-34,0)
33-48
(28,3-24,7)
33-48
(33,9-25,7)
49-64
(24,6-20,5)
49-64
(25,6-18,4)
65-80
(20,4-12,9)
65-81
(18,3-1)
1-16
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
Igdır
Erzurum
Diyarbakır
Nigde
Isparta
Denizli
IRAQ
Içel
Kayseri
Nevsehir
¸
Konya
Aydın
People working in
tertiary sector 2000
Kilis
Hatay
Afyon
Izmir
Sırnak
¸
Sanlıurfa
¸
Gaziantep
Karaman
Tunceli
Aksaray
Mardin
Kars
Sivas
Yozgat
Kırsehir
¸
Hakkari
Adıyaman
ARMENIA
Trabzon
Giresun
Gümüshane
¸
Bayburt
Erzincan
Kırıkkale
Usak
¸
Batman Siirt
GEORGIA
Ardahan
Agrı
Ankara
Manisa
SEA
Diyarbakır
Tokat
Kütahya
AEGEAN
Van
Elazıg
Malatya
Aksaray
Aydın
Muş
Bingöl
Amasya
Çorum
Eskisehir
¸
IRAN
Tunceli
Kırsehir
¸
Usak
¸
(9,1-6,9)
Bilecik
Balıkesir
Sivas
Yozgat
ˆ
AEGEAN
SEA
Erzincan
Kırıkkale
(10,9-9,2)
63-78
Rize
Ordu
Çankırı
Bolu
Düzce
Bursa
Çanakkale
ˆ
Ankara
Eskisehir
¸
Samsun
Karabük
Kocaeli
Sakarya
Yalova
Agrı
Kütahya
(12,7-11,0)
47-62
Artvin
Kastamonu
Istanbul
Igdır
Erzurum
Bilecik
Balıkesir
Edirne Tekirdag
ˆ
Bursa
Çanakkale
32-46
N
200 km
0
Sinop
Zonguldak
Kars
Giresun
Gümüshane
¸
Bayburt
Amasya
Çorum
GREECE
ARMENIA
Rize
Trabzon
SEA
Bartın
Ardahan
Artvin
Ordu
(14,4-12,8)
ˆ
Yalova
BULGARIA
Kırklareli
Sinop
Karabük
Kocaeli
Sakarya
BLACK
ˆ
Istanbul
(20,6-14,5)
17-31
ˆ
ˆ
Edirne Tekirdag
(in %)
1-16
Fig. 4: The highly mobile development potential that concentrates on education and training first of all increases
the possibilities for development in the urban agglomeration areas and can also -not only theoretically- be
carried into less developed regions by innovations or transfers of innovations.
ˆ
GREECE
rank positions
SYRIA
Hatay
GEORGIA
N
200 km
0
Zonguldak
Percentage of people with
High School education 2000
Land use
BLACK SEA
Bartın
IRAQ
Sanlıurfa
¸
Gaziantep
Kilis
Economic dynamics
Kırklareli
Hakkari
Sırnak
¸
Içel
Fig. 3: A higher population density with its high potential customer density represents a development potential
for the future that can lead to increasing disparities (e. g. persons working in the secondary sector (r=0.52),
persons working in trade activities (r=0.65)). Converging movements can only partially be caused by new
economic impulses in the less densely populated zones.
