The problem of a uniform law applied despite massive population differences in the example of Esenyurt and Yalıhüyük

Türkiye’s Settlement Pattern and Population Dynamics (Article 8)

Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

One of the most fundamental structural problems encountered in Türkiye’s civil administration and local government system is “administrative uniformity.” The current legal framework is based on dressing a settlement unit in the same administrative suit, regardless of how large or small its population is. Today, the Esenyurt district of İstanbul, which surpasses many provinces with its population of approximately 1 million, and the Yalıhüyük district of Konya, which has a settled population of approximately 1,500, are in the same “district” status on paper and are subject to similar municipal laws (1). This situation brings along a massive scale problem that hinders efficiency in management.

This gap between population scales causes injustices in the delivery of public services and administrative sluggishness. On one hand, the cost of a full-fledged district governorate and district organization structure in districts that do not even have the population of a small town is discussed; on the other hand, it becomes impossible for the mayor or district governor to access the citizen in districts the size of a metropolis (2). The extreme concentration seen in the Esenyurt example places a burden as large as a state could manage on the shoulders of a single local government unit.

To break this uniform structure, it constitutes a requirement for the administrative architecture to transition to a “tiered” model. Just like the Rural Neighborhood and Urban Village definitions we proposed in our previous articles, it will be a rational solution to divide districts into categories such as “Metropolitan District,” “Urban District,” and “Rural District” according to their population sizes and economic capacities (3). Thanks to this classification, administrative asymmetry can be eliminated by defining authority, budget, and personnel structures suitable for each scale.

In conclusion, trying to manage a giant of 1 million and a unit of 1,500 people with the same rules in Türkiye’s settlement pattern leads to a waste of public resources and a decrease in service quality. The focal point of local government reform should be to abandon administrative uniformity and implement a flexible and tiered management structure suitable for “economies of scale” (4). For a modern Türkiye, this structural transformation is not a preference but a necessity for sustainable management.

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: Extreme Example Districts of Türkiye in Terms of Population (2025-2026 Data)

• Largest District: İstanbul, Esenyurt (Population: ~978,000)
• Smallest District: Konya, Yalıhüyük (Population: ~1,500)
• Other Extreme Example: Ankara, Çankaya (Population: ~940,000) / Bingöl, Yayladere (Population: ~2,300)

Annex B: District and Municipal Criteria in Current Laws

• Lower limit required for establishing a municipality: 5,000 population.
• Although there is no legal population lower limit for establishing a district, administrative and geographical requirements are taken as a basis.

REFERENCES

(1) Municipal Law No. 5393 and Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr

(2) Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), Address Based Population Registration System (ABPRS) Results. https://www.tuik.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, General Directorate of Local Authorities, Economies of Scale and Efficiency Reports. https://www.csb.gov.tr