Ministry of Commerce's Central-Remote Separation!

The state's regional agencies exist to resolve problems on site and provide timely service to citizens.

So, how are things going in the Ministry of Trade's regional agencies?

What are the provincial Trade Offices for?

In practice, provincial Trade Offices detect violations, record them, conduct investigations, and prepare files. However, in many matters, the Ministry must intervene at the decision and enforcement stage.

For example, the regional agencies that can impose an administrative fine of about 3,900 TL on a business without a price tag have very limited decision‑making power in many other matters.

So, if no outcome is achieved against violations detected on the ground, what does the audit mean for citizens?

In Kocaeli, simit is 25 lira—what's the outcome of the inspections?

How many inspections were conducted and how many reports were issued regarding the sale of simit in violation of the price regulation in Kocaeli?

We don't know the exact number and outcome.

But the scene on the ground hasn't changed; the simit that should be sold for 20 lira is still being sold for 25 lira.

This is what the citizen saw.

Inspections are said to have been conducted, yet the price remains unchanged.

The bagel seller is continuing to read, as you can see.

When inquiries were made, the response was: It is not within our authority; the authority lies with the ministry.

That is exactly where the problem begins.

There is evidence, there is a record, there is a penalty; so what is the outcome?

Cooperation in implementation must be achieved, and actions must be carried out in compliance with the law; however, the solution is not to centralize all decisions.

It is not realistic to expect swift results from a manager with limited decision‑making authority.

The protracted correspondence extends the citizen's grievance further instead of alleviating it.

The chart is no different in the real estate sector either!

Let's give an example from the real‑estate sector.

Under the Regulation on Real‑Estate Trade, authority documents are issued by provincial directorates; however, combating illegal brokerage, unlawful activities, and misleading listings does not end with mere inspections, and timely, effective action is required against identified violations.

Article 22 of the regulation enables the Ministry to exercise its inspection authority through provincial directorates. So, how fast do decision processes work when violations are identified on the ground?

The delays in resolving on‑the‑ground problems remain, as experience shows.

It is so interesting that sometimes the Ministry can even say that a matter the provincial Trade Directorate deems non‑compliant with the regulations is actually compliant with them.

There are penalty amounts, but what is the state of deterrence?

In the fight against exorbitant prices, the issue is not just the amount of the penalty.

According to the data released by the Ministry for the first eight months of 2026, a total administrative fine of 692 million 28 thousand lira was imposed on 5,574 enterprises found to be non‑compliant. Penalties in the real‑estate sector reached 39 million 28 thousand lira.

The figures are striking. However, alongside the imposed penalties, the speed at which transactions are resolved, the deterrent effect of the sanctions, and how the field experience of the rural organizations reflects in the decisions of the Unfair Price Assessment Board should also be questioned.

Of course, not every price increase means a violation of the regulations.

Costs, market conditions, and relevant legislation should be evaluated together. Yet, as important as conducting an audit is receiving its outcome promptly and ensuring deterrence.

According to Law No. 5442 on Provincial Administration, the governor is the head of the provincial administration. He has a very important responsibility in coordinating public services at the provincial level and ensuring cooperation among institutions.

The Provincial Trade Directorate reviews the complaint, makes the necessary findings, prepares the file, and sends it to the Ministry for a decision. The process continues at the center. Thus, the scope in which provincial managers can directly intervene in solving the on‑site problem narrows.

In some cases, the extent to which the outcome of the action taken in the province and the imposed sanction are reported to the relevant local managers can also become a point of debate.

SO, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IF THE SAME CONCERNS KEEP REPEATING?

The powers and decision‑making processes of rural institutions must be reviewed again.

In the areas permitted by regulation, provincial directorates should be granted clear, bounded, and auditable decision‑making powers. Unnecessary bureaucratic steps and oversight should be reduced; instead of a mindset that expects every decision to come from the center, a system in which responsibility is assumed in the right place should be established.

The central organization must set the policy, establish standards, and ensure coordination. The field, in turn, must be able to intervene promptly on ground‑level problems.

Because delegation of authority is not a lack of oversight. On the contrary, it is the clear definition of responsibility that accompanies authority.

Final word: From the citizen's perspective, the state is a single entity. The division of duties among institutions should not serve as a justification for delays in applications or for problems remaining unsolved.

With greetings and respect…