sakarya, a. changing at sphere of ersa 55th congress/ 2015 … · 2015. 9. 6. · sakarya, a....

SAKARYA, A. Changing At Sphere Of

ERSA 55TH

Congress/ 2015 Influence Of Provinces In Turkey

__________________________________________________________________________________

1

Changing At Sphere Of Influence Of Provinces In Turkey 1

Adem SAKARYA2

Abstract

Space has a continuously changing and dynamic structure, originating out of the factors that

affect it. An examination of nation space reveals that economic policies are an important

factor affecting that space. The change is visible in various structures, such as in the inner

structure of settlement, in the organization of settlements, in the location of center, and at

borders of sphere of influence. With this framework, and based on economic policies, this

study looked at changing nation space through the concepts of center and sphere of influence.

The time frames 1960-1980980-2002 and 2002-2012 were evaluated, as they were periods of

markedly different economic policies in Turkey. The general structure and conditions at the

start and end of each were compared, supported with different economic and demographic

indicators. The result is a picture of the factors that differentiate these time frames from each

other. Then follows an analysis of the reflection of these differentiations on nation space was

done by giving reference to provinces. This was done using maps with population and road

transportation data in the context of the years 1980, 2000 and 2012. As a conclusion, it was

found that the map of 1980, which reflects the 1960-1980 period, revealed a relatively

balanced distribution of center and sphere of influences on the nation space, while in the maps

of 2000 and 2012, reflecting the 1980-2002 and 2002-2012 period respectively, this balanced

distribution had gradually disappeared.

Key Words: Economic policies; sphere of influence; center; population; transportation.

1 This study has been prepared by benefiting from the paper “Türkiye’de Ekonomi Politikaları ve Ülke

Mekânında Değişim (1980-2012) / Change in Economic Policies and Nation Space in Turkey (1980-2012)”

published at e- Megaron, 2014, Istanbul, Turkey. DOI: 10.5505/MEGARON.2014.05914

2 Research Assistant at Yıldız Technical University Urban and Regional Planning Department,

[email protected]


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

2

1. Introduction

Country population changes because of demographic and economic process, and its

distribution on space differentiates along time. 3

Population does not evenly distributed on space; in different periods, population concentrates

on different places and this leads sphere of influence of settlements. Studies show that there is

a relation between changing on spatial structure and economic policies. 4

Plans and policies

determined at nation scale have economic dimension that affects the space5, especially

location decisions play an important role on space. In literature, changing on space is

generally examined and evaluated by population changings.6

Population is not an only thing that changes on space; relatedly, products and services of

centers and their sphere of influence also change. The relation between population and sphere

of influence of settlements were firstly discussed by Walter Christaller. In his theory, he

calculates the sphere of influence of settlements by relating products and services to

population and distance. Auguste Lösch mentioning that Christaller model has rigid borders

developed a new perspective emphasizes that every service and product has different tributary

area. 7

Another study about sphere of influence of settlement was done by J. Reilly. In this study,

Reilly tries to determine sphere of influence with population and distance, and this is called as

Gravity Model. 8

In Turkey, first and influential study on centers and sphere of influence of settlements was

done by State Planning Organization in 1982. 9

In this study, to determine sphere of influences

of settlements, not only population data but also transportation, services, market etc. relations

between settlements were analyzed; however, the outcome was a just a section, it did not

reflect the changings on space and there is no any other studies like that. Therefore, there is a

necessity to see changings on space.

3 Tekeli, 2005. 4 Dinçer, 1994. Dinler, 2008. Tekeli, 2005. 5 Dinler, 2008. 6 Dinçer, 1994. Tekeli, 2005. Sinanoğlu, 2008. 7 Dicken and Llyod, 1990 8 Dinler, 2008. 9 State Planning Organization, 1982.


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

3

This study tries to show the changing on nation space by relating it to economic policies in

three different periods. Urban population and distance are two main data for analyzing. Three

maps showing the sphere of influence of provinces; 1980 for 1960- 1980 period, 2000 for

1980- 2002, and 2012 for 2002- 2012 period are used to analyze the changing.

