THE REPRODUCTION OF SPACE THROUGH FAMILY: ON DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSFORMATION AND HOUSING PREFERENCES

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of how demographic shifts in family structures impact housing preferences in Turkey and European countries. Trends such as increasing individualisation, population ageing, declining fertility rates, and the rise of single-person households are reshaping not only family forms but also modes of habitation and spatial needs. In Turkey, the historically dominant model of extended and multigenerational households is gradually giving way to nuclear families and individuals living alone. However, housing policies and supply still largely reflect traditional norms. In contrast, in European countries, individualised living arrangements have become institutionalised earlier, and housing policies have evolved to accommodate diversity in age, household type, and life cycle needs. Drawing on theoretical approaches such as Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime theory and Beck and Beck-Gernsheim’s theory of individualisation, the study examines the family–space relationship from a multidimensional perspective. The findings highlight the necessity for Turkey to develop flexible, accessible, and inclusive housing policies that align with its ongoing processes of social transformation.

Keywords

• Family
• housing
• ındividualization
• demographic transformation

MEKÂNIN AİLEYLE YENİDEN ÜRETİMİ: DEMOGRAFİK DÖNÜŞÜM VE KONUT TERCİHLERİ ÜZERİNE

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye ve Avrupa ülkelerinde aile yapılarındaki demografik dönüşümün konut tercihleri üzerindeki etkisini karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz etmektedir. Artan bireyselleşme, yaşlanma, düşük doğurganlık oranları ve tek kişilik hanelerdeki artış gibi eğilimler, yalnızca aile formlarını değil; aynı zamanda barınma biçimlerini ve mekânsal ihtiyaçları da yeniden şekillendirmektedir. Türkiye’de tarihsel olarak baskın olan çok kuşaklı ve geniş aile yapıları, yerini giderek çekirdek ailelere ve yalnız bireylerden oluşan hanelere bırakırken; konut politikaları ve konut arzı hâlâ büyük ölçüde geleneksel normlara dayanmaktadır. Buna karşılık Avrupa ülkelerinde bireyselleşmiş yaşam biçimleri daha erken kurumsallaşmış, konut politikaları ise yaş, hane tipi ve yaşam döngüsüne duyarlı biçimde çeşitlenmiştir. Çalışmada, Esping-Andersen’in refah rejimi kuramı ve Beck-Gernsheim’in bireyselleşme tezi gibi kuramsal yaklaşımlar kullanılarak aile–mekân ilişkisi çok boyutlu biçimde ele alınmıştır. Sonuç olarak, Türkiye’nin toplumsal değişim süreçlerine uygun, esnek, erişilebilir ve kapsayıcı konut politikaları geliştirmesi gerekliliği vurgulanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Aile
• konut
• bireyselleşme
• demografik dönüşüm

References

1. Abramsson, M., & Andersson, E. (2016). Changing preferences with ageing–housing choices and housing plans of older people. Housing, theory and society, 33(2), 217-241.
2. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (2023). https://www.aile.gov.tr/athgm.
3. Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler Bakanlığı. (2021). Türkiye Aile Raporu. Ankara: ASHB Yayınları.
4. Arpino, B., Pasqualini, M., & Bordone, V. (2021). Physically distant but socially close? Changes in non-physical intergenerational contacts at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic among older people in France, Italy and Spain. European Journal of Ageing, 18(2), 185-194.
5. Barrios, V. E., Colom, M. C., & Molés, M. C. (2013). Life cycle and housing decisions: a comparison by age cohorts. Applied Economics, 45(32), 4556-4568.
6. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218693
7. Birleşmiş Milletler. (2019). World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3846855?v=pdf
8. Chiuri, M. C., & Jappelli, T. (2010). Do the elderly reduce housing equity? An international comparison. Journal of Population Economics, 23, 643-663.

