THE METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION
IN TURKEY
Ruşen KELEŞ
*
Urbanization Updated
Turkey is a rapidy urbanizing country. Almost half of the
population (45.4 %) 1ives in towns. The figure 45.4 has been found
by counting places with a population of 10000 and above as urban.
In the last 25 years, the average annual increase in urban popula­
tion has been 6.5 %. The fact that the section of the population
employed in seetors outside agrioulture has risen only from 23.6 %
to 44 % between 1955-80, and that the ratio of the population
employed in the manufaoturing industry has reached 15.2 % taday
seems to justify this rapid urbanization only to a certain degree.
One of the basic characteristics of the urbanization in our
country is the concentration of the population in inereasing propor­
tions İn the largest towns, not in medium-sized cities. In other
words, the population concentration in metropoliıtan areas has the
effect of reducing the weight of small areas in the settlernent
struoture.
The second feature of rapid urbanization İs that it increases
the already existing imbalanee between regions. Since most of
our metropolises are gathered in the West, Ithe spread effects of
growth on the Eastern part of Tur.key are so small as to be neglected.
Mareaver, the core of large towns has a very powerful deteriorating
impact on sman settlernent unİ'ts surrounding the core. Huge
differences exist in terms of income levels, urbanization rates,
development potentials and Hving standards among the geogra­
phicaI regions.
* Prof. Dr., Facu1ty Member, University of Ankara, Facu1ty of Political
Sdences, Chairman, Urbanization and Environmental Problems Depart­
ment.
92
TURKISH PUBLle ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL
In the third place, dt rnay be said thalt the imbalances observ,ed
between urban and rural areas and within towns are not any less
important than the regional ones in urbanisatian. Villages are not
only ıthe places where the average income per family is much lower
than that in towns, but also settlements that have to be satisfied
with rnuch lower criteria than towns as far as public services are
concerned.
The contradictions in the inner structure of towns are seen
dearly in the slum areas of large towns. According to official
estimates, 6 'million people live in about 1.5 millian shanty houses
(gecekondu) in Turkey, which is one fourth of the urban popula­
tion of the country. Theyare the poorest families of these centers
living in poverty and contradiotions.
TABLE
ı
The Share of Urban Groups in the Urban Population
1950
Size of Groups
20000
10000­
20000­
50000
50000­ 100000
100000­ 500000
500000-1000000
over 1000000
1980
No. of Share in Urban No. of Share in Urban
Towns Population
Towns Population
61
30
6
4
1
O
98
22.9
23.2
10.1
19.3
25.3
O
100.0
160
99
32
25
1
3
320
10.8
15.2
17.0
24.1
2.8
36.4
100.0 The Need for a Metropolitan Administration
The concentration of the population and of the activiıties in
large towns at an ever greater rate has also led to the ernergence
of a multitude of smaIl agglomeraıtions around towns like İstan­
bul and İzmir. Highly compHeated interre1ations of a social,
economic, administrative and political nature have naturally arisen
between the periphery and the municipality in ıthe center. These
small settlements can neither benefit fully from the service s
provided by the :municipality in the center, nar can be forced to
pay for those theyare able to utilize. Hence, it looks as if they
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
93
have been forced to be satisfied with lower standards, primarily
because, on ,economic grounds, prov,ision of urban s erv,ice s by
more than one municipality leads to a waste of resources in these
setttements which are economically and physically inseparably
connected to the municipality of the core. In addition, a sİtuation
contrary to the principle of ,the indivisibility of public services is
thus created.
Secondly each public service can be supplied efficiently only
if it is carried out at the appropriate leveI of administration. For
same of them :the Iocal, for same others the regional, and for some
stiıı others the national stage is more economical and more
convenient. An attempt to perform all the public servİces İn each
smaIl loeal government unit can only resulıt İn absolute ill~manage·
ment. Services such as transportatİon, housing and sewage ean
hardly be provided by a certaİn admİnistrative institutian without
cooperation with other administrativ,e ranks. Electricity generatian
and distribution have now been centralized all over the world. On
the other hand, playgrounds, parks, land use management, the
maintenance and eleaning of streets and similar services can be
performed satisfactorily at ıthe Iocal level. Fire fighting is a service
which ;İs not expected to be handled by each and every small
municipa1ity in a metropolisı nar can it be left to the national
organizations.
N~t,
the system of income appropr.iation for local govern~
in a metropolitan area should be so flexible as to let the
larger towns to receive a greater share of the incomes raised by
centers than small Iocal government units because .the needs of
large units are incomparably greater than those of smal1 towns.
ınents
Finally, metropolises have not acquired their characteristics
of ,their own accord. It is the socio-economic policies followed by
the nation itself that maıke them grow out of proportion.1 The
unbalanced regionaI development and the exjstence of v,ery large
towns are c10sely related to poLicies of ,this kind, for they stimuIate
the towns on the top to get even larger. I t is all these factors which
make the estabHshment and development of specific managerial
ı
Ruşen Keleş, Kentlleşme
ve Konut
Politikası,
SBF, Ankara, 1984.
TURKISH PUBLlC ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL
94
farrnations in metropolitan loealities essential in all the countries
of similar stnıcture.
Metropolitan Management Models
There are essentially two main models of management for
metropolises.
Those in the first set are temporary, small in size and with
relatively limited tasks. 2 Examples of the models in this group are
inter-governmental and contraotual service arrangements, local
government unions and metropolitan institutions of special purpose.
lnter-governmental service contracts have the advantages of
preventing the misuse of resourees, eliminating the need for the
foundation of special purpose unİts and contributing to the
maintenance of the legal integrity and autonomy of local govern­
menıts.
But conflicts of interest among local communities,
in rendering these contracts binding for all the parties
the necessity thaıt the contracts have to be restricted
period of time, ;and finally, their heing unsuitable
supervision constitute the main shorteomings of these
difficulties
concerned,
to a short
for public
contracts.
Since !the independent will and motives of a member local
government unit is a precondition to the establishment of a union
among such governments themselves, this model may not be
considered Ht to produce radical achievements for the metropolitan
entity as a whole.
However, the main advantage of forming unions is ,keeping
the legalentity and autonomy of loeal unhs intact. Unificaıtion at
the same time, strengthens the sense of self-confidence and habits
of cooperation in local eommuni!ties.
Specifically metropolitan institutions such as the New York
Port Authority are generally designed to accomplish a single task.
They have an advantage which enables them to supply a given
urhan service to the whole of a m,etropolitan area. In spite of this,
the difficulty of estahlishing a public control meehanism over
2
Annmarie Hauak Walsh, The Urban Challenge to Govenunent,
New York, 1969.
Praegeı-.
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
95
them, their being not conducive to participative management, and
their relative independence from the planning and resource
allocation mechanisms of the central government may be listed
among the disadvantages of this method.
One of ,the models in the second set works through the
amalgamation of loeal government units, and the other is based
on their forming federations among themselves. The main advantage
of amaIgamating several Ioeal units, whether it oceurs by the force
of law or as a result of free choice, is that it makes it possible to
determine the boundaries of the constituent entities of the
amalgamation more rationally, and thus it improves the eHicleney
of public services. As a negaıtive point, it may well be thought that
this method is not consistent with the principle of the autonomy
of local go vernment s , especially when the federation is formed
by law.
Last of all, there are many advantages of bringing together
various Ioeal government units under the roof of a federation.
Foremost, İn so doing, public services may be carried out more
ef.fectively, uneontrolled urbanization and disorderly functioning
of public works may be prevented, and coordination may be
obtained among publie activities within the new system of
boundar.ies drawn most rationally and suitably. Besides, as a result
of such an arragement, certain principles of democracy, e.g.
autoncmy and participation at the local level, ean also be
strengthened.3
Below we will be elaboring to evaluate Turkey's experiences
in various models of metropolitan management, including the
recent realizations İn this field, in terms of eHiency and participa­
tion mentioned above.
Historical Review in Short
The Ottoman Period
The Ottoman Turkey took lts form of municipal government
from the Western eountries after Tanzimat, the political reforms
3
Ali Eke, Anakent Yönetimi ve Yönetimlerarası İlişkiler, SBF, Ankara,
1982.
A.F. Leemans, Changing Patterns of Local Government, IULA, The Hague,
1970.
TURKISH PUBLlC ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL
96
undertaken by Sultan AbdüI,mecid tİn the first half of the 20th
century. The very first municipal organisat,ion was formed in İs­
tanbul İn the year 1855. lıt was headed by Şehremiıli, a person
appointed by the central government. The municipal council (Şehir
Meclisi) was made up of 12 members appointed by the central
government. It was deemed appropriate to make the appointments
for this council from among the well-'known and respectable
members of the guilds of artisans.
The rapid growth of İstanbul made it necassary to form a
of district (İ1çe)municipality to deal with urban service s in
the districts of Galata and Beyoğlu. it was cal1ed Altıncı Daire-i
Belediye (The Sixth Municipal Office). At the head of the office
was a chief (Daire Müdürü) also appointed by the central govern­
ment. Municipal ac1tivities werıe carried out by a municipal council
made up of seven members (Daire-i Belediye Meclisi) besides the
Daire Müdürü. These seven members were also appointed by the
central government. In order to be eHgible to Daire-i Belediye Mec­
lisi as a member, a person was required to own irremovable property
in that area and to have lived in İstanbul at least 10 years. What
is remarkable is that the official language of this municipality
was not Turkish, but French.
ıtype
A regulation dated 1869 (Der Saadet İdare-i Belediye Nizam­
namesi) developed the model outlined above, and extended its
geographical scope to indııde the whole metropolitan area.
According to its new version, a loeal government having a two­
stage federal strueıture was formed for İstanbuL. At the lower level
were 14 district municipalities responsible for the local governe­
ment of various districts. Each had a municipal council (Daire
Meclisi) and a director (Daire Reisi). However, now the members
of the council 'were to be elected for a period of ttwo years, instead
of being appointed. Only the chief was to be chosen from among
the council members by the central government.4
At the upper level, on the other hand, ıthere was ametropoHtan
assembly (Cemiyet-i Umumiye). Moreover, there existed a com­
mittee (Şehremaneti Meclisi), who was held responsible for the
4 Ruşen Keleş,
1983, pp. 3942.
FehIni Yavuz, Yerel Yönetimler, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara,
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
97
admİnİstratİon
of the municipaliıty, and a chief (Şehreınini). The
members of the metropolitan assembly were made up of the chi-efs
of the 14 dİstrict municipalities and of the three members of
each distriotmunicipal board eleeted from among the council
rneınbers by themselves. The total number of the memhers of Ce­
miyet-i Umumiye was 57 including Şehremini who was to chair
the meetings of the assembly as welL. The members of Şehremaneti
Meclisi, assuming the functions of a committee, were appointed
by the central government.
In 1876 the number of district municipalities within the same
metropolitan area was raised from 14 ıto 20. The aim was to adjust
the adminİstrative strueture to the new requirements created by
urbanİzation and growth. In 1912, a staıtute abolished the district
municipalities of which the municipal councils were made up of
elected members. The district municipalities were replaced by 9
Municipal Branch Directorates (Belediye Şube Müdürlüğü) which
had no corporate status and no council of elected members. Thİs
centralized structure contİnued iıts existenee until the passing of
the first Municipal Law in 1930 after the foundation of the Republic.
The Republic Period
The Period of 1930-60 : The Municipal Law number 1580, datt:d
1930, brought a new form of adm.inistration to İstanbuL. In short,
by means of this law, İstanbul Municipality was joined to the
Special Admİnistration of İstanbul Provinee. At the head of this
joint administration was a governor, appoinıted by the central
governmen t, and serving as mayor of İstanbul as well. T'he İstan­
bul Ioint Adminİstration had an assembly consisting of members
elected by the people, and a standing commiutee (EncÜlnen) part
of the members of which were elected and part were appointed.
This form of management continued to exist until 1956. From
then on, both the municipality and the special provincial admini­
stration were granted the right to possess elected assemblies
separately as İn the municipal organisations of the other tovros
of the coun try .
The Period of 1960-80: Artiele no. 116 of the Constitution of
1961 prescribed that the decision-making organs of local govern­
ments should be elected. Although mayors are not the general
98
TURKISH PUBLlC ADMINISTRATlON ANNUAL
decisİon - making organs but only the executive ones of municipali­
ties, which means their appointment by the central government is
legally possible, central governments seldom use this power to
appoint mayors; to give an example, only once the mayor of İstan­
bul was appointed for three years between 1960-64. The rule is
that the mayor should be elected. The election of the members of
the municipal council, on the other hand, is a consrtitutional
obligation.
The constitution of 1961 was not suitable for the formation
of metropolitan governments cOIl!taining several Ioeal government
units. Thus, during 1960-80, only a fewmunicipa1ities attempted
ta amalgamate in order to fulfil their tas.ks beNer. It is obvious
that these unions formed to perform certain functions separately
do not resemble meıtropolitan administrations hecause the latter
are usually held responsible for the totality of the public services
within their specific areas.
Although a number of draft bills were prepared in this period
ta reshape the form and method of adminisıtration with the
purpose of inereasing the effectiveness of management, none of
them had the opportunity of becoming a law. However, the
constant need for a be1Jter organization in İstanbul, İzmir and the
like was often stated in the Development 'Plans and the documents
of reorganisation studies.
Parallel to this, beginning in rthe early 1960s the cabinet
established Metropolitan Planning Bureaus, in towns like İstan­
buL, İzmir and Ankara, to havemaster plans of these areas prepared.