1.1 Method

To determine sphere of influence of provisions, Gravity Model is applied. This model,

calculate the market area of a firm located at the center of settlement. In this model,

population of settlements and distance between them are used. 10

In this study this Model is reformulated;

Where;

E (x-y): the effect coefficient of x province on y province

N x: Urban population of x province

U ² (x-y): square of distance (km²) between centers of province x and y

Assumptions of the study:

The sphere of influence of provinces is directly proportional to urban population as

Christallar says. 11

Provinces that’s urban population is equal or higher than 1% of country population are

assumed as center. If it was not assumed, country totally would become the sphere of

influence of the most populated province, İstanbul.

Transportation between provinces is provided just by highway

With the formula, the effect coefficients of center provinces (that’s urban population is equal

or higher than 1% of country population) on other provinces are calculated, in this way all

provinces (except center provinces) have different effect coefficients of center provinces.

Finally, province is assumed as at the sphere of influences of center province that’s effect

coefficient is the biggest on this province.

10 Dinler, 2008. 11 Christaller, 1933.


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

4

2. Changing of Economic Policies in Turkey

Periods have changed because of different economic policies, economic crises, policies for

overcoming crisis, changing in political structure, and coups etc.

In this context, after World War II that affected global economic policies, Turkey has lived 3

different periods; 1960- 1980, 1980-2002, and 2002- 2012.

2.1 The Period of 1960- 1980

1960 is the year of first military coup occurred in the Republic of Turkey. This military coup

finished the Democrat Party power and its economic policies, and started new period in terms

of both politically and economically.

In the period of 1960- 1980, economic problems of the previous period were trying to solve

by “planning development” method.

Besides the problems of previous period, international conjuncture also has affected the

economy policies of 1960-1980. After World War II, impasse of liberalism has let Keynesian

policies to be active both in Europe and Turkey.

In this context, main goal of this period was producing domestic product instead of importing.

12 With import- substitution model, private sector has been supported by cheap credits,

incentives and public investments.13

In this period, public investments have been directed by five years development plans and

programs, and private investments had to be appropriate to them.14

Being of public

investments on intermediate goods, like iron, steel, cement, oil, paper and mining to support

private sector has enabled domestic industry to develop. Nevertheless, there was an external

dependent structure especially at the case of energy and technology.15

Import- substitution model that was applied between 1960 and 1970 caused high loan for the

country, because the model couldn’t be applied as it had been planned.16

In the second part of the period between 1970 and 1980, there were changings at the type of

products of import- substitution; products which are technology-intensive became the focus of

the import- substitution model.

12 Akyıldız and Eroğlu, 2004. 13 Suğur, 1998. 14 Boratav, 2013. 15 Suğur, 1998. 16 Eroğlu, 2003.


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

5

International crises like Oil Shock in 1973 and high loan rates of countries and hardness in

findings new loans caused new crises in Turkey.17

This crisis reflected on employee as

decreasing the wages, so it caused tension in community. Also, domestic problems like

terrorism, political conflict and it’s reflection on community as anarchy caused the 12

September 1980 Military Coup that finished the 1960- 1980 period and started new period

both politically and economically.

2.2 The Period of 1980- 2002

Development of globalization in international arena firstly has affected the developed

countries, afterwards affected developing countries including Turkey. This period can be

evaluated as an integration of Turkey to global system, and it is called liberal period.

