CHANGING FERTILITY PREFERENCES IN TÜRKİYE: ANALYSES BY PARITY

Year 2023, Volume: 23 Issue: 59, 321 - 355, 23.06.2023

Ayşe Abbasoğlu Özgören , Ahmet Sinan Türkyılmaz

https://doi.org/10.21560/spcd.vi.1247658

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine changes in fertility ideals and intentions of women and fertility gap at both macro and micro level for the 1993-2018 period using data of Turkey Demographic and Health Surveys (TDHS), and to analyze fertility intentions of currently married women by parity, i.e. number of children ever born, using 2018 TDHS data employing descriptive and logistic regression methods. According to the findings, while ideal number of children increased in the 25-year period, intended number of children decreased. Although fertility gap is positive when using conventional TFR, it is negative when adjusted TFR is used, meaning actual fertility is greater than ideal or intended number of children. There has been an increase in the level of pronatalism in Türkiye recently, but it would be wrong to conclude that this is reflected in intentions and behaviors. Our multivariate findings covering all parities show that age and child-related variables are important determinants of women's fertility intention. Additionally, region, mother tongue and use of contraceptive methods are important. Socioeconomic variables, however, were not found to be significantly associated with birth intention. Some of these were found to be significant in intention for progression to first- and second-births.

Keywords

Fertility, Ideal fertility, Intended fertility, Fertility gap, Total fertility rate, Tempo adjusted total fertility rate, Türkiye, TDHS

Thanks

Authors thank Dr. Kryštof Zeman, Dr. Faruk Keskin and Dr. Pelin Çağatay for their assistance with the calculation of adjusted total fertility rates. Authors also thank Dr. Zehra Yayla Enfiyeci for her syntax to construct some variables.

TÜRKİYE’DE DEĞİŞEN DOĞURGANLIK TERCİHLERİ: PARİTEYE GÖRE ANALİZLER

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırmaları (TNSA) verilerini kullanarak 1993-2018 dönemi için kadınların doğurganlık idealleri ve niyetlerindeki ve doğurganlık farkındaki değişimleri hem makro hem mikro düzeyde incelemek ve 2018 TNSA verisi kullanılarak halen evli kadınların doğurganlık niyetlerini, parite yani sahip olunan çocuk sayısına göre hem betimsel hem de lojistik regresyon yöntemiyle incelemektir. Bulgulara göre 1993-2018 arası 25 yıllık dönemde ideal çocuk sayısı artarken, istenilen çocuk sayısı azalmıştır. Doğurganlık farkı geleneksel TDH kullanıldığında pozitif olmasına rağmen, düzeltilmiş TDH kullanıldığında negatif olmaktadır, yani gerçekleşen doğurganlık, ideal veya istenilen çocuk sayısına kıyasla daha fazladır. Yakın zamanda Türkiye’de pronatalizm seviyesinde bir artış olmuştur, ancak bunun niyet ve davranışlara yansıdığı sonucuna varmak yanlış olacaktır. Tüm pariteleri kapsayan çok değişkenli bulgularımız ise yaş ve çocukla ilgili değişkenlerin kadınların çocuk sahibi olma isteğinin önemli belirleyicileri olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca bölge, anadil ve gebeliği önleyici yöntem kullanımı önemli belirleyicilerdir. Sosyoekonomik değişkenler ise çocuk sahibi olma niyeti ile anlamlı olarak ilişkili bulunmamıştır. Bu değişkenlerin bazıları birinci ve ikinci doğuma geçiş niyetinde anlamlı olarak bulunmuştur.

Keywords

Doğurganlık, İdeal doğurganlık, İstenilen doğurganlık, Doğurganlık farkı, Toplam doğurganlık hızı, Zamanlamaya göre düzeltilmiş toplam doğurganlık hızı, Türkiye, TNSA

