The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in Istanbul

Transcription

1 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in Istanbul Mustafa Öztürk Abstract: The main destinations of internal migration movements that originated in Turkey in the 1950s as a result of rural push factors and rural pull factors, and gained pace with the development of mass communication and transportation devices were big cities, primarily İstanbul with its developed and industrialized structure. Sudden mass migration has aggravated Istanbul s already existing problems. Though the nature of migrations and migrants changes as to the periods, one thing that does not change is deep impacts of migrations both on the migration origins and migration destinations as well as on individuals who migrated. Prohibitive measures such as visa practice are not discouraging enough to prevent migration that originates due to various reasons. Prevention of migration is only possible by taking necessary measures such as eliminating factors that force people to leave the place they were born and brought up, ensuring the adaptation of the migrated individuals to the migration destination, providing individuals necessary opportunities to acquire a profession to render them urban and conducting mother-child health training courses. This study attempts to analyze to what extent the individuals who migrated to İstanbul have adapted to urban life and urban labor market. Key Words: Internal migration, Internal migration to İstanbul, urban work life. Introduction Industrialization and urbanization movements that have originated in Turkey since the 1950s have brought in internal migration phenomena, another dimension of immigration. With the start of internal migration, a significant part of the population was massed in urban areas. As in all developing countries, the route of internal migration is towards industrialized or developed regions or to the regions having the potential to develop. In this context, İstanbul, which is the most developed and industrialized city of Turkey, was exposed to massive internal migration. While in Turkey, certain regions have become the centers of attraction for certain areas, Istanbul have always become the center of attraction for all regions of Turkey. Dr., Labor Economics and Industrial Relations Specialist. TODAİE s Review of Public Administration, Volume 1 Issue 1 March 2007, p

2 100 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration Internal migration leaves different impacts on both migration origins and migration destinations as well as on the migrated individuals. Particularly the individuals who migrated from rural areas to urban areas are multi-children and low-educated people. They either do not have a profession that complies with the requirements of urban areas or they are unemployed. This fact aggravates İstanbul s current problems such as unemployment, environmental pollution, destruction of historical and natural richness, the emergence of new shanty towns, housing shortage, social crises, robbery and burglary (Kalça, 1999: ; Erder, 1997: 42-43; Sabah, 2006: 1-2; Tınç, 2005: 18). The individuals who migrated to Istanbul have very different characteristics. The adaptation of these persons to urban life who came to İstanbul leaving their place of birth is essential with respect to their survival in urban. In this context, it is of great importance for these people to acquire urban behavior pattern, which is a whole of economic, social and cultural values that will allow them to evaluate the opportunities they seize in urban, to attempt to adapt to İstanbul where they live and to define themselves an İstanbul native. There is a linear relation between the duration of stay and the adaptation to urban and the acquiring of urban behavior that allow them to evaluate opportunities. Taking measures that will enable them to adapt to urban and urban labor market is of great importance with respect to the urbanization of these individuals. The study will attempt to analyze how and to what extent individuals who migrated to İstanbul adapt to urban and urban work life. İstanbul s Population in General Being the conjunction point of continents, religions, cultures and races, İstanbul, which dates back to very old times, has always become a magnet for most nations that wished to have it. The population of Istanbul, which had not only been the capital of many important nations, but also the center for science, art and culture, witnessing numerous wars, despoliations and pillages in the historical process, has, therefore, never become stationary.

3 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 101 Figure 1. Population and Annual Growth Rate (İstanbul, ) YEAR POPULATION ANNUAL GROWTH RATE , , , , , , , , , , , , *33, Source: TURKSTAT (2004), 2000 GC Social and Economic Characteristics of Population Province 34-İstanbul, Ankara, p. 41. *Yalova became a province in The Republic of Turkey, which was founded after the collapse of Ottoman Empire that ruled over three continents, witnessed the migration of Muslims, mainly Turks, before and after its foundation. The main destination of these migrations was İstanbul due to both its more developed structure compared to other places and its closeness to Europe. Starting from the 1950s, Turkey has met with another type of migration: internal migration. The basic route of internal migration, once modest, became İstanbul to such an extent that the population of İstanbul, which was about 800 thousand in the 1927 census, exceeded 10 million in the 2000 census. While Turkey s population increased five times between these years, the population of İstanbul rose more than 12 times. Another important point is the changes in the gender structure of İstanbul. The population of İstanbul displays a gender imbalance that dates back to old times. The number of males has always exceeded the number of females. Although, the gap increasingly widened during mass internal migration, especially in the 1950s, today, the gender imbalance has reduced to a minimum. The main reason is that male-weighted migrants, who had once come to İstanbul alone, have