24 January Decisions in 1980 is the starting point of this period, these decisions were signed

by Prime Minister Turgut Özal, 3 years later in 1983. 18

Some reforms of 24 January Decisions are that;19

Building an external dependent economy by leaving import- substitution model

Providing financial liberalization

Liberalization of foreign capital

Decreasing the effect of public investments and giving priority to privatization

Some policies to put into practice these reforms;20

Incentive of foreign capital

Liberalization of foreign trade by decreasing of public intervening

Leaving the control of supply and demand to the market

Removing export quota

Continuing the incentives for import

By these policies, there was an economic growth based on importing between 1984 and 1989,

however; new international system after Iran- Iraq War in 1990 and the Gulf Crises affected

Turkey’s external dependent economy badly. Also, increasing on external loan almost four

times in a decade and difficulty of finding loans affect exporting and producing adversely, so

it finally caused economic crisis in 1994.21

17 Suğur, 1998: Eroğlu, 2003. 18 Boratav, 2013. 19 Bayrak and Kanca, 2013. 20 Bayrak and Kanca, 2013. 21 Eroğlu, 2003: Akyıldız and Eroğlu, 2004.


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

6

To overcome the crisis, 5 April Decisions including policies of increasing public revenue and

retrenching public expenditures in 1994. Signing of Customs Union Agreement with

European Union in 1995 enabled rapid and short growth, however; economic crisis in East

Asia and Russia between 1996 and 1998 stopped this rapid growth in Turkey.22

As a new economic perspective, Turkey had started common meetings with IMF in 1999.

Finally, in 2002 Transition to the Strong Economy Program that’s aim was providing

sustainable growth was accepted.23

Besides, at the same period Turkey received the biggest

help from World Bank and IMF in its history.24

In this period in which economy had floating trend, political structure had also the same trend.

Dispersing of Refah Yol government in 1997 by 28 February Post-modern Coup showed the

floating trend in politic. Finally, coming power of AK Party (Justice and Development Party)

in 2002 selection opened new period in Turkey.

2.3 The Period of 2002- 2012

AK Party has continued the West sourced economy policies of previous period. Transition to

the Strong Economy Program and neo liberal economy policies in accordance with new

closed meetings with World Bank, IMF has been continued.25

Implementation of economy policies in AK Party government period has been as new

regulations in banking system, tight expenditure policies and accelerating privatization.26

The main difference of this period was large scaled privatization as it was mention in

implementation decisions. While, total revenue from privatization had been 8 bn $, it was 33

bn $ between 2002 and 2007.27

In the process of full membership for EU, cohesion policies of economy have affected the

economy policies in this period, so it has provided rapid integration process to international

structure. As Boratav28

points out that the rate of foreign capital to total national income was

annually 3, 4% between 1995 and 1997, in 2000 it was 8, 1% and between 2002 and 2007 it

was 9, 8%. As it is understood from the rates, Turkey has been in neo liberal way with AK

Party government.

22 Bayrak and Kanca, 2013. 23 Eroğlu, 2003. 24 Karagöl, 2013. 25 Boratav, 2013. 26 Karagöl, 2013. 27 Bayrak and Kanca, 2013. 28 Boratav, 2013.


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

7

There was a steady growth between 2002 and 2007. Gross domestic product increased 2, 5

times from 2002 until 2007. Export increased from 36 bn $ to 107 bn $ and import increased

from 50 bn $ to 170 bn $.29

Turkey which had been integrated to global system increased its

export and import volume, but deficiency of infrastructure especially an energy sector caused

the decreasing of the rate of exports meeting imports.

Turkey as a part of global system was affected global mortgage crisis in 2008 inevitably, and

growth trend of economy decelerated.

To compare these three periods, the indicators of gross domestic product per capita, export-

import values, and public and private investments are graphed.

Figure 1: GDP per capita ($)30

As it can be seen from the Figure 1, there had been a stable trend between 1975 and 1990,

although there had been transition to liberal economy in 1983. The value started to increase in

1990, and decreased in 1994 because of economic crisis, afterwards it again increased because

of Customs Union Agreement. This increasing trend had a handicap of economic crisis in

2001. After this date, with AK Party government GDP per capita increased continuously

except in 2008 when mortgage crisis was born.

