Avrupa Birliğinde Ekonomik Krizler, Sosyal Koruma Politikaları ve Aile Yapılarının Dönüşümü: Panel Veri Analizi

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 27 Sayı: Aile Özel Sayısı, 234 - 253, 19.10.2025

Burak Seyhan

https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.1718450

Öz

Bu araştırma, Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkelerinde ekonomik krizlerin aile yapılarındaki dönüşüm üzerindeki etkisini panel veri yöntemiyle incelemektedir. Çalışmada bağımlı değişken olarak boşanma oranı kullanılırken; işsizlik oranı, kişi başına reel gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla (GSYH) ve sosyal koruma harcamaları bağımsız değişkenler olarak belirlenmiştir. 1995–2022 dönemine ait 27 AB ülkesini kapsayan panel veri seti kullanılarak yatay kesit bağımlılığı testi, katsayı homojenliği testi, panel birim kök testleri, panel eşbütünleşme analizleri ve uzun dönem katsayı tahminleri (FMOLS, DOLS, OLS) gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca nedensellik ilişkilerini test etmek amacıyla panel Granger nedensellik testi uygulanmıştır. Ampirik bulgular, işsizlik oranındaki artışın boşanma oranlarını yükselttiğini; sosyal koruma harcamalarının ise boşanmayı azalttığını göstermektedir. Kişi başına düşen reel GSYH'nin artışı da boşanma oranları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bir etkiye sahiptir. Nedensellik analizleri, değişkenler arasında hem çift yönlü hem de tek yönlü ilişkilerin mevcut olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu sonuçlar, ekonomik belirsizliklerin aile birliğini zayıflattığını, sosyal refah harcamalarının ise koruyucu bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Bulgular doğrultusunda, sosyal koruma mekanizmalarının güçlendirilmesi ve istihdam odaklı makroekonomik politikaların aile yapılarının sürdürülebilirliği açısından önemi vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Aile yapısı , ekonomik kriz , sosyal koruma , panel veri analizi , Avrupa Birliği

Economic Crises, Social Protection Policies and the Transformation of Family Structures in the European Union: Panel Data Analysis

Öz

This study investigates the impact of economic crises on the transformation of family structures in European Union (EU) countries through a panel data analysis approach. The divorce rate is used as the dependent variable, while the unemployment rate, real GDP per capita, and social protection expenditures are treated as independent variables. The analysis is based on a balanced panel dataset covering 27 EU member states over the period 1995 to 2022. The study applies several econometric tests including cross-sectional dependence, slope homogeneity, panel unit root, panel cointegration, and long-run estimations (FMOLS, DOLS, OLS). Additionally, panel Granger causality tests are conducted to examine the directionality of relationships between variables. Empirical findings suggest that an increase in unemployment significantly raises divorce rates, while higher social protection spending reduces them. Real GDP per capita is also found to have a statistically significant and positive effect on divorce. The causality results reveal both bidirectional and unidirectional relationships across variables. These outcomes imply that economic instability tends to weaken family cohesion, whereas well-designed social welfare policies act as a stabilizing force. Accordingly, the study emphasizes the critical importance of strengthening social protection systems and adopting employment-centered macroeconomic strategies to ensure the sustainability of family structures within the EU.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Family structure , economic crisis , social protection , panel data analysis , European Union

Kaynakça

• Aassve, A., Billari, F. C., & Ongaro, F. (2001). The Impact of Income and Occupational Status on Leaving Home: Evidence from the Italian ECHP sample. LABOUR: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, 15, 501-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9914.00175
• Aassve, A., Billari, F. C., & Pessin, L. (2012). Trust and fertility dynamics. Social Science Research, 95(2), 663–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow080
• Amato, P. R., & Beattie, B. (2011). Does the unemployment rate affect the divorce rate? An analysis of state data 1960–2005. Social Science Research, 40(3), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.12.012
• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, UK: Sage Publications.
• Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family (Enlarged ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Bonnet, C., Garbinti, B., & Solaz, A. (2023). Labor market dynamics, social protection and family behavior in Europe. Review of Economics of the Household, 21(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-022-09614-6
• Bradshaw, J., & Finch, N. (2002). A comparison of child benefit packages in 22 countries. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 174.
• Brady, D., & Burroway, R. (2012). Targeting, universalism, and single-mother poverty: A multilevel analysis across 18 affluent democracies. Demography, 49(2), 719–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0094-z
• Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambrdige MA, Harvard University Press.
• Cantillon, B., Van Lancker, A., Van Mechelen, N., & Marchal, S. (2017). Decent incomes for the poor: Which role for Europe? Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12486
• Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x
• Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
• Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
• Dumitrescu, E.-I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
• Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Eurostat. (2024a). Crude divorce rate. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/product?code=TPS00206
• Eurostat. (2024b). Unemployment statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Unemployment_statistics
• Eurostat. (2024c). Social protection statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/social-protection
• Fischer, T., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2006). For richer, for poorer: The impact of macroeconomic conditions on union dissolution rates in Europe. European Sociological Review, 22(5), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcl013
• Furtado, D., Marcén, M., & Sevilla, A. (2013). Does culture affect divorce decisions? Evidence from European immigrants in the US. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 13(2), 1–33.
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press.
• González-Val, R. (2021). Divorce and the business cycle in Spain: Evidence from 1900–2011. Demographic Research, 44, 565–600. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2021.44.23
• González-Val, R., & Marcén, M. (2017). Divorce and the business cycle: A cross-country analysis. Review of Economics of the Household, 15(3), 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-016-9329-x
• González-Val, R., & Marcén, M. (2017). Unemployment, marriage and divorce. Applied Economics, 50(13), 1495–1508. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366642
• González-Val, R., & Marcén, M. (2020). Divorce and the business cycle: Evidence from Spain. Review of Economics of the Household, 18(1), 265–288. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/179910
• Goode, W. J. (1963). World revolution and family patterns. Chicago, IL: Free Press.
• Hellerstein, J. K., & Morrill, M. S. (2011). Booms, busts, and divorces. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11(1), Article 54. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2914
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
• Jalovaara, M., & Kulu, H. (2018). Separation Risk over Union Duration: An Immediate Itch?, European Sociological Review, 34(5), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy017
• Kalmijn, M. (2007). Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990–2000. Population Studies, 61(3), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324720701571806
• Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2
• Kao, C., & Chiang, M. H. (2000). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 179–222.
• Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.04.008
• Kuitto, K. (2016). From social security to social investment? Compensating and social investment welfare policies in a life-course perspective. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(5), 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928716664297
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
• Neyer, G., Andersson, G., & Kulu, H. (2017). Policy responses to the economic crisis and family behavior in Europe. Demographic Research, 36, 1549–1600. https:// https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8978-6_3
• OECD. (2022). Society at a glance 2022: OECD social indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19991290
• Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653
• Pedroni, P. (2001). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics, 15, 93–130.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
• Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474156
• Phillips, P. C. B., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297545
• Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.2.27
• Vignoli, D., Matysiak, A., Styrc, M., & Tocchioni, V. (2018). The positive impact of women’s employment on divorce: Context, selection, or anticipation? Demographic Research, 38, 1059–1110. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26457071
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
• World Bank (2024). World Development Indicators. Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators