In 1999, Turkey became an official candidate for EU membership, committing itself to a number of socio-political reforms, as well as to implementing policies aimed at economic integration with the EU. One of the most important areas of this policy is smoothing regional and economic imbalances in the country. But leveling the level of regional development will ensure not only compliance with the formal criteria of the European Union. Regional disparities significantly affect the economic development and socio-political situation in the country.

Key words: regional development, regional economic disparities, regional policy, regional competitiveness, Turkey and the EU.

A nationwide referendum on constitutional reform was held in Turkey on September 12, 2010.1 This referendum, whose positive outcome significantly strengthens the position of the Justice and Development Party as a party in power not only at the moment, but also in the future, can largely be considered as a test of voters ' confidence in the government. Apparently, not every voter was able to see the main intrigue of the referendum. Many were interested only in some of the most understandable issues put to the vote, which predetermined the attitude to the entire package of amendments, some simply sought to support "their" government. But one way or another, about 58% of the voting participants supported amendments to the Constitution. In other words, in its attitude to the constitutional reform proposed by the government, the country was divided into two almost equal parts.

The results of the referendum and, accordingly, the preferences of those who voted strongly differed by region. The AKP, which appeals more to marginal segments of the population, has gained support in less developed, "poor" areas of the country. The vast majority of the population of the more prosperous north-western ili (administrative regions).-

1 One of the most important amendments to the basic Law provided for increasing the number and changing the procedure for appointing members of the Constitutional Court. It was proposed to approve the candidacies of three members in Parliament, and transfer the right to appoint the rest to the President. Given that the majority in parliament belongs to the ruling pro-Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP), and the country's president is the closest ally of the Prime Minister A. Gul, this innovation, in essence, was supposed to ensure the subordination of the Constitutional Court to the ruling party. It should be recalled that in the summer of 2007, it was the Constitutional Court of the Republic that considered the question of the legitimacy of the AKP's activities, i.e. its compliance with the provisions of the basic law, and above all with the provision on the secular nature of the Republic of Turkey. Earlier, on the recommendation of the Constitutional Court, the activities of pro-Islamic parties were repeatedly banned. The proposed amendments significantly restricted the rights of the military: the competence of military courts was significantly reduced, it became possible to bring to court the organizers of military coups, as well as military and civilian officials who were in the service of the military regime. The latest proposals, while formally aimed at upholding democratic norms, were perceived by many as an act of retaliation by the army for its too "zealous" defense of the principle of secularism and attempts to limit the development of political Islam in Turkey.

page 115
The government of Central and Eastern Anatolia, including the Kurdish majority in the southeastern regions of the country, supported the ruling party, despite calls for a boycott of the referendum, which were voiced by the Kurdish nationalist Peace and Democracy Party.

Thus, it turned out that the division of the country according to political preferences has a "geographical" component. According to the results of the referendum, the north-western and south-eastern parts of the country look like two opposing opponents on the issues put to the referendum. Ili, located along the coast of the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, rejected the constitutional reform by a majority vote, while Ili of the Black Sea coast, Central and Eastern Anatolia supported it. At the same time, it is interesting to note that the majority of votes in Eskisehir, one of the most industrially developed and modern cities in Central Anatolia, and neighboring Bilecik were also cast against the constitutional amendments. Of the four most densely populated provinces in Turkey, Istanbul and Ankara supported the constitutional reform, while Izmir and Adana were opposed (Kalaycioglu, 2010).

Such a "geographical distribution" of the results of the referendum was predictable, taking into account the factor of deep regional imbalances in the socio-economic development of Turkey. In other words, there is a fairly close relationship between the level of socio-economic development of certain regions of the country and the political preferences of the population. And in this sense, the results of the referendum bring regional issues far beyond the implementation of EU requirements for candidate countries. To be fair, it should be noted that interest in these issues in Turkey increased precisely after the country acquired the status of an EU candidate. To a large extent, this is due to Turkey's access to modern methods for assessing the level of regional disparities, as well as the European Fund for Assistance in Solving Regional Problems. Nevertheless, first of all, regional imbalances are an internal economic and political problem of the country.

Therefore, a thorough analysis of their nature and level is an urgent task in terms of assessing the prospects for the country's accession to the EU and identifying the preferences of voters. This article will assess the level of regional disparities in Turkey, identify the main socio-economic problems of lagging regions, and conduct a comparative analysis of the situation in Turkey and the EU countries.

