The pet market under the skin of Iran's metropolises

The increase in permits issued for pet-supply retail at first glance looks like a simple economic statistic, but in fact it is a sign of social and cultural change in Iran's metropolises. The jump in 1403 (2024/25) shows that this phenomenon has reached a new stage and, without intervention, can turn into a consumerist counterculture. The key policy issue is decoding this emerging phenomenon: why does this economy grow at explosive speed in some places, while it is almost absent across large parts of the country?

The time trend of permits points to a sudden phase shift; after a period of fluctuation, in the most recent year we see explosive, unprecedented growth. This jump may stem from the formalization of informal activity or a sudden increase in demand. Under such conditions, the absence of a regulatory framework raises the risk of chaos in the market.

Examining the geographic distribution map of permits in 1403 (2024/25) clearly reveals a deep regional gap. This industry is heavily concentrated in metropolises and affluent provinces. Razavi Khorasan Province with 138 permits and Tehran with 108 permits alone account for more than 70 percent of all permits issued nationwide and have become the main hubs of this economy. Next are provinces with a strong urban fabric, such as Mazandaran (72), Fars (41), and Isfahan (39). By contrast, in 12 of the country's provinces the number of permits issued was fewer than 10, and in provinces such as Ilam and Qom the figure reaches zero. This spatial pattern shows that the "pet economy" is not a national, homogeneous phenomenon, but is directly tied to variables such as population density, per-capita income, lifestyle, the state of local culture, or the level of economic development.

This deep imbalance is rooted more in cultural change and demographic structure than in economics. In metropolises and large population centers, changes in household structure and living patterns have created space for new needs and consumer markets to emerge. The growth of these businesses indicates the formation of a consumer class with a different demand, willing to spend on services that did not exist before. By contrast, in areas with a different demographic fabric or a lower degree of urbanization, consumption patterns have remained more traditional, and the human–animal relationship is defined mainly in functional frameworks (such as livestock farming or guarding). As a result, the difference in the statistics is a direct reflection of the uneven speed of socioeconomic change in different parts of the country.

On this basis, uniform policymaking will get nowhere. In saturated areas, permit issuance should be limited, strict health and locational standards should be set, and advertising should be restricted. Deterrent tariffs on imports of luxury pet goods can also prevent the spread of display-driven demand. In areas where demand does not exist, the best approach is merely to monitor social change.

In the end, the pet economy is not merely an economic market, but a social phenomenon with a cultural load that at some levels turns into a counterculture. The right policy is prevention and smart containment; neither promotion nor suppression, but management commensurate with each region's capacities and culture.