Administrative comparison of Türkiye’s largest and smallest provinces in terms of population

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Supplementary Article 1)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

In the administrative structure of Türkiye, provincial status imposes similar powers and responsibilities on each unit regardless of geographical size, yet the size of the managed population makes this structure asymmetrical. On one side stands Istanbul, with a population exceeding 16 million, making it larger than many European countries; on the other side is Bayburt, managing a population of approximately 85 thousand. These extreme examples call into question the rationality of the uniform provincial management model and create a serious scale problem in terms of settlement architecture (1).

In terms of administrative load, the population of Esenyurt, which is just one district of Istanbul, is larger than the total population of more than 50 provinces in Türkiye. This situation causes a district governor or a mayor in metropolitan cities to face a much more intense service load and citizen demand than a governor in low-population provinces (2). In low-population provinces, an opposite cost table emerges; when public personnel and administrative building expenditures are proportioned to the managed population, the administrative cost per citizen rises to much higher levels.

One of the areas where administrative asymmetry is most evident is the population ratio per administrator. In large-scale provinces, since this ratio is very high, representation and accessibility to the citizen become difficult, and the bureaucracy takes on a multi-layered and complex structure. Conversely, although the administrative structure in small-scale provinces is leaner and more controllable, efficiency problems arise because the service unit cost remains outside the economy of scale. A similar contradiction is experienced in terms of the sustainability of social facilities; while capacity overloads and excess demand problems reduce the quality of life in metropolises, the underutilization of facilities in low-population provinces reduces efficiency (3).

From the perspective of access to service and social justice, the speed and quality of public services in centers with very high populations may be hindered due to extreme density. In low-population provinces, the sustainability of services requiring professional expertise becomes difficult due to the low population threshold. This situation creates an inequality originating from the place of settlement in citizens’ access to basic services.

In conclusion, Türkiye’s settlement architecture requires a flexible structure to eliminate these administrative differences between large and small-scale provinces. A tiered delegation of authority according to population and service-oriented budget management will both eliminate the congestion of megacities and bring the management costs of small provinces to a more rational line. Moving beyond uniform administrative templates constitutes a necessity for a modern management vision (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.

REFERENCES

(1) TurkStat, Address Based Population Registration System (ABPRS) Current Data. https://www.tuik.gov.tr

(2) Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Interior, Population and Management Capacity Analysis Report of Civil Administration Units. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr

(3) Tiryaki, A. (2026). Scale Problem and Administrative Uniformity (Article 8).

(4) OECD, Governance of Public Services and Scale of Settlements Research. https://www.oecd.org