9. Clark, A. E., d’Ambrosio, C., & Lepinteur, A. (2021). The fall in income inequality during COVID-19 in four European countries. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 19(3), 489-507.
10. Costa-Font, J., Gil, J., & Mascarilla, O. (2010). Housing wealth and housing decisions in old age: sale and reversion. Housing studies, 25(3), 375-395.
11. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). Incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Polity.
12. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, UK: Polity Press.https://lanekenworthy.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/reading-espingandersen1990pp9to78.pdf
13. Eurofound. (2023). Living and working in Europe 2023. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/2024/living-and-working-europe-2023
14. Eurostat. (2023). Living conditions in Europe – housing. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_housing
15. Eurostat. (2024). Housing in Europe – Housing in Europe – 2024 edition. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/housing-2024#:~:text=In%20cities%2C%2072%25%20of%20the,only%2017%25%20in%20a%20flat
16. Eurostat. (2025a). Household composition statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Household_composition_statistics
17. Eurostat. (2025b). Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ILC_LVHO02__custom_17366511/default/table?lang=en
18. Faulkner, D. (2007). The older population and changing housing careers: Implications for housing provision. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 26(4), 152-156.
19. Feijten, P., Mulder, C. H., & Baizán, P. (2003). Age differentiation in the effect of household situation on first-time homeownership. Journal of housing and the Built Environment, 18, 233-255.
20. Filandri, M., & Bertolini, S. (2016). Young people and home ownership in Europe. International Journal of Housing Policy, 16(2), 144-164.
21. Forrest, R., & Hirayama, Y. (2015). The financialisation of the social project: Embedded liberalism, neoliberalism and home ownership. Urban studies, 52(2), 233-244.
22. Gauthier, A. H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 323–346.
23. Green, R. K., & Lee, H. (2016). Age, demographics, and the demand for housing, revisited. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 61, 86-98.
24. Green, R., & Hendershott, P. H. (1996). Age, housing demand, and real house prices. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26(5), 465-480.
25. Hegedus, J., Lux, M., & Teller, N. (Eds.). (2013). Social housing in transition countries (Vol. 10). Routledge.
26. Hirayama, Y. (2010). The role of home ownership in Japan’s aged society. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25, 175-191.
27. Hosseınpour, L., & Dayı, F. (2024). Konut Talebini Etkileyen Faktörler Üzerine Teorik Bir İnceleme. Quantrade Journal of Complex Systems in Social Sciences, 6(1), 121-129.
28. Hui, E. C., Zhong, J., & Yu, K. (2016). Land use, housing preferences and income poverty: In the context of a fast rising market. Land Use Policy, 58, 289-301.
29. İçli, G. (2018). Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Politikalari ve Küreselleşme. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (30), 133-143.
30. Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kalaycioğlu, S., & Rittersberger-Tilic, H. (2000). Intergenerational solidarity networks of instrumental and cultural transfers within migrant families in Turkey. Ageing & Society, 20(5), 523-542.
31. Kapusuz, Y. E., & Tanrıvermiş, H. (2024). Konuta erişilebilirlik, konut talebi ve talebi etkileyen faktörlerin analizi: Ankara ili örneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(1), 66-89.
32. Keleş, R. (2021). Kentleşme Politikaları. İmge Kitabevi.
33. Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law & Policy, 26(1), 33–55.
34. Konutder. (2025). Konut talebini belirleyen mikro faktörler: İstanbul örneği. https://konutder.org.tr/files/konuttalebinibelirleyenmikro-faktorleristanbul-ornegiwebformati-1740565431360.pdf?utm.
35. Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality: Gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics, 7(2), 127–191.
36. Lee, H. J., Carucci Goss, R., & Beamish, J. O. (2007). Influence of lifestyle on housing preferences of multifamily housing residents. Housing and Society, 34(1), 11-30.
37. Lewis, J. (2001). The decline of the male breadwinner model: Implications for work and care. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 8(2), 152-169.
38. Lim, J. Y., & Kang, M. (2015). The Study of Homeownership based on Age Cohort and Generation. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Planning & Design, 31(2), 37-47.
39. McKee, K. (2012). Young people, homeownership and future welfare. Housing studies, 27(6), 853-862.
40. OECD. (2021). Affordable Housing Database. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/oecd-affordable-housing-database.html.