29 Bayrak and Kanca, 2013. 30 Graphs about economic indicators were prepared with the data of “Ministry of Development Social and

Economic Indicators”

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

8

Figure 2: Export- Import values (bn $)

When the time series is analyzed, it is seen that export is higher than import for every year,

the gap between them increased from 2003. International agreements positively affected the

import and export values, especially relationship to EU between 2002 and 2010

The periods also differentiate at the case of investments.

Figure 3: The Rate of Total, Private and Public Investments to GDP

While, there had been balanced situation between public and private investments until 1984,

afterwards private investment became dominant determinant of total because of liberal

economy policies.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Export Import

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total Investment/ GDP Public Investment/ GDP Private Investment/ GDP


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

9

The spread between private and public investment was high between 1992 and 1998, 2003

and 2008, however; it was low when economy crisis occurred.

3. Changing on Space

Economy policies, economic indicators show that these three periods has different

characteristics. In this section, the effects of these differentness on space is tried to explain.

As it is mention in method, to analyze the changing on nation space urban population of

provinces and distance between them are used. To analyze 1960- 1980 period map of 1980 ,

for 1980- 2002 map of 2000, and for 2002- 2012 map of 2012 are composed (see below

Figure 5, 6, and 7).

Figure 5: Centers and sphere of influence in 198031


31 Provinces that’s name are minuscule were not at province status at that time


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

10


Numbers of centers in each map are as follows 26 in 1980, 25 in 2000 and 23 in 2012. These

numbers show that population agglomerates on less center gradually.

Map of 1980 has the highest number of centers. While, their distribution on nation space is

relatively balanced, spheres of influence of 9 centers’ (Balıkesir, Manisa, Denizli, Mersin,

Tokat, Sivas, Kahramanmaraş, Hatay, Şanlıurfa) involve just their own province border.

At east of the country, there are two dominant provinces: Erzurum and Diyarbakır. At center

of country, Ankara has large sphere of influence. Also Trabzon which is not neighbor of

Ankara is under the sphere of influence of it. Trabzon is close to Erzurum, but higher

population of Ankara makes it be under its own sphere of influence.

It is important to notice that İstanbul’s sphere of influence involve just its west neighbors.

In the maps of 2000 and 2012 there is one new concept that we must develop, it is “upper

center” including one more center at its sphere of influence. Upper centers in 2002 are

İstanbul, İzmir, in 2012 İstanbul, İzmir and Gaziantep

Centers that enlarged their sphere of influence from 1980 to 2000 are İstanbul, İzmir, Antalya,

Şanlıurfa and Kayseri. Especially, expansions of sphere of influences of İstanbul and İzmir

are remarkable. Expansion of sphere of influence of İstanbul and being center of Trabzon

restricted the sphere of influence of Ankara.

In 2012 map, it is seen that there is main difference from the 2000 map at east of the country.

Centers in 2000, Erzurum, Van, Malatya and Trabzon lost their center status in 2012.

Diyarbakır which is center only at east in 2012 enlarged its sphere of influence. Losing center


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

11

status of Erzurum and Trabzon provided sphere of İstanbul to enlarge to the north east part of

the country.

Centers that enlarged their sphere of influences are İstanbul, Diyarbakır, Gaziantep and

Samsun. Gaziantep became upper center because of losing center status of Malatya.

When the data of population and distance are examined, it is seen that main factor that change

the center status and sphere of influence is population, because changing on distance between

provinces is very small according to the population.

4. Conclusion

This study tries to compare the periods of 1960–1980, 1980–2002 and 2002–2012 that have

different economy policies at the case of changing on nation space.

In the context of economy policies, period of 1960- 1980 was statist economy period had

planned economy model to solve the previous period problems. 1980- 2002 was a liberal

period in which integration to global system was tried and provided. The period of 2002-

2012 was a neo liberal period with AK Party government. Economy policies in this period

were developed in the case of EU cohesion policies.