4 102 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration started to take their spouses with them while migrating to İstanbul. This situation has led to the aggravation of current problems such as employment, housing shortage, emergence of shanty towns and environmental pollution. Figure 2. Gender Ratio (İstanbul, ) CENSUS POPULATION GENDER YEAR Total Male Female RATIO , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,21 Source: TURKSTAT (2004), 2000 GC Social and Economic Characteristics of Population Province 34-İstanbul, Ankara, p. 43. Another significant indicator is the one relating to household size. Internal migration and urbanization in Turkey have brought along the disintegration of traditional large family structures. Thus, the nuclear core family has become the common family type. The average population per household, which was 5 persons in the 1950s, during which internal migration started, decreased below 4 persons today. For most people, İstanbul is merely a big city. They overlook its districts and villages. They are right in some way, since urban population constitutes the majority of total population of İstanbul (nearly %91). The ratio of İstanbul s urban population to rural population has not changed much since In fact, those who migrate to İstanbul usually inhabits in urban residential areas.

5 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 103 Figure 3. Urban and Rural Population (İstanbul, ) THE RATIO OF URBAN AND RURAL POPULATION TO OVERALL POPULATION (%) Total Urban Rural CY T M F T M F T M F ,35 87,04 87,68 12,65 12,96 12, ,84 85,45 86,26 14,16 14,55 13, ,28 79,00 86,20 17,72 21,00 13, ,20 81,74 87,21 15,80 18,26 12, ,91 84,31 87,89 14,09 15,69 12, ,58 83,56 85,89 15,42 16,44 14, ,02 79,97 80,08 19,98 20,03 19, ,13 77,65 78,69 21,87 22,35 21, ,98 72,87 73,11 27,02 27,13 26, ,82 67,44 68,24 32,18 32,56 31, ,36 60,89 61,87 38,64 39,11 38, ,17 94,92 95,45 4,83 5,08 4, ,40 91,99 92,85 7,60 8,01 7, ,69 90,33 91,05 9,31 9,67 8,95 Source: TURKSTAT (2004), 2000 GC Social and Economic Characteristics of Population Province 34-İstanbul, Ankara, p. 42. Individuals who migrate to Istanbul have very different characteristics. The same time, they behave selectively. While educated individuals settle in certain centers, chiefly central districts, migrants of rural origin who are less educated and qualified prefer outskirts of city called suburbs. Reasons for Internal Migration in Turkey and Istanbul Internal migration movements that have started in Turkey in the 1950s have originated owing to very different motives. Internal migration, whose starting point was not industrialization, has resulted in rural population densities in urban residential areas. While certain regions were the focus of internal migration in the beginning, later, big provinces became the center of attraction. The reasons for integral migration in Turkey are as follows: 1- Very young age structure of population, 2- Open and concealed unemployment in the agricultural sector and the implementation of wrong agricultural policies (use of wrong agricultural technique that do not comply with the region, wrong

6 104 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration product selection, excessive support or non- support of certain products, etc.), 3- Improvement in individuals general education and living levels, 4- Professional training, 5- The rise of wealth, 6- The shortage of arable land and division of land by inheritance, 7- The increase in tractors and mechanization in agriculture sector, 8- Honor killings, threats to safety of life and asset and pressures of village squires, 9- Escape from large family authority, 10- Development of mass communication and transportation tools, 11- Changes in value judgments in rural areas (the change in viewpoints of individuals on life due to economic, social, cultural and politic developments in the society), 12- Seasonal migrations, 13- Natural disasters, 14- The wish for a better education for children (Erkal, 1997: ), 15- Political reasons and sectual conflicts (TURKSTAT, 1995: 44). On the other hand, there are reasons that discourage migration. These are: 1- Lack of reliable information relating to job opportunities and employment situation as well as living conditions in the migration destination, 2- Reluctance of officials to help in cases of profession and location changes, 3- Professional inadequacy and lack of necessary tools for improvement, 4- Potential/ accrued costs of location and profession changes, 5- Situations that are obstacle to some professions, 6- The differences between a profession, industry or region and others with respect to fees, working conditions and cost of living, 7- Housing conditions in the migration destination (Zaim, 1997: 59).

