INTERNAL MIGRATION DYNAMICS IN TURKEY: A Map of Hope, Inequality, and the Future from Istanbul to Adana, from Bursa to Van

Internal migration in Turkey is not merely the movement of population; it is a mirror of economic opportunities, social justice, and quality of life. TÜİK's 2024 data show that millions of people moving between cities are in fact searching for better education, employment, housing, and living conditions. The fact that Istanbul is both the city receiving the most migration and the one sending the most, that Bursa is facing a sustainability test as it grows through industry, and that Adana risks losing its young population are the most striking examples of these dynamics. Turkey's demographic structure has been undergoing significant transformations over the years not only due to changes in fertility and mortality rates, but also through internal migration mobility. Internal migration serves as the clearest indicator of regional inequalities, development imbalances, and social vulnerabilities, offering important messages about Turkey's future.

A NUMERICAL MAP OF MIGRATION THROUGH TÜİK DATA: Who, Why, Where?

The 2024 Internal Migration Statistics published by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) shed clearer light on these dynamics. According to the report, internal migration mobility in Turkey directs millions of individuals to different provinces every year, having a significant impact on the country's overall demographic structure. Among the reasons for internal migration, job opportunities, educational possibilities, quality of life, and family reasons stand out, while this mobility also reveals regional imbalances and the differences between provinces that receive and send migrants.

As of 2024, 2 million 682 thousand 673 people migrated between provinces in Turkey, a figure that constitutes approximately 3.13% of the country's population. The migration rate, which has varied over the years, was 3.18% in 2008, 2.70% in 2020, 3.28% in 2021, 3.27% in 2022, and 4.04% in 2023. While 30 of our provinces recorded net in-migration, 51 provinces recorded net out-migration. This change shows that the influence of economic and socio-cultural pressures on internal migration is increasing and illustrates how these dynamics are taking shape.

Looking at the gender distribution of the population that carried out internal migration, the share of women (52.4%) exceeds that of men (47.6%). This difference shows that women play a greater role in family-oriented migration, while men are slightly more prominent in individual work- and education-driven migration.

THE BRIGHT FACE OF THE METROPOLIS, THE SILENT DECLINE OF THE PROVINCES: TRACES OF UNBALANCED DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY

The top 10 provinces sending the least migration are as follows: Ardahan 6 thousand 441, Kilis 8 thousand 41, Bayburt 8 thousand 639, Tunceli 8 thousand 868, Bartın 9 thousand 569, Bilecik 10 thousand 38, Artvin 10 thousand 400, Iğdır 11 thousand 778, Karaman 11 thousand 846, Uşak 11 thousand 886. These provinces stand out as quieter settlements where less migration mobility is observed.

The top 10 provinces sending the most migration are Istanbul 369 thousand 453, Ankara 150 thousand 373, İzmir 102 thousand 40, Antalya 71 thousand 999, Bursa 66 thousand 440, Kocaeli 63 thousand 593, Şanlıurfa 60 thousand 925, Konya 56 thousand 234, Adana 56 thousand 108, Mersin 54 thousand 703. These provinces are generally large cities that attract more migration in terms of economic opportunities, educational possibilities, and social infrastructure.

The top 10 provinces receiving the least migration are Ardahan 4 thousand 570, Bayburt 5 thousand 644, Tunceli 6 thousand 739, Kilis 7 thousand 503, Artvin 7 thousand 670, Iğdır 8 thousand, Hakkari 8 thousand 478, Bartın 9 thousand 439, Kars 9 thousand 588, Bilecik 10 thousand 23. These provinces stand out with their lower rates of in-migration.

The top 10 provinces receiving the most migration are Istanbul 395 thousand 485, Ankara 202 thousand 402, İzmir 117 thousand 889, Antalya 96 thousand 618, Bursa 81 thousand 656, Kocaeli 80 thousand 804, Mersin 60 thousand 574, Gaziantep 56 thousand 97, Adana 55 thousand 342, Konya 53 thousand 971. These provinces are metropolitan areas that receive heavy migration due to their advanced infrastructure.

Internal migration mobility in Turkey is not limited to economic factors alone; it is influenced by a range of dynamics including quality of life, social opportunities, educational prospects, and family reasons. These data help us understand in which provinces internal migration occurs more or less frequently, as well as the effects of migration on social structures. How migration will take shape in the coming years is closely linked in particular to regional development policies and improvements in living conditions.

NET MIGRATION FIGURES AND NET MIGRATION RATES IN TURKEY: THE TOP 10 PROVINCES RECEIVING AND SENDING THE MOST AND LEAST MIGRATION

In 2024, migration mobility among Turkey's provinces is at a notable level. Net migration and net migration rate data reveal which provinces receive or send more migration.

In terms of net migration figures, the province that received the most migration was Ankara. The capital leads the list with a net migration of 52 thousand 29 people (In-Migration: 202 thousand 402; Out-Migration: 150 thousand 373). It is followed respectively by Istanbul with 26 thousand 32 people (In-Migration: 395 thousand 485; Out-Migration: 369 thousand 453), Antalya with 24 thousand 619, Kocaeli with 17 thousand 211, and İzmir with 15 thousand 849. Tekirdağ (15 thousand 443), Bursa (15 thousand 216), Muğla (12 thousand 517), Kahramanmaraş (7 thousand 130), and Eskişehir (6 thousand 819) were among the top 10 provinces receiving the most migration in terms of net migration figures.

On the other hand, in terms of net migration figures, Van leads the provinces that sent the most migration. Van experienced a net migration loss of 22 thousand 605 people. Van is followed by Şanlıurfa with 19 thousand 154, Ağrı with 16 thousand 559, Sivas with 13 thousand 613, Erzurum with 11 thousand 908, Siirt with 11 thousand 622, Muş with 10 thousand 870, Yozgat with 8 thousand 443, Şırnak with 8 thousand 97, and Diyarbakır with 7 thousand 420. The common feature of these provinces is that they are largely located in the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia regions.

When net migration rate is taken into account, the province that received the most migration relative to its population as of 2024 was Yalova. Yalova's net migration rate is 15.6 per thousand. This rate points to a considerably high internal migration attractiveness relative to population size. Yalova is followed by Tekirdağ at 13.1 per thousand, Muğla at 11.6 per thousand, Tokat at 10.4 per thousand, and Antalya at 9.1 per thousand. Ankara (8.9 per thousand), Kocaeli (8.1 per thousand), Eskişehir (7.4 per thousand), Malatya (6.9 per thousand), and Kahramanmaraş (6.3 per thousand) are among the top 10 in terms of net migration rate.

On the other hand, in terms of net migration rate, the province that sent the most migration was Gümüşhane. Gümüşhane's net migration rate is -42.8 per thousand. This is a very high rate, indicating that the province is experiencing a serious population loss. Gümüşhane is followed by Bayburt at -35.2 per thousand, Siirt at -34 per thousand, Ağrı at -32.6 per thousand, Çankırı at -27.7 per thousand, Muş at -27.3 per thousand, Kars at -25.3 per thousand, Tunceli at -24.3 per thousand, Sivas at -21.1 per thousand, and Ardahan at -20.3 per thousand.

Assessed overall in terms of net migration figures, metropolitan areas such as Ankara, Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya, Kocaeli, and İzmir are among the regions receiving migration; these provinces attract population because they offer greater job opportunities, education, and living possibilities. In contrast, provinces such as Van, Şanlıurfa, Ağrı, Sivas, and Erzurum stand out as migration-sending regions due to various economic, social, and infrastructure problems. This situation demonstrates how significantly regional inequalities and development disparities in Turkey affect migration.

ISTANBUL: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE THE LEADER IN BOTH IN-MIGRATION AND OUT-MIGRATION AT THE SAME TIME?

Istanbul is still the largest migration hub. However, the closeness of its in-migration and out-migration figures shows that the metropolis has now reached a "balance point." According to 2024 data, Istanbul was the province that received the most migration with 395 thousand 485 people, while simultaneously being the province that sent the most migration with 369 thousand 453 people. In line with these figures, Istanbul's net migration figure was 26 thousand 32 and its net migration rate was 1.7 per thousand, placing Istanbul 2nd in Turkey in terms of net migration figure and 25th in Turkey in terms of net migration rate. While this may appear paradoxical at first glance, it in fact clearly reveals the city's multi-layered demographic and economic structure.

Istanbul continues to be Turkey's centre of attraction with various pull factors such as education, employment, healthcare services, and cultural opportunities. However, high living costs, rising housing prices, traffic congestion, environmental pressures, and an increasingly difficult social life are forcing many people to migrate out of the city. In particular, middle- and lower-income groups are moving from Istanbul toward regions perceived as more liveable, such as Thrace, the Marmara periphery, the Aegean, and the Black Sea. This shows that Istanbul has become a "migration factory" and is in fact the central hub of internal migration in Turkey. The most decisive factor in Istanbul's migration balance is young people in the 20–24 age group. Those who come to the city especially for university education tend to leave after graduation due to rising costs.

ANKARA AND İZMİR: STEADILY GROWING CENTRES OF ATTRACTION

According to 2024 data, Ankara ranked 2nd among provinces receiving migration with 202 thousand 402 people. Its net migration figure was 52 thousand 29 and its net migration rate was 8.9 per thousand; in terms of net migration figure, Ankara ranked 1st nationwide, and in terms of net migration rate it ranked 6th. İzmir, meanwhile, ranked 3rd among provinces receiving migration with 117 thousand 889 people; it ranked 5th in terms of net migration figure with 15 thousand 849 people and 17th in terms of net migration rate at 3.5 per thousand. At the same time, Ankara ranked 2nd among provinces sending migration with 150 thousand 373 people, and İzmir ranked 3rd with 102 thousand 40 people. These two major cities remain attractive especially for young people and white-collar workers because they offer a calmer lifestyle, more accessible public services, and employment opportunities compared to Istanbul. However, rental prices, urban sprawl, and transportation problems are also on the rise in these cities. For this reason, Ankara and İzmir, which continue to attract migration, need to balance this burden through sustainable urbanisation policies.

PROVINCES RECEIVING AND SENDING THE LEAST MIGRATION: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SILENCE

The provinces receiving the least migration are, in order, Ardahan (4 thousand 570), Bayburt (5 thousand 644), and Tunceli (6 thousand 739). At the same time, Ardahan (6 thousand 441), Kilis (8 thousand 41), and Bayburt (8 thousand 639) are also among the last-ranked provinces in terms of out-migration. The underlying reason for this situation is that these provinces have both low populations and weak socio-economic mobility. Provinces such as Ardahan, Tunceli, Kilis, and Bayburt are unable to retain young people due to limited economic activity, insufficient private sector investment, and scarce education and employment opportunities. At the same time, the number of people emigrating from these provinces also remains limited, since their population size is already quite small.

YOUTH MIGRATION: A GENERATION ON THE MOVE FOR EDUCATION

According to 2024 data, the age group that migrated the most was young people aged 20–24. 549 thousand 43 people in this age group changed provinces. Of the young people who migrated, 58.1% were women and 41.9% were men. The leading reason for migration in this age group is education. 209 thousand 40 young people moved to different provinces for higher education or vocational training. In the same age group, 84 thousand 328 people migrated due to starting or finding a job, and 44 thousand 319 people migrated in search of better housing and living conditions. These data show that the young population is on the move intensively, driven by a search for individual independence, educational expectations, and a desire for social mobility.

THE SOCIAL BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION REASONS

Looking at the reasons why migrating individuals moved, the most frequently encountered reason was migration dependent on another member of the household. The number of people who migrated for this reason in 2024 was 579 thousand 507. Examining other migration reasons, 512 thousand 370 people migrated for better housing and living conditions, and 479 thousand 622 people migrated for education. Such migrations are particularly pronounced among women and children and occur for reasons such as marriage, spousal status, and care responsibilities. The most important migration reason by gender was better housing and living conditions for men, with 255 thousand 846 people, while for women it was migration dependent on a household member, with 343 thousand 342. Among men, migration dependent on a household member and natural disaster/emergency were among the other important migration reasons, while among women, education and natural disaster/emergency were among the other significant reasons. This shows us that economic motivations are one of the primary drivers of male migration. Education continues to be an important migration reason for both men and women.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO BALANCE DECLINING POPULATIONS?

The population decline observed in migration-sending provinces is not only a demographic risk but also a socio-economic one. To prevent this situation, local development policies need to be strengthened. Expanding educational opportunities, having universities generate lasting projects in the region, and revitalising local labour markets are of great importance. In addition, modernising and making traditional sectors such as agriculture and animal husbandry more attractive could reduce the necessity for young people to leave for cities. Strengthening digital infrastructure and expanding remote working models will also make living in these provinces sustainable. Furthermore, facilitating access to healthcare services, expanding social life opportunities, and supporting cultural projects should be counted among the steps that will slow migration.

BALANCING MEASURES ARE NEEDED FOR METROPOLITAN AREAS RECEIVING MIGRATION

The growing populations of metropolitan areas bring with them serious infrastructure, housing, and environmental problems. Chief among these problems are the housing crisis, traffic congestion, inadequacy of social services, and environmental damage. To prevent a decline in quality of life in these cities, social housing policies need to be accelerated, transportation systems integrated, green spaces protected, and public services restructured. Moreover, rather than having only a few metropolises bear the pressure of migration, making medium-sized cities into centres of attraction will be critical for Turkey's overall balance.

BURSA: THE NEW FACE OF THE INDUSTRY AND WELFARE BALANCE SHAPED BY MIGRATION

According to 2024 data, Bursa, with a population of 3 million 238 thousand 618, was one of Turkey's provinces receiving the most migration. Standing out among provinces that received migration with 81 thousand 656 people, Bursa is also among the provinces that sent a significant amount of migration with 66 thousand 440 people. When the total figures for migration received and sent are considered, Bursa is the 5th province with the most migration mobility, after Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir, and Antalya. In addition, Bursa received a net migration of 15 thousand 216 people and ranked 7th nationwide, and with a net migration rate of 4.7 per thousand it ranks 13th nationwide.

When examining Bursa's in-migration and out-migration dynamics, it is also necessary to consider how these processes affect the city's economic structure, industrial sectors, and demographic diversity. Bursa, the industrial hub of the Marmara Region, has become a strong centre of attraction for young workers, particularly through the job opportunities it offers in the automotive, textile, and machinery manufacturing sectors. This industrial diversity plays a decisive role in both the reasons for in-migration and out-migration. For example, 9,384 people settled in Bursa due to assignment or job change, while 5,965 people left the city for the same reason. The prevalence of job opportunities increases the city's appeal, while 8,773 people came to Bursa to start a job, and 4,754 people migrated out of the city in order to find work.

Bursa's economic scale, organised industrial zones, and high export capacity contribute to it becoming not only a local but also a regional economic centre. This strong industrial infrastructure also makes the city the destination of 16,000 people seeking better housing and living conditions. However, Bursa's geographical proximity to Istanbul and its lower cost of living cause middle-class families in particular to gravitate toward the city. As a result, through "reverse migration" from Istanbul, Bursa has become an attractive alternative destination. However, this rapid population growth also brings problems such as inadequate transportation infrastructure, unplanned urbanisation, and rapidly rising housing prices.

Educational opportunities and university capacity are also among the important factors shaping Bursa's in-migration dynamics. While 10,453 people settled in Bursa for educational purposes, the city has also become a place where university-graduate young people tend to migrate to other provinces or abroad in search of work. This situation reveals that Bursa needs to make more qualified and high-technology-based investments in order to retain its human capital.

From a socio-cultural perspective, Bursa also stands out for the diversity of its migrant population. In a city where different groups live together — migrants from the Balkans, families from Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, and the recently increasing numbers of Syrian and Afghan refugees — this demographic diversity requires policies to be determined with sensitivity both in terms of cultural richness and social cohesion.

As a city that has grown through migration, Bursa has the potential to be a pioneering model that balances Turkey's industrial strength with quality of life. However, for this potential to translate into lasting benefit, it must be achieved through planned urbanisation, quality employment, and strong social integration policies. For this reason, it is clear that Bursa needs a comprehensive strategy capable of balancing its in-migration and out-migration dynamics.

With its industrial infrastructure, agricultural production capacity, and proximity to Istanbul, Bursa is among the leading cities in positive net migration. Better job opportunities and living conditions constitute the most fundamental reasons for the influx into the city. On the other hand, risks such as rapid population growth, rising housing prices, pressure on infrastructure, and increasing traffic pose significant threats to Bursa's future. This picture makes it imperative for the city to develop sustainable urbanisation policies. Only through these steps can Bursa turn its growth into an advantage and secure its social welfare.

ADANA: THE SOCIOECONOMIC VULNERABILITY OF A CITY WITH NET OUT-MIGRATION

According to 2024 data, Adana, with a population of 2 million 280 thousand 484, is seen to rank high among Turkey's out-migration provinces compared to its in-migration provinces. Adana, which is among the provinces that received migration with 55 thousand 342 people, is also among the provinces that sent a significant amount of migration with 56 thousand 108 people. In line with these figures, Adana ranks 9th among the provinces sending the most migration, after Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir, Antalya, Bursa, Kocaeli, Şanlıurfa, and Konya. Similarly, Adana ranks 9th among the provinces receiving the most migration, after Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir, Antalya, Bursa, Kocaeli, Mersin, and Gaziantep. Adana has in recent years begun to appear among the provinces with net out-migration. In 2024, it recorded a net out-migration of 766 people and ranked 36th nationwide, and 32nd in terms of net migration rate at -0.3 per thousand.

