Effects of the “Whole City” (Bütünşehir) model on service efficiency and local representation

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Article 14)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

The legal regulation numbered 6360, enacted in 2012 in Türkiye’s local government system, implemented the “Whole City” (Bütünşehir) model, equating metropolitan municipality borders with provincial administrative borders. Although this radical change theoretically aimed at managing resources from a single center and ensuring planning integrity, in practice, it has created a serious contradiction between the “service area” and the “management area.” Today, a metropolitan municipality is obligated to provide urban services to a forest village or a highland hundreds of kilometers away from the center (1). This situation both increases costs in service delivery and causes local dynamics to be ignored.

The acceptance of the provincial border as the municipal border has blurred the boundaries of the “urban service” concept. Cleaning and maintaining a boulevard in the city center and opening a field road in a mountain village are managed through the same municipal budget and the same priority ranking. However, the requirements of the metropolitan center and the realities of the rural periphery are completely different. While metro or rail system investment is of vital importance for a central district, renewing a drinking water line or an agricultural irrigation canal is a priority for a neighborhood (former village) 150 kilometers away. Managing these two different worlds from a single center leads to inefficient use of resources and causes citizens at the extreme points to feel a sense of “neglect” (2).

This boundary problem is also controversial in terms of local representation and decentralization principles. The vote of a citizen living in a remote rural settlement determines the mayor of a city center where they never actually visit or receive services. On the other hand, decision-makers in the city center can interfere with the fabric of rural life through decisions made without knowing the region. To overcome this structural blockage, it constitutes a requirement to transition from a “rigid border” logic to a “service-oriented flexible border” logic (3).

In conclusion, Türkiye’s metropolitan management model should stop seeing provincial borders as service borders. The solution, as emphasized in our previous articles, is the transfer of authority according to the character of the settlements (such as Rural Neighborhood or Urban Village) and placing the principle of “subsidiarity” at the center of service delivery. Instead of being giant apparatuses managing the entire province, metropolitan municipalities should focus on upper-scale tasks such as strategic planning, main infrastructure, and transportation; leaving local and rural services to more flexible and region-oriented units (4).

Aydın Tiryaki Ankara, January 12, 2026

---

All ideas, opinions, and suggestions in this article belong to the author. During the process of writing the text, the artificial intelligence Gemini was utilized for writing assistance and information compilation.

ANNEXES

Annex A: Concrete Effects of the Expansion of Metropolitan Borders

• Distance Problem: In geographically vast provinces like Antalya or Erzurum, the distance from the central municipality to the farthest neighborhood can exceed 200 kilometers.
• Budget Distribution: The fact that the majority of municipal resources shift to central districts where the population is concentrated can cause the infrastructure share of rural neighborhoods to decrease.
• Authority Confusion: The fact that some roads are the responsibility of the metropolitan municipality and others the district municipality makes it difficult for the citizen to access service.

Annex B: Proposal for Management Gradation of Settlements

• Macro Scale (Metropolitan): Transportation master plans, environmental plans, main arteries, fire department, and solid waste disposal.
• Meso Scale (District): Zoning applications, parks and gardens, social services.
• Micro Scale (Rural Neighborhood): Agricultural infrastructure, collective labor (imece) based maintenance, management of local social facilities.

REFERENCES

(1) Law No. 6360 on the Establishment of Metropolitan Municipalities in Thirteen Provinces. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr

(2) Union of Municipalities of Türkiye (TBB), Metropolitan Law and Local Government Practices Analysis Report. https://www.tbb.gov.tr

(3) Tiryaki, A. (2026). From Village to Neighborhood: Just a Name Change? (Article 5 of the Series).

(4) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Service Capacity and Boundary Analysis of Local Governments. https://www.csb.gov.tr