These differences of economy policies and economic indicator affected nation space, both

centers and sphere of influences. From the map of 1980 to the map of 2012, centers are

located mostly at west part of the country. In the case of sphere of influence, especially at the

last period centers at the west have higher sphere of influence than centers at east. In 2012

map, İstanbul enlarges its sphere of influence to north east part of the country.

As a final say, while centers and sphere of influences are more balanced along the country in

1980 map which reflects the 1960- 1980 statist economy period, they becomes less balanced

gradually in 2002 and 2012 maps reflecting liberal and neo liberal policies on nation space.


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

12

5. Sources

Akyıldız, H. & Eroğlu, Ö. (2004). “Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dönemi Uygulanan İktisat

Politikaları”, Süleyman Demirel University, Publishing of Economics and

Administrative Sciences, V.9, S.1, p. 43–62.

Bayrak, M. & Kanca, O., M. (2013). “Türkiye’de 1970–2011 Yılları Arasında Oluşan

Ekonomik ve Siyasi Gelişmelerin Seyri”, Akademik Bakış Journal, N: 35.

Boratav, K. (2013). “Türkiye İktisat Tarihi 1908–2009”, İmge Bookstore, Ankara.

Christaller, W. (1993) Diezentralen Orte in Süddeutschland, English Translation:

“Central Places in Southern Germany”, Baskin, C. W. (1966), Pentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, ABD.

Dicken, P. ve Lloyd, P. E. (1990). Location in space, Harper Collins Publishers, New

York.

Dinçer, İ. (1994) “Türkiye’de Ekonomik Mekân Farklılaşmaları ve Planlama”,

Unpublished Phd Thesis, Yıldız Technical University, Institute of Science and

Technology.

Dinler, Z. (2008) “Bölgesel İktisat”, Bursa, Ekin Press.

State Planning Organization (1982) “Türkiye’de Yerleşme Merkezlerinin

Kademelenmesi”, V: I – II, Directorate of Priority Regions for Development, Ankara.

Eroğlu, N. (2003) “Türkiye’de İktisat Politikalarının Gelişimi (1923–2003)”,

Symposium of Republic of Turkey at its 80.Years, İstanbul.

Karagöl, E. T. (2013). “Ak Parti Dönemi Türkiye Ekonomisi”, Foundation for

Political, Economic and Social Research.

General Directorate of Highways (1981) “Türkiye Karayolları Haritası”, KGM

Archive.


Archive.


Archive.

Sinanoğlu, Z. (2008) “Türkiye’de Yerleşim Birimlerinin Dağılımı ve Merkezi Yerlerin

Nüfuslarındaki Değişim: Dengeli Bir Yerleşim Dağılımı İçin Öneriler”, Phd Thesis,

İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology.


ERSA 55TH


__________________________________________________________________________________

13

Suğur, N. (1998) “Türkiye’de Sosyal ve Ekonomik Değişmeler”, Recent History of

World and Turkey, Anadolu University.

Takım, A. (2012) “Demokrat Parti Döneminde Uygulanan Ekonomi Politikalar ve

Sonuçları”, Ankara University, SBF Journal, V. 67, N. 2, p. 157–187.

Tekeli, İ. (2005) “Türkiye’de Nüfusun Mekânsal Dağılımında Yaşanan Gelişmeler:

(1935- 2000)”, ODTÜ MFD, 2005/ 1, p. 85- 102.

Web Sources

Turkish Statical Institute (1980) General Census,

http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/nufus80app/idari.zul Accessed at 15 December 2013 ]

Turkish Statical Institute (2000) General Census,

http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/nufusapp/idari.zul [Accessed at 15 December 2013]

Turkish Statical Institute (2012) Address-Based Population Registration System,

http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/adnksdagitapp/adnks.zul [Accessed at 15 December 2013]

Ministry of Development Economic and Social Indicators,

http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Pages/EkonomikSosyalGostergeler.aspx [Accessed at 3

January 2014 ]

sakarya, a. changing at sphere of ersa 55th congress/ 2015 … · 2015. 9. 6. · sakarya, a....

Documents