Housing production under less-regulated market conditions in Turkey

  • Ali Türel
  • Hülya Koç


In recent years, the numbers of annual housing starts in Turkey have greatly exceeded the increases in the number of households. Such high levels of housing output occur under less-regulated and highly competitive market conditions, and when conventional housing policies associated with a welfare state are not introduced. In addition, the decentralized planning system and the potential for profit through housing investments when compared to most other sectors appear to have been instrumental in the high levels of supply. However, in addition to the affordability problem for moderate-to-lower income households, an important outcome of increasing dependence on the less-regulated market is the great variation in housing starts among the provinces of Turkey. In this paper, the results of a research that was undertaken in eight provinces to investigate this phenomenon are also presented, from which it can be understood that the level of housing starts is related positively to the number of plots with planning permission that are supplied in urban areas, and the way in which they are brought to the market.


Housing policies Housing starts Land supply Mortgage finance Welfare state 


  1. Alkan, L. (2011). Tenure choice and demand for homeownership in Ankara. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  2. Baldini, M., & Poggio, T. (2012). Housing policy towards the rental sector in Italy: A distributive assessment. Housing Studies, 27, 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boelhouwer, P. (2002). Trends in Dutch housing policy and the shifting position of the social rented sector. Urban Studies, 39, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boelhouwer, P., & Priemus, H. (2012). Housing system reform: The opinion of advisory boards versus political reality in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 27, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bramley, G., Bartlett, W., & Lambert, C. (1995). Planning, the market and private housebuilding. Farnborough: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  6. Bramley, G., & Leishman, C. (2005). Modelling local housing market adjustment in England. In D. Adams, C. Watkins, & M. White (Eds.), Planning, public policy and property markets (pp. 79–104). Oxford, UK/Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Central Bank of Turkey. (2013). Credit interest rates statistics.
  8. Cheshire, P. (2008). Reflections on the nature and policy implications of planning restrictions on housing supply. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheshire, P., & Sheppard, S. (2005). The introduction of price signals into land-use planning decision making: A proposal. Urban Studies, 42, 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Esping-Andersen, G. (2007). Sustainability of welfare states into the 21st century. In R. Vij (Ed.), Globalization and welfare—A critical reader (pp. 50–59). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Fahey, T., & Norris, M. (2011). Housing in the welfare state: Rethinking the conceptual foundations of comparative housing policy analysis. International Journal of Housing Policy, 11, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groves, R., Murie, A., & Watson, C. (2007). Housing and the new welfare state. Aldershot, England/Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Harsman, B., & Quigley, J. M. (1990). Housing markets and housing institutions: An international comparison. Boston: Kluver Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Leishman, C., & Bramley, G. (2005). A local housing market model with spatial interaction and land use planning controls. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1637–1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maclennan, D. (1982). Housing economics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  17. Malpass, P. (2005). Housing and the welfare state—The development of housing policy in Britain. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, C. J., & Somerville, C. T. (2000). Land-use regulation and new construction. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 30, 639–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monk, S., & Whitehead, C. (2010). Why intermediate housing markets. In S. Monk & C. Whitehead (Eds.), Making housing more affordable: The role of intermediate tenures. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murie, A. (2012). The next blueprint for housing policy in England. Housing Studies, 27, 1031–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Özdemir, D. (2011). The role of the public sector in the provision of housing supply in Turkey, 1950–2009. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35, 1099–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pryce, G. (1999). Construction elasticities and land availability: A two stage least-squares model of housing supply using the variable elasticity approach. Urban Studies, 36, 2283–2304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ronald, R., & Lee, H. (2012). Housing market socialization and de-commodification in South Korea. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 27, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rothenberg, R., Galster, G. C., Butler, R. V., & Pitkin, J. (1991). The maze of urban housing markets. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. SIS. (2003). 2000 Census of population, social and economic characteristics of population. Ankara: State Institute of Statistics.Google Scholar
  26. Son, J.-Y. (1998). Analysis of urban land shortages: The case of Korean cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 43, 362–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tekeli, İ., & İlkin, S. (1984). Bahçeli Evlerin Öyküsü (The story of Bahçeli Evler). Ankara: Kent-Koop Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Türel, A. (2004). Türkiye’de İllere Göre Konut Üretiminin Farklılaşması (Differentiation of housing starts between provinces). In Değişen, Dönüşen Kent ve Bölge (Proceedings of the world urbanism day colloquium on changing and transforming city and region) (Vol. 2, 703–716). Ankara: Faculty of Architecture, Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  29. Türel, A. (2010, September). Development and the present state of housing production by housebuilding cooperatives in Turkey. Paper presented at the Cambridge Centre for housing and planning research conference, King’s College, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Türel, A. (2011, September). “Bursa’da Konut Üretimi” (Housing production in Bursa). Paper presented at Symposium on the memory of Prof. Dr. Rana Akdiş Aslanoğlu, entitled Urbanization in Bursa during the republican period (Prof. Dr. Rana Akdiş Aslanoğlu anısına Cumhuriyet Döneminde Bursa’da Kentleşme Sempozyumu), Turkey Uludağ University, Bursa.Google Scholar
  31. Türel, A., & Koç, H. (2008). Türkiye’de İllere Göre Konut Üretiminin Farklılaşmasının Arsa Arzı ile İlişkisi (The relationship between the variation of housing production between provinces and land supply in Turkey). In O. Işık, & E. Kamacı (Eds.), Gecekondu, Dönüşüm, Kent (Squatter housing, urban transformations and the city). Ankara: METU Faculty of Architecture Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Türel, A., Koç, H., & Doğan, D. (2007). Türkiye’de İllere Göre Konut Üretiminin Farklılaşmasının Nedenlerinin Belirlenmesi (Identification of the reasons behind the variation of housing supply between provinces in Turkey). Ankara: TÜBİTAK Project No: SOBAG-104K110.Google Scholar
  33. TurkStat. (2013a). Household budget surveys. Ankara: Turkish Statistical Institute. Retrieved from
  34. TurkStat. (2013b). Population and housing survey, 2011. Ankara: Turkish Statistical Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of City and Regional PlanningDokuz Eylül UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations