Mapping Left-Behind Regions: A Classification of Regional Disparities in Türkiye

Öz

This study examines regional disparities in Türkiye through the concept of "left-behind places," which has gained prominence in discussions on economic marginalization and political discontent. Despite the extensive literature on left-behind regions in the U.S., U.K., and Europe, Türkiye remains understudied. Using a Left-Behind Index (LBI) and K-means clustering analysis, this research identifies and classifies Türkiye’s NUTS2 regions based on long-term economic and demographic trends. The findings reveal persistent regional inequalities, characterized by an East-West divide and the economic underperformance of certain regions. Unlike Europe, where deindustrialization plays a crucial role, Türkiye’s left-behind regions are primarily defined by economic stagnation, population decline, and outmigration. The results underscore the need for targeted regional policies to address disparities. This study contributes to the broader discourse on left-behind places by providing empirical insights into Türkiye’s unique socio-economic landscape.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• left-behind places
• spatial inequalities
• regional development
• geographically uneven development

Geride Kalan Bölgelerin Haritalanması: Türkiye’de Bölgesel Eşitsizliklerin Sınıflandırılması

Öz

Bu çalışma, ekonomik marjinalleşme ve siyasi memnuniyetsizlik tartışmalarında öne çıkan "geride kalmış bölgeler" kavramı üzerinden Türkiye'deki bölgesel eşitsizlikleri incelemektedir. ABD, Birleşik Krallık ve Avrupa'daki geride kalmış bölgeler üzerine kapsamlı bir literatür olmasına rağmen, Türkiye bu bağlamda yeterince araştırılmamıştır. Bu çalışma, Geride Kalmışlık Endeksi (LBI) ve K-means kümeleme analizi kullanarak Türkiye’nin NUTS2 bölgelerini uzun vadeli ekonomik ve demografik eğilimlere göre sınıflandırmaktadır. Bulgular, Doğu-Batı ayrımının belirgin olduğu ve bazı bölgelerin ekonomik olarak geri kaldığı kalıcı bölgesel eşitsizlikleri ortaya koymaktadır. Avrupa’dan farklı olarak, Türkiye’deki geride kalmış bölgeler sanayisizleşme yerine ekonomik durgunluk, nüfus azalması ve dış göç ile tanımlanmaktadır. Sonuçlar, bölgesel eşitsizlikleri gidermeye yönelik hedefe yönelik politikaların gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin kendine özgü sosyo-ekonomik yapısını ortaya koyarak geride kalmış bölgeler üzerine küresel tartışmalara ampirik katkılar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geri bırakılmış bölgeler
• mekânsal eşitsizlikler
• bölgesel kalkınma
• coğrafi dengesiz gelişim

Kaynakça

1. Aşık, G., Karakoç, U., & Pamuk, Ş. (2023). Regional inequalities and the West–East divide in Turkey since 1913. The Economic History Review, 76(4), 1305–1332. doi: 10.1111/ehr.13245
2. Bilgen, A., Akıncı, Z. S., Casellas, A., & Jongerden, J. (2021). Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full? An Appraisal of the Four Decades of Turkey’s Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP). In L. A. Jawad (Ed.), Tigris and Euphrates Rivers: Their Environment from Headwaters to Mouth (pp. 1581–1598). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-57570-0_82
3. Çınar, İ. T. (2023). Regional development trap in Turkey: Can relatedness find a way out? Papers in Regional Science, 102(4), 817–851. doi: 10.1111/pirs.12739
4. Comim, F., Abreu, M., & Borges, C. G. M. (2024). Defining left-behind places: An internationally comparative poset analysis. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 163–180. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsad038
5. Connor, D. S., Berg, A. K., Kemeny, T., & Kedron, P. J. (2024). Who gets left-behind by left-behind places? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 37–58. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsad031
6. Davenport, A., & Zaranko, B. (2020). Levelling up: Where and how? Institute for Fiscal Studies. https://ifs.org.uk/books/levelling-where-and-how
7. De Ruyter, A., Martin, R., & Tyler, P. (2021). Geographies of discontent: Sources, manifestations and consequences. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 14(3), 381–393.
8. Diemer, A., Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2022). The Regional Development Trap in Europe. Economic Geography, 98(5), 487–509. doi: 10.1080/00130095.2022.2080655

