Year 2015, Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 19 - 38 2015-06-01

Türkiye için Pronotalist Nüfus Politikasi Arayışı
In Search for a Pronatalist Population Policy for Turkey

Yusuf YÜKSEL [1]

385 1142

Türkiye 2000’li yıllara kadar yüksek doğurganlık ve düşük ölümlülük oranlarına şahit olmuştur. Genç nüfus yapısı, büyüyen nüfus için altyapı ihtiyacı ve üreem sağlığı Türkiye’nin tarihi boyunca politika yapıcıların gündeminde olmuştur. Toplam doğurganlık oranının yenilenme düzeyinin altına inmesinden sonra, son yıllarda yeni bir politika çerçevesi arayışı konusunda canlı tartışmalar görünür hale gelmiştir. 1923 yılında Türkiye Cumhuriyeti kurulduğundan 1960’lı yılların başına kadar pronatalist politikalar etkili olmuştur. 1962 yılında ilk Kalkınma Planı’ndan sonraki politika değişikliği 2000 yılına kadar antinatalist bir yönde olmuştur. 2000 ve 2012 yılları arasında net olarak bir politika kategorisine konulamayan dönem sonrasında Hükümetin tercihi pronatalist politikalar yönünde olmuş ve bu amaç için bürokrasi yeni politikalar geliştirmesi konusunda hareketlendirilmiştir. Bu makale, Türkiye’nin doğurganlık politikalarını ve demografik dönüşüm sürecini özetleyerek muhtemel yeni politika seçeneklerini değerlendirmektedir
Turkey has witnessed high fertility rates and low mortality rates until 2000s. Young population structure, need for infrastructure for growing population and reproductive health issues were always on the agenda of policy makers throughout the history of Turkey. After the decline in total fertility rate below replacement level, vibrant discussions and search for a new policy framework began to be visible in the recent years. After the establishment of new Republic in Turkey in 1923 pronatalist policies were active until the beginning 1960s. After the First Development Plan in 1962, policy shift was towards an antinatalist direction until 2000. After a short period between 2000 and 2012 which can not be put any category in terms of fertility policy government clearly declared its position favouring pronatalist policies and mobilised bureaucracy for developing new policy options. This paper summarizes the fertility policies and demographic transition of Turkey and evaluates possible policy options
  • Ahn, N. & Mira, P. (2002). A note on the changing relationship between fertility and female employment rates in developed countries. Journal of Population Economics, 15:667-682.
  • Andersen, B. A. (2004). Unintended population consequences of policies. Population and Environment, Vol. 25, No. 4.
  • Avdeyeva, O. (2011). Policy experiment in Russia: Cash for babies and fertility change. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Vol. 18, Number 3, Fall, 361-386.
  • Behar, C. (1980). Türkiye’deki nüfus planlaması politikasının nüfussal etkisi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversite Yayınları.
  • Behar, C., Işık O., Güvenç M., Ercan H.(1999). Türkiye’nin fırsat penceresi, İstanbul: TÜSİAD.
  • Billari, F.,, Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H.-P. (2009). Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature, 460, 741-743.
  • Billari, F., Ortega, J.A., Kohler, H-P. (2006). Low fertility in Europe: causes, implications and policy options. In Harris F. R. (Eds.) The baby bust: who will do the work? Who will pay the taxes? Lanham: Rowmann and Littlefield Publishers.
  • Bradatan, C. (2009). Large, but adaptable? a successful population policy and its long term effects. Population Research Policy Review, 28, 389-404.
  • Calot, G. & Chesnais, J. (1983). L’efficacite des politiques incitatrices en matiere de natalite. IUSSP Colloqium, Liege.
  • Coleman, D. (2003). Responses to population ageing: lessons from Europe? in Proceedings of the Seminar on Low Fertility and Rapid Ageing, National Statistical Office and the Population Association of Korea, Seoul.
  • Demeny, P. (2003). Population policy dilemmas in Europe at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Population and Development Review, Vol. 29, No.1, March, 1-28.
  • Demeny, P. (1987). Re-linking fertility behavior and economic security in old age: a pronatalist reform. Population and Development Review, Vol.13, No.1, March, 128-132.
  • Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü. (1927, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1997, 2000,2011). Genel nüfus sayımları, Ankara: DİE Yayınları.
  • Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü. (1995). The population of Turkey, 1923-1994: Demographic structure and development, Ankara: DİE Yayınları. Eberstadt, N.& Apoorva, S.(2012). Fertility decline in the Muslim world. Policy Review 173, Jun/Jul: 29-44.
  • Esping-Andersen, G., Gallie, D., Hemerijck, A., Myles, J. (2002) Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • European Population Conference. (2005) Demographic challenges for social cohesion.
  • Gornick, J. C. & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: policies reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Graham, F. (1995). Singapore in the 1990s; can population policies reverse the demographic transition. Applied Geography, Vol. 15, No. 3, July 1995, pp. 219-232.