7 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 105 In view of these data, reasons for internal migration in Turkey can be mainly divided into five categories. The first reason that leads to internal migration is the imbalances between regions. The primary motive of migration is the inter-region variation in socioeconomic development. The migration phenomenon, which originates as an outcome of unfair distribution of social wealth, also affects the distribution of social wealth in an unfavorable manner (Dinçer et al., 2003: 13). Regional imbalances in a developed or developing country are analyzed in three categories: Geographical or natural imbalance: It is the outcome of physical conditions and the distribution of natural resources. Shore and harbor regions, mining zones, highly productive agricultural areas and regions having natural irrigation facilities come to the foreground. Economic or functional imbalance: General nature of such imbalance is that yield and productivity of same production factors differ between regions. Social imbalance: Such imbalances stem from the level differences between the quantity and quality of social services benefited by individuals in different regions (Keleş, 1964: 4). Primary reasons for rapid rural-to-urban migration are unstable employment and progressively deteriorating socioeconomic conditions. Most young people in rural areas are either unemployed or underemployed. Rural youth with extremely inadequate income does not have the opportunity to improve in socioeconomic terms. These individuals comprise the majority of young people, who move to towns Murat, 1996: 319). The second reason for migration is rapid population growth is very high as in most underdeveloped and developing countries. Although until the early 1960s population reduction polices and after 1960s, population increase policies were pursued and necessary measures were taken, the targeted objective could not be achieved (Murat, 2002: 61). Despite all these developments, population growth rate is gradually decreasing starting from western regions. Moreover, despite the decline in population growth rate in big cities such as İstanbul, population is continually increasing due to the facts that not only those who move to İstanbul are large in number, but also their population growth rate is high. In other words, unlike rural areas, big cities grow not by births and deaths but migrations (TÜSİAD, 1999: 70).

8 106 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration Figure 4. Ranking of Development Level of Provinces by Grade Grade 1 Developed Provinces R Province 1 İstanbul 2 Ankara Grade 2 Developed Provinces R Province 6 Eskişehi r 7 Tekirda ğ Grade 3 Developed Provinces R Province Grade 4 Developed Provinces Grade 5 Developed Provinces R Province R Province 26 Konya 47 Osmaniye 66 Bayburt 27 Karabü 48 K.Maraş 67 Kars k 3 İzmir 8 Adana 28 Isparta 49 Niğde 68 Ş.Urfa 4 Kocaeli 9 Yalova 29 Hatay 50 Giresun 69 Iğdır 5 Bursa 10 Antalya 30 Uşak 51 Kastamo 70 Batman nu 11 Kırklare li 31 Burdur 52 Tunceli 71 Gümüşhane 12 Denizli 32 Samsun 53 Sivas 72 Mardin 13 Muğla 33 Kırıkkale 54 Kilis 73 Siirt 14 Bolu 34 Nevşeh 55 Bartın 74 Ardahan ir 15 Balıkesi 35 Karaman 56 Aksaray 75 Van r 16 Edirne 36 Elazığ 57 Sinop 76 Bingöl 17 Mersin 37 Rize 58 Erzincan 77 Hakkari 18 Bilecik 38 Trabzon 59 Çankırı 78 Şırnak 19 Kayseri 39 Amasya 60 Erzurum 79 Bitlis 20 Gaziantep 40 Kütahy 61 Tokat 80 Ağrı a 21 Zonguldatya 41 Mala- 62 Ordu 81 Muş 22 Aydın 42 Kırşehi 63 D.Bakır r 23 Sakarya 43 Artvin 64 Yozgat 24 Çanakkale 44 Afyon 65 Adıyaman 25 Manisa 45 Düzce 46 Çorum Source: Bülent Dinçer, Metin Özaslan and Taner Kavasoğlu (2003), İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması (2003), DPT Yayını No: 2671, Ankara, p. 71. * Bülent Dinçer, Metin Özaslan and Erdoğan Satılmış (1996), İllerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması, DPT Yayını No: 2466, Ankara, R: rank

9 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 107 The third main reason for migration is structural changes and mechanization in agriculture sector. The phenomenon, which is perceived as the primary motive for migration in Turkey and has initiated breaking away from rural, is that agricultural areas were no longer able to respond to the needs. Shrinking arable land as a result of consecutive sharing due to the growing population led to unemployment of individuals. The reason for breaking away from land is the mechanization, polarization in land ownership and transition to intensive agriculture In brief; the reason is the change in agriculture (Turkish Chamber of Architects, 1971: 33). Abandonment of primitive methods in every stage of production with the introduction of machinery to the agriculture and extensive use of new inputs that affect production reduce the quantity of labor force required for agriculture sector. Shortly, capitalized agricultural enterprises have an encouraging impact on the efforts towards curbing agricultural labor force (Keleş, 1984: 5). The changes in rural family structure have also led to an increase in migration. Transition of traditional large family to nuclear family differentiates agricultural production behavior of rural family as well. Wrong and inadequate implementation of economic policies is another reason for internal migration. The policies, which are implemented in agriculture, industry, education, transportation, health, employment and other fields of economic activity at different levels such as country, region, province, town and village in compliance with the rationale and policies of the economic system, determine the path of rural-urban balance as well. These policies are implemented through the allocation of social infrastructure expenditures and change the balance of rural-urban and underdeveloped-developed regions. The intervention of state in economic life via these policies and private investments preferences for Western Anatolia despite the state policy for allocating public investments to various regions adopted in the early periods of industrialization in Turkey not only boosted the labor demand of these regions, but also led to the flow of labor supply to these regions. In the meantime, direct investments to be made in developing regions may also help in solving urban employment problem. Besides, appropriate policies will allow for establishment of reasonable policies, upsurge in free trade and decline in internal mobility (Gilbert and Tower, 2002: 139). Furthermore, special reductions for persons and establishments that intend to make investment in underdeveloped regions by state institutions such as Turkish Electricity Authority (TEK), Turkish Airlines, Postal, Tele-

10 108 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration phone and Telegraph Authority (PTT) and State Railways (DDY) will lessen imbalance between regions (Bedir, 1994: 67). The fifth and last reason for migration is political incidents that have initiated after the 1980s and the terror phenomenon. In the 1980s, internally-and-externally-supported intensive terrorist actions have initiated in Southeastern Anatolia. These incidents brought along sudden mass migration, which was overwhelmingly directed towards certain regions, chiefly Istanbul. These involuntary and compulsory migrations that have led to very different outcomes involve differences compared to voluntary migrations witnessed in the pre In voluntary migration, a member or members of family, we can call them pioneers, move to the migration destination beforehand to find a job. Then remaining family members migrate there progressively. Compulsory migration denotes breaking away from village and land. After migrated, individuals have nothing left behind but land. Villagers break their ties with their villages and thus, they are deprived of support of the village that functions as an economic support along with hope of return (Erder, 1998: 25-26). These migrations produce impacts not only on migration origin and migration destination, but also on migrants. Among these impacts are health, education, sheltering, employment and social problems as well as the problems that come out in migration receiving provinces. The Periods of Internal Migration to İstanbul İstanbul, which witnessed various migrations in the historical process, has undergone the last, but may be the most notable wave of migration starting from the 1950s. Even though migration movements that occurred after these years in the form of internal migrations considerably overlap with the migration periods in Turkey, they divide into three main periods (Özbay, 1998: 277). The first wave of migration has started in the 1950s. During this period, internal migrations towards İstanbul were very few due to the choice of certain regions as migration destination. The said wave of migration did not change the basic characteristics of İstanbul. A majority of migrants were male and pioneers who came to urban in order to urbanize (Yazan, 1997: ). Although the number of newcomers who migrated in order to urbanized was not much. Besides, the migrants did not have the qualifications required by urban labor market. Therefore, those who failed to find a job in formal market directed to temporary, non-social secu-

11 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 109 rity covered jobs with low value added. Moreover, during this period, the shanty town phenomenon has, for the first time, entered the agenda of big cities like İstanbul in Turkey. In summary, Istanbul has preserved its historical, cultural and economic values for centuries and the 1950s have become the period during which the migration towards Istanbul has progressively multiplied. Neither central government, nor local administrations could implement policies to prevent migrations or organized urbanization policies for the migrant population. Thus, the reality of the emergence of shanty towns has come out (Yeter, 2002: 45). The years were the second migration period. In this period, İstanbul and its surroundings witnessed a more intense wave of migration compared to other provinces. The said period, during which industrialization has become a more matured process, can be defined as a typical labor migration from rural to urban industrial centers. The increase in the number of female migrants following the years indicates the collective migration of families or the migration of remaining family members from rural to urban. The composition of Istanbul s population has started to change with continuous waves of migration in the 1960s and 1970s. Shanty towns that emerged in the outskirts of the city and increasing heterogeneousness in housing areas have become the subject matters of the studies of that period Özbay, 1998: 277). With the transition to liberal economy and the abandonment of production by the state as well as the attempts towards minimizing state after 1980, large-scale resources were started to be transferred from public sector to private sector. Consequently, national development policies were replaced by liberalism and efforts towards providing the economy with international characteristics. In urban labor market, job practices such as subcontract works, home-made jobs, piecework, seasonal jobs, etc. were allowed. Hence, real wages dropped in urban areas. Therefore, new migrants were directed to unorganized jobs (Peker, 1998: 301). The third and final wave of migration is the one that has started in the 1990s and continued up today. In this period, rural-to-urban migration has turned out to be urban-to-urban migration. The provinces other than big provinces that once received migrants have now started to send migrants to big provinces. Another factor that has increased the number of individuals who work in temporary jobs in urban after 1980 is security and terrorrelated migrations. Due to the failure of East and South East Anatolia