9. Dijkstra, L. (2024). What do we owe a place? How the debate about left-behind places is challenging how we distribute public funding and the problems it should address. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(2), 417–424. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsae010
10. Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). The geography of EU discontent. Regional Studies, 54(6), 737–753. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1654603
11. Dobrzanski, P., Bobowski, S., & Clare, K. (2024). Left-behind places in central and eastern Europe—Labour productivity aspect. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 137–162. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsae001
12. Eisenberg, A. M. (2024). What does it mean to be ‘left-behind?’ Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(2), 425–430. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsae008
13. Ejrnæs, A., Jensen, M. D., Schraff, D., & Vasilopoulou, S. (2024). Introduction: Regional inequality and political discontent in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(6), 1465–1493. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2024.2333850
14. Essletzbichler, J., Disslbacher, F., & Moser, M. (2018). The victims of neoliberal globalisation and the rise of the populist vote: A comparative analysis of three recent electoral decisions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 73–94. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx025
15. Fierro, P., Aravena-Gonzalez, I., Aroca, P., & Rowe, F. (2024). Geographies of discontent: Measuring and understanding the feeling of abandonment in the Chilean region of Valparaiso (2019–2021). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(2), 275–292. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsae004
16. Fiorentino, S., Glasmeier, A. K., Lobao, L., Martin, R., & Tyler, P. (2024). ‘Left-behind places’: What are they and why do they matter? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsad044
17. GAP-BKİ. (2018). GAP Son Durum.
18. Goodwin, M. (2011). Right Response Understanding and Countering Populist Extremism in Europe. A Chatham House Report. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/r0911_goodwin.pdf
19. Gordon, I. R. (2018). In what sense left-behind by globalisation? Looking for a less reductionist geography of the populist surge in Europe. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 95–113. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx028
20. Hertrich, T. J., & Brenner, T. (2024). Looking behind the curtain: A model of left-behind places and feelings (Working Paper No. 01.24). Working Papers on Innovation and Space. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/282312
21. Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: Evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298.
22. Jessen, S. (2024). The role of time and space in the identification of left-behind regions: A case study of Denmark. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 201–218. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsad047
23. Karahasan, B. C., Dogruel, F., & Dogruel, A. S. (2016). Can Market Potential Explain Regional Disparities in Developing Countries? Evidence from Turkey. The Developing Economies, 54(2), 162–197. doi: 10.1111/deve.12105
24. Kemeny, T., & Storper, M. (2020). Superstar Cities and Left-Behind Places: Disruptive Innovation, Labor Demand, and Interregional Inequality.
25. Kenny, M., & Luca, D. (2021). The urban-rural polarisation of political disenchantment: An investigation of social and political attitudes in 30 European countries. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 14. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsab012
26. Korkmaz, İ., Çınar, İ. T., & Baycan, T. (2024). Economic Complexity and Regional Growth in Turkey: Implications for East-West Disparity. Eastern European Economics, 0(0), 1–27. doi: 10.1080/00128775.2024.2304220
27. Leibert, T., & Golinski, S. (2016). Peripheralisation: The Missing Link in Dealing with Demographic Change? Comparative Population Studies, 41(3–4), Article 3–4. doi: 10.12765/CPoS-2017-02
28. MacKinnon, D. (2021, June 2). ‘Left-Behind’ Places, Regional Inequalities and ‘Levelling Up’. Geography Directions. https://blog.geographydirections.com/2021/06/02/left-behind-places-regional-inequalities-and-levelling-up/
29. MacKinnon, D. (2023). Levelling up left-behind places: The scale and nature of the economic and policy challenge, by Ron Martin, Ben Gardiner, Andy Pike, Peter Sunley, and Peter Tyler: Abingdon, UK, Regional Studies Association and Routledge Publishing, 2021. Journal of Urban Affairs, 45(10), 1918–1919. doi: 10.1080/07352166.2023.2174304
30. MacKinnon, D., Béal, V., & Leibert, T. (2024). Rethinking ‘left-behind’ places in a context of rising spatial inequalities and political discontent. Regional Studies, 58(6), 1161–1166. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2023.2291581
31. Martin, R., Gardiner, B., Pike, A., Sunley, P., & Tyler, P. (2021). Levelling Up Left-behind Places: The Scale and Nature of the Economic and Policy Challenge. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781032244341
32. Martin, R., Martinelli, F., & Clifton, J. (2022). Rethinking spatial policy in an era of multiple crises. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 15(1), 3–21. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsab037
33. McCann, P. (2020). Perceptions of regional inequality and the geography of discontent: Insights from the UK. Regional Studies, 54(2), 256–267. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1619928
34. Morettini, G., & Compagnucci, F. (2024). Territorial identity and left-behind places: Evidence from the central Italian Apennines from a time perspective. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 117–136. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsad049
35. OECD. (2020). OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/oecd-regions-and-cities-at-a-glance-2020_959d5ba0-en
36. Özatağan, G., & Eraydin, A. (2024). Political twists and turns in left-behind places: Reactions of an extractive heartland to changing state strategies. Regional Studies, 58(6), 1251–1263. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2023.2249505
37. Pike, A. (2022). Coping with deindustrialization in the global North and South. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 26(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1080/12265934.2020.1730225
38. Pike, A., Béal, V., Cauchi-Duval, N., Franklin, R., Kinossian, N., Lang, T., Leibert, T., MacKinnon, D., Rousseau, M., Royer, J., Servillo, L., Tomaney, J., & Velthuis, S. (2024). ‘Left-behind places’: A geographical etymology. Regional Studies, 58(6), 1167–1179. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2023.2167972
39. Pinilla, V., & Sáez, L. A. (2021). What Do Public Policies Teach us About Rural Depopulation: The Case Study of Spain. European Countryside, 13(2), 330–351. doi: 10.2478/euco-2021-0021
40. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx024
41. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Bartalucci, F., Lozano Gracia, N., & Davalos, M. E. (2024). Overcoming Left-Behindedness: Moving beyond the Efficiency versus Equity Debate in Territorial Development. Policy Research Working Paper Series, Article 10734. https://ideas.repec.org//p/wbk/wbrwps/10734.html
42. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Dijkstra, L., & Poelman, H. (2024). The Geography of EU Discontent and the Regional Development Trap. Economic Geography, 100(3), 213–245. doi: 10.1080/00130095.2024.2337657
43. Rodriguez-Pose, A., Lee, N., & Lipp, C. (2020). GOLFING WITH TRUMP: Social capital, decline, inequality, and the rise of populism in the US. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG), Article 2038. https://ideas.repec.org//p/egu/wpaper/2038.html
44. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Lee, N., & Lipp, C. (2021). Golfing with Trump. Social capital, decline, inequality, and the rise of populism in the US. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 14(3), 457–481. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsab026
45. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tselios, V. (2010). Inequalities in income and education and regional economic growth in western Europe. The Annals of Regional Science, 44(2), 349–375. doi: 10.1007/s00168-008-0267-2 Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1), 12–33. doi: 10.1057/s42214-018-0001-4
46. Sayan, R. C., Bilgen, A., & Kibaroğlu, A. (2024). Towards water regionalism? Examining the linkages between water, infrastructures, and regionalism in Turkey. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2024.2423743
47. Storper, M. (2018). Separate Worlds? Explaining the current wave of regional economic polarization. Journal of Economic Geography, 18(2), 247–270.
48. Telford, L. (2022). ‘There is nothing there’: Deindustrialization and loss in a coastal town. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10245294211011300
49. Tomaney, J., Blackman, M., Natarajan, L., Panayotopoulos-Tsiros, D., Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, F., & Taylor, M. (2024). Social infrastructure and ‘left-behind places’. Regional Studies, 58(6), 1237–1250. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2023.2224828
50. Tomaney, J., Pike, A., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2010). Local and Regional Development in Times of Crisis. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(4), 771–779. doi: 10.1068/a43101
51. World Bank, R. E. (2009). World development report. The World Bank.