“Fertility transition in Turkey. Who is most at risk of deciding

against childbirth?“

(Research funded by the World Bank)

Angela Greulich (Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne)Aurélien Dasre (Paris Ouest Nanterre)

Ceren Inan (Ministère de l'Education Nationale, de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche,

Ministère du travail, at the time of this study was carried)

Fertility transition in Turkey. Who is most at risk of deciding against childbirth?

Summary:

I.- Family policies in OECD countries.

A.- Family policies and the impact of economic development on fertility.

B.- The effect of different forms of support for working parents during their children’s early years (paid leave, childcare services and financial transfers) on fertility.

II.- Family policies in Turkey.

A.- Turkish context.

B.- Who is most at risk of deciding against childbirth and what to do?

Source: OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families, OECD, Paris.

rendre rendre

Figure 1: TFR and FER

A fertility re-increase in developed

countries?Myrskylä M., Kohler H.P., Billari F., 2009: “Advances in development reverse fertility declines.” Nature, 460(6).

107 countries, 1975 and 20051975: negative correlation HDI – TFR2005: postive correlation for HDI>0,9

Figure 2: TFR and HD index

Main types of support and their timing

There are three main types of support: 1) leave entitlements, like paid leaves for mothers, 2) financial transfers, like cash benefits and fiscal transfers, and finally3) provision of services, like childcare services.

These supports may aim:1) pregnancy and early childhood2) middle childhood and3) late childhood

Figure 3: Public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures, in percent of GDP, 2011

Data Source: OECD Family Data Base (2014)

Main aims of family-support policies:

1) Poverty reduction and income maintenance.

2) Direct compensation for the economic cost of children.

3) Fostering employment.

4) Improving gender equity.

5) Support for early childhood development.

6) Raising birth rates.

FIGURE 4: OECD countries by type of family policies as gauged by first two principal components

Source: Thévenon (2011)

The Nordic countries

Figure 5: Participation rates for 0-2 year olds in formal childcare and pre-school services, 2006b and 2013

Continuous, strong support for working parents of children under age 3 in Nordic countries

Data Source: OECD Family Data Base (2014)

FIGURE 4: OECD countries by type of family policies as gauged by first two principal components

Source: Thévenon (2011)

The Anglo-Saxon countries

The Anglo-Saxon countries provide more support in cash than do other countries providing comparable help in kind.

Figure 3: Public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures, in percent of GDP, 2011

Data Source: OECD Family Data Base (2014)

FIGURE 4: OECD countries by type of family policies as gauged by first two principal components

Source: Thévenon (2011)

The Southern European countries, Japan and Korea

In Southern European countries, Japan and Korea, dual-earner households enjoy considerable tax advantages

Data Source: OECD Family Data Base (2014)

FIGURE 4: OECD countries by type of family policies as gauged by first two principal components

Source: Thévenon (2011)

The Eastern European countries

In Hungary and Slovak Republic, the length of parental leave are higher.

Figure 7: Length of paid leave reserved for mothers, 1970, 1990 and 2014

Data Source: OECD Family Data Base (2014)

FIGURE 4: OECD countries by type of family policies as gauged by first two principal components

Source: Thévenon (2011)

The Continental European countries

France’s position is closer to the Nordic countries than to other Continental European countries.

Figure 8: Public expenditure on childcare and early education services, per cent of GDP, 2011

Data Source: OECD Family Data Base (2014)

Source:

A. Luci-

Greulich,

O. Thévenon

(2014)

Table 1:

Macro level

regression on

TFR.

Logit regressions with robust standard errors, with country- and year-fixed effects

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Woman's activity status

Stable employment

(ft & pt, employed and self-employed)0.116* Ref.

Stable full-time employment Ref.

Stable part-time employment -0.0541

Stable unemployment -0.228** -0.241**

Stable inactivity -0.0792 -0.0937+

Stable student -0.540*** -0.555***

Stable retirement -0.273 -0.287

Stable military service 0.0249 0.0136

Partner information

No partner -1.035*** -1.023*** -1.024***

Partner but not married -0.161** -0.160** -0.159**

Intercept -0.928*** -0.845*** -0.827***

Control for women's age, age and sex of

first child, year and country fe

Number of observations

Number of events

Pseudo R² 0.1729 0.1742 0.1742

+ p<0.1, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

35401

2972

yes

Micro: Fertility and female employment

Table 2: probability of having a second child…

Women 15-45 yo, EU SILC 2003-2011 (Greulich et al., 2015)

19… higher for women being in stable employment

Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Woman's activity status

Stable employment 0.105* -0.116 Ref

Stable unemployment 0.173

Stable inactivity 0.187

Stable student -0.506***

Stable retirement -0.225

Stable military service 0.115

Partner information

Partner in stable employment Ref. 0.124 0.405***

Partner not in stable employment -0.260** Ref.

No partner -1.057*** -0.777*** -0.763***

Partner but not married -0.153** -0.153** -0.154**

Interaction termsstable employment with stable employed partner 0.264* stable unemployment with stable employed partner -0.507** stable inactivity with stable employed partner -0.303*

Intercept -0.907*** -1.055*** -1.220***

Control for women's age, age and sex of

first child, year and country fe

Number of observations

Number of events

Pseudo R² 0.1734 0.1737 0.1752

Test of joint significance:p (employed if partner employed)1

0.0027

p (partner employed if employed) 0.0001

p (unemployed if partner employed) 0.0007

p (inactive if partner employed) 0.0435

1 test H0: (βstable employment + βinteraction: stable employment and stable employed partner)=0

+ p<0.1, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

yes

35401

2972

Control for partner’s labor market status:

Positive impact having a partner who is himself in stable employment: 0.405 Positive impact of stable employment for women with a partner in stable employment:-0.166+0.264= + 0.098 signNegative impact of unemployment for women with a partner who is in stable employment:-0.173-0.507= - 0.334 signNegative impact of inactivity for women with a partner who is in stable employment:0.187-0.303= - 0.116 sign

20

Table 3: probability of having a second child

Women 15-45 yo, EU SILC 2003-2011 (Greulich et al., 2015)

Why Fertility Is Higher in France Than in Germany ?

An explanation of this disparity may lie in the more precarious position of German women, particularly mothers, in the labor market.

Table 4: Relationship between Work and Family Life, by Gender, France and Germany, 2011–12

Bussolo, Maurizio, Johannes Koettl, and Emily Sinnott (2015). Golden Aging: Prospects for Healthy, Active, and Prosperous Aging in Europe and Central Asia. World Bank.

Figure 9: Proportion of women (cohorts) by education level in Turkey

Family policies in Turkey

Source: Greulich, Dasre and Inan (2015). Fertility Transition in Turkey – Who Is Most at Risk of Deciding against Child Arrival? Policy Research working paper. World Bank

Figure 10: Female labor force participation rate in Turkey

(% of female population ages 15+)

Family policies in Turkey

Source: modeled ILO estimate

Figure 11: Participation rates for 3, 4 and 5 year olds in pre-primary education or primary school, 2012

Family policies in Turkey

Data Source: OECD Family Data Base (2014)

Who is at risk?

Figure 12 : Completed fertility rates by level of education amongst Turkish women

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975

Lessthanprimarycompleted Primarycompleted

Secondarycompleted Universitycompleted

Source: Census (i-pums) 2000 and EU SILC CS 2011 (women aged 37 to 42)

Source: Greulich, Dasre and Inan (2015).

Who is at risk? - Econometric Results

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Woman's activity status

Stable employment (ft & pt, employed and self-employed) -0.849** Ref. -1.601+ -1.020** -1.178* -1.328* -1.399+

Stable inactivity 0.908**

Other (unstable, retirement, student, unemployed…) -0.0346

Partner information

Partner in stable employment -0.296

Partner not in stable employment Ref.

Women's education

no graduate 0.843***

Women's type of employment

employed as family worker -0.620+

employed in agriculture -0.562

not registered in social security -0.676*

Interaction termsstable employment and stable employed partner 0.850 stable employment and no graduation 0.572

Woman's age

18-24 0.756** 0.755** 0.748** 0.586* 0.734** 0.717** 0.727**

25-34 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.

35-45 -1.189*** -1.182*** -1.197*** -1.225*** -1.186*** -1.181*** -1.180***

Age of second child

0 -0.812* -0.801* -0.807* -0.793* -0.804* -0.804* -0.806*

1-2 Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.

3-6 0.397+ 0.404+ 0.407+ 0.455+ 0.396+ 0.396+ 0.394+

7+ -0.273 -0.255 -0.269 -0.223 -0.279 -0.278 -0.290

Age difference between first and second child -0.165** -0.166** -0.163** -0.144** -0.164** -0.165** -0.164**

First two children have same sex 0.412* 0.416* 0.411* 0.435* 0.415* 0.409* 0.416*

Intercept -2.631*** -3.509*** -2.390*** -2.849*** -2.644*** -2.623*** -2.642***

Number of observations

Number of events

Pseudo R² 0.1061 0.1091 0.1075 0.1198 0.1059 0.1079 0.1060

Test of joint significance:p (employed if partner employed)1

0.0138

p (partner employed if employed) 0.5867

p (employed if no graduate) 0.3701

p (no graduate if employed) 0.0111

3644

109

Probability of 3rd child arrival in Turkey (logit regressions with robust standard errors)

married women aged 18-45 having two children, with observed partner

Source: Greulich, Dasre and Inan (2015).

A better way to keep fertility level above the replacement level is to:

• Provide full time formal care for employed mothers with 0-3 yo and pre-school children.

• Full time primary and secondary education.

• Also, encourage female employment

• For example, with more important tax advantages for full time second earners, regardless of salary differences between women and their partner

Family policies in Turkey – What to do?