12 110 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration populations in transferring adequate resource to the migration origin and poor job opportunities and unfavorable economic conditions in the migration origin, migrants were directed to temporary jobs on the one hand and ensured organizedness which would dominate the unorganized sector of provinces. After 1980, in big provinces, mainly in İstanbul, the organized sector has taken trade in bazaars marketplaces, itinerant trade and inner-city transportation under its control. A minority of these individuals used illegal ways to earn their living (Peker, 1998: 301). The Structure and Outcomes of Migration to İstanbul The western region of Turkey is the most populated, industrialized and socioeconomically developed region. İstanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, which is the largest city and trade and manufacturing center of Turkey and İzmir, Turkey s third largest city, are located in this region. Shore provinces of the region are relatively more urbanized and more rapidly growing areas. The majority of industrial establishments are situated in the west. A large portion of Turkey s gross domestic product comes from the western region (HÜNEE, 2004: 6). Between the years , the number of individuals migrated to İstanbul was one tenth of its total population. According to net rate of migration, Istanbul region became the largest migrantreceiving region by %46, while Eastern Black Sea and Northeast Anatolia Regions ranked first among the largest migrant-sending areas by -50%. In the Mediterranean Region, net rate of migration is about 0% (Figure 5). Analyzing the population of İstanbul with respect to the place of birth, though it pursues a floating course, the proportion of those who were born in İstanbul among the population of İstanbul is gradually declining. While more than half of İstanbul s population (57%) was İstanbul-born in 1935, the said ratio fell to 38% in 2000 (Figure 6). This situation can roughly be described as a transition from western origin to eastern origin in the population composition of İstanbul (Özbay, 1998: 279).

13 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 111 Figure 5. Migrants Received and Sent by the Regions, Net Migration and Net Rate of Migration* ( ) REGION 2000 PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION MIGRANTS SENT MIGRANTS RECEIVED NET NUMBER OF MIGRANTS NET RATE OF MIGRATION ( ) İstanbul ,1 Western Marmara ,1 Aegean ,9 Eastern Marmara Western Anatolia , ,9 Mediterranean ,4 Middle Anatolia Western Black Sea Eastern Black Sea Northeastern Anatolia Middleeastern Anatolia S. East Anatolia , , , , , ,2 Total ,0 Source: TURKSTAT (2006), GC, Migration Statistics, No: 52, p. 3., (on-line) * Net rate or ratio of migration, the net number of migrants for every thousand persons that might migrate between two general censuses.

14 112 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration Census Year Figure 6. Population by Place of Birth (İstanbul, ) İSTANBUL-BORN BORN IN ANOTHER PROVINCE OR ABROAD Total Number % Number % Unknown , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Source: TURKSTAT (2004), 2000 GC Social and Economic Characteristics of Population Province 34-İstanbul, Ankara, p. 44. Migration decision-making is actually hard and risky. Migrants not only jeopardize their future, but also the future of their family. Therefore, in recent years, economists consider the interregional migrations as a form of human investment, which they suffer current costs for higher earnings or other benefits in the future (Fields, 1976: 407). Figure 7. Migration Received and Sent by Istanbul as to the Route of Migration Received Sent Net Number of Migrants Received Sent Net Number of Migrants Urban- to- Urban Rural- to- Urban Rural- to

15 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 113 Rural Urban- to- Rural Total Source: TURKSTAT (1997), 1990 GC Ankara, P. 8-9 and TURKSTAT (2006), GC, Migration Statistics, Number: 52, 3., (on-line) As mentioned above, available figures for İstanbul and studies conducted reveal that those who migrated to İstanbul particularly in recent periods are not only villagers. On the contrary, the majority of those who moved from various regions of Turkey are urban. This shows that population movements should not be perceived as villager migration as it was considered before. Regions that lose population send not only their villagers, but also other groups that live in their provinces and villages, above all, their cultural, economic and social accumulations. We can say that in this aspect, the selectiveness and route of migration lead to cultural, economic and social erosion both in provinces and villages of migrant-sending regions (TÜSİAD, 1999: 124). Individuals who move from rural to urban consider themselves wealthier and better compared to their pr-migration life not only in financial terms, but also with regard to whole living environment that encompass all sociological, psychological elements. Etc. (Turkish Chamber of Architects, 1971: 19). This is defined as relative wealth. With its developed structure in all aspects, İstanbul has the potential to meet this expectation. In other words, individuals who have migrated from rural to urban, chiefly to İstanbul, seem pleased with their life and, when they compare their pre- and post-migration situation, they do not feel relative poverty, even if their financial situation in rural might be better (Tekeli et al., 1976: ). In Turkey, internal migration has emerged due to rural push factors and urban pull factors. Moreover, the progresses in mass communication and transportation tools, which are also called transmitter factors, have accelerated internal migration. Urbanization of rural-to-urban migrants takes certain period of time (Figure 8). Individuals who move to urban strongly maintain their relations with the migration origin especially in the first few years. Urban economic values of these individuals that can be described as producing, acquiring and using economic value, all social and spiritual values adopted and incorporated by them and their acquisition of social values that can be defined as attitudes and behavior in various issues are under the effect of different factors (Kartal, 1983: 97). Factors such

