Türkiye’de Mesleki Homogami ve Eğitim Homogamisi: 2002 ve 2021 Yılları Karşılaştırması

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 46, 51 - 78, 30.12.2024

Hatice Ecem Ahishali , Caner Özdemir

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’deki mesleki homogami ve eğitim homogamisi düzeyini ölçmek ve yaş, gelir, yaşanılan yer, eğitim durumu ve mesleğin homogamiye etkisini incelemektir. Bu amaçla, TÜİK tarafından toplanan Hanehalkı İşgücü Anketi 2002 ve 2021 verileri kullanılarak evli çiftlerin homogami düzeyleri ölçülmüş, homogami düzeylerini etkileyen faktörler lojistik regresyon modelleri ile test edilmiştir. Mesleki homogami olasılığının tarım ve profesyonel meslek çalışanlarında, yüksek eğitim seviyesine sahip bireylerde ve genç kuşaklarda daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Eğitim homogamisi ise özellikle; profesyonel meslek çalışanlarında, eğitim seviyesinin çok yüksek veya çok düşük olduğu bireylerde, genç kuşaklarda sıklıkla görülmektedir. Bu sonuçlar hem mesleki homogami hem de eğitim homogamisinde eğitim ve meslek durumuna göre bir kutuplaşmaya işaret etmektedir. Eğitim seviyeleri ve mesleki statü dağılımının uçlarında ve genç yaş grupları arasında homogami düzeyleri yüksektir. Eğitim ve meslek statülerinin kuşaklararası aktarımıyla bu kutuplaşma toplumsal eşitsizliklerin derinleşmesine katkı sağlama potansiyeli taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Homogami, Toplumsal Eşitsizlikler, Mesleki Homogami, Eğitim Homogamisi

Kaynakça

• Acar, S. (2022). Üniversite mezunlarında eğitim homogamisi ve gelir eşitsizliği: Türkiye örneği. Dünden bugüne iktisadi ve finansal konular üzerine tartışmalar (1 b., s. 209- 219). içinde Gazi Kitabevi.
• Andres, L. (2022). Higher education and the marriage market: educational attainment, educational homogamy, and inequality. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 52(1), 53-69.
• Arum, R., Roksa, J., & Budig, M. J. (2008). The romance of college attendance: Highereducation. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 26, s. 107-121.
• Bahçe, S., Günaydın, F. Y., & Köse, A. H. (2011). Türkiye’de Toplumsal sınıf haritaları: Sınıf oluşumları ve sınıf hareketliliği üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma. S. Şahinkaya, & İ. Ertuğrul içinde, Bilsay Kuruç’a Armağan (s. 359-392). Ankara: Mülkiyeliler Birliği Yayınları.
• Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage: Part II. Journal of political Economy, 82, s. 11-26.
• Bernasco, W., de Graaf, P. M., & Ultee, W. C. (1998). Coupled careers: Effects of spouse’s resources on occupational attainment in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 14(1), 15-31.
• Birkelund, G. E., & Heldal, J. (2003). Who married whom? Educational homogamy in Norway.Demographic Research, 8, s. 1-30.
• Boertien, D., & Permanyer, İ. (2019). Educational assortative mating as a determinant of changing household income inequality: A 21-country study. European Sociological Review, 35(4), s. 522-537.
• Borkotoky, K., & Gupta, A. K. (2016). Trends and patterns of educational homogamy in India: A marriage cohort analysis. International Journal of Population Research, 2016, 1-8.
• Bouchet-Valat, M. (2018). Educational and socioeconomic homogamy, development level, and metropolisation across 149 European regions. Revue europeenne des sciences sociales, 56(1), 53-84.
• Chudnovskaya, M., & Kashyap, R. (2020). Is the end of educational hypergamy the end of status hypergamy? Evidence from Sweden. European Sociological Review, 36(3), 351– 365.
• Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2002). Intergenerational inequality: A sociological perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), s. 31-44. Esping-Andersen, G. (2007). Sociological explanations of changing income distributions.American Behavioral Scientist, 50(5), s. 639-658.
• Flemmen, M. P., Toft, M., Andersen, P. L., Hansen, M. N., & Ljunggren, J. (2017). Forms of capital and modes of closure in upper class reproduction. Sociology, 51(6), 1277-1298.
• Ford, K. S. (2019). Marrying within the alma mater: understanding the role of same- university marriages in educational homogamy. Social Research Online, 25(2), 1-19.
• Friedman, S., Kurtuluş, A., & Koç, İ. (2022). Residential segregation by educational status in Turkey, 2013: Examining the association with political preferences. Population, Space and Place, 28(3), 1-15.
• Gelissen, J., & de Graaf, P. M. (2006). Personality, social background, and occupational career success. Social Science Research, 35(1), 702–726.
• Günaydın, G., Selçuk, E., & Hazan, C. (2013). Finding the one: A process model of human mate selection. Human bonding: The science of affectional ties (s. 103– 131). içinde The Guilford Press.
• Han, S., & Qian, Y. (2021). Concentration and dispersion: School-to-work linkagesand their impact on occupational assortative mating. The Social Science Journal, 1-18.
• Hayes, B. C. (1993). Occupational homogamy within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: A log-linear analysis. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 13(1/2), 99-117.
• Huang, C., Li, H., Liu, P. W., & Zhang, J. (2009). Why dose spousal education matter for earnings? Assortative mating and cross-productivity. Journal of Labour Economics, 27(4), s. 633-652.
• Huo, C., & Chen, L. (2022). Does individual educational attainment affect educational homogamy?- Evidence from cgss. International Studies of Economics(17), 82- 107.
• Işık, O. (2022). Eşitsizlikler Kitabı (1. b.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 496-523.
• Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status.American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422-452.
• Katrák, T., Fučík, P., & Luijkx, R. (2012). The relationship between educational homogamy and educational mobility in 29 European countries. International Sociology, 27(4), 551 573.
• Kaya, Y. (2007). Proletarianization with polarization: industrialization, globalization, and social class in Turkey, 1980-2005. Research in Social S tratification and Mobility, 26, s. 161-181.
• Lewis, S. K., & Oppenheimer, V. K. (2000). Educational assortative mating across marriage markets: Nonhispanic whites in the United States. Demography, 37(1), s. 29-40.
• Mäenpää, E. (2015a). Homogamy in educational level and parental social class in Finland: A log-linear analysis. European Sociological Review, 31(3), 253-267. Mäenpää, E. (2015b). Socio-economic homogamy and its effects on the stability of cohabiting unions. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, 50, 166. Mäenpää, E., & Jalovaara, M. (2014). Homogamy in socio-economic background and education, and the dissolution of cohabiting unions. Demographic Research, 30, s. 1769-1792.
• Mäenpää, E., & Jalovaara, M. (2015). Achivement replacing ascription? Changes in homogamy in education and social class origins in Finland. Advances in Life Course Research, 26, 76-88.
• Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56(1), s. 15-32.
• Mare, R. D. (2016). Educational homogamy in two gilded ages: Evidence from intergenerational social mobility data. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 663(1), 117-139.
• Mercan, M. A. (2012). Assortative mating and Turkish marriage market. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 14(1), 281-293.
• Mijs, J. J., & Roe, E. L. (2021). Is america coming apart? Socioeconomic segregation in neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and social networks, 1970–2020. Sociology Compass, 15(6), 1-16.
• Naszodi, A., & Mendonca, F. (2022). Changing educational homogamy: Shifting preferences or evolving educational distribution? Journal of Demographic Economics(2022), 1-29.
• Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American journal of sociology, 94(3), s. 563-591.
• Özdemir, C. (2020). Türkiye’de toplumsal tabakalaşma ve hareketliliğin meslekler üzerinden ölçümü. Journal of Economy Culture and Society(Özel Sayı 1/ Supplement 1), s. 59-77.
• Park, M. H. (1990). Educational assortative mating and social stratification in Korea and the USA: 1950-79 (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Wisconsin- Madison, USA.
• Permanyer, I., & Boertien, D. (2018). A century of change in global educational inequality and gender differences in education. İçinde Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Meeting.
• Pesando, L. M. (2021). Educational assortative mating in sub-Saharan Africa: Compositional changes and implications for household wealth inequality. Demography, 58(2), 571- 602.
• Popenoe, P. (1937). Assortative mating for occupational level. The Journal of Social Psychology, 8(2), 270-274.
• Qian, Y., & Qian, Z. (2014). The gender divide in urban China: Singlehood and assortative mating by age and education. Demographic Research, 31, s. 1337- 1364.
• Ravazzini, L., Kuhn, U., & Suter, C. (2017). Do opposites attract? Educational assortative mating and dynamics of wage homogamy in Switzerland, 1992– 2014. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 43(3), 567-586.
• Roikonen, P. (2021). Patterns of inequality: Income inequality, homogamy and social mobility in Finland, c. 1700 – 2019 (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences, Helsinki, Finlandiya.
• Schumacher, R., & Lorenzetti, L. (2005). “We have no proletariat’’: Social stratification and occupational homogamy in industrial Switzerland, Winterthur 1909/10– 1928. International Review of Social History, 50(S13), 65-91.
• Schwartz, C. R. (2013). Trends and variation in assortative mating: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, (39)1, 451-470.
• Schwartz, C. R., Wang, Y., & Mare, R. D. (2021). Opportunity and change in occupational assortative mating. Social Science Research, 99(1), 1-53.
• Seong, M. (2014). A study on educational assortative marriage. Journal of Digital Convergence, 12(3), 1-6.
• Seong, M., & Sato, Y. (2015). Patterns and trends of educational assortative mariages in South Korea and Japan among 1930s-1970s birth cohorts. Indian Journal of Sicence and Technology, 8(19), 1-9.
• Smits, J., Ultee, W., & Lammers, J. (1999). Occupational homogamy in eight countries of the European Union. Acta Sociologica, 42(1), 55-68.
• T.C. Aile, Çalışma ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. (2019). Türkiye’de Aile Yapısı İleri İstatistik Analizi, 2018 (1 b.). Ankara: TDV Yayın ve Baskı.
• TÜİK. (2021). Evlenme ve Boşanma İstatistikleri, 2020, 19 Ağustos 2024 tarihinde TÜİK: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Evlenme-ve-Bosanma- Istatistikleri-2020 37211 adresinden alındı.
• TÜİK. (2022). Gelir Dağılımı İstatistikleri. 21 Ağustos 2024 tarihinde TÜİK: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/ Index?p=Gelir-Dagilimi-Istatistikleri-2022-49745 adresinden alındı.
• TÜİK. (2024). Evlenme ve Boşanma İstatistikleri, 2022, 29 Ekim 2024 tarihinde TÜİK: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Evlenme-ve-Bosanma- Istatistikleri-2022- 49437 adresinden alındı.
• van Leeuwen, M. D., & Maas, I. (2019). A historical community approach to social homogamy in the past. The History of the Family, 24(1), s. 1-14.
• Verbakel, E., & de Graaf, P. M. (2008). Resources of the partner: Support or restriction in the occupational career? Developments in the Netherlands between 1940 and 2003. European Sociological Review, 24(1), 81-95.
• Verbakel, E., Luijkx, R., & de Graaf, P. M. (2008). The association between husbands’ and wives’ labor market positions in the Netherlands. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 26(3), 257-276.