The Entry Fee to Life

Why has the cost of building a life in Türkiye risen so sharply? Taking stock of twenty years—and the possibilities for the next twenty.

Imagine two young people. They graduated from the same university in the same year.

One has a family living in Istanbul. While looking for a job, they do not have to pay rent, and their family can cover their living expenses until their first salary arrives.

The other receives a job offer in Istanbul. To accept it, they first need to find a home, pay a deposit, move, and save enough money to support themselves for several months.

They both have the same degree. But one of them needs to raise capital before they can start working.

We understand companies’ working capital needs well. Raw materials must be purchased to begin production, employees must be paid, and payment for sales must be collected.

We rarely discuss the possibility that people, too, may need a form of working capital to begin lives of their own.

Yet this is precisely the difficulty many people in Türkiye face today. They are capable of working, producing, perhaps even starting a business, but struggle to cover the initial cost of reaching that point.

Nor is this only a problem for young people. It is shared by those who work but cannot make ends meet, women who cannot return to their professions because of childcare responsibilities, and people who lose time and income trying to access treatment.

If we want to understand Türkiye’s past twenty years, we should also look at this invisible entry fee to life.

What growth means in people’s lives

It is easy to look back at 2006 and say everything was better. But that would not be true.

Unemployment, poverty, regional inequality, and economic fragility existed then, too. Access to university was much more limited. Women’s participation in working life was lower.

Today, access to information and technology is much easier. According to TurkStat, only 17.6% of people aged 16–74 used the internet in 2005; by 2026, that figure had reached 92.3%.

The World Bank’s real per capita income series also shows that output in Türkiye has increased over the past twenty years.

We cannot conclude from this, however, that every part of society has become equally more prosperous.

Per capita income is calculated by dividing national income by the population. On its own, it does not tell us who earns how much, how much of their income goes on rent, whether they can save, or how much they can devote to their children’s education.

In TurkStat’s 2025 income distribution survey, the highest-income 20% received 48% of total income. The lowest-income 20% received 6.4%.

The same year’s living conditions survey found that 27.9% of the population was at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Among children, the figure was 36.8%.

There have also been modest recent improvements in these indicators. Even so, income inequality and the risks facing children remain substantial.

Another comparison is equally thought-provoking.

In 2006, approximately 60.7% of people owned the home they lived in. In 2025, the figure was 57.1%.

These two figures do not directly measure the change in young people’s ability to afford a home. They do show, however, that growth in housing construction cannot be equated with more widespread homeownership.

As of September 2026, annual inflation stood at 29.73%. The increase in the expenditure category covering housing, water, electricity, gas, and other fuels was approximately 40%.

A slower rate of price increases does not mean prices have returned to their previous levels. Especially in households whose incomes and expenses change at different rates.

A person’s well-being depends not only on their salary, but also on the money left after meeting basic needs.

And that remaining money is more than savings. It provides the ability to change jobs when necessary, pursue education, move to another city, or take the risk of failure.

Over time, income inequality can thus become inequality of opportunity, and inequality of opportunity can become inequality in people’s ability to shape their own futures.

More degrees. But what are they worth?

Twenty years ago, getting into university was considered a major achievement in itself.

Today, more people receive an education. This is an important gain. But there is a long distance between increasing the number of graduates and enabling them to build productive, independent lives.

Not every indicator of educational quality has deteriorated. For example, Türkiye’s PISA science score rose from 424 in 2006 to 476 in 2022. Even so, it remained below the OECD average.

The more striking problem lies in the link between education and working life.

According to the OECD’s 2026 report, 31% of 18–24-year-olds in Türkiye are neither in education nor in employment. The OECD average is 13%.

This does not mean that all these young people are unemployed. It does, however, point to a very large group unable to participate in economic life or in processes that develop their skills.

Employers want experienced workers. Young people need to be hired before they can gain experience.

This vicious circle is more than an individual career problem. It means the country is not making sufficient use of people whose education it has spent years investing in.

Now let us look at this picture from another angle.

In the OECD’s 2026 data, participation in early childhood education among children below primary-school starting age in Türkiye is 51%. The OECD average is 90%.

In TurkStat’s August 2026 data, the employment rate is 31.5% for women and 65.8% for men.

The gap cannot, of course, be explained solely by a shortage of childcare. But it is clear that accessible childcare can create value in two areas: supporting children’s development and making it easier for parents, particularly women, to participate in working life.

The economic return on a nursery therefore cannot be found solely in its own income statement.

The income of a parent who can continue working, professional experience that is not lost, skilled labour available to businesses, and public revenues are also part of the calculation.

There is a similar situation in healthcare.

The coverage of healthcare services in Türkiye has expanded compared with the past. Yet OECD data puts the number of practising physicians per thousand people at 2.4, against an OECD average of 3.9.

The cost of delayed or inadequate healthcare is not limited to treatment expenses. Days when people cannot work, the burden of care borne by family members, and illnesses that do not receive timely intervention can also add to that cost.

