As Villages Empty, Are Cities Really Winning?

Returning to an Anatolian village after a long absence, you need not check the population sign to understand the change. Houses without smoking chimneys, fewer tables in the café, and streets quiet even at midday say enough.

The figures confirm this observation. Türkiye’s address-based population registry shows more than 93 percent of people living in provincial and district centers, with less than 7 percent in towns and villages. The average age of those remaining in villages is markedly higher than in cities.

It is easy to read this through nostalgia for crowded villages. But the issue is an economic transformation extending from food production to rising urban rents.

The reasons are usually unsurprising: a better school, a nearby hospital, regular income, another future for the children. None should be dismissed. We cannot force anyone to remain where they were born simply to maintain agriculture.

The problem is the movement’s almost one-way character. Agricultural workers age, some fields remain uncultivated, and village crafts find nobody to continue them. Meanwhile, cities face pressure on housing, transport, and infrastructure.

Those who want to stay should be able to

Rural policy has long revolved around “We must keep young people in villages.” I think this frames the issue incorrectly. A young person wanting to move will move. Our task is ensuring that those who want to stay do not have to accept poverty to do so.

What is needed has long been known. Fast internet is now a condition for doing business in rural areas. A good road gets products to market on time. Cold storage, processing facilities, irrigation, and direct market access are production infrastructure rather than social assistance.

A producer selling a raw crop to the first buyer receives the smallest share of the chain. Sorting, processing, packaging, and branding the same product can generate very different income. Bringing some of that added value closer to the place of production is a concrete step toward rural development.

“Cooperative” often remains an appealing call for solidarity. A well-managed cooperative can substantially improve small producers’ bargaining power, storage, and input costs. A poorly managed one adds another bureaucratic layer. Professional management and regular accountability to members make the difference.

The pandemic removed the need for some professions to travel into a large city every morning. Smaller settlements with adequate internet and basic services became conceivable again for software, design, translation, and accounting. This has not produced a major migration wave, but a modest return movement can be seen in some districts.

Villages need not imitate cities. Rural life has advantages of its own: low density, proximity to production, strong neighborly ties, and contact with nature. Good policy should preserve these while completing missing health, education, and transport services.

The city’s side of the calculation

Young arrivals energize labor, consumption, and entrepreneurship. But unplanned growth leaves the same people complaining a few years later about high rents, long commutes, and living costs. Someone leaving a village for a better life may not find the life expected in the city.

Taking sides between village and city is therefore meaningless. Strong cities are major markets for rural food; strong rural areas underpin urban food security.

I want to end with a concrete proposal. Instead of every district copying the same development project, identify each place’s real economic advantage. Fruit growing and processing may lead in one place, livestock and dairy in another, cultural and nature tourism elsewhere. Development agencies, municipalities, and universities can map these together.

A village does not need hundreds of returnees to breathe again. A few families selling products at a good price, a few young remote workers, a school remaining open, and regular bus service can change a settlement’s future. Making successes at this scale visible may be more persuasive than grand plans.