Abstract
In recent decades, socioeconomic inequalities have become increasingly noticeable at international, national and regional scales. Strikingly, a significant number of countries have been characterized by a division between dynamic and growing metropolitan areas and shrinking and declining rural regions. Relatedly, the Territorial Agenda 2020 of the EU states explicitly that “the core-periphery division is still present”. Increasing socioeconomic inequalities are more apparent within the prosperous metropolises and there has been an increasing socioeconomic differentiation between core and periphery regarding income, employment, and socioeconomic characteristics. Metropolitan areas have been experiencing population growth within the urban core, driven primarily by younger, better-educated and higher income people, in contrast to the peripheral areas witnessing an ageing, poorly-educated and low-income population. This differentiation occurring between core and periphery of metropolitan areas and their distribution across space may bring challenging issues for the governments to deal with. The aim of the study is to figure out how much core and periphery differentiate from each other in terms of their socioeconomic characteristics. As a case study, Ankara metropolitan area is analyzed considering the variables of age groups, sex, level of education, household structure, employment, and political views in district level. Ankara metropolitan area have totally 25 districts. The core is defined as the inner metropolitan area, including eight central districts, and the periphery as the outer area, including 17 districts mainly defined by their rural characteristics. In the empirical part of the study, the socioeconomic characteristics of the core and the periphery are compared by using the Turkish Statistical Institute’s data set. The statistical analysis of socioeconomic variation is realized via recently available economic and social data for the 25 districts and cluster analysis is used for the classification of the districts. By analyzing the districts using the economic and social variables, a district pattern of socioeconomic differentiation of Ankara metropolitan area is revealed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Blei, D. M., & Lafferty, J. D. (2009). Topic models. In Text mining (pp. 101–124). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Copus, A. K. (2001). From core-periphery to polycentric development: Concepts of spatial and aspatial peripherality. European Planning Studies, 9(4), 539–552.
Crone, M. (2012). Re-thinking “Peripherality” in the context of a knowledge-intensive, service-dominated economy. In: M. Danson, & P. De Souza (Eds.), Regional development in Northern Europe. Peripherality, marginality and border issues (pp. 49–64). London: Routledge.
Erkut, G., & Ozgen, C. (2003). The economic and spatial peripherality of border regions in Southeastern Europe. In The 43rd European Congress of the Regional Science Association Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Friedmann, J. (1973). Urbanisation, planning and national development. London: Sage.
Healey, J., & Ilbery, B. W. (1990). Location and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herrschel, T. (2012). Regionalisation and marginalisation: Bridging old and new division in regional governance. In M. Danson & P. de Souza (Eds.), Regional development in Northern Europe (pp. 30–48). London: Routledge.
Hirschman, A. O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hospers, G. J. (2003). Beyond the Blue Banana? Structural change in Europe’s Geo-economy. Intereconomics, 38(2), 76–85.
Kebza, M. (2018). The development of peripheral areas: The case of West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland. Moravian Geographical Reports, 26(1), 69–81.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. The Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.
Kühn, M. (2015). Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities, European Planning Studies, 23:2, 367–378.
Lang, T. (2012). Shrinkage, Metropolization and Peripherization in East Germany. European Planning Studies, 20(10), 1747–1754.
Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. London: Duckworth.
O'hare, G. P., & Barrett, H. R. (1996). Spatial socio‐economic inequalities in Sri Lanka: Core‐Periphery frameworks. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 87(2), 113–123.
Pascariu, G. C., & Tiganasu, R. (2017). Integration, growth and core-periphery pattern in EU’s economy: Theoretical framework and empirical evidences. In G. C. Pascariu, & M. A. P. S. Duarte (Eds.), Core-Periphery patterns across the European Union (pp. 21–85). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Perroux, F. (1950). Economic space: Theory and applications. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64(1), 89–104.
Prebisch, R. (1950). The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems, New York. Retrieved from https://archivo.cepal.org/pdfs/cdPrebisch/002.pdf.
Reitsmah, A., & Kleinpenning, J. M. G. (1985), The Third World in Perspective. Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
Siedentop, S., Zakrzewski, P., & Stroms, P. (2018). A childless urban renaissance? Age-selective patterns of population change in North American and German Metropolitan Areas. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 5(1), 1–20.
Taylor, P. J. (1989). Political geography: World economy, nation-state and locality. London: Longman.
Thomas, B. C. (2013). Core-Periphery relations in The European Union and the role of Central Places in Europe with a focus on regional policy in Britain and Germany. European Review, 21(3), 435–447.
Werner, J., Herrmann, S., & Lovett, A. (2017). Clusters of Rural European Regions: An approach to show the multi- dimensional character of Core-Peripheral patterns. In G. C. Pascariu, & M. A. P. S. Duarte (Eds.), Core-Periphery Patterns across the European Union (pp. 177–197). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Yim, O., & Ramdeen, K. T. (2015). Hierarchical cluster analysis: Comparison of three linkage measures and application to psychological data. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 11(1), 8–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Varol, C., Sat, N.A. (2021). The Core-Periphery Analysis as to Socioeconomic Characteristics: The Case of Ankara. In: Horobet, A., Belascu, L., Polychronidou, P., Karasavvoglou, A. (eds) Global, Regional and Local Perspectives on the Economies of Southeastern Europe. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57953-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57953-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57952-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57953-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)