Treating education, healthcare, working life, and social protection as separate issues causes us to overlook these economic relationships between them.

So where should we begin?

First, by recognising that Türkiye needs not only to produce more, but also to use the value it creates more efficiently and inclusively.

The OECD’s 2025 Economic Survey of Türkiye makes a striking observation: investment in intellectual property products accounts for approximately 10% of total fixed investment in Türkiye. In Europe, the figure is approximately 20%.

Investment in buildings, roads, and infrastructure is necessary. Safe housing and resilient cities are indispensable, particularly given the reality of earthquakes.

But growth over the next twenty years cannot be achieved simply by building more physical assets.

Türkiye needs to channel its industrial capabilities into higher-value-added production. Being able to design machinery matters as much as manufacturing it; improving agricultural productivity and logistics matters as much as growing crops; and developing solutions that can be sold to the world matters as much as using software.

Economic predictability is also a fundamental condition. A lasting reduction in inflation, well-functioning access to finance, stronger legal safeguards, and fairer competition matter both for investment and for households’ long-term decisions.

The fact that the Istanbul Chamber of Industry Manufacturing PMI stood in contraction territory at 47.9 in September 2026, while retail sales volume rose by 10.1% year on year in August, also reminds us that conditions differ greatly across the economy. The same solution cannot be applied to every sector.

We therefore need to discuss ways forward in terms of more concrete outcomes.

For example, building earthquake-resistant, affordable rental housing close to jobs and education in major cities could improve not only housing conditions but also workers’ access to employment opportunities.

Paid internships, practical training, and programmes supporting the transition into a first job could be expanded through partnerships between universities and businesses. The success of public support could be assessed not by the number of training courses delivered, but by whether participants have secured skilled employment six months or a year later.

In healthcare investment, preventive services, family medicine, and early diagnosis could receive greater emphasis; in education, the priorities could include early childhood, basic skills, and teacher quality.

All of this requires funding and entails opportunity costs. Resources are not unlimited. We therefore need to independently measure which investments produce which social and economic outcomes, and be willing to abandon unsuccessful approaches when necessary.

Perhaps one habit we need to abandon is judging success solely by the money spent or the number of projects completed.

A university’s value cannot be measured only by its student numbers, a hospital’s by the size of its building, or an economic programme’s by the investment amount it announces.

We also need to look at what ultimately changes in people’s lives.

There is still considerable scope for young people

After describing all this, it would be unfair simply to tell young people to be patient.

Many of the problems they face are too structural to be solved by individual effort alone.

But this does not mean there is little they can do.

One of Türkiye’s advantages is the production and engineering expertise it already possesses. Global technological change could make it possible to build new businesses on these capabilities.

Energy efficiency, water management, agricultural technology, industrial automation, cybersecurity, health technology, logistics, and export-oriented digital services are some of the areas worth working on.

The opportunity here does not lie in everyone pursuing the same fashionable profession. It lies in approaching an unsolved problem with different skills.

For example, rather than simply learning about artificial intelligence, an engineer could develop a system that reduces energy losses in a factory. An agriculture graduate could use data to seek solutions to farmers’ irrigation and crop-loss problems. Someone trained in finance could develop tools that make it easier for small businesses to manage cash flow.

Global technology is reducing the initial costs of this kind of work in some areas. Open-source software, free courses, and international professional communities are more accessible than before.

Still, access to technology is not the same as expertise.

For young people, the soundest investment may be a foreign language, a strong foundational education, genuine depth in a subject, analytical thinking, and tangible projects that demonstrate their work.

Going abroad can also be part of this journey. There is no need to define it solely as escape or success. Studying, working, and conducting research in other countries can open up new possibilities.

What matters is that Türkiye also develops conditions that make people want to return, produce, or collaborate.

But we cannot make the future depend solely on young people acquiring more skills. They also need institutions where well-educated people can work, environments where they can conduct research, and an economy that rewards their labour.

And amid all this activity, other values need to be protected: scientific thinking, merit, confidence in the rule of law, art, literature, nature, the freedom to question, and the ability to care about other people’s lives.

These are not matters to attend to after economic development has been achieved. They determine what kind of development we want.

Taking stock of the future

Türkiye’s past twenty years cannot be reduced to a single statement of success or failure.

Economic output has grown, technology has become more widespread, and some progress has been made in access to education and healthcare. Yet we cannot say that these gains have translated into a secure future, economic independence, and equal opportunity for every part of society.

The challenge of the next twenty years is to achieve that transformation.

The way forward runs through productive investment, quality education, accessible healthcare and housing, economic stability, and trustworthy institutions. It also requires an environment in which young people can not only prepare for existing jobs, but create new work and value.

To understand a country’s real progress, we need to know not only how much it has grown, but also what its people have to give up to build lives of their own.

Perhaps this is the most important cost we need to reduce over the next twenty years: the price of being able to begin a life.