BULGARIA
Batman Siirt
Adıyaman
Mardin
Karaman
Antalya
Van
Bitlis
Diyarbakır
K. Maraş
Osmaniye
Adana
Mugla
Içel
Muş
Bingöl
Elazıg
Malatya
Nigde
Isparta
Denizli
Population density 2000
Kilis
Kayseri
Nevsehir
¸
Aksaray
IRAQ
IRAN
Tunceli
Konya
Sırnak
¸
Mardin
Osmaniye
Adana
Afyon
Izmir
Hakkari
Adıyaman
Erzincan
Usak
¸
Batman Siirt
Igdır
Erzurum
Sivas
Yozgat
Kırsehir
¸
Manisa
SEA
Diyarbakır
Konya
Aydın
Kütahya
AEGEAN
Van
Bitlis
ˆ
Manisa
SEA
Muş
Bingöl
Kırıkkale
Eskisehir
¸
IRAN
Tunceli
Kars
Giresun
Gümüshane
¸
Bayburt
Agrı
Ankara
Balıkesir
Sivas
Yozgat
Kırsehir
¸
Tokat
Trabzon
Bilecik
ˆ
AEGEAN
Bursa
Çanakkale
Erzincan
Kırıkkale
Eskisehir
¸
Kütahya
Amasya
Çorum
ARMENIA
Rize
Ordu
Çankırı
Bolu
Düzce
Agrı
Ankara
Balıkesir
Kocaeli
Sakarya
Yalova
Igdır
Erzurum
Bilecik
Samsun
Karabük
ˆ
ˆ
Düzce
Bursa
Çanakkale
Giresun
Gümüshane
¸
Bayburt
Amasya
Çorum
Ardahan
Artvin
Kastamonu
Istanbul
Kars
ˆ
Kocaeli
Sakarya
Zonguldak
Edirne Tekirdag
GREECE
ARMENIA
Rize
Trabzon
Sinop
ˆ
Samsun
GEORGIA
N
200 km
0
Bartın
Ardahan
Artvin
Kastamonu
Karabük
Yalova
BLACK SEA
BULGARIA
Kırklareli
Sinop
Zonguldak
Istanbul
GEORGIA
N
200 km
0
Edirne Tekirdag
rank positions (in %)
SYRIA
Hatay
(32-29)
ˆ
GREECE
Rate of Turks not born in their
province of residence 2000
Education
SEA
Bartın
IRAQ
Sanlıurfa
¸
Kilis
Population density
Kırklareli
Sırnak
¸
1-3
Fig. 1: Apart from a position of the Mediterranean provinces Antalya and Adana, which are closer (converged)
to the western provinces, one has to speak of a persistence of the old pattern from the early ‘80s. This applies
to both the age structure and the index numbers that are linked to the median age (e. g. life expectancy (r=0.81),
employment rate (0.71), children per woman (r=-0.88), illiteracy rate (r=-0.80)).
BULGARIA
Hakkari
Adıyaman
Gaziantep
Karaman
Antalya
rank positions (abs.)
SYRIA
Hatay
Bitlis
Batman Siirt
Mardin
Osmaniye
Adana
Mugla
Içel
K. Maraş
Van
Elazıg
Malatya
Nigde
Isparta
Denizli
Median age 2000
Kilis
Muş
Bingöl
Diyarbakır
Konya
Aydın
Sanlıurfa
¸
Gaziantep
Karaman
Antalya
Kayseri
Nevsehir
¸
Hakkari
Sırnak
¸
IRAN
Tunceli
Aksaray
Mardin
Osmaniye
Adana
Mugla
Afyon
Izmir
Adıyaman
Sivas
Yozgat
Usak
¸
Batman Siirt
Igdır
Erzurum
Erzincan
Kırıkkale
Kırsehir
¸
Manisa
SEA
Diyarbakır
Kars
Giresun
Gümüshane
¸
Bayburt
Agrı
Ankara
AEGEAN
Van
Bitlis
ˆ
Manisa
SEA
Kırsehir
¸
Tokat
Kütahya
ˆ
AEGEAN
Muş
Bingöl
Amasya
Çorum
Eskisehir
¸
IRAN
Tunceli
Çankırı
Trabzon
Bilecik
Balıkesir
Sivas
Yozgat
Bursa
Çanakkale
Erzincan
Kırıkkale
Eskisehir
¸
Kütahya
Bolu
ARMENIA
Rize
Ordu
Düzce
Agrı
Ankara
Balıkesir
Yalova
Igdır
Erzurum
Bilecik
Samsun
Karabük
Kocaeli
Sakarya
ˆ
Düzce
Bursa
Çanakkale
Giresun
Gümüshane
¸
Bayburt
Amasya
Çorum
Artvin
Kastamonu
Istanbul
Kars
ˆ
Çankırı
Bolu
Zonguldak
Edirne Tekirdag
GREECE
ARMENIA
Rize
Trabzon
Ordu
Ardahan
ˆ
Yalova
Samsun
ˆ
Karabük
Kocaeli
Sakarya
Sinop
ˆ
Istanbul
GEORGIA
N
200 km
0
Bartın
ˆ
Edirne Tekirdag
BLACK SEA
BULGARIA
Ardahan
ˆ
Sinop
Zonguldak
ˆ
GREECE
GEORGIA
N
200 km
0
Kırklareli
Bartın
ˆ
Kırklareli
ˆ
BULGARIA
Demographic evolution
ˆ
BLACK SEA
MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 5: The dynamics of the tertiary sector have, on the one hand, a diverging effect through the intensification
of the existing agglomeration areas, but on the other hand, in selected provinces, they offer possibilities to keep
abreast with the economic development of the agglomeration areas or at least not to fall too much behind
them (e. g. some neighbouring provinces of the agglomeration areas, tourist regions, control- and
trade-intensive border areas).
SEA
Fig. 6: The agricultural potentials show a nested west-east divide, a coast-inland divide and an agglomerationarea-periphery divide, resulting from old paths of development in the two farmer cases and from a younger
development in the latter.
Development potentials
BLACK SEA
BULGARIA
Zonguldak
ˆ
GREECE
Bartın
Edirne Tekirdag
Istanbul
Sinop
Artvin
Kastamonu
Samsun
Karabük
Yalova
Kocaeli
Sakarya
Amasya
Çorum
Tokat
Ankara
Eskisehir
¸
Erzincan
Kırıkkale
Sivas
Yozgat
Tunceli
Kırsehir
¸
IRAN
Muş
Bingöl
Bitlis
ˆ
Manisa
Afyon
Nevsehir
¸
Usak
¸
Kayseri
Konya
ˆ
Denizli
Diyarbakır
K. Maraş
Nigde
Isparta
Osmaniye
Adana
Burdur
ˆ
Mugla
Karaman
Antalya
Batman Siirt
Hakkari
Adıyaman
Sırnak
¸
Mardin
Gaziantep
Van
Elazıg
Malatya
Aksaray
Izmir
Aydın
Igdır
Erzurum
Agrı
Kütahya
SEA
Kars
Bilecik
Balıkesir
AEGEAN
ARMENIA
Trabzon
Giresun
Gümüshane
¸
Bayburt
ˆ
Çanakkale
Ardahan
Rize
Ordu
Çankırı
Bolu
Düzce
Bursa
GEORGIA
N
200 km
0
ˆ
Kırklareli
Sanlıurfa
¸
Kilis
IRAQ
SYRIA
Içel
Hatay
Development potentials 2000
MEDITERRANEAN
(according to the summarised rank positions)
very low
low
medium
high
very high
SEA
Structural feature
1. Age structure
2. Demographic Evolution
3. Population density
4. Education
5. Economic Dynamics
6. Land use
indicator
1. Median age 2000
2. People born outside the province 2000 in %
3. Residents per skm 2000
4. People with High-School education 2000 in %
5. People working in Tertiary Sector 2000 in %
6. Marketed agricultural Production p.P. 2001 in TL
Fig. 7: The analysis of six structural characteristics and their indicators (see fig.1 - fig.6, resulting from an analysis of the main
elements of 64 socio-economic index numbers) demonstrate that in each case these indicators represent different socio-economic
development potentials. The sum of these development potentials is presented in the summerising map (fig.7) and result in an overall picture of possible regionally differentiated development dynamics.To this end, the rank positions that the provinces obtained for
the individual indicators 1-6 were added and the sum totals were then divided into five classes by means of cluster analysis.
Sources: TOEPFER, HELMUTH (2005): Development potentials and their spatial patterns in Turkey. In: Erdkunde 59, 50-59.
DEVELET ISTATISTIK ENSTITÜSÜ (2003): Census of population 2000, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population, Turkey. Ankara.