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü. (1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003,2008) Türkiye nüfus ve sağlık araştırmaları. Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi. (1997). Fertility trends, women’s status and reproductive expectations in Turkey. Ankara: Hacettepe University Press.
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi. (2005). Ulusal anne ölümleri çalışması. Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Hantrais, L. (2004). Family policy matters: responding to family change in Europe. Bristol: The Policy Press.
  • Hoem, J. M. (2008). The impact of public policies on European fertility. Demographic Research, Vol. 19, 249-260.
  • Hoodfar, H. & Assadpour, S. (2000). The politics of population policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 31, No. 1 March, 19-34.
  • Kocaman, T. (1997). Türkiye’de İç Göçler 1965-1990, Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı Yayınları.
  • Koç, I., Özgören, A., Şirin, H. (2010). Türkiye’de yaşlılarin yaşam kalitesi ve aile yapısının yaşam kalitesine etkisi. 2008 İleri Analiz Çalışması. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Leong, P. & Sriramesh, K. (2006). Romancing Singapore: when yesterday’s success becomes today’s challenge. Public Relations Review 32, 246-253.
  • Levine, N. & Üner, S.( 1978). Population policy formulation and implementation in Turkey, Ankara: Hacettepe University Press.
  • Macura, M. (1999). Fertility decline in the transition economies 1982-1997: political, economic and social factors. Economic Survey of Europe.New York: UNECE.
  • McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: the efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, Sep., 485-510.
  • Michel, S. & Rianne, M. (2002). Child care policy at the cross roads: gender and welfare restructuring. New York: Routledge.
  • Morgan, K. J. (2009). Caring time policies in Western Europe: trends and implications. Comparative European Politics, 7, 37-55.
  • Neyer, G. & Andersson, G. (2008). Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: effects or artifacts? Population and Development Review, 34(4):699-724.
  • OECD. (2000). Progress in implementing reforms in an ageing society. Palomba, R. & Kotowska E. I. (2003). The economically active population in Europe, Strasburg: Council of Europe Publishing.
  • Park, C. (2005). How effective are pronatalist benefits? A literature survey and a study on Singapore’s qualified child relief. The Singapore Economic Review, Vol. 50, No.1, 9-23.
  • Population Reference Bureau. (1999). World population; more than just numbers, Washington DC. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sen, A. (1987). Commodities and Capabilities, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
  • Sleebos, J. (2003). Low fertility rates in OECD countries: facts and policy responses. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 15.
  • Szelewa, D. & Polakowski, M. D.(2008). Who cares? Changing patterns of childcare in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 18:115-131.
  • The European Parliament. (1984). The European Parliament on the need for promoting population growth. Population and Development Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, September, 569-570.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (1927-2000). Genel Nüfus Sayımı Sonuçları. Ankara: TÜİK Yayınları.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2012). Istatistiklerle Yaşlılar. Ankara: TÜİK Yayınları. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2012). World Population Prospects.
  • United Nations. (2004). Policy responses to population decline and ageing. Population Bulletin of the UN, Special Issue No. 44-45, New York.
  • United Nations. (2005). World Population Trends and Policies, New York.
  • Yüksel, Y. (2007). Türkiye’de demografik geçiş süreci ve sosyal politikalar. Ankara: DPT Yayınları.
  • World Bank. (2009). Female labor force participation in Turkey: trends, determinants, and policy framework. Human Development Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia, Report No:48508-TR.
  • http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPop.html.
  • http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/oecdteachingandlearningint
  • ernationalsurveytalishome.htm.
  • http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/oecdfamilydatabase.htm.
  • http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1027#.
  • http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ageing.
  • http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf.
Other ID JA33BN22GR
Journal Section Article
Authors

Author: Yusuf YÜKSEL
Institution: ?

APA YÜKSEL, Y . (2015). In Search for a Pronatalist Population Policy for Turkey. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 14 (1), 19-38. DOI: 10.21547/jss.256785