41. OECD. (2023). Family Database: Households and families. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/oecd-family-database.html.
42. OECD. (2024). Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-2024_918d8db3-en.html.
43. Painter, G., & Lee, K. (2009). Housing tenure transitions of older households: Life cycle, demographic, and familial factors. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(6), 749-760.
44. Perelli-Harris, B., Sigle-Rushton, W., Lappegård, T., Keizer, R., Kreyenfeld, M., & Berghammer, C. (2010). The educational gradient of nonmarital childbearing in Europe. Population and Development Review, 36(4), 775–801.
45. Poggio, T. (2012). The housing pillar of the Mediterranean welfare regime: Relations between home ownership and other dimensions of welfare in Italy. In Beyond home ownership (pp. 51-67). Routledge.
46. Power, E. R. (2017). Housing, home ownership and the governance of ageing. The Geographical Journal, 183(3), 233-246.
47. PwC. (2023). Emerging Trends in Real Estate: Global Outlook. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/real-estate/emerging-trends-real-estate/etre-global-outlook.html
48. Ronald, R., & Elsinga, M. (2012). Beyond home ownership: an overview. Beyond Home Ownership, 1-27, Taylor&Francis.
49. Sobotka, T., Jasilioniene, A., Galarza, A. A., Zeman, K., Németh, L., & Jdanov, D. (2021). Baby bust in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? First results from the new STFF data series (No. mvy62_v1). Center for Open Science.
50. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1997). The fourth turning: What the cycles of history tell us about America’s next rendezvous with destiny. Crown.
51. Tammaru, T., Marcińczak, S., Van Ham, M., & Musterd, S. (2014). Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities. Abingdon: Routledge.
52. TC. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2018). 11. Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023).https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/KonutPolitikalariOzelIhtisasKomisyonuRaporu.pdf.
53. TC. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (SBB). (2023). 12. Kalkınma Planı (2024-2028). Konut Politikaları. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Konut-Politikalari-OIK-Raporu_01082025.pdf
54. TOKİ. (2024). Sosyal Konutlar. https://www.toki.gov.tr/sosyal-konutlar?utm
55. Tummers, L. (2015). Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how?. In The re-emergence of co-housing in Europe (pp. 74-88). Routledge.
56. TÜİK. (2022). Konut İstatistikleri. https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=KonutIstatistikleri
57. TÜİK. (2024a). Doğum İstatistikleri 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Birth-Statistics-2023-53708.
58. TÜİK. (2024b). Ortalama Hanehalkı Büyüklüğü. https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=OrtalamaHanehalkiBuyuklugu
59. TÜİK. (2024c). Yapı İzin İstatistikleri, II. Çeyrek: Nisan-Haziran, 2024. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Building-Permits-Quarter-II:-April-June,-2024-53751
60. TÜİK. (2024d). Hanehalkı Büyüklüğüne Göre Hanehalkı Sayısı. https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=HanehalkiBuyukluguneGoreHs
61. TÜİK. (2024e). Hanehalkı Tipi. https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=HanehalkiTipi
62. TÜİK. (2024f). Medeni Durum. https://nip.tuik.gov.tr/?value=MedeniDurum
63. TÜİK. (2024g). İstatistiklerle Aile. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Aile-2023-53784#:~:text=ADNKS%20sonu%C3%A7lar%C4%B1na%20g%C3%B6re%2C%202023%20y%C4%B1l%C4%B1nda%20T%C3%BCrkiye'de%20toplam%2022%20milyon,82%20bin%20291%20oldu%C4%9Fu%20g%C3%B6r%C3%BCld%C3%BC.
64. UN DESA. (2023). World Population Prospects 2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf
65. Unel, F. B., Yalpir, S., & Gulnar, B. (2017). Preference changes depending on age groups of criteria affecting the real estate value. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 2(2), 41-51.
66. UN-HABITAT. (2010). The Right to Adequate Housing. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-05/fact_sheet_21_adequate_housing_final_2010.pdf
67. Ülgen, G., & Özalp, L. F. A. (2017). Refah Rejimleri Sınıflandırma Çalışmaları: Cinsiyet Boyutları. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 39(2), 639-658. https://doi.org/10.14780/muiibd.377131
68. World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Decade of Healthy Ageing: Baseline Report. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240017900
69. Yıldırım, B., & Şahin, F. (2019). Esping-Andersen’in refah devleti sınıflandırması ve makro sosyal hizmet uygulamaları temelinde Türkiye’nin konumu. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 11(18), 2525-2554. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.542395