16 114 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration as age, gender and educational level play an important role in adapting to urban life. Figure 8. Rural Individual, Urbanized Individual and Urban Individual: Changes in Economic and Social Spatial Elements TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS ECONOMIC SPACE SOCIAL SPACE 1. Rural Individual Rural Economic Values Rural Social Values 2. Transition Individual (Urbanized Individual) 3. Urban Individual (Urbanized Individual) Rural Economic Values Urban Economic Values Urban Economic Values Rural Social Values Urban Social Values Urban Social Values Source: Kemal Kartal (1983), Kentlileşmenin Ekonomik ve Sosyal Maliyeti, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, V.16. I.4., December, p. 94. Figure 9. Migration to İstanbul by Reasons for Sending/Receiving Migrants (2000) REASON FOR MIGRATIO N Seeking/Finding Job Job Change/ Appointment Due to the migration of a household member MIGRATION RECEIVED BY ISTANBUL AS TO THE REASON FOR MIGRATION MIGRATION SENT BY ISTANBUL AS TO THE REASON FOR MIGRATION Male Female Male Female Number % Number % Number % Number % , , , , , , , , , , , ,21 Education , , , ,22 Marriage , , , ,70 Earthquake , , , ,04 Security , , , ,37 Other , , , ,95 Unknown , , , ,09 Total , , , ,30 Total Source: TURKSTAT (2005), 2000 Unpublished Migration Statistics, 2000, Ankara. It was mentioned before that internal migrations in Turkey are mainly economic-related reasons. Similarly, migrations towards İstanbul also stem from economic-related reasons. However, reasons for migration differ in females. The main motive of migration for women is household-related reasons, which are called family unions.

17 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 115 Marriage ranks second and economic-related reasons rank third among the reasons for migration. Among those who migrated from İstanbul, women move due to marriage and household-related reasons, whereas men migrate owing to economic-related and job change-related reasons. Population mobilities that had generally originated from North, North East and Middle Anatolia regions until the 1980s, turned into the form of security-related migrations in Southeastern Anatolia by the 1980s. This situation not only led to population explosion in big provinces, but also brought along a number problems such as burglary. With its developed structure, İstanbul constitutes the main migration destination of internal migrations. According to available migration data, persons migrated in Turkey in One fifth of these individuals moved to İstanbul. Figure 10. Migration Received and Sent by İstanbul as to the Educational Level and Gender* (2000) RECEIVED SENT Educational Level Total Male (%) Female (%) Total Male (%) Female (%) Illiterate ,59 76, ,20 75,80 Uneducated/Primary School Leaver ,25 47, ,34 50,66 Primary School ,77 49, ,11 42,89 Primary Education/First Cycle Primary Education/Second Cycle Professional School equivalent of Primary Education Second Cycle ,42 37, ,80 44, ,93 34, ,63 32, ,38 28, ,80 29,20 High School ,13 37, ,90 38,10 Professional School equivalent of High School ,18 31, ,90 32,10 Higher Education ,56 40, ,66 32,34 Unknown (graduate) 69 5,79 94, ,25 76,75

18 116 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration Unknown (readingwriting skill) 18 5,55 94, ,00 80,00 Total ,75 46, ,80 42,20 Source: TURKSTAT (2005), 2000 Unpublished Migration Statistics, 2000, Ankara, p *Population aged 5 and over Those who have moved to big cities, mainly to İstanbul, are low qualified and low-educated individuals in general. Nearly 40% of migrants are primary school graduates. This rate is 61% for overall Turkey (TURKSTAT, 2005: ). While the rate of illiterates is about 7% in İstanbul, this rate is 1% for overall Turkey. Another outstanding point is the rate of university graduates. Whereas the proportion of university graduates among those who migrated to İstanbul is 10%, the said proportion is 1% for overall Turkey. These percentages indicate that both very low-educated and educated individuals migrate to İstanbul. Figure 11. Migration Received and Sent by İstanbul as to Age and Gender (2000) Age Group Net Migration Received Sent Total Male Female Total Male Female ,01 47, ,04 48, ,02 44, ,58 48, ,78 42, ,83 47, ,95 49, ,65 30, ,59 43, ,72 41, ,52 43, ,40 41, ,38 45, ,09 41, ,55 47, ,27 42, ,60 48, ,53 45, ,74 48, ,70 47, ,17 51, ,14 47, ,19 58, ,02 48, ,53 60, ,40 48, ,56 66, ,63 54, ,00 65, ,28 57, ,33 66, ,71 65, ,77 65, ,35 67,65

19 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 117 Unknown ,42 52, ,88 40,12 Total ,73 46, ,71 42,29 Source: TURKSTAT (2005), 2000 Unpublished Migration Statistics, 2000, Ankara, p As in all developing countries, big cities in Turkey also involve young population in rapid growth process. Rural-to-urban migrants are usually multi-children families and they live in shanty towns. Living conditions in shanty towns reflect not only spatial problems, but also difficulties in the urbanization process within the context of social characteristics. Infrastructure inadequacies and highly populated households have an unfavorable impact on the children s acquisition of urban identity in their socialization process. Additionally, generation conflicts in families and low schoolization rate are other significant obstacles to the said process. Studies show that there is a relationship between economic conditions of youngsters and crime rate. These studies also point to a positive relation especially between unemployment and crime-oriented behavior (Tatlıdil, 1997: 601). Among individuals who moved to İstanbul, the number of those aged 5-29 is three third of total migrants. The number of males in the age group is apparently different. This situation verifies that individuals who moved to İstanbul single and unaccompanied brought their families. The young ages of a majority of migrants point to the dominance of age factor in the migration decision-making. In urban, there exists a group of individuals who cannot adapt to modern sector. These individuals maintain their existence in urban without causing big social crises. They make ends meet either by rendering services to modern sector in any way whatsoever or creating new jobs for themselves or, using irregular and unorganized job opportunities. This unorganized group constitutes the marginal sector in urban. The marginal sector in urban is in relation with the marginal sector in rural and nourished by rural. Similar to the marginal sector in rural, the marginal sector of urban also survives by using the opportunities created by modern sector (Tekeli et al., 1976: ). Industrialization stands out as the main factor that creates discrimination among the revenues of regions, thus of provinces. Industrial establishments offer job opportunities in the ratio of labor demand they create. Therefore, they justify population inflows to the provinces where they are located to that extent. However, it is observed that job opportunities take place in the services sector rather than industry in big cities such as İstanbul, Ankara, Adana, İzmir, Bur-

20 118 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration sa where the rate of population increase is relatively high. The development of the services branches in line with the industrial sector is very common. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the services branches display development against industrial sector (Keleş, 2002: 72-73). Figure 12. Labor Force Status and Migration Received and Sent by İstanbul as to Gender (2000)* MIGRANTS RECEIVED BY ISTANBUL AS TO LABOR FORCE AND GENDER Total Male Female (%) (%) MIGRANTS SENT BY ISTANBUL AS TO LABOR FORCE AND GENDER Total Male Female (%) (%) Employed ,16 23, ,59 25,41 Unemployed ,54 34, ,23 32,77 Non-Labor Force ,78 75, ,28 64,72 Unknown 7 14,28 85, ,0 - Total ,90 46, ,52 41,48 Source: TURKSTAT (2005), 2000 Unpublished Migration Statistics, 2000, Ankara, p *Population aged 12 and over In 2000, İstanbul received 415 thousand migrants in the context of employment status and economic activities, while 250 bin individuals moved from İstanbul. As mentioned before, rapid migration from urban residential areas to large and developed provinces like İstanbul is still continuing as much from rural. After 1990, urban-to-urban internal migration gained pace. Non-agricultural and transportation workers constitute nearly half of individuals who moved to İstanbul. Another characteristic of those who migrated in this period is that they were mostly male. Individuals who migrated to İstanbul were mainly employed in manufacturing industry and social and personal services sector. A majority of those who migrated to İstanbul were wagers (about 360). The second largest group was those who worked on their own account. In Turkey, urbanization, which is not based on industrialization, has neither absorbed agricultural workers, nor has been able to create an environment that can make use of agricultural labor force. The emergence of shanty towns and informal employment has turned out to be a life style in Turkey. Problems related to work life such as unemployment, underemployment and employment have led to accumulation and crisis in provinces. Poverty, unfair income distribution, heavy traffic, environmental pollution, inadequate green spaces, in-

21 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 119 confidence, prostitution, drugs, street gangs, land mafia, transportation, cleaning and garbage pave become the sources of provincial crises (Kalça, 1999: ). It was predicted that transfer/migration of unqualified labor from agriculture (rural) to industry (urban) would be unproblematic and incostly. However, it is not easy in practice, since labor force required by industrial sector should have certain qualifications. In order to ensure this, labor force needed by the industrial sector should be trained up. This process is not only overwhelming, but also very costly (Öztürk, 2006: 24). The most important problem in Turkey and İstanbul since the 1950s is the phenomenon of shanty towns. The emergence of shanty towns in metropolitans significantly differs from those in other Anatolian provinces with respect to form and content. The phenomenon of rural-to-urban migration, the basic element of the emergence of shanty towns, has acquired the quality of small province-to-large province migration in metropolitan residential areas, chiefly in Ankara, İstanbul and İzmir. A majority of migrants who experience the heaping process caused by rural-to-urban migration in Turkey reside in shanty towns that surround the city. A new culture, which, on the on hand, tries to bring its rural characteristics to urban and is obliged to adapt to the characteristics of urban, is emerging. This new sub-culture, which is gotten caught between rural and urban, sometimes displays reaction to urban and sometimes longing for rural (Gökçe et al., 1993: 1). In provinces like İstanbul, which grow rapidly, social and cultural structures of urban also change and discriminations multiply. Newcomers to urban begin to alienate themselves from the society, when they cannot be able to take advantages of urban facilities. Alienation of individuals who fail to find a job and cannot be able to benefit from natural and cultural assets of the city and the transformation of the said alienation into anger is a natural process (Kaya, 2003: ). There is a linear relation between migration and crime rate. Mayor of İstanbul says that one of every 138 persons commits crime. He says though this rate is not high compared to other European cities, there is a clear upsurge in crimes against property. Governor of İstanbul, who reminds that particularly burglary incidents intensively take place on the public agenda, emphasizes that these crimes cannot be prevented merely by criminal measures and that education, training, economic conditions and social solidarity are of great importance

22 120 TODAİE s Review of Public Administration in preventing crime (MÜSİAD, 2006). One thing that should be done is rendering new urban, which emerges with the arrival of migrants to the city in urbanization process, real real urban (Suher, 1991: 103). Another important issue is the employment of underage children. Children aged 8-10 prefer to work in shared minibuses as money collector or shoeshine boy and significantly contribute to the family income. For that reason, families do not prefer to practice birth control. Hence, urbanization fails to meet the expectations with respect to the slowdown of population growth and integration of migration population into urban life. Such types of jobs point to the shift of concealed unemployment from rural to urban (Kıray, 1999: ). The acceptance of the problems of poverty and street working children in connection with poverty as the major problem of big cities in Turkey corresponds to the compulsory post-migration process, which was experienced in the 1990s. The basic difference of the said new wave of migration witnessed in the 1990s from the past migrations is its compulsory nature. Therefore, this migration process was undergone more unpreparedly compared to the previous ones. These individuals were compelled to continue their living, which is below average income in Turkey, in the city centers of provinces such as Diyarbakır, Van and Batman or, by establishing ghetto-like residential areas in metropolitans such as İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir, Adana and Mersin. Compulsory migration has led to both a drastic political, social and economic upset and a comprehensive destruction (TMMOB, 2006). A majority of individuals who commit burglary crimes in big provinces, mainly in İstanbul and İzmir, which are mostly resulted in death, is of Southeastern Anatolia origin. The migration origin of these burglars who terrorize the society in recent years is Diyarbakır. Diyarbakır itself also suffers from burglary and robbery. With the security-related migrations that have originated in neighboring provinces and villages, the population of Diyarbakır, which was in the 1990s, has exceeded 1 million. The failure of multichildren families in adapting to urban life has lead to a dramatic growth in the number of street living children like a snowball. These children who quit school or cannot go to school because of poverty have et with illegal jobs (Sabah, 2006). As asserted by specialists, there is a linear relationship between the phenomenon of street working children and migrations from East and Southeastern Anatolia that have gained pace in recent years.

23 The Impacts of Internal Migration on Urban and Work Life in İstanbul 121 Families who even do not know the number of their children send their children to the street, let alone send them to school, when they cannot feed them any more. The said regions export potential criminals to İstanbul and other big cities. Surveys show that the number of street living children of East and Southeastern Anatolia origin in İstanbul are multiplying like an avalanche and that robbery and theft incidents have widepreaded among them (Tınç, 2005: 18). Furthermore, apart from working in the street, it is well known that migration-hit children face multi-dimensioned problems, chiefly health and education (Üstel and Ece, 2004: 7). Conclusion İstanbul is a city that has witnessed numerous migrations of different nature in different times in the historical process. It assumes great importance with respect to its strategic geographic location as well as being a residential area where all religions, races and cultures meet. Urbanization and internal migration movements, which do not originate due to the industrialization, brought numerous problems. Along with rural push factors and urban pull factors, the progress in mass communication and transportation tools accelerated internal migration. The migration destination of these population mobilities has become big provinces like İstanbul with it developed and industrialized structure. The migration phenomenon, which has very different and deep impacts on both migrant receiving and migrant sending regions, affects migrants the most. Individuals who move to big provinces like İstanbul should adopt urban values. Current studies show that mostly socioeconomically low individuals migrate to İstanbul. In this aspect, the adaptation of these individuals to urban life and urban labor force depends on a number of variables such as education, age, gender, native language and the structure of living environment. Even though the adaptation to urban is a challenging phenomenon, individuals should be intended and willing. The failure of migrants in adapting to urban life lies behind the increase in burglary and robbery incidents, which have become a bleeding wound in the society with the wave of internal migration in recent times. At the same time, the problem of street living and working children is aggravating. The emergence of shanty towns, housing problem, destruction of historical and natural inheritance and the boost in unemployment are only few of the problems that progressively get worse due to internal migration.