* * *

The current regional-economic structure of Turkey is characterized by a high level of disproportions. Under the influence of a whole complex of factors - natural, historical, and economic - the country was "divided" into three specific economic regions: the industrial West, the agricultural and industrial Center, and the agricultural East. This was largely due to the modernization of the Ottoman Empire in the XVIII-XIX centuries. on the Western model. The influence of European countries was felt to a greater extent in the European part of the Ottoman Empire and Western Anatolia, and accelerated catch-up development took place there. As a result, production capacities were concentrated mainly in the western (the coast of the Marmara and Aegean Seas) and, to a lesser extent, in the central regions of the country. In our time, this division is gradually becoming conditional, although the problem of uneven economic development of the regions is still far from its final solution. Industrial enterprises arise and operate in various regions of the country, including those whose economy structure has traditionally been dominated by agriculture [Ulchenko, 2008(2), p. 82].

page 116
The most noticeable changes are in the industrialization of the economy of the South-East of the country, which is facilitated by the active implementation of the South-East Anatolia project. In the last two decades, new industrial centers have appeared on the map of Turkey - Gaziantep, Kayseri, Malatya [Dogruel, Dogruel, 2006, p. 8].

Nevertheless, the western regions of Turkey remain relatively more developed in socio-economic terms: they still provide the overwhelming share of industrial production, have more productive agriculture, and have a well-developed financial and distribution system. It is also home to the largest cities in western Turkey - Istanbul and Izmir, which are the country's industrial and financial centers.

To assess the current level of territorial and economic disparities in Turkey, the dynamics of their changes and compare them with the situation in the EU countries, it is necessary first of all to consider the system of territorial and economic division of the country.

FORMATION OF A MODERN SYSTEM OF TERRITORIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVISION OF TURKEY

To compare the depth and scale of problems in Turkey and the EU countries, it was very important to identify the so-called second-level regions (NUTS2), as this made it possible to assess the level of socio-economic disparities in Turkey compared to the EU countries and other candidate countries. No less important is the fact that most of the regional development and preventive assistance programs funded by the European Union are focused on Level 2 regions.

The first system of territorial and economic division appeared in 1941, when the First National Geographical Congress of Turkey decided to divide the country's territory into seven physical and geographical regions (Ulchenko, 2008(1)). Even before 2002, Turkey had a two-level territorial division system (D1 and D3, according to the modern classification of regions) (Table 1).
Table 1

The system of territorial-economic and administrative divisions of Turkey that was in force until 2002.

7 major physical and geographical regions (D1)

Administrative division (D3) - 81 ile (province)

Marmara, Inner Anatolia, Aegean, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Eastern Anatolia, Southeastern Anatolia.

Адана, Адыяман, Афьен, Агры, Аксарай, Амасья, Анкара, Анталья, Ардахан, Артвин, Айдын, Балыкесир, Бартын, Батман, Байбурт, Биледжик, Бингель, Битлис, Болу, Бурдур, Бурса, Ван, Газиантеп, Гиресун, Гюмюшхане, Денизли, Диярбакыр, Дюздже, Зонгулдак, Ичель, Игдир, Испарта, Истанбул, Измир, Йозгат, Кахраманмараш, Карабюк, Караман, Каре, Кастамону, Кайсери, Килис, Кырыккале, Кыркларели, Киршехир, Коджаэли, Конья, Кютахья, Малатья, Маниса, Мардин, Мугла, Муш, Невшехир, Нигдэ, Орду, Османийе, Ризе, Сакрья, Самсун, Сиирт, Синоп, Сивас, Текирдаг, Токат, Трабзон, Тунджели, Урфа, Ушак, Хаккари, Хатай, Чанаккале, Чанкыры, Чорум, Шанлы, Ширнак, Эдирне, Элязыг, Эрзинджан, Эрзурум, Эскишехир, Ялова.

Compiled from: [Ulchenko, 2008(2), pp. 35-36, 115].

page 117
In 2002, in order to achieve compliance with the EU regional classification (which is a condition for obtaining access to European pre-entry assistance programs for candidate countries) The State Planning Organization of Turkey, together with the State Institute of Statistics, completed the reorganization of the classification system for statistical regional units.2 There were 12 statistical regions of the 1st level (instead of the previous 7 large physical and geographical regions), 26 statistical regions of the 2nd level, each of which includes from 1 to 6 iles, and 81 regions (province-ile) of the 3rd level (administrative division).

ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF TERRITORIAL AND ECONOMIC IMBALANCES IN TURKEY

As a basic indicator for assessing the level of territorial and economic disparities in Turkey, we selected GDP per capita 3, which is also key for the European Union in determining the level of economic development of the region. Auxiliary indicators were the per capita volumes of public and private investment, as well as the volume of electricity consumption-also per capita. To assess the distribution of these indicators, the following factors were calculated: quarterly coefficient, concentration and variation coefficients, as well as correlation coefficients between per capita GDP and public and private investment volumes, as well as between public and private investment volumes by region (see Table. 2 and 3).