These bureaus were directly attached to ıthe Ministry of Public
Works and Resettlement, and their number had reached 10 just
before 1980.
The absence of an institutional setup pertaining ·to the whole
of a metropolitan area, equipped with sufficient power in
administrative, legal and planning spheres, and alsa with authority
that would enable it to supervise land use, to put an end to the
fragmentation of land .in a disorderly manner, and to check
unhealty urbanisation, foreed certain large municipalities to refer
to the power granted to them by Artiele 47 of the Construction
Act. With the aid of this provision whicb empowers municipa1İties
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
99
to be involved in certain activiıties in the neighboring areas outside
the municipal boundary,municipalities tried to have some control
over the developments outside their boundaries. Undoubtedly,
such an opportuni,ty could serve no further purpose than the better
performance of an urban function, that is, the planning function.
Similarly, a change made in 1972 in the Construction Act gaye
governors the authority to supervise construction activities, in
particular those along the seashore, lying outside the municipality.
Lastly, the government decree prepared in 1972 for the institution
of an Inter-Ministral Board for Public Works and Coordination
offered a possibility for having coor.dination among various
construction activities going on in metropoliıtan areas, and for
solving the problems of large towns bymethods suitable for
metropolises. The aim of this Board was to conserve the natural
and historical values of cities !ike İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir; to
coordinate the decisions and measures concerned withplanning,
execution and investments in the field of settlement and transporta­
tion; and to make ,the necassary preparations for the foundation
of a metropolitan adıninistration. This Board has eight members,
all of whom are ministers. it is headed by the Minister of
Construction and Resevtlement.
All these undertakings may be evaluated as attempts to put
physical developments in metropolitan areas under control and to
have an orderly urbanisation Jn a period when metropolitan
administrations were lacking.
The Period of 1980-83: The 3 year period between 1980-83
is one in which we observe some radical transfonnations in the
n1etropolises right after amilitary coup d'etat in the political
life of our nation. Thechanges thereupon feature as important
steps in the direction of estabHshing specific government bodies
in metropolitan areas.
The very first undertaking was the abolition of the corporate
status of (the' sman Iocal governments. Furthermore, these settIe­
ments were annexed to the nei.ghbouring municipalities. This
arrangement was made by the National Security Council's decision
number 34 with' the purpose ofdecreasing the number of smaIl
government uniıts. The underlying idea is stated in the above
100
TURKISH PUBLlE ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL
mentioned decision as follows: «The municipa1ities which have
come into existence in the vicinity of large cities as a result of the
rapid growth of population and the internal migraıtian from rural
to the urban region s of Turkeyare not ahle to carry services such
aS electricity, water; sewerage and transportatian adequaıtely to
the people or to control them properly. The annexation of such
municipaIities around large towns to ıth e main municipalities
under the coordination and command of the Martial Law Com­
manders will be made possible in the shortest possible time and
wi thin the fram-eworık of a plan.»
As a result ofcthe ıirnplen:ıentation of :this de.çision, the number
of municipa1ities in Turkey werit qown from 1700 in 1980 to 1580
in 1981.' At the sa:me time the cOrPorate status of around 150
villages were abalished. Most of these were situaıted near the major
metropolises.
As thisdecion was implemented diHerently by the military
authorities, in December 1981 law no. 2361 (the Law of Annexation)
was passed. The administraıtive organisatian in metropolitan areas
was rearranged by this law. The purpose of law no. 2561 was
summed up in Artiele las follows: «T-o have the fundamental
metropolitan services such as energy, water for all uses, sewage,
transportatian and public works provided \viıthin an integrating
plan efficiently and sufficiently and in such a \vay that the servkes
are in harmony with one anather.» ActuaUyl the real purpose
was to annex these sman unİıts t() the larger ones in order that the
loeal public seı"Vices might be provided İn a more effectiye way.
This rearrangement covered only 8 towns because it eoncerned
the towns with a population of 300 000 and above and the settle­
ments in their neighbourhood. These were munioipalities of İstan­
bul, Ankara, İzmir, Adana, Bursa, Gaziantep, Konya and Eskişehir.
In addition to the criterion of population in determining
ınetropolitan areas, the following factors were also to be taken
into consideration: the distance of the settlement to be annexed
from the mıetropolis, the faciJhy of bringing the services of the
central municipality to these locations, the possibility of annexing
the small settlements to the large municipalities physicalIy.
It was accepted -that after the annexation, the old municipali.
Hes of which the eorporate status were to be abalishedı would
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
101
become eiıther «branch municipa1ities»or «town quarters». The
oJd villages, as a pr,inciple, were given the status of tov:n quarters.
However, for a group of villages it was possible to join the
m,etropolis as a branch municipality depending on their population,
distance and form of setJtlement.
The ultimate authority to decide On the annexation was to be
the Council of Ministers, though the proposals could be made by
goyernors a6ter consulting with municipalities, the authorized
nıembers of the Martial Lawand the authorized organs of
municipalities to the Ministry of Interior AfIairs. The proposals
of governors conceming the legal status, be it a branch municipality
or town quarter, together with the opinion of the Ministry of
Public Works and Resettlement, became the major tactors to be
considered in the annexation of the units.
Between 1981-83, 31 municipalities and 23 viIIage s lost their
!egal enıtities as a result of this law, and their elected organs ceased
to exist. Could this be done according to the Constitution of 1961 ?
Did putting and end to the functioning of elected organs not
require a judicial decision? Similar questions ·may well be asked.
But, the problem has been solved from the perspective of positive
law, for in the Law Concerning the Constitutional Order there \vas
a special provision stating that in the event the decisions ta'ken and
the Iaws passed by the Nationa1 SecurHy Council proved to be in
conflict with the laws in effect then they WQuld be considered as
having amended the constitution and .the relaıted laws. However,
what was done was no doubt a departure from the traditional
principle of local autonomy from apolitical point of view. But it
must be .kept in mind that in this arrangement by the military
government factors such as national, securiıty played a certain role
along with the desire to provide effectiv,c Iocal governments in
rnetropolises.
The Water and Sewerage Adminİstration for İstanhul (isKİ),
(law no. 2560), estabHshed in 1981, was enıtrusted with the following
tasks: ı. to m,eet the de'mand forwater of the dty, to distribute
the water and to undeııtake all the necassary research, and to
prepare the projects connected with the water service, 2. to coHect
the used water and niin water and to have them carried away fronı
the places of residence,3. to prevent water poIlution and wastage,
102
TURKISH PUBLlG ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL
4. to performall the services related to the water and sewage works
of the municipalities within the, metropolitan area. Although tSKt's
area of service has been limited by the boundaries of ıthe Muni­
cipality of tstanbul, a cahinet decision has made it possible for
İSK! to include the municipalities and vHlages around tstanbul
as well within its service area.
This special metropolitan im~titution was establ'ished in 1981
independently of the Municipa1ity of İstanbuL. But as a sensequence
of the democratization attempts of the government estabHshed in
1983, it was joined to the Munioipality of İstanbul İn 1984.
The sources of income of the Water and Sewerage Admini­
stration of İstanbul aııe the foııowing: 1. the 'money to be obtained
from the sale of water and from the disposal of used water, 2. the
fees paid by the ciıtizens .who make use of the services provided
by this institution, 3. °4 10 of the share of the Municipality of
İstanbul in the general tax reeeipts from the General Budget.
Metropolitan Admtnistratio11:s Today
(ı 984
and after)
The Constitution and the Legal Situation
For the first time in Turkish history, in the CODstitution of
1982 in Antiel,e 127, there is the provisioıı «special administrative
arrangements may be introdueed' for larger urban areas.» This
provision, no doubt, is a response to the need which has been felt
for the last 25 years to have special administiations form,ed in
metropolises. Previously, the consütuNons ,in effect had constituted
an obstade to the formation of such administrations.
Towards the end of 1983 after the foundation of the new
government, law rıO. 2972 (January 1984) conceming Local
Elections provided for the formation of a ınetropolitan council
in any province which had more than one district within central
municipal boundaries, and of district municipal councils in
districts. The sam'e law brought into effect the principle of the
election of separate mayors for the metropolitan and distrlct
municipa1ities. There were 3 towns in 1984 whichfitted into the
above circumstances: İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir. They had,
respectively, 14, 5 and 3 districts. According to the law any town
with more .than one district within its boundaries would have the
right to the status
metropolis. As a principle, the metropolitan
of
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
103
admİnİstratİon is not meant to replace the special provincial
administration. These administrations will continue to exist in
metropolises.
After the law on local elections was passed, the matter was
regulated in March 1984 by a cabinet decree having force of law
(no. 195). Lat,er on, in July 1984, law no. 3030 concerned with the
admİnİstrative framework of Metropolitan Municipa1ities, was
enacted. The regulation concerning ıthe implementation of law no.
3030 was put into effect in December 1984.
Local Publle
Servİees
in Metropolises
All these arrangements led to the division of the ıocal public
services into two major sections, one of whİch were ıto be perfor~
med by metropolitan municipalities, and the other by those of
dİstricts.
1. The duties of metropolitan municipaHties cover searching
for investment and finance for local services, planning in general,
constuction, maintenance and repair of roads, protection against
pollution and other conservation activities, building parks and
other recreational areas, provision of social and economic 'services.
A somewhat detailed list of the servioes at the metropolitan level
is given below:
- to prepare investment plans and programs for the
metropolis; to discover and supply those service s which can be
realize d by means of new investments, and the way to finance
them.
- to draw up master plans of the metropolis; to have them
approved and implemented; to approve, and control the imple­
mentation of the plans of district municipaHties dra,vn up by
themselvıes in conformity with the metropolitan plans.
. to build squares, boulevards, streets andrnain roads, and
to have them kept intact; to function in accordance with the
authorities granted to municİpalities by traffic laws; to have
transport terminals, multi-storey parking lots built, and ıto operatıe
them; to assign names and numbers to squares, roads, streets and
the bui1dings.
TURKISH PUBLtC ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL
104
- to
provide for environmental health, to prevent the
of commercial or industrial enterprises detrimental
to human health and welfare; to specify the spots for the collection
of garbage and indus'trial wastage, to estabHsh facilities necassary
for their destruetion; to set up laboratories for testing foad and
beverages for heaı'th purposes; to determine areas for cemeteries
and to have .ıhem run.
establishmıent
- to conduct serviees such as water, sewerage, coalgas, central
heating and public transportatian.
- to arrange green areas, parks and playgrounds, to provide
cultural and social services, to esıtablish sports, vecreation and
res ting areas.
- to establish ,marıketplaces and slaughterhouses for whole­
salers and to operate them.
- to supervjse the functioning of municipal police, fire
e}Ctinguishing; to fixi the plaees where plants for the production of
explosives and storehouses for explosives will be built.
- to serve as mediatar in the disputes between d~strict muni­
cipalities and to provide coordination between the activities of
the municipal police force and other serviees.
2.
District municipa1ities are entrust,ed with the following
ıtasks:
- those tasks which although jncluded among the tasks of
municipa1ities in the municipal laware not entrusted to the
metropolhan municipality; tasks Hke building parks, playgrounds,
green areas, providing cultural activities, ıestablishing marketplaces
and slaughterhouses for \vholesalers are public services that can
be performed by district municipalities.
Metropolhan municipalities have to earry out their tasks in a
balanced manner \vitlı respect to the district municipalities within
their boundaries. For this reason, they have to ıtake into considera­
tion 1. the financialand technical vesourees, 2. the size of popula­
tion, 3. the size of the area to be served. Part of the tasks entrusted
to district municipalities may be condıicted by the metropolitan
municipality in close cooperation with the former, provided that
1. this is demanded by the district municipality, 2. the tasks are
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
105
paid for by the same organisation, and 3. the municipal council
of the metropolis has given its permission.
The services of two kinds of coordination organisatians are
made availablıe to the metropolitan administrations. Theyare
concerned with the fulfilment of certain services deem,ed important
on the metropolitan scale. Their meetings are chair1ed by the mayor
of the metropolis. One of them is called the Infrastructure
Coordination Organisation. !ts tasks is to bring together the
infrastructure inv1estment programs in the metropolis within the
framework of national socio-economic development plans and
programs. The other one is called the Transportation Coordination
Organisation, whose task is to determine the main routes of mass
transportation, their schedules and to control whether its
regulations are 'İn fact carried out.
The laws and regulations in effect allow the Ministry of Finance
to allot pubHc lots to metropolitan municipalities and district
municipalities for the provision of services, e.g. playgrounds, green
areas and parks, specified in ıthe construction plans of towns.
The Organs of the Metropolitan Administratlon
The Metropolitan Council
council İs made up of the mayor of the
mayors of the distriot municipalities, and one fifth of
the members of the district municipal councils. It is constituted
for five years. The members of this council keep their positions
in the district municipal counciL. The members of the council who
are directly elected by people are members of only district
municipal councils. The metropolitan council meets 3 times a year,
in November, March and July, for periods long enough to discuss
the items on the agenda.
The
n1ıetropolitan
nıetropolis,
The Metropolitan Standing Committee
i ts meetings are chaired by the mayor of the metropolis. The
m,embers of the committee are the General Secretary of the
metropolis and heads of service unİıts such as construction, law,
accounting, personnel management. The law requires the Director
of Public Works to take part in the committee.
106
TURKISH PUBLlC ADMINISTRATION ANNUAl
The Mayor of the Metropolis
The mayor of the metropolis, like district mayors, is elected
directly by people for a period of five years. He İs responsible for
not only the performance of the duties assigned to him by law,
but also the coordination of the services of district municipalities.
All the decisions of the metropoHtan council and of the district
municipal councils are sent to the nıayor of the metropolis so that
he can proclaim his view. H,e has the right to ask the councils
concerned to review their decisions. The councils with a 2/3
majoriıty may insist on their former decisions. In this case, the
decisions taken by the councils become valid.
The mayor of the metropolis represents the corporate entity
of themetropolis, implements the decisions taken by ,the council,
and in exceptional situations acts as the representative of the
central government. The metropolitan council elects adeputy
mayor from among its members at its first meeting. The deputy
mayor chairs the meetings the mayor is absent from.
The General Secretary in the municipalities of metropolises
helps the nıayor, and in his name and under his responsibility
fulfils the functions of the mayor. He is appointed upon the
proposal of the mayor of the metropolis by the Minister of Interior
Affairs.
The Metropo1itan Munlcipalities' Sources of Income
The major income sources are as follows:
1. The shares determined by the Council of Minister~ to be
deducted from the shares given to diSltrict municipalities as
required by a special law from the General Budget tax receipts.
The council reached a decision on ~he amounts of these shares in
1984 to the effect thalt 30 % of these would be utilized in 1984 and
1985 each, and 35 % in 1986 and 1987 each. Consequently, the parts
left to the district municipalities were reduced to 70 % for 1984
and 1985, and 65 % for 1986 and 1987.
2. The 5 % share from ıthe General Budget tax collection
within the boundarİ>es of large town municipalities which is
calculated by the State Income Accountancy and which has to be
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
107
invested in the related, metropoHtan municipality by the end of
the following month. This share was 10 % in Decree having force
of law no. 195; it was raised to 3 % by Law no. 3030, and to 5 %
by the Council of Ministers who based their decision on the same
law in AprH 1985. (The Council of Ministers Deoision no. 85/9382,
The Official Gaze1tte, dat,ed Apıil 27, 1985, no. 18737).
3. 50 % of the Electricity and Coalgas Consumption Tax and
of the Cleaning and nlumination fee, which are collected according
to the principles and ratiosset in Municipal Incomes Law (2464)
on the condition thaıt the services will be provided by the metro­
polİtan municipality.
4. On the condition that the services are provided by the
metropolitan municipality, ıthe shares for participation in water
and sewage expenditures which will be collected according to the
rates and principles set in the Municipal Incomes Law.
5. The shares that will be received according to the raıtes
determined by the metropolitan municipality from the contribu­
tions of public administration institutions, income from Internal
and External debts, bonds and donations, revenue from real estate
and movable property, money received in return for services
rendered.
According to Law no. 3004 which empowers the central govern·
ment to give shar,es from its own i nconı e, 10 % of the tax incomes
is allotted to municipalities. 80 % of this amount is allocated to
municipalities outside metropolises Hke Ankara, İstanbul and iz­
mir, on the basis of their populations. The remainder is called the
Municipalities Fund, and is used to meet the expenditures on maps,
construction plans, all kinds of investments, infrastructure and
projects in all municipalities ,including metropolises. What must
not b~ forgotten is that 6 % of money can be used for the preserv­
ation and development of the natural beauties of both sides of the
Bosphorus, and ,it will be allotted to the İstanbul Bosphorous
Construction Direotorate, which has been established particular1y
to realize this aim.
Another source has been provided for the fulfilment of the
water and sewerage services in İstanbuL, This is iSKi, ametro­
politan institution of special purpose, established to operate water
108
TUl!k.ISH PUBLIe ADMINISTRATlON ANNUAL
and sewerage services in all partsof the metropolitan area. In
conformity with the law by which İSKİ was established, İSKİ
receives 10 % of the 80 % share granted to ıthe municipalities in
the metropolitan area, and based on the principle of population.
The budget of this institution, for instance, for 1985 is 94 billion
TL 'which is almosıt equaI to the budget of the metropolitan muni­
cipality of İstanbuL.
The budgets of .metropolitan municipalitics became definite
after they have been approved by municipal councils and adopted
by the governor. In the same manner, the budg,ets of district muni­
cipalities come into effect by the approval of the governor after
they have been examined with respect to the integration of the
service s and investments in the metropolitan area.
Local Autonomy and Administrative Tutelage
In Tu~key, neHher ıthe metropolitan administrations nor the
local government units can be considered completely autonomous.
They are dependent on the central gov'crnment with respect to
administration, both poHtically and financiaIlyo Although according
to Artiele 127 of the Constitution the disputes concerning the
acquisition and loss of membership for the organs of local govern­
ments ıthat havıe come .into po\ver by election should be resolved
by judicial power, as a temporary measure, the Minister of Interior
Affairs may remove from office local governments, their organs
of this kind and dis.miss the members of these organs if in­
vestigation or prosecution has aıready been initia1ted about them
until a final judgement .İs made. Such a measure may be applied
to the organs of the metropolitan municipality as well and even
if it is rare]y used, H means an impairment of the principIe of
autonomy.5
Furthermore, the right granted to the mayors of metropolises
to ask the council to review their decisions cannot be reeonciled
with Ioeal autonomy. The faet that councils may insİst on theİr
decision provided that ıthey have a 2/3 majority does not change
, Michael N. Danielson and Ruşen Keleş, The PoUtfcs of Rapid UrbanJza·
tlon: Govemment and Growth in Modem Turkey, Holmes and Meier.
New York, 1985.
METROPOLITAN ADMINISTRATION IN TURKEY
109
the situation. The administrative trusteeship pow·ers of the muni­
cipal councils of metropolises and of rustrict municipal councils
over ,the approvaI of plans andcertain decisions concerning the
budget etc. cannot be reconciled ,vith an understanding of
autonoınous ıocal governments. We may add to these the fact that
thcre are no members elected by people in the metropolitan
committee.
Naturaııy the most important impediment to the vaHdity of
the principle of Iocal autonomy is not adrninistrative factors,but
the financial difficulties of m1etropoHtan adrninistrations. The
metropoUses İn Turkey, like other locaI government units, are
short of financial sources and lacking in resources that will enable
theın to carry out their tasks adequately. Thejr sources are not
proportional to the tasks entrusıted to them by laws and n10st of
\vhich require large amounts of İnvestments.
But it must be pointed out ,that with the establishment of
metropolitan administrations, at lıeast some of the administrative
tutelage powers related to Ioeal government tas'ks such as
constructİon planning, have been removed from the care of the
central governm1ent and entrusted ıto metropolises. This may be
counted aS an important step away from centralization in
administratİon.
How Does the System Work?
Sufficient time ha~ not passed to enable us to make &n
objective and reliable levaIuation of metropolitan adminİstration,
which has been newly established. However, ,the implementation
up tiıı now indicates that the division of income betw1een metro­
polises and the central government, on the one hand, metropolitan
municipalities and district municipalities, on the other, is not just.
Similarly, in metropolitan areas it is Sıeen that there are
disagreements between the t\VO Ievels of municipalities concerning
public services when it is not explicit in the la,vs which locaI unİts
a:r.e responsible for fulfiııing them.
District municipa1ities Iook upon metropolitan ones as a new
type of artificia11y formed organisatİons of administrative tuteIage
which exercise certaİn powers over units of a tower order. Such
110
TURKISH PUBLle ADMINISTRATION ANNUAL
an approach is an ex:aggerated one, because the powers ·thatmetro­
poHtan municipalities have to supervise and to control district
municipalitiesare not numerous. Mareover, metropolises are
democradc organisations. As can be seen from the case of mayor
and the council their organs are made up of elected members. One
exception to this is the formation of themetropolitan standing
c'ÜmmHtee. Even if we dlsregard the disagreements arisingfrom
the division of labour between the municipalities of the metropolis
and of the districts, it must be pointed out that certain disagree­
ments also exist concerning the sharing of personnel, mıeans,
materials and the like. Yet ·the Regulation dated December 1984
(The Official Gazette Dec. 1984, no. 18603) brought same darifi­
cati'Ün that will reduce the disagreements between ·them to a certaın
extent.
Conclusins
Although the need for the formatian of special adminis·trative
institutions in metropolitan areas has been felt for at least 20
years, metropolitan administration is a new fact in Turkey. it
would be misleading to assume that the arrangement which exİsts
today is suitable for solving all the urbanİzation problems of large
towns. But ·the system is open t'Ü becoming a subject of re­
evaIuation according to the changing needs. Similarly, it is suitable
for an extension of the definition of metropolis ,to indude other
towns so that services can be better rendered.
Undoubt.edly, to divide ,the public services between admini­
stration types of two IeveIs within a federal structure may increase
the effectiveness of management. Another characteristic of such
a structurıe would be to make participation in administration
attractive to people and thus to increase their partidpation. The
metropolitan arrangement in our country has given large masses
of people the opportunity to elect ,the mayor of the settlemen t unİ t
he lives in, to form Iocal council s by electing their members,
to be elected to ıthese councils as members, and to have many
smaIl local services provided without the need to apply to the
central government. In shopt, the new system appears to he an
arrangement which inçreases. people' s self·confidence, gives local
~overnments the opportunity to become demoeratic and earries the
iıope of distancing poliıtical power from centralisation.