References

• Abbasoğlu Özgören, Yayla Enfiyeci, Z., and Türkyılmaz, A. S. (2022). Türkiye'de Doğurganlık Tercihleri: İdealler, Niyetler ve Doğurganlık Farklarındaki Eğilimler. In Üreme Sağlığı Konularında Tematik Analizler 1993-2018. HÜNEE ve UNFPA Türkiye Ofisi. Ankara: Emsal Matbaası. YAYIN NO: NEE-HÜ.22.01. ISBN: 978-975-491-527-3.
• Adalı, T. (2016). Tempo Effects on Period Fertility in Turkey: A Study from Turkey Demographic and Health Surveys. Turkish Journal of Population Studies, 30 (1), 43–54. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nufusbilim/issue/22958/245703. Accessed on 03.02.2023.
• Balbo, N., Billari, F. C., and Mills, M. (2013). Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research. Eur J Population, 29, 1–38. doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9277-y.
• Beaujouan, E. (2014). Counting how many children people want: The influence of question filters and pre-codes. Demográfia, 56(6), 35–61.
• Beaujouan, E. and Berghammer, C. (2019). The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach. Popul Res Policy Rev 38, 507–535 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-019-09516-3. Accessed on 07.05.2023.
• Bongaarts, J. and Feeney G. (1998). On the quantum and tempo of fertility. Population and Development Review, 24, 271–291.
• (2008). The quantum and tempo of life-cycle events. In: Barbi, E., Vaupel, J.W., Bongaarts, J. (eds) How Long Do We Live?. Demographic Research Monographs. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78520-0_3.
• Çağatay, P., Saraç, M., İlyas, İ.E., and Türkyılmaz, A.S. (2015). Chapter 5: Fertility Preferences in Turkey. In 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey Further Analysis. Ankara: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Turkish Republic Ministry of Development and Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council.
• Chen, M. and Yip, P.S.F. (2017). The Discrepancy Between Ideal and Actual Parity in Hong Kong: Fertility Desire, Intention, and Behavior. Popul Res Policy Rev, 36(4), 583–605. doi: 10.1007/s11113-017-9433-5.
• Demopædia. Multilingual demographic dictionary, Second Unified Edition, English volume, 2nd edition. 10. Retrieved from http://en-ii.demopaedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate. Consulted the June 7, 2021.
• Erfani A. (2017). Low Fertility Intention in Tehran, Iran: The Role of Attitudes, Norms And Perceived Behavioural Control. Journal of biosocial science, 49(3), 292–308. doi:10.1017/S0021932016000109.
• Eryurt, M. A. (2018). Fertility transition and fertility preferences in Turkey. In Family Demography in Asia, Gietel-Basten, S., Casterline, J., Choe, M. K. (Eds). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781785363559.00029.
• Gemicioğlu, S., Şahin, H, and Er, E. (2019). Türkiye’de Doğurganlık Analizi: Gelecekteki Doğurganlık Tercihlerinin Önemi. Sosyoekonomi, 27(41), 223-234. doi: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2019.03.11
• HUIPS (Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies) (1994). Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 1993. Ankara: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health and Macro International Inc.
• (1999). Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 1998. Ankara: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning and Macro International Inc.
• (2004). Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2003. Ankara: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning, State Planning Organization and European Union.
• (2009). Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Ankara: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning, Turkish Republic Prime Ministry Undersecretary of the State Planning Organization, Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council.
• (2014). 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Ankara: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R Ministry of Development, T.R. Ministry of Health, Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council.
• (2019). 2018 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Presidency of Turkey Directorate of Strategy and Budget and TÜBİTAK, Ankara, Turkey.
• Hürriyet, 7 March 2008, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/8401981.asp
• Lesthaeghe, R. and Willems, P., (1999). Is Low Fertility a Temporary Phenomenon in the European Union? Population and Development Review, 25, p. 211–228.
• Liefbroer, A. C., Klobas, J. E., Philipov, D., and Ajzen, I. (2015). Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective: A conceptual framework. In Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective,
• Philipov, D., Liefbroer, A. C. and Klobas, J. E. (Eds.), (pp. 1–15). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9401-5_1.
• Lutz, W. (2007). Adaptation versus mitigation policies on demographic change in Europe. Vienna Yearbook for Population Research, 19–26. doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2007s19
• Miller, W. B. (2011). Differences between fertility desires and intentions: implications for theory, research and policy. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 75–98.
• Miller, W. and Pasta, D. J. (1993). Motivational and nonmotivational determinants of child-number desires. Population and Environment, 15, 113–138.
• (1994). The psychology of child timing: A measurement instrument and a model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 221–250.
• (1995). Behavioral intentions: Which ones predict fertility behavior in married couples? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 530–555.
• Ministry of Development (MoD). (2014). The Tenth Development Plan (2014–2018). Ankara: Ministry of Development.
• Ministry of Development (MoD) and Ministry of Family and Social Policies (MoFSP) (2015). The Tenth Development Plan: 2014-2018, Ailenin ve Dinamik Nüfus Yapısının Korunması Programı Eylem Planı [Family and Dynamic Population Structure Conservation Program]. Ankara: Ministry of Development.
• Morgan, P. S. (1982). Parity-specific fertility intentions and uncertainty: The United States, 1970 to 1976. Demography, 19(3), 315–334.
• Philipov, D. and Bernardi, L. (2012). Concepts and operationalisation of reproductive decisions implementation in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Comparative Population Studies, 36(2–3), 495–530.
• Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Presidency of Strategy and Budget. (2019). The Eleventh Development Plan: 2019-2023. Ankara: Presidency of Strategy and Budget.
• Ryder, N. B. (1976). The Specification of Fertility Planning Status. Family Planning Perspectives, 8(6), 283–290. doi:10.2307/2134407.
• Schoen, R., Astone, N.M., Kim, Y.J., Nathanson, C.A., and Fields, J.M. (1999). Do Fertility Intentions Affect Fertility Behaviour?, Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), 790–799.
• Sobotka, T. (2009). Sub-replacement fertility intentions in Austria. European Journal of Population, 25(4), 387–412. doi: 10.1007/s10680-009-9183-0.
• Sobotka, T. and Lutz, W. (2010). Misleading policy messages derived from the period TFR: Should we stop using it? Comparative Population Studies, 35(3): 637-664. doi:10.4232/10.CPoS-2010-15en.
• Westoff, C. F. (2010). Desired Number of Children: 2000-2008. DHS Comparative Reports No. 25. Calverton, Maryland, USA: ICF Macro.
• Westoff, C. F. and Ryder, N. B. (1977). The predictive validity of reproductive intentions. Demography, 14(4), 431-453.