An analysis of the dynamics of the above indicators shows that there is no tendency to reduce regional disparities for the period from 1990 to 2003. At the same time, the concentration of private investment per capita is significantly higher than the concentration of per capita GDP and public investment, which indicates that their focus remains on more developed regions. At the same time, the interregional distribution of public investment is more evenly distributed, as it serves as one of the tools for smoothing regional imbalances. This is also confirmed by calculations of correlation coefficients between per capita GDP and public investment, which is low (Table 3).
At the same time, the calculations revealed a high correlation between per capita GDP and private investment per capita, which is quite natural. However, the correlation coefficient between public and private investments is high, i.e. they are mostly directed to the same regions. The depth of regional economic disparities can also be judged by the values of quarterly economic density coefficients, which significantly exceed the corresponding population density coefficients.

2 The single three-level system of territorial and Economic Division, the so-called Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, or NUTS, aimed at harmonizing the system of regional division of EU member states and ensuring the possibility of obtaining comparable indicators of regional development for the EU as a whole, was legislatively adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe in May 2003 This happened after lengthy negotiations and settlements between the statistical services of the member states of the Community, which were conducted since the 1970s. Comparability by population size was chosen as the main criterion for identifying "statistical" regions. These regions should also have political, administrative and institutional unity. If a statistical region is recognized as a territorial unit that is not administrative, it must have an economic, cultural, social, geographical, or ecological commonality. According to the NUTS classification, the territories of EU countries are hierarchically divided into regions of three levels-NUTS 1, NUTS 2, NUTS 3. In this case, third-and second-level regions are included in second-and first-level regions, respectively.

3 A fairly complete set of necessary statistical data on Turkish regions is available until 2003, but this allows us to compare the situation in the 1990s, i.e. before Turkey received EU candidate status, and in the early 2000s, i.e. after it received this status.

page 118
Table 2

Indicators of territorial distribution of GDP and investment per capita by Level 2 regions

Indicator

1990

1997

2003

Quarterly GDP per capita ratio

2.75

2.92

2.80

Concentration of GDP per capita

1.85

1.95

2.01

Quarterly ratio of public investment per capita

3.93

3.80

...

Concentration of public investment per capita

2.57

2.46

...

Quarterly ratio of private investment per capita

11.96

15.99

...

Concentration of private investment per capita

4.74

5.03

...

Quarterly coefficient of economic density

79

96

87

Quarterly population density coefficient

31

38

38

Quarterly coefficient of electricity consumption per capita

...

4.21

...

Calculated and compiled using: http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/gosterge/2003

Table 3

Correlation indicators between per capita GDP and investment in Tier 2 regions

Correlation coefficient

1990

1997

Between per capita GDP and public investment

0.20

0.19

Between per capita GDP and private investment

0.68

0.72

Between per capita indicators of public and private investment

0.77

0.61

Calculated and compiled by: Bölge Birimlerine Göre Göstergeler, 2003].

In addition to the standard indicators, an indicator of electricity consumption was also selected to analyze the gap in economic development. It should be noted that for developing countries that do not yet apply energy conservation policies widely enough, the relationship between the volume of electricity consumption and the level of development is direct. Thus, with the 1997 Turkish average of 1,169 kW per year per inhabitant, the standard deviation was 700 kW, and the quarterly coefficient was 4.21, which is significantly higher than the same indicator for per capita GDP.

To achieve greater objectivity in our approach to assessing regional disparities in Turkey, we also used data obtained in two studies (1996 and 2003) by a group of Turkish authors. Ozoslan, B. Dincera and T. Cavasoglu "Study of the distribution of silts and regions of Turkey by the level of socio-economic development" 4 (Table 4).
The dynamics of the main indicators of socio-economic development levels for groups of districts turned out to be multidirectional. Thus, despite the general slight increase in the economic density of industrial enterprises (in the whole country), it increased sharply in the second and fifth groups and regions. At the same time, economi-

4 were based on an array of 58 indicators (including characteristics of the population, labor market, employment structure, social infrastructure and social sector, GDP, the state of individual economic sectors, etc.). According to the results of each of the studies, in accordance with the obtained indices of socio-economic development, all participants were divided into 5 groups: the first had the highest indicator, the fifth - the lowest, respectively.

page 119
Table 4

Economic density indicators for 5 groups of ili

Group

Economic density (by the number of enterprises per 1 sq. km)

Economic density of GDP (million Turks) lir per 1 sq. km)

