Fertility, Migration, and Spatial Interaction in Turkey: An Analysis under the Selectivity Hypothesis

Öz

Migration is a process of displacement, and it affects societies socially, economically, and structurally. This study gauges the impact of migration on fertility in Turkey. The evaluation is conducted in consideration of the selectivity hypothesis based on the Robust Poisson model. The data obtained from the 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey were analyzed for this purpose. Not considering the role of social norms and one’s neighborhood relations while evaluating the relationship between variables prevents a holistic perspective; thus, the aspect of spatial interaction is taken into account in this study. The findings suggest that the variables that tend to significantly affect the fertility behaviors of women do not have an impact on the fertility behaviors of women having migrated from urban to rural areas. While variables such as age, education, employment status and household welfare have a significant effect on the fertility behaviors of women who migrated from rural areas to the cities as well as women residing in cities, the effect of these variables on fertility in rural areas is much higher. In this context, the study unveils a spatial relationship between migration and fertility in Turkey and, thus, invalidates the selectivity hypothesis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fertility
• Migration
• Spatial Interaction
• Robust Poisson Regression Model

Türkiye’de Doğurganlık, Göç ve Mekânsal Etkileşim: Seçicilik Hipotezi Kapsamında Bir Analiz

Öz

Göç bir yer değiştirme sürecidir ve toplumları sosyal, ekonomik ve yapısal olarak etkilemektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de göçün doğurganlık üzerindeki etkisini ölçmektedir. 2013 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırmasından elde edilen veriler kullanılarak Robust Poisson modeline dayalı seçicilik hipotezi dikkate alınarak analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiyi değerlendirirken sosyal normların ve komşuluk ilişkilerinin rolünü dikkate almamak bütüncül bir bakış açısına engel olmakta; dolayısıyla bu çalışmada mekansal etkileşim boyutu da dikkate alınmaktadır. Bulgular, kadınların doğurganlık davranışlarını önemli ölçüde etkileme eğiliminde olan değişkenlerin, kentten kıra göç eden kadınların doğurganlık davranışları üzerinde etkisinin olmadığını göstermektedir. Kırdan kente göç eden kadınların ve kentlerde yaşayan kadınların doğurganlık davranışları üzerinde yaş, eğitim, çalışma durumu ve hanehalkı refahı gibi değişkenler önemli bir etkiye sahipken, bu değişkenlerin kırsal kesimde doğurganlık üzerindeki etkisi çok daha yüksektir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, Türkiye’de göç ve doğurganlık arasındaki mekansal bir ilişkiyi ortaya koymakta ve dolayısıyla seçicilik hipotezini geçersiz kılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğurganlık
• Göç
• Mekansal Etkileşim
• Robust Poisson Regresyon Modeli

Kaynakça

1. Adsera, A., & Ferrer, A. (2011). Age at migration, language and fertility patterns among migrants to Canada. Discussion Paper Series(5552). google scholar
2. Akça, H. ve Ela, M. (2012). Türkiye’de eğitim, doğurganlık ve işsizlik ilişkisinin analizi. Maliye Dergisi, (163), 223-242. google scholar
3. AnseIin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. google scholar
4. Anselin, L., & Bera, A. K. (1998). Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to spatial econometrics. in Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics (pp. 237-289). New York: CRC Press. google scholar
5. Becker, G. S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. Demographic and economic change in developed countries. in Demographic and economic change in developed countries, Universities-Natıonal Bureau Committee for Economıc Research, (pp.209-240). ISBN: 0-87014-302-6: Columbıa Unıversıty Press. google scholar
6. Becker, G. S., & Lewis, H. G. (1973). Interaction between quantity and quality of children. Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 2(81), 279-288. google scholar
7. Becker, G. S., & Barro, R. J. (1988). A reformulation of the economic theory of fertility. The Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 103(1), 1-25. google scholar
8. Darmofal, D. (2006). Spatial econometrics and political science. Annual Meeting of Southern Political Science Association. google scholar

9. De Tray, Dennis. N. (1973). Child quality and the demand for children. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2):70-95, Part 2: New Economic Approaches to Fertility, Published By: The University of Chicago Press. google scholar
10. Deliktaş, E., Usta, S., Bozkurt, S. ve Helvacı, B. (2008). Türkiye’de kentlerde doğurganlık hızını etkileyen faktörler: Path analizi yaklaşımı. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 2(8), 877-895. google scholar
11. Dreze, J., & Murthi, M. (2000). Fertility, education and development. Discussion Paper No. DEDPS 20. google scholar
12. Elhorst, J. P. (2014). Spatial econometrics: From cross-sectional data to spatial panels, ISBN: 978-3-642-40339-2, Springer, London. google scholar
13. Emirhan, P. N. (2015). Göreli yoksunluk ve bölgeler arası göçler: Türkiye örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal, 6(2), 79-89. google scholar
14. Engelhardt, H. & Prskawetzz, A. (2002). On the changing correlation between fertility and female employment over space and time. Working papers of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 1-38. google scholar
15. Farber, S. C., & Lee, B. S. (1984). Fertility adaptation of rural-to-urban migrant women: A method of estimation applied to Korean women. Demography, 21(3), 339-345. google scholar
16. Gerkman, L. (2010). Topics in spatial econometrics-With applications to house prices (Doctoral dissertation). Nr: 219, Helsingfors google scholar
17. Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (2008). The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Advances in Spatial Science, 127-145. google scholar
18. Goldstein, S. (1973). Interrelations between migration and fertility in Thailand. Demography, 10(2), 225-241. google scholar
19. Goldstein, S., & Goldstein, A. (1981). The Impact of migration on fertility:an ‘own children’ analysis for Thailand. Population Studies: A Journal ofDemography, 35(2), 265-284. google scholar
20. Gumprecht, D. (2005). Spatial methods in econometrics: An application to R&D spillovers. Department of Statistics and Mathematics Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien Research Report Series, Report 26, https://epub.wu.ac.at/290/1/document.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 04.12.2019). google scholar
21. Güneri, Ö. İ. ve Durmuş, B. (2020). Aşırı ya da eksik yayılım durumunda poisson ve negatif binom regresyon modellerinin karşılaştırılması. Uluslararası Doğu Anadolu Fen Mühendislik ve Tasarım Dergisi, 2(1), 48-66. google scholar
22. Hepple, L. W. (1998). Exact testing for spatial autocorrelation among regression residuals. Environment and Planning A(30), 85-108. google scholar
23. Hervitz, H. M. (1985). Selectivity, adaptation, or disruption? A comparison of alternative hypotheses on theeffects of migration on fertility: The case of Brazil. The International Migration Review, 19(2), 293-317. google scholar
24. Hiday, V. A. (1978). Migration, urbanization, and fertility in the Philippines. International Migration Review, 12(3), 370-385. google scholar
25. Jensen, E. R., & Ahlburg, D. A. (2004). Why does migration decrease fertility? Evidence from the Philippines. Population Studies, 58(2), 219-231. google scholar
26. Kahn, J. R. (1988). Immigrant selectivity and fertility adaptation in the United States. Social Forces, 67(1), 108-128. google scholar
27. Kalkınma Bakanlığı. (2013). Onuncu kalkınma planı (2014-2018). https://www.ahika.gov.tr/assets/upload/dosyalar/onuncu-kalkinma-plani.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 15.11.2020). google scholar
28. Kravdal, O., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2008). Changing relationships between education and fertility: A study of women and men born 1940 to 1964. American Sociological Review, 73(5), 854-873. google scholar
29. Kulu, H. (2005). Migration and Fertility: Competing Hypotheses Re-examined. European Journal ofPopulation, 21, 51-87. google scholar
30. Lee, B. S., & Farber, S. C. (1984). Fertility Adaptation by Rural-Urban Migrants in Developing Countries: The Case of Korea. Population Studies, 38 (1), 141-155. google scholar
31. Liang, Y., Yi, Y., & Sun, Q. (2013). The Impact of migration on fertility under China’s underlying restrictions: A comparative study between permanent and temporary migrants. Social Indicators Research, 1(116), 307-326. google scholar
32. Long, L. H. (1970). The Fertility of migrants to and within North America. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 48(3), 297-316. google scholar
33. Long, J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. google scholar
34. Macisco, J. J., Bouvier, F. L., & Renzi, M. J. (1969). Migration Status, education and fertility in Puerto Rico, 1960. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 47(2), 167-186. google scholar
35. Miller, J. E., Trussell, J., Pebley, A. R., & Vaughan, B. (1992). Birth spacing and child mortality in Bangladesh and the Philippines. Demography, 29(2), 305-318. google scholar
36. Mineau, G. P., Bean, L. L., & Anderton, D. L. (1989). Migration and fertility: Behavioral change on the American frontier. Journal of Family History, 14(1), 43-61. google scholar
37. Owoo, N. S., Mensah, S. A., & Onuoha, E. (2015). The effect of neighbourhood mortality shocks on fertility preferences: A Spatial Econometric Approach. The European Journal of Health Economics: HEPAC, 16, 629-645. google scholar
38. Özgür, E. (2004). Türkiye>de toplam doğurganlık hızının mekansal dağılışı. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 1-12. google scholar
39. Ribe, H., & Schultz, T. P. (1980). Migrant and native fertility in Colombia in 1973: Migrants Selected According to Their Reproductive Preferences?. Center Discussion Paper, No:355. google scholar
40. Rokicki, S., Montana, L., & Fink, G. (2014). Impact of migration on fertility and abortion: evidence from the household and welfare study of Accra. Demography, 51(6), 2229-2254. google scholar
41. Schultz, T. P. (2005). Fertility and ıncome. economic growth center, Yale University. google scholar
42. Schultz, T. P. (1997). Demand for children in low income countries. Handbook of Population and Family Economics, (1), 349-430. google scholar
43. Selim, S. (2004). Türkiye’de çocuk talebi ve kadınların işgücüne katılımının doğurganlık üzerindeki etkisi: Ekonometrik yaklaşım (Doktora Tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir. google scholar
44. Tobler, W. R. (1979). Cellular geography. In: Gale S, Olsson G (eds) Philosophy in Geography. (pp. 379-386). google scholar
45. Tu W. (1997). Empirical bayes analysis of count data. University of Tennessee, Master Thesis. google scholar
46. Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması. (2013). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü TNSA Mikro Veri Seti. google scholar
47. White, M. J., Tagoe, E., Stiff, C., Adazul, K., & Smith, D. J. (2005). Urbanization and the fertility transition in Ghana. Population Research and Policy, (24), 59-83. google scholar
48. Willis, R. J. (1973). A new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), 14-64. google scholar
49. Winkelmann, R., & Zimmermann, K. F. (1995). Recent developments in count data modelling: Theory and application. Journal of Economic Surveys, 9(1), 1-24. google scholar
50. Viton, P. A. (2010). Notes on spatial econometric models. City and Regional Planning 870.03. google scholar
51. Zeren, F. (2010). Mekansal etkileşim analizi. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, (12), 18-39. google scholar