When examining Adana's in-migration and out-migration dynamics, it is necessary to consider how these processes affect the city's economic structure, industrial sectors, and environmental conditions. Adana, which has a strong background in agriculture, industry, and logistics infrastructure, has in recent years become a net out-migration province due to a decline in its capacity to create employment, a drop in quality of life, and increasing socioeconomic inequalities. For example, while 5,251 people left Adana due to assignment or job change, 6,221 people settled in the city for the same reason. These figures show that Adana's economic structure is one of the important factors causing labour mobility.

Adana's economic scale stems particularly from the potential of its agricultural and industrial sectors. Logistics infrastructure opportunities such as the Eastern Mediterranean Container Port to be built in Ceyhan, the SASA Yumurtalık Special Industrial Zone, and energy investments in the region still make the city an important industrial and commercial centre. However, this sectoral strength is not sufficient to prevent the young population in the city from migrating to other provinces. While 4,260 people left Adana to start or find a job, 3,796 people migrated to the city for the same reason. Job opportunities in the industrial and agricultural sectors add to the city's appeal, but the failure of local employment to meet the needs of the growing young population causes young workers to gravitate toward larger cities.

In addition to this, Adana's environmental challenges and climatic factors play an important role in the reasons for out-migration. Environmental problems such as extreme heat in summer months, air pollution, and infrastructure deficiencies cause a significant portion of the 10,465 people leaving the city to migrate in search of "better living conditions." Another piece of data supporting this situation is that 2,688 people left Adana with the aim of returning to their family or hometown. Climatic difficulties and hardships in living conditions are forcing some families in the city to move from Adana to other provinces.

Educational opportunities are also among the important factors shaping Adana's in-migration dynamics. While 8,595 people settled in Adana for educational purposes, the tendency of university-graduate young people who have settled in the city to move to other provinces or abroad in search of work is noteworthy. While 12,816 people left the city for education, young people in higher education in particular prefer larger cities over Adana, where job-finding opportunities are limited. This situation reveals that Adana needs to develop strategies to prevent brain drain.

In terms of its socio-cultural structure, Adana also stands out for the diversity of its migrant population. The large number of refugees and persons under temporary protection who settled in Adana following the Syrian civil war has reshaped the city's social structure. This means that Adana, despite being a city with net out-migration, simultaneously faces multiple demographic pressures. While 4,134 people settled in Adana with the aim of returning to their family or hometown, 12,071 people further diversify the city's demographic structure through migration dependent on a household or family member. Socio-cultural diversity requires policies to be determined with sensitivity both in terms of cultural richness and social cohesion.

Although Adana's strong infrastructure in the industrial and agricultural sectors still makes it an important commercial centre, economic difficulties and environmental factors are among the elements that significantly affect migration dynamics in the city. For this reason, local governments need to develop more social policies, establish entrepreneurship ecosystems to support youth employment, and increase education-business world cooperation. While 976 people came to Adana to buy a home, 1,255 people left the city for the same reason. Such data show that the city needs to focus on improvements related to living conditions.

The Adana example shows that internal migration is closely related not only to economic reasons but also to quality of life, environmental conditions, and the inadequacy of social support mechanisms. For the city to regain the human capital it has lost, investments alone will not be sufficient; it will also need to develop holistic policies based on social justice and participation.

The most evident reason for the migration loss is that young people in the 15–24 age group are moving to major cities for education and job opportunities. Yet Adana has significant potential in agricultural production, industry, and logistics. Investments in educational infrastructure, projects to support youth employment, and steps to enhance the city's cultural appeal could reverse this migration trend. Otherwise, Adana faces the danger of risking its future by losing its young population.

CONCLUSION: MIGRATION AS A COMPASS, A ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE

The 2024 migration data clearly lay bare not only Turkey's population mobility but also inequalities of opportunity, regional development imbalances, and urbanisation problems. Migration is not a problem in itself; it is a powerful indicator that makes visible the shortcomings, vulnerabilities, and search for social justice within the existing system.

While Istanbul being both the city that receives and sends the most migration illustrates the dilemma between the metropolis's appeal and its decline, Bursa is a centre growing with opportunities but facing a sustainability test. Adana, meanwhile, is at risk of losing its young people. In provinces such as Ardahan, Tunceli, Kilis, and Bayburt, the inadequacy of economic and social vitality deepens the lack of hope.

This picture shows that if Turkey fails to build a balanced development model, migration will intensify further in the coming years, leading to crises in large cities and population loss in small ones. Migration is not merely the movement of people; it is also a demand for access to opportunity, justice, and hope.

For Turkey's future, migration should be seen as the compass of sustainable development policies. Because migration is the clearest expression of our people's search for a better life. Reading this compass correctly makes it imperative not only to reshape cities, but also to reshape policies, priorities, and perspectives.