2003

1996

Change, %

2003

1996

Change, %

1

0.117093

0.118962

-2

999 836

813 654

2

0.013223

0.009911

33

168 345

148 530

13

3

0.006446

0.00822

-22

93 750

99 677

-6

4

0.002251

0.002572

-12

55 381

47 021

18

5

0.000672

0.000501

34

34 703

25 959

34

Turkey

0.014157

0.014018

1

158 600

134 187

18

Составлено по: 1996; Özaslan, Özaslan, Kavasoğlu, 2003, с 65, 71, 73, 107; ve Bölgeler Göstergeler, 1999].

economic density in terms of GDP increased more than the national average in the first and fifth groups. These results suggest that in the first group, which includes the largest cities in the country, there was a change in the sectoral structure of the formation of gross regional product (GRP) in the direction of increasing the share of tertiary sector industries. At the same time, growth in the fifth ("weak") group may be associated with a certain redistribution of industry in favor of the ILI included in this group. This assumption is indirectly supported by data on a decrease in the overall level of concentration of enterprises across the country during the study period.

In general, the results of the calculations show that there is a deep gap between the most and least economically developed regions of Turkey. It is particularly important to note that regional disparities in the 1990s and early 2000s not only did not decrease, but also increased in most indicators. Against this background, the EU's demands for a policy aimed at equalizing these imbalances look more than relevant. However, the question arises: to what extent are the EU approaches in the field of regional policy offered to candidate countries, including Turkey, applicable in this country? To what extent are the depth and scale of regional development problems in Turkey comparable to the problems of the EU countries, at least the new member states of the Union?

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEVEL OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DISPARITIES IN TURKEY AND THE EU COUNTRIES

According to the EU rules, regions of member states and candidates for EU membership, where the per capita GDP does not exceed 75% of the European average, can apply for assistance from European Funds.

If we apply this criterion to the assessment of the level of regional disparities in Turkey5 and take the national average, we will see that in 2001, 12 out of 26 Turkish Level 2 regions had a value of this indicator below 75% of the national average (in 1995-11 regions). The gap in the values of this indicator between the "richest" (Kocaeli) and the poorest region (Agra) was

5 This criterion was applied by the State Planning Organization of Turkey when preparing the main regional development plan of the country, the Regional Competitiveness Improvement Program for 2007-2009, in accordance with the EU recommendations.

page 120
in the same year 5.6 times. For comparison, the gap in GDP per capita (PPP) values between the" richest "and" poorest " regions was 3 times for Romania and Slovakia, 2.8 times for the Czech Republic, 2.4 times for Hungary, 2.2 times for Poland, 1.9 times for Portugal, and 1.7 times for Bulgaria. The level of per capita GDP in the" poorest " region in relation to the national average was in: Romania-70.5%, Slovakia-76.1, Czech Republic-79.0, Hungary-65.4, Poland-69.9, Portugal-80.0, Bulgaria-83.5, while in Turkey-34%. Finally, comparing the values of per capita GDP in the "poorest" region of each of the countries listed above and Turkey with the average value for the EU gives us the following picture. In Turkey, in the" poorest " Agra region, GDP per capita (2005) was less than 8% of the EU-15 level, while in Romania-17.2, Slovakia-34.0, Czech Republic-47.9, Hungary-33.7, Poland-28.6, Portugal-56.5, Bulgaria-21% [Regional Competitiveness..., 2007, p. 17-18; Third report..., 2004, p. 188 - 203]. Thus, we can see that the problems of regional disparities are much more acute in Turkey than even in those EU countries that have recently joined the European Union and are also forced to solve problems related to the territorial unevenness of economic development. In addition, the nature of the consequences of this unevenness in Turkey and European countries is qualitatively different.

FEATURES OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT OF REGIONAL DISPROPORTIONS IN TURKEY

Quantitative indicators of the level of territorial disparities do not reflect the full depth of the problems of the poorest regions of Turkey and the extent of their lag behind the most prosperous areas of the country and, of course, from most EU countries. Turkey, as you know, belongs to the group of developing countries, and the relative backwardness of its economy compared to most European countries brings domestic disparities to another level. The standard of living in the peripheral areas is not just low by international standards, but extremely low.6
Therefore, comprehensive assessments of the level of regional development, including structural indicators, not only economic, but also social, are important for Turkey. An example of such an assessment is the ranking of Level 2 regions according to the SEDI (Socio Economic Development Index), which is used by the EU commissions (Table 5) .7
As we can see, the sectoral structure of GDP in the most and least developed regions of Turkey differs significantly. In general, there is a pattern: in less developed regions, where the level of per capita GDP is lower, there is a high share of agriculture and, more importantly, a low share of industry. For example, in the TR42 region, where per capita GDP is 191% of the national average, the share of agriculture (20.4%) is comparable to the TRC3 region with an income of 46% of the average and the share of agriculture of 29.3%. However, in the first case, the share of industry in GDP is more than 2.5 times higher than in the second. Interestingly, the share of the service sector is higher in the poorer region.

And this simple comparison suggests that developing countries and the assessment of their regions cannot be approached with the same standards as developed countries that are moving to the post-industrial stage. For Turkey as a whole and for its "lagging" regions in particular, the development of the manufacturing industry is fundamentally important, since, unlike developed countries (including the CIS countries), the development of the manufacturing industry is crucial.

6 For example, according to the EU standards applied in the development of Community regional policies, households with incomes below 60% of the European average are considered to be living below the poverty line. In Turkey, the incomes of families vary by orders of magnitude.

7 Includes nine indicators in the areas of infrastructure development, education, healthcare, and energy consumption. It is methodically close to the UN Human Development Index (Mehrotra and Peltonen, 2005).

page 121
Table 5

Some indicators for the five most and least developed regions of Turkey according to the Socio-Economic Development Index (SEDI)

Level 2 Region

SEDI rating (2003 for 26 regions)

GDP per capita (2001, Turkey = 100)

Industrial structure of the employed population, 2005, % (in parentheses-2008)

Percentage of urban population, %

Net migration rate (per thousand people, 2000)

Share of unemployed in the economically active population,%, 2008

Agricultural sector

Industrial sector

Service sector

2000

2008

TR10 (Istanbul)

1

143

0.7 (0.4)

37.0 (40.1)

62.4 (59.5)

90.7

99.0

46.1

11.2

TR51 (Ankara)

2

128

7.3 (2.0)

16.0 (25.6)

76.6 (72.5)

88.3

96.6

25.6

11.8

TR31 (Izmir)

3

150

18.1 (7.5)

27.7 (31.5)

54.2 (61.0)

81.1

90.9

39.9

11.8

TR41 (Bilecik, Bursa, Eskisehir)

4

117

18.3 (13.2)

37.8 (42.6)

43.8 (44.3)

76.4

87.0

38.7

10.3

TR42 (Bolu, Duzce, Kocaeli, Sakrya, Yalova)

5

191

20.4 (17.1)

26.8 (35.2)

52.8 (47.7)

57.2

79.7

-9.5

10.8

Turkey

100

29.5 (23.7)

19.4 (26.8)

51.1 (49.5)

64.9

75.0

-

11.0

TRA1 (Bayburt, Erzincan, Erzurum)

22

50

62.0 (50.7)

3.5 (9.3)

34.5 (40.0)

57.3

59.9

-43.5

6.3

TRC2 (Diyarbakir, Sanli Urfa)

23

54

38.1 (33.4)

5.7 (16.8)

56.1 (49.6)

59.1

63.2

-39.5

14.1

TRC3 (Batman, Mardin, Sirnak, Siirt)

24

46

29.3 (25.8)

10.0 (19.3)

60.8 (54.6)

59.6

62.1

-46.8

17.4

TRA2 (Agri, Ardahan, Ygdir, Kare)

25

34

61.8 (70.2)

3.1 (5.1)

35.1 (24.7)

44.6

46.2

-57.3

5.6

TRB2 (Bitlis, Hakkari, Mush, Van)

26

35

48.0 (34.3)

6.3 (13.7)

45.8 (52.5)

49.3

48.4

-39.5

14.2

Источник: SPO, TUKSTAT: [Ninth Development Plan 2007 - 2010, p. 56; Ninth Development Plan (2007 - 2013). 2010 ANNUAL PROGRAMME, p. 234].

page 122
European Union) it has not yet passed the stage of industrialization. Therefore, relative quantitative indicators of the concentration of the population (and enterprises) in the manufacturing sector (the share in indicators for the economy as a whole), comparable to those in Europe, should not be misleading: many EU countries (in any case, the EU-15) have already passed this stage and are on the way to a post-industrial economy. Indeed, the share of people employed in manufacturing in the EU-15 countries and regions (NUTS2) of the" old " members of the Union is in many cases comparable to that of Turkey, but everywhere, without exception, the share of people employed in the agricultural sector is very low. In the "old" Europe, in fact, there are no agricultural regions left in the understanding that is adequate to Turkish realities. "Agricultural" regions can be considered here as regions with the share of people employed in the agricultural sector in 5-7%. And only in some regions of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, the share of people employed in agriculture reaches 10-11%.

At the same time, there are countries in the European Union in its current composition whose regions have an employment structure similar to that of Turkey. Of the countries that joined the EU before 2004, this is Greece, in 4 out of 13 regions (NUTS2) of which the share of people employed in agriculture exceeds 30%, and in 6 regions-more than 20%. Among the new EU member states, such countries as Poland (4 regions with a share of more than 30%, 7 - with a share of about 20%, a total of 16 NUTS2 regions in the country), Romania (2 out of 8 regions with a share of more than 50%) have a high share of people employed in agriculture (by NUTS2 region).% , 1 - over 40%>, 2 - over 30%).

