It is not the residents of Izmir who decrease the attractiveness of the city. It is Ankara and its ill-designed policies concerning Izmir.

Every year in Turkey, around 2.5 million citizens migrate within the country. Domestic migration continues to change the appearance of Turkey. The Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT) has been releasing domestic migration statistics since 2008. According to this, domestic migration to Izmir has been slowing down since 2010. The city has been losing its attraction. Why?

Net migration rate to Izmir was around 7 percent in 2008 and 2009. Now it is around 2 percent. The net migration rate is the difference between net immigration to and outmigration from a city, divided by the total population of that city. In Izmir’s case, both immigration has decreased and outmigration has increased. Both current residents of Izmir and potential migrants have fled from the city. In the end, net migration to Izmir in proportion to its population has decreased by 5 percent. The city has clearly lost its attraction, don’t you think? So do I. This trend is not observed in Gaziantep, for instance. The city has strengthened its attraction. The current residents do not consider migrating to another city and people living elsewhere are deciding to move there. Gaziantep has been gaining what Izmir has lost. The story in Diyarbakir is same as that in Izmir: current residents are migrating elsewhere and no one is coming in to replace them.

Why? In an extremely centralized country like Turkey, reasons underlying a local incidence must be sought not in the actions of local governors, but in those of the central government in Ankara. Ankara’s plans do not contribute positively to Izmir’s attractiveness. It is the same for Gaziantep, too. In fact, the same dynamics resulting from Ankara’s decisions apply also for Diyarbakir. It is not simply about terrorism alone, if you ask me. Let me tell you why.

Recently we carried out a study in Izmir, Diyarbakir, and Gaziantep. We asked companies why they preferred land routes for domestic freight shipment. Around 70 percent of the respondents in Diyarbakir said that the land route was the only route available. The share of companies which gave the same answer was 50 percent in Izmir and around 40 percent in Gaziantep. What other reasons might there be? It might be because land transport is cheaper or more secure. In Gaziantep, more than half of the respondents prefer land routes on their own choice while the ratios were rather small in the other two. This means, since the investments in transportation infrastructure are decided by the center, Ankara is the main determinant of the capability sets of Turkey’s cities. How can a couple of bureaucrats who live in Ankara be sufficiently aware of the needs of any given city? They cannot, obviously. Yet, they decide the fate of that city.

At the end of the day, Izmir will be deprived of the chance to become like Barcelona. The largest city of Spain is the capital Madrid. In terms of population, Barcelona is as big as Madrid. Its attraction too is as great as Madrid’s. Why? Because decisions about Barcelona are made by Barcelona. Turkey’s biggest city in terms of population is Istanbul. The decisions of Ankara are therefore oriented toward Istanbul. Izmir is only one-fourth the size of Istanbul in terms of population. Similarly, Izmir is not as attractive a city as Istanbul. Because Izmir is not governed by Izmir. If Stanford University, the father of the Silicon Valley, was to be founded in Izmir, the Council of Higher Education in Ankara would probably treat it the same as it treats Hakkari University.

If you ask me, that the central government does not share the authority of identifying local priorities with local governments is one of the key challenges in Turkey. It is not the residents of Izmir who decrease the attractiveness of the city. It is Ankara and its ill-designed policies concerning Izmir. Period.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 10.05.2013