However, there are no regions in the European Union where more than 60% of the working population is employed in the agricultural sector. If we take the general statistics for all European regions of the NUTS2 level, we will see that even in the poorest regions by European standards with an income level less than half of the European average, the share of people employed in agriculture is on average 17.1%, and with an income level of 50-75% of the European average-10.1% [Fourth progress report..., 2006, p. 32]. At the same time, it should be immediately noted that we are not concerned here with the qualitative indicators of the development of agricultural production in Turkey and European countries, but proceed only from the fact that in all countries agricultural production is a less productive and less profitable sector of the economy. And this determines the lag in the level of income of regions with a high share of employees in this sector, which gives rise to a number of other problems. However, in the case of Turkey and European countries, the points of reference for the backlog and the depth and nature of the problems are completely different.

The 2007-2009 Regional Competitiveness Action Program provides valuable material for qualitative characterization of the problems of Turkey's lagging regions.In accordance with the EU recommendations, NUTS2 regions with a per capita GDP level below 75% of the national average, i.e. those in need of incentives, were identified as the target of the program. All the regions that meet this criterion were concentrated in the eastern part of the country, which largely repeats the distribution of political preferences based on the results of the September referendum.

During the development of the Program, a detailed survey of each of the 12 regions was carried out for a number of parameters8, the results of which allow us to compile

8 Since the main idea of the Action Program is to increase regional competitiveness, the Program is methodologically based on an econometric model that makes it possible to determine the regional competitiveness index for each NUTS2 region. To build the model, we used a system of 42 indicators classified by 10 topics: demography, employment, education, health, industry, agriculture, finance, infrastructure, tourism, and others. - Comments on the Action Program by Dr. J. Kabbar, Head of the Operational Structure of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Turkey (the Operational structure is a special body of the Ministry created to implement the Action Program) [INFOREGIO Panorama, 2008, N 27 (September), p. 17-18].

page 123
an idea of the specifics of the problems of socio-economic development of these regions.

Demographic indicators are especially important for Turkey, as it is one of the most populous countries in the world (one of the top twenty) and has a high birth rate of 9. From the point of view of analyzing the problems of regional unevenness, it is important to note that significant population growth in "poor" areas exacerbates their lag in terms of GDP per capita. In addition, there is a situation where a significant part of the population lives in" poor " regions, where the problems of employment/unemployment, lack of jobs, and infrastructure backlog are very acute. A total of 32.4 million people, or 47.8% of the country's total population, lived in 12 "lagging" regions in 2003 (compared to 37% in 2001) (calculated from [Dincer, Özaslan, Kavasoğlu, 2003, p. 249-250; Regional Competitiveness..., 2007, p. 19]).

In 10 of the 12 regions, the fertility rate is higher than the national average, but only in 4 of them the population growth rate is higher than the national average, which is explained by a significant outflow of population from them.

Busyness. Demographic indicators of the regions, along with socio-economic ones, largely determine the employment situation in the" lagging " regions. The average unemployment rate for the 12 "lagging" regions is lower than the national average, which is quite unusual for the underdeveloped regions of European countries. However, this does not mean that the situation on the labor market in the Turkish province is really better. The point is rather that in rural areas, the registration of unemployed people is worse organized than in the whole country, and there is hidden unemployment. Many people find some kind of employment within the agricultural sector (usually extremely low-income) and do not have the intention and opportunity to register as unemployed and look for a job.

This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that in those regions of the study group where the share of people employed in agriculture is higher, the registered unemployment rate is lower (regions TRA1 and TRA2). Although the authors of the Regional Competitiveness Action Program failed to obtain data on industrial and service sector unemployment for 7 of the 12 "problem" regions, experts believe that unemployment in these sectors for the 12 regions studied is significantly higher than the national average [Regional Competitiveness..., 2007, p. 21].

Production potential: industrial and service enterprises. Of the 1.9 million operating in Turkey, non-agricultural enterprises accounted for only 25.7% of the 12 "lagging" regions, including only a fifth (21.5%) of manufacturing enterprises [TURKSTAT-2002 General Census of Industry and Business Institutions (no: [Regional Competitiveness..., 2007, p. 186)]).

As we noted above, in Turkey, as a developing country, economic progress, including in the "lagging" regions, is primarily due to the development of the manufacturing industry. Therefore, it is fundamentally important to identify the features of the industry structure of less developed regions. It is based on light industry sectors - food, textile (while maintaining a small share in the national indicators), and the production of accessories. Some regions have developed woodworking and furniture production, while others have developed processing of non-metallic mineral raw materials. In general, the industry here is focused on a narrow group of industries, mainly with low added value. These

9 Annual population growth in 1975-2001 was 2.0% in Turkey, compared to 0.8% in the OECD countries and 1.6% on average worldwide, and a high proportion of the young population (the proportion of children under 15 in the total population in 2001). It was 31.2% in Turkey, compared to 20.4% in the OECD countries and 29.8% on average worldwide) [Regional Competitiveness..., p. 19].

page 124
the regions do not have industrial complexes in the full sense of the word, because they do not have the necessary infrastructure and potential for the development of modern industries and industries.

Medium-and high-tech industries with a high share of added value (electrical engineering, coal and oil refining, automotive industry, precision engineering, printing production, telecommunications equipment production and some other industries) are located in the most developed western regions of Turkey (Level 2 regions-Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, Kocaeli, Adana, Bursa). At the same time, it should be noted that in the most industrially backward regions of the country, as well as in the most developed ones, there is a pattern of placing enterprises near large cities with developed infrastructure and there is a synergistic effect when placing some enterprises "attracts" others (i.e., the effect that is purposefully achieved when creating clusters in different cities). countries). In Anatolia, such an agglomeration of industrial enterprises has developed, for example, in the city of Gazantep (a region of the 2nd level TRC1, which belongs to the group of "lagging" regions we studied).

R & D and innovation. One of the manifestations and at the same time consequences of the socio-economic backwardness of the eastern regions of Turkey is their weak scientific and educational potential. Currently, 15 universities are located in 12 "lagging" regions of the country, while their total number exceeds one hundred. 15 universities located in 12 "lagging" regions accounted for 22.51% of the total number of scientific publications and 20.83% of the total number of university teachers in the country (2006).

If we compare these relative indicators with the share of 12 regions in the total population of the country, it becomes obvious that they lag behind in the field of scientific and educational infrastructure, as well as in the results of research activities. The imbalance between the "rich" and "poor" regions in terms of patent registrations can also be confirmed: the 12 "lagging" regions of the country account for only 6.5% of patents registered in the country and 12% of inventions implemented [Regional Competitiveness..., 2007, p. 41, 56-57].

Significant geographical differentiation in Turkey is also observed in the field of information technology development and dissemination. Against the background of the general significant lag behind the average indicators of the EU countries (for example, the share of information technology expenditures to GDP in Turkey in 2003 was only 0.8% against 3.4% for the EU-25), the situation in the eastern provinces of Turkey is significantly worse than in the country as a whole [Regional Competitiveness..., 2007, p. 63].

* * *

Most of the countries that joined the European Union or became candidates for membership in the 1990s-2000s passed a difficult stage of preparation for joining the organization, during which they had to meet a number of criteria in the political, economic and social spheres. The problem of adapting such countries to the requirements and criteria of membership in the Community was explained by their significant differences from the old EU member states in terms of the level of socio-economic development and the nature of the socio-economic system. Among these countries is Turkey, which is at the stage of catch-up development and according to international classifications belongs to the group of developing countries. To this-

10 In accordance with Laws No. 5467 of March 17, 2006 and No. 5662 of May 29, 2007, 21 more universities will be established in these regions. However, they are not yet included in the general statistics.

page 125
I should add Turkey's "middle" position between Europe and Asia, as well as cross-cultural differences between Turkey and most European countries.

As for the gap between Turkey and most European countries in terms of average indicators of the level of socio-economic development, it is very large. And if we take into account the existence of significant disparities in socio-economic development between individual regions in Turkey itself, the problem of achieving compliance with the minimum requirements of the EU and, more broadly, Turkey's achievement of the level of developed countries becomes even more complex than can be judged by the average indicators.

In Turkey, we see a significant imbalance in the distribution of production capacity, skilled labor, research capacity, and educational infrastructure across the country. Comparison of per capita income indicators (less than 75% of the national average) and a number of quantitative and qualitative indicators of productive and human potential for different regions of the country allows us to distinguish the eastern part of the country (12 regions of the 2nd level). as relatively backward in socio-economic terms.

Among the main manifestations and consequences of this backwardness, it is necessary to distinguish the following::

* low per capita income, resulting in low aggregate demand and small domestic market capacity;

* low employment rate and high real unemployment rate;

* high share of agriculture in GRP, weak development of industrial and social infrastructure, manufacturing industries;

* insufficiently developed material and technical base of small and medium-sized enterprises that form the basis of the business structure of these regions;

* high share of low-profit industries in the structure of the economy and weak export potential of the industry;

* insufficient development of tourism;

* lagging behind in R & D, education, and information technology;

* weak financial base for regional development.

Many of these problems are also typical for the regions of the countries of the United Europe, but there are also significant differences in both quantitative and qualitative terms. For example, in European countries (including the 10 "new" members), the population density in lower-income regions is usually lower than the national average. In the" lagging " regions of Turkey, this pattern is not always observed: out of 12 regions, 9 times the density is lower than the national average, but in the most backward region (Van), on the contrary, the density is almost 5 times higher than the national average. Apparently, this is due to lower mobility of the population and high rates of population growth. In Turkey, low-income regions do not have the highest level of "official" unemployment in the country, which is due to the low level of urbanization and insufficient development of the accounting system. In addition, some of the rural population arriving in the cities immediately joins the army of unemployed, so the unemployment rate in the more developed regions of the country is higher than in the less developed ones.

In Turkey, there is no pronounced tendency for small and medium-sized businesses to concentrate in the peripheral areas of the country, since the vast majority of enterprises throughout the country are small and medium-sized.

In European countries, there is no such significant gap in providing the population with social infrastructure. There are quite comfortable living conditions (meaning basic amenities, social security facilities, road transport network), while in Turkey the way of life of people in the most developed areas and on the periphery is radically different from each other.

page 126
At the same time, it is obvious that the elimination of regional imbalances in Turkey should occur simultaneously with the solution of national socio-economic problems. At the same time, achieving compliance with EU requirements and gradually reducing Turkey's lag behind the level of developed countries is not possible without solving the problems of the lagging regions of the country.

list of literature

Regional heterogeneity of Turkey: socio-economic and political aspects / / "Prospects". "Фонд исторической перспективы" (http://www.perspektivy.info/oykumena/azia/regionalnaja_neodnorodnost_turcii_soci alno-ekonomicheskij_i_politicheskij_aspekty_2008 - 05 - 05.htm).

Ulchenko N. Y. Ekonomicheskaya geografiya Turkii [Economic Geography of Turkey]. Moscow: Klyuch-S, 2008.

Dincer B. Illerin sosyo-ekonomik gelismislik stralamasi arastirmasi, 1996 (http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/dincerb/il/).

Dinger B., Ozaslan M., Satilmis E. DPT. Bolgesel Gelisme ve Yapisal Uyum Genel Mudurliigti // Ankara Aralik, 1996. (http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/dincerb/il/).

Dincer B., Ozaslan M., Kavasoglu T. Illerin ve Bolgelerin Socyo-Ekonomik Gelismislik Siralamasi Arastirmasi. Ankara, 2003 (http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/gosterge/2003 - 05.pdf).

Dogruel F., Dofruel A.S. Openness and regional distribution of turkish manufacturing industries // Allied Social Science Associations, January 6 - 8, 2006, Boston, MA (Session Title: Turkish Economy: Crisis, Reform and Convergence) (http://www.luc.edu/orgs/meea/volume8/PDFS/Dogruel.pdf).478

Fourth progress report on cohesion: Growth and jobs and the Reform of European cohesion policy. {COM(2006)281 final}. Brussels, 12.06.2006. SEC(2006) 726 (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docof-fic/official/reports/cohesion4/pdf/4 cr_en.pdf).

Iller ve Bolgeler hibariyle Cesitli Gostergeler, 1999 (http://www2.dpt.gov.tr/dptweb/ekutup99/il99/il99.html#nufus).

Istatistiki Bolge Birimlerine Gore Cesitli Gostergeler, 2003 (http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/bolgesel/gosterge/2003).

INFOREGIO Panorama. 2008. N 27 (September) (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/pa-norama/pdf/mag27/mag27_ en.pdf).

Kalaycioglu Ersin. Turkish Referendum: Divided We Stand // The German Marshall Fund of the United States. September 17, 2010. (www.gmfus.org/galleries/ct.../Ersin_postreferendum_Sept10_final.pdf).

Mehrotra Aaron N., Peltonen Tuomas A. Socio-Economic Development And Fiscal Policy Lessons From The Cohesion Countries For The New Member States // European Central Bank // WORKING PAPER SERIES. N 4, 6, 7. April 2005 (http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp467.pdf).

Ninth Development Plan (2007 - 2013). 2010 ANNUAL PROGRAMME // Undersecretariat of State Planning Organization. ANKARA-2010 (http://www.dpt.gov.tr/ing).

Ninth Development Plan 2007 - 2013 // State Planning Organization. Ankara (http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/ix/9developmentplan.pdf).

Regional Competitiveness Operational Programme (CCI No. 2007 TR 16 I IPO 003). Ankara, November 2007.

Third report on economic and social cohesion. A new partnership for cohesion: convergence, competitiveness, cooperation. Main Regional Indicators (Feb.2004) (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/cohesion3/co hesion3_indicator_en.pdf).

page 127

Permanent link to this publication: