THE POPULATION OF TURKEY - CICREDcicred.org/Eng/Publications/pdf/c-c52.pdf · THE POPULATION OF TURKEY Trends in the Actual Rate of Population Growth During this century, more reliable

1974World Population .Year

THE POPULATIONOF

TURKEY

CI.CR.E.D. Series

Printed by Dogu? Ltd. Çlrketl - ANKARA

1 9 7 4

World Population Year

THE POPULATION OF TURKEY

by

Figen Karadayi, Serim Timur, Miroslav Macura, Sanaira Yener,

Halûk Cillov, Handan Tezmen, Sunday Üner, Hüsnü A. Ki§ni§çi

The Institute of Population Studies Hacettepe University

A n k a r a

PREFACE

Until recent years, the importance of population growth as adeterminant in social and economic changes has been underrated andlittle attention was paid to the characteristics of a population. Dur-ing the short period of time following the Second World War, theaccelerated population growth rate in many countries has drawn ourattention to the population problems. Especially in the less developedcountries numerous attempts were made to solve the serious prob-lems related to rapid population growth, and several research workswere initiated.

Today, population growth and the composition of the populationhas been recognized everywhere both as the cause and determinantof social and economic development.

During the last decade, similar attemps and studies have beenmade in Turkey, even if not as numerous as elsewhere. Turkey as anewcomer in this field has information and data on the subject ofpopulation, but only very limited and somewhat widely scattered.

The Institute of Population Studies, being the only one of itskind in Turkey, has established a documentation center which com-piles available information and collects data for the use of scientists,planners and politicians.

At the same time, in preparink a monographp for the 1974 Pop-ulation Year, we have attempted to follow the outline as suggestedby UNFPA and CICRED ; past, present and future progress has beenexplained accordingly.

The monograph is divided into seven chapters as listed in theTable of Contents.

Whereas some of the facts used in the preparation of this .monograph are not quite up to date, others are the direct productsof research projects conducted in very recent years. The works ofseveral authors in this field are contained in this monograph. Thus,we sincerely hope that the presentation of this monograph will be ofvalue to policitians, leaders, and administrators, as well as create apublic interest in this field. It will also be an important source forsocial researchers.

Gratitude is herewith expressed to the authorities of UNFPAand CICRED for making the financial arrangements, and the authorsof the chapters of this monograph - Dr. Halûk Cillov, Figen Kara-dayi, Dr. Miroslav Macura, Handan Tezmen, Dr. Serim Timur, Dr.Sunday Üner, and Samira Yener for their contributions. I would alsolike to thank Hasan Serinken as the coordinator and Alev Bosuter,Ismail Igsever, Ergun Törüner, Mehmet Ögec and §ükrü Ögec fortheir services in typing and designing; Güliz Kunt and Türkiz Gökgölfor their help in editing and Feyzullah Ertugrul for his services inthe printing of the monograph.

Dr. Hiisnti Ki§ni§çiDirectorInstitute of Population StudiesHacettepe University

C O N T E N T S

Page

Preface 5

Chapter IPopulation Growth in Turkey, by Figen Karadayi, M. A. 11

Chapter IIComponents of Growth

Section A.... Fertility, by Serim Timur, Ph. D 27

Section B .... Mortality, by Miroslav Macura, Ph. D 39

Section C .... International Migration, by Samira Yener, 46M. A.

Chapter i nThe Structure of The Turkish Population, by HalûkCillov, Ph. D 57

Chapter IVInternational Migration and Population Redistribution inTurkey, by Handan Tezmen, M. A 87

Chapter VThe Labour Force, by Sunday Uner, Ph. D I l l

Chapter VIPopulation Projections, by Samira Yener, M. A 127

Chapter VIIEconomic and Social Implications of Population Growthand Population Policy, by Hüsnü A. Ki§ni§çi, M. D 139

Chapter I

POPULATION GROWTH IN TURKEY

by

Figen KARADAYI, M. A.



Figen Karadayi, M. A.Institute of Population StudiesHacettepe University

During the period 1650 -1800, the devolpment of new techni-ques in agriculture, in manufacturing, in transportation and com-munication had increasingly important effects on the populationgrowth in the west. Statistics of European countries show that inmost of them the increasing rate of population growth was dueto the decline in the death rate rather than to any change in thebirth rate (Thompson, 1965).

During the first half of the nineteenth century, in the westas a whole, the death rate fell rapidly to the lower 20ies per thou-sand, whereas the aggregate birth rate probably remained almoststationary and the rate of natural increase averaged 11-12 perthousand per year (Thompson, 1965).

In the nineteenth century, while the western countries werecharacterized with a rapid population growth, in the Otoman Empirethere was no significant increase in the population. However, theTurkish statistical information during this period was insufficientand not reliable for making comparisons with European countries.

In the twentieth century, most of the western countries hadreached a low level in death rates and moreover, the birth rates hadalso declined to such a low level that the gap between deaths andand births was diminishing at a fairly rapid speed, leading to aslower rate of population growth. The historical experience of thewestern countries diffused to developing countries like Turkey aftera century. However, it produced even higher rates of populationgrowth.

After the establishment of the Republic in 1923, Turkish govern-ments followed a strong pronatalistic policy for many years, inorder to compensate for the great loss in population during the pre-ceeding years of war.

II


Trends in the Actual Rate of Population Growth

During this century, more reliable statistical information on thecharacteristics of population and its growth was collected. Al-though there were several population registrations during the Otto-man Empire, the actual population census on a scientific baseswas conducted for the first time in 1927. This was followed by the1935 census after which the censuses were repeated at five yearintervals.

In the 1927 census, the Turkish population was recorded as13,648,000 (Table 1). As it can be observed from the table, the pop-ulation increase rate has been rather fast during this century.

According to the results of the 1935 census, there was an in-crease of 2.5 million in the population as compared with the pre-vious census. During the 1927-1935 period, the actual rate of in-crease in population was 21 per thousand. However, this high rateof inci'ease was partly due to the increase in the number of immi-gration (around 200,000) to the mainland from the lands lost inthe war. Secondly, it was partly due to the under-enumeration ofpopulation (around 400,000) in the previous census of, 1927 (Cillov,1980). Thus considering two factors, the actual population increasebetween the two dates becomes 1.9 million instead of 2.5 million,consequently the natural rate of increase becomes 16 per thousand,somewhat lower than the actual rate of increase. However, thisrate was still one of the highest rates compared to other countries.

Between 1935 -1940 the Province of Hatay with its 208,000population was added to the lands of Turkey, and at the same time120,000 immigrants entered the country. Thus, if these factors areconsidered, a natural rate of increase is expected to be somewhatlower than the actual.

In the period 1940 -1945, which was during the Second WorldWar, there was a decline in the annual rate of increase, droppingfrom 19.6 per thousand to 10.6 per thousand. Firstly, there was noobservable migration movement in this period. There were also otherreasons which had depressing effects on the rate of natural increase.

12


The main reason was the fact that the majority of the malepopulation was enlisted. Also, due to limited economic means thenumber of marriages, pregnancies, and births were decreasedvoluntarily. Decrease in the births was also attributable to the factthat the proportion of the fertile population in the 20 - 35 age groupwas low because of the First World War. On the other hand, thedeath rates during the period were also high.

Table 1

Population, and Intercensal Growth Rates According to theCensuses

Census Year

192719351940194519501955196019651970

Population(thousands)

13,64816,15817,82118,79020,94724,06527,75531,39135,661

Actual Rate ofPopulation Growth

(per thousand)

21.119.610.621.727.728.524.625.6~" ""

SOUTCG : Census of Population. Social and Economic Characteristics of Population. 24 Oct. 1965,State Institute of Statistics. Printine Division Publication No. 568, Ankara 1969.

13


During the period 1945 -1950 following the war, there was againa sharp rise in the rate of increase to 21.7 per thousand, which wasdue to several factors. Mainly it was affected by the increase inmarriages and births after the demobilization of the male population.It is also clear that, after the wars, even the number of births inthe old marriages increased. Secondly, it was due to a sharp fall inthe death rate as a consequence of the improvement of health andmedical services, and the increased use of antibiotics.

In the period 1950 -1955, the actual rate of increase was 27.7per thousand. This was extremely high compared to other Europeancountries. However, if we disregard the influence of 125,000immigrants, the natural rate of increase becomes a little lower, butis still a high rate. This was again due to the rise in the number ofbirths as the result of an increase in the marriage rate and in the>proportion of women in reproductive ages. Table 2. shows that theproportion of reproductive women has risen to 20 percent in 1950.Among these the proportion of married women was 54.6 percentin 1950 and 61.9 percent in 1955, whereas it went down to 59.3 per-cent in 1960.

Table 2

The Proportion of Total and Married Women in the 15 - 35 AgeGroup by Census Years

Census Year

193519401945195019551960

Proportion ofWomen in 15 - 24

Age group to TotalFemale Population (%)

13.813.617.420.118.616.1

Proportion ofMarried Women in15 - 24 Age Group

(%)

55.4—

48.854.661.959.3

Source : Sarç Ömer Celftl, "Turkish Population Increase" (Turkish), Tipta Yenilikler, Eczaci-basi Has Fabrikasi, No. 9, Nov. 1967, p. 22-24.

14


Between 1960 -1965 a decline in the rate of increase becamefairly apparent. However, this was mainly due to the internationalmigration, where 200,000 workers at reproductive ages left Turkeyto work in foreign countries. Secondly, the proportion of populationin reproductive ages was somewhat lower (Table 2). Thiswas due to the fact that, the cohort born during the second world Warcame to reproductive ages during this period. So a decline in thenatural increase was not attributable to the change in the fertilitytrend, but to the change in the age structure of the population.

In 1965 -1970 period, the actual rate of increase became slightlyhigher with a rate of 25.6 per thousand, compared to the rate in thepreceding period, which was 24.6. Increase in the rate was again dueto the increase in the proportion of the population in reproductiveages. In this period, larger cohort born after the war in the period1945 -1950, came to reproductive ages. However, the negativeinfluence of emmigration of workers to foreign countries is stillpresent.

In summary, from the first census of 1927 to the last one in1970, the population of Turkey had increased from 13,648,000 to35,661,000. The annual rate of increase has always been high for eachcensus period except for the war years.

With 25 per thousand rate of population increase, Turkey's popu-lation doubles itself every 28 years. This rate is the highest of allthe European countries where the rate is below 10 per thousand(Table 3).

On the other hand, Turkey has a slightly lower growth rate thansome of the Middle Eastern and Latin American countries, where itgoes up to 3.4 per thousand .

15


Table 3

Population Growth Rate of Several Selected Countries.

Country

FranceGermany (Republic)NorwaySwedenBulgariaRumaniaNetherlandsU.S.S.R.GreeceU.S.A.

Annual Rateof PopulationGrowth (%)

0.70.40.90.50.71.31.11.00.81.1

Country

JapanSyriaArab RepublicIraqIsraelPakistanIndiaMexicoTurkey

Annual Rateof PopulationGrowth (%)

1.12.72.83.42.43.32.63.42.7

Source : 19Y1 World Population Data Sheet. Population Information ior 145 countries.

The high rate of population growth in Turkey was basicallyinfluenced by a high rate of fertility and by the gap between thebirths and deaths. The role of immigration to the country is rathernegligible. Thus it is necessary to look over the changes in thedifferent components of population growth.

Changes in the Components of Population Growth

Population growth in a country changes under the combinedinfluence of several factors. These are basically fertility, mortalityand migration. Where the gap between birth rates (B.R.) and deathrates (D.R.) gives the natural increase (NRI) of a country, this,combined with the influence of migration (M.R.) constitutes theactual rate of population growth (R).

B.R. — D.R. + MR = R

In order to observe the trends in natural rate of increase, thecontribution of fertility and mortality should be studied.

16


Changes in Fertility by Census YearsDepending on the age distribution of quinquennial Turkish

censuses from 1935 to 1970, changes and trends in birth, death,migration rates and population growth have been studied by Shorter(Shorter, 1973).

According to the results of this study, it is observed that over35 years CBR has dropped steadily from 51.0 per thousand to 34.4per thousand, which was about a 24 percent decrease in the birth rate(Table 4). The current rate of 38.4 per thousand is still very highcompared to other European countries which have rates of 13-17per thousand. However, Turkey has a lower rate when compared tosome Middle Eastern countries such as 50 per thousand in Pakistan,48 per thousand in Iran, 47 per thousand in Syria (Population In-formation, 1971).

The decline in CBR in 1960 -1965 may be basically attributableto the changes in the age structure of the population. During thisperiod, the proportion of the reproductive population is low due tothe arrival of war cohort at child bearing ages. The depressing effectof this, WiH continue until 1970 when the normal size-cohorts cometo child bearing ages.

Table 4Crude Birth and Death Rates and Natural Rate of Increase of

Population by Census Periods

Census Periods

1935 -19401940 -19451945 -19501950 -19551955 -19601960 -19651965 -1970

Crude BirthRate

(per thousand)

51.050.247.846.745.041.238.4

Crude DeathRate

(per thousand)34.639.628.120.717.814.712.7

Natural Rateof Population

Increase(per thousand)

16.410.419.726.027.226.525.7

Source : Shorter, C. Frederic and B. Tekçe."Demographic Determinants of Urbanization in Turl&ey, 1935-1970. Forthcoming Pub-lication : Benedict, P., E. Tümertekin and F. Mansur (eds.) Turkey : Geographical and

Social Perspectives. Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1973.

17

THE POPULATION OB1 TURKEY

Changes in. Mortality by Census Years

Over the past 35 years the death rate has also fallen steadilyfrom 34.6 per thousand to 12.7 per thousand Which is about a 47 per-cent drop in the original rate (Table 4). The death rate, comparedto the birth rate has experienced a more rapid decline in the sameperiod. It rises up to 39.6 per thousand during the war. years, anddrops rapidly thereafter, especially in the two following censusperiods of 1945 -1950 and 1950 -1955, because of the improvementsin the health conditions. Then the decline becomes more gradual. Therate in Turkey is slightly higher than that of the European countrieswhere it is around 7 -11 per thousand, but it is lower than that ofIndia, Pakistan, or Iran.

Bole of Natural Increase in Population Growth

This shows the gap between the CBR and CDR which is themost important contributing factor to population growth. Changesin the natural rate of increase are given in Table 4. The biggestdecline in NRI is between the periods 1935 -1940 and 1940 -1945.This is mainly due to the increase of deaths during the war. Then itrises rapidly in the post war period of 1945 -1950. This is mainly dueto the application of better medical technology with the result of asharp decline in the death rates. Because of this decline in the period1950 -1955 is also ¡big, the natural rate of increase goes up again to26.0 per thousand. Thereafter the death rates experience only agradual decline. Thus the rate of natural increase drops graduallyparallel to the gradual decline in the gap between birth and deathrates.

In summary, it is clear that the excess of birth rate over deathrate, increased sharply after the period of 1935 -1940 up to 1950 anddeclined sharply thereafter.

Bole of Migration in Population Growth

The joint contribution of the natural rate of increase and inter-national migration gives the total actual rate of population growthof the country. The influence of migration may be positive as theform of immigration, or negative as emmigration. The influence ofmigration has been small but positive until 1960 (Table 5).

18


Table 5

Changes in the Natural Rate of Increase and in InternationalMigration as Components of Actual Population Growth in Turkey,

by Census Period 1935 -1970.

Natural Rate Rate of Inter- Actual Rate ofof Population national Migra- Population

Increase tion IncreasePeriod (per löiousand) (per thousand) (per thousand)

1935 -19401940 -19451945 -19501950 -19551955 -19601960 -19651965 -1970

16.410.619.726.027.226.525.7

3.2—2.01.71.3

—1.9—O.I

19.610.621.727.7 ;28.5 '24.625.6

Note : The rate of international migration was calculated by subtracting the natural rate ofincrease from the actual rate of population increase.

(Crude Birth Rate - Crude Death Bate) + International = Actual Bal« of populationNatural Bate of Increase Migration Increase

However, after the 1960 flow of Turkish workers to foreigncountries reversed the influence of migration to be negative the rateof actual population growth decreased to 24.6 per thousand (Table5). The decrease in the actual rate of population growth after1955 -1960 Was basically due to the role of emigration, the rateof natural increase is not very different from the previous period.

In Turkey, the role of natural increase has been dominantcompared to the role of migration, in determining actual populationgrowth. Turkey's population growth has been basically influencedwith the rapid decline in the death rates which increased the gapbetween the births and the deaths. International migration playedrather a minor role. Its role increased in importance especially afterthe 1950 's. The relationship of the three components of growth canbe clearly seen in figure 1. The larger proportion of populationgrowth is by the natural increase of population, that is, the gapbetween the crude birth and death rates. The gap increases after

19

193555-i—

Figure 1. Crude Birth and Death Rates, and

Rates of Increase of Population, 1935 -1970

19¿0 19/.5i

1950 1955i

1960 1965i

1970i

5 0 -

Z.S-

Z.0-

35-

3 0 -

20-

•z.o

0.oa.

<ino 15-

a. 30-

Crude Birth Rate

Crude Death Rate

% 25H

20 -

15 -

10 -

5-

0

Net immigration

\Net Emmigration

1935 19¿0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970

CENSUS YEARS

Source :. Shorter, C. Frederic and B. Tekçe. "Demographic Determinants of Urbanization inTurkey, 1935-1970. Forthcoming Publication: Benedict, P, E. Tumertekin. and F.Mansur (eds.) Turkey: Geographical and Social Perspectives. Leiden: E. J. Brill,1973. •

20


the 1940 - 45 period with the sharp decline in death rates. In thelower part of the chart, it is observable that international migrationadds to population growth until the 1950's while it shows negativeeffects after the 1960 - 65 period.

When the growth of separate settlements in Turkey is considered,the role of migration in terms of rural to urban migration becomesmore important.

Population Growth in Rural and Urban Places

Together with the problem of a high rate of population growth,the rapid growth of urban population is another problem facingTurkey.

During the 30 - year period of 1935 -1965, as the population ofTurkey doubled, the population of the urban areas (places over10,000 population) increased three and one half times (Seetharam,1973). In fact, the growth of the urban population in time is dueto the influence of several factors. These are : the natural increasedue to the gap between fertility and mortality, international migra-tion, birth of new urban places (with population over 10,000), andmainly rural to urban migration (Shorter, 1973). Among thecomponents determining urban growth in the 1965 -1970 period,rural to urban migration rate is 52.4 per thousand which is thehighest among the other components (Shorter, 1973). Then comes thebirth of new cities with 20.5 per thousand. International migrationand natural increase play a depressing role in the population growthin urban areas. Differential natural increase is minus 7.7 per thousandand differential international migration is minus 3.5 per thousand.Altogether the components make up an urbanization rate of 61.7per thousand (Shorter, 1973).

It is clear here that the role of rural to urban migration as onecomponent of urban population growth is highest compared to otherfactors.

The influence of natural increase in determining rapid growthof urban population is minor. The gap in death rates in urban andrural areas is smaller than the gap in fertility. Urban ¡birth rate islower than the rural birth rate whereas the population growth ofurban places is higher than the growth in rural areas. The naturalrate of growth is 27.2 per thousand in rural areas whereas it is 20.7

21


per thousand in urban areas (Turkish Demographic Survey, 1970).The increase in the number of urban areas has been two and one

half times from 81 in 1935 to 199 in 1965. It is ciar from Table 6.that the rate of urban population has always been greater than therate in rural areas. Since the rate of natural growth, on the contrary,is higher in rural areas, the higher rate of growth in urban areas isbasically provided by the rural to urban migration.

The whole period from 1935 -1965 can be divided into two stageswhere the first shows almost no increase in percent urban and thesecond is a period of rapid change (Table 6). The larger proportionof increase in percent urban, that is 12 percent increase, occuredfrom 1950 to 1965. Although the urban growth rates were alwayshigher than the rural rates, the difference has been greater since1950. Also, the rates of urbanization show rapid increase after 1950.

The process of urbanization in Turkey becomes faster as thepopulation of the city becomes larger. So, the rate is higher in themetropolitan areas.

Table 6Rate of Urban and Rural Growth and Rate of Urbanization

from 1935 to 1970Census Percent Urban Growth Rural Growth Rate of Urbani-Year Urban Rate (%) Rate (%) zation (%)

1935194019451950195519601965

16.518.118.518.822.525.929.8

4.01.52.67.66.56.0

1.31.02.21.92.11.4

1.90.40.34.64.35.2

Source : Snetharam, 1C. S. Urbanization in Turkey, 1935-1965, a contributed paper submittedto Section 2.3 on Bis Cities of the General Conference of the IUSSP, Liege, August-September, 1973.

The total growth rate, contribution of natural increase, and thetime for doubling the population are given in Table 7. The differencebetween the total growth and natural increase may be roughlyattributable to the influence of rural to urban migration which seemsto play the greatest role in the population growth of the three metro-politan areas.

22


Table 7

Natural and Total Growth Rates of Three Metropolitan Areas in

Turkey-

Actual Doub-Natural Growth Total Growth ling Time

City Rate (%) Rate (%) (years)Ankara 2.2 7.8 9Istanbul 1.2 4.1 17Izmir 1.5 4.7 15Source : Anderson, Lewis S., Socio - economic Factors in. the People Boom. Presented at the

Ankara Chapter of the Society for International Development, June, 1970.

REFERENCES

— Anderson, Lewis S,, "Socio-economic Factors in the People-boom".Presented at the Ankara Chapter of the Society for InternationalDevelopment, June 22, 1970.

— Cillov, Halûk, Nüfus ístatistilderi ve Demografinin Genial Esaslan(Population Statistics and the Principles of Demography), Ser-met Matbaasi, Istanbul 1960, p. 48-55.

— Cilov, Halûk, "Demographic Factors on the Economic Develop-ment of Turkey", International Union for the Scientific Study ofPopulation General Conference; London, September 1969.

— Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics of Po-pulation, 24 October 1965. State Institute of Statistics, PrintingDivision Publication, No. 568, Ankara, 1989.

— Population Census of Turkey, 25 October 1970. — TemporaryResults. State Institute of Statistics, Publication no: 616, An-kara, 1970.

— Samara Yener, 1960 -1965 Dönemiude Köyden §>ehire Gögler(Rural to Urban Migration in the Period of 1960-1965). StatePlanning Organization, Publication No : 212, Ankara, July, 1970.

— Sarc, Orner Celâl, "Türkiye'de Nüfus Artisi" (Population In-crease in Turkey). Tlpta Yenilikler — Eczacibasi îlâç Fabrikas.iNo. 9, November 1967, p. 22-24.

23


— Seetharam, K. S., "Urbanization in Turkey, 1935-1965", a Con-tributed paper submitted to Section 2.3 on Big Cities of the Ge-neral Conference of the IUSSP, Liege, August - September 1973.

— Shorter, F. C, "Information on Fertility Mortalit and PopulationGrowth in Turkey" Turkish Demography, Proceedings of a Con-ference, Feb. 21124i 1968. Hacettepe University, Institute of Pop-ulation Studies, Publication No. 7, 1969.

— Shorter, F. C. and Belgin Tekçe, "Demographic Determinants ofUrbanization in Turkey, 1935-1970". Fortcoming Publication inBenedict, P., E. Tiimertekin and F. Mansur (eds). Turkey :Geographical and Social Perspectives. S. Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1973.

— Statistical Yearbook of Turkey, State Institute of Statistics,Printing Division, Puglication No. 580, Ankara, 1969.

— Thompson, W. S. and David Lewis, Population Problems, Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company, U. S., 1965.

— Turkish Demographic Survey : Vital Statistics 1966-67, School ofPublic Health, Ankara, 1970.

— Türldye Nüfusu Üzerine fotatistiksel Çahsmalar, (StatisticalStudies on the Turkish Population) Devlet Planlama Teskilâù,Yayin No. 1012, Ankara, March, 1971.

— 1971 World Population Data Sheet, Population Information for145 countries.

24

Chapter II

COMPONENTS OF GROWTH

Section A-Fertility

by

Serim TtMUR, P.h. D.

Section B - Mortality

by

Miroslav MACURA, Ph.D.

Section C - International Migration

by

Samira YENER, M. A.


Section A — Fertility

Serim Timur, Ph.D.

Institute of Population StudiesHacettepe University

Taken as a whole the population of Turkey may be placed in theearly stage of the demographic transition. The crude birth rate forthe country as a whole is as high as 40 per thousand, or using morerefined measures, the total fertility rate is 5.3 and the gross repro-duction rate is 2.61. The aggragate national fertility measures,however, do not reveal the striking rural-urban and regional differen-ces. Fertility is lowest in the metropolitan centers of Istanbul andIzmir which are at the western end of the country, where economicand social development is highest. Fertility in rural areas of themore developed west is also low as compared to the less developedcentral1 and eastern parts of the country. The level of socio-economicdevelopment indicates that metropolitan cities may be in the secondphase of fertility transition while the more backward rural areasmay be in the initial phase. Hence, as would be expected by thehistorical pattern of fertility differentials in the world, we find astrong inverse relation between fertility and socio-economic charac-teristics of' couples in metropolitan cities and a weak inverse or evena direct relation in rural areas.

We shall succesively discuss fertility differences : i) betweenurban and rural areas and geographic regions, and ii) accordingto some socio-economic characteristics such as educational attain-ment, income, and husband's occupation2.

1 Vital Statistics from the Turkish Demographic Survey 1366-67 Ministry of Health andRacial Welfare, School of Public Health Publication, Ankara: 1370, pp. 121-126.

2 Additional Information a n d a more detailed discussion on fertility differentials and socio-economic characteristics in Turkey can be found in Timur Serim, "Socio-Economic Deter-minants of Differential Fertility in Turkey", paper submitted to the Second EuropeanPopulation Conference, Strasbourg, 1-7 Sept . , 1971. 31 pages, and in Karadayi Figen,Soclo-Economlc Correlates of Fertility Behavior and Attitudes In Turkey", Master's Thesis.Hacettepe University, Ankara, 1971. • • •

27


Regional Differences

The basic fertility estimates of the main five geographic regionsand urban-rural strata which are derived from the Turkish Demo-graphic Survey of 1965 -1967 are shown in Table l.The crude birthrate in rural areas with less than 10,000 population is 44 per thou-sand whersas it is 31 per thousand in the urban areas. The corres-ponding total fertility rates are 6.1 and 3.9 respectively. Fertility islowest in the metropolitan areas of Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir.Crude birth rates are 31, 25, and, 24 per thousand respectively.

TABLE 1Urban - Rural and Regional Fertility Rates in Turkey

Region/Area

TURKEY

METROPOLITAN AREAS

REGION I(Central Anatolia)REGION H(Black Sea CoastREGION DI(Western Turkey)REGION IV(Mediterranean)REGION V(Eastern Turkey)

TotalRuralUrban

AnkaraIstanbulIzmirRuralUrbanRuralUrbanRuralUrbanRuralUrbanRuralUrban

CrudeBirthRate

(Per 1000)

39.643.931.4

31.224.224.8

52.734.7

38.134.7

35.626.540.331.949.743.9

TotalFertility

Rate

5,303.56,124.03,880.5

3,299.52,654.02,916.0

7,095.54,293.5

5,153.04,343.5

4,932.53,140.56,072.04,278.07,436.06,095.0

Source : Vital Statistics from the Turkish Démographie Survey 1966-67, Ministry of Hea'thand Social Welfare, School of Public Health Publications, Ankara, 19T0. p. 37 - 39.

28


Regional differences are nearly as sharp, with Eastern Turkey(Region IV) yielding the highest fertility followed by Central Ana-tolia, (I) the Black Sea Coast (II), the Mediterranean Region (IV),and Western Turkey (HI).

1968 Haoettepe Population Survey

The data for the following sections of this chapter are takenfrom a nationwide multi-stage probability sample survey on "FamilyStructure and Population Problems in Turkey" conducted by thestaff of the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies in 1968. Theestimates presented here are based on data relating to 3,200 cur-rently married women under 45 years of age and their husbands.

Fertility Measure Used

The basic measure of fertility used in this chapter is the averagenumber of live-born children of currently married women in re-productive ages (44 years old and younger). In order to minimizethe difficulties that may arise in comparing groups with differingcompositions of marital duration, data on children ever^born havebeen standardized for duration of marriage, using as the standardthe marriage duration distribution of all women in the sample. Incomparing the standardized means of live^born children, in general,a difference of 0.5 may be taken to ibe statistically significant at the5 percent level.

Urban-Rural Residence

The earliest and most rapid declines in the birth rates in theWest took place in the largest cities, and the latest and slowestwere seen in rural areas, while the smaller towns stayed betweenthe two extremes. The same pattern is observed in Turkey whenthe mean number of live-born children are compared by communitysize. The average number of live-born children for all Turkishwomen in reproductive ages is 3.9. This figures is higher (4.2) inrural areas with less than 2,000 population and considerably lowerin metropolitan areas (2.7). Small towns and other urban areas are

29


in between, with an average live birth of 3.8 and 3.4 respectively(Table 2).

TABLE 2

Number of Live-born Children to Currently Married Womenin Reproductive Ages, by Community Size

Community Size(Population)

Less than 2,0002,000 -14,99915,000 and overMetropolitan(Ankara, Istanbul,

TURKEY

StandardizedMean No. of

Live bornChilren

4.23.83.4

Izmir) 2.7

3.9

Currently MarriedWomen Aged 15-44

Per centDistribution

60.813.2 .15.7

10.4

100.0

Numberof SampleWomen

1423337

1189

318

3267

Education of Women

It is usually believed that one of the reasons for fertility de-cline in developed countries is the educational advancement of thegeneral population. As the level of education rises, fertility usuallydeclines in both economically developed and underdeveloped coun-tries. Furthermore, numerous studies have shown that the edu-cation of the wife is more strongly associated with fertility than theeducation of the husband.

In Turkey, where only about one third of the women are literate,educated women form a highly select group, and declines in fertilityare expected even at very moderate levels of education. Althoughilliterate women have almost 3 times as many births as womenuniversity graduates, a marked reduction in fertility is also observed

30


with as low as 5 years of education. As shown in Table 3, the averagenumber of live births is 4.2 for illiterate women, 3.2 for non-edu-cated literate women, 2.8 for those with primary school education,2 for those who have completed secondary school or lycee, and 1.4for university graduates. In other Words, mere literacy reducesfertility by 24 percent; 5 years of education readuces it by 33 per-cent; both 8 and 12 years of education, 'by 50 per cent; and 16 yearsof education by 67 percent.

However, rather than a. regular accelerating effect of educationon fertility, we may distinguish three turning points wherefertility, is reduced by one fourth from the preceding educationalcategory. These three points of marked break are mere literacy, se-condary school and university education.

As in all other socio-economic characteristics, thereis a marked relation between urban-rural residence and fe-male education. Although 80 percent of the metropolitanwomen are literate, this proportion is 43 percent in otherurban areas, 39 percent in small towns, and only 17 percentin the villages. Does, however, a specific educational level affectfertility at the same rate in both urban and rural areas? Since thereare few women of higher educational levels in the rural areas andsmall towns, the effect of educational level on fertility by urban -rural residence can be seen by combining middle school, lycée, anduniversity levels (Table 4). The data by community type reveal thatilliterate women have virtually the same high level of fertility inmetpopolitan, urban, and rural areas. When we look at the degreeof change in fertility associated With educational level, we see thatmere literacy reduces fertility by almost 40 percent in metropolitancenters, whereas this proportion is 20 percent in other urban areas,30 percent in towns, and only 12 percent in the villages.

31


TABLE 3

Mean Number of Lave Born Children by Woman's Education andReductions in Fertility by Educational Level

(Standardized by Duration of Marriage, Women 14-44)

Percent Percent PercentReduction in Reduction in Distribution

Fertility Fertility of.Mean from the from Women

Educational No. of Category of Preceding in eachLevel LBC Eliterates Category Category

Illiterate

Did not completeprimary school

Completed prim.Sch. (5 years)

Completed Sec.Sch. (8 years)

Completed Lycée(12 years)

University grad.(16 years)

TOTALNUMBER

4.2

3.2

2.8

2.1

2.0

1.4

3.93267

—

24

33

50

52

67

3267

—

24

13

25

5

30

3267

68.2

12.0

15.9

2.1

1.3

0.5

100.03267

Primary school education, likewise, reduces fertility by 40 per-cent in metropolitan centers but by only 25 percent in rural areas.Among literate and primary school educated peasant ¡women,fertility is much higher than among women of the same educationallevel in urban areas. Thus, both urban-rural residence and educationinteract to affect" fertility. Although education produces a reductionin fertility irrespective of community type, a specific level of edu-

32


cation does not produce the same level of fertility in both urbanand rural areas. In other words, educational level and fertility arehighly interrelated, but most of the effects of education operatethrough residence, metropolitan residence being especially influential.

TABLE 4 ;

Mean Number of Live-born Children by Education of Woman andby Community Type

(Standardized by duration of marriage, women 14-44)

Education of Women

Illiterate(Percent distribution)

Did not complete prim.Sch. (Percent distribution)

Completed primary Sch.(Percent distribution)

Secondary and over(Percent distribution)

TOTAL LBCTOTAL PER CENTNUMBER

Ratio of highest to lowest(Lowest = 1)

Metro-politan

LBC

4.1(20)

2.5'(23)

2.6(33)

1.9(24)

2.7(100)318

2.16

Community

CityLBC

3.8(51)

3.1(18)

2.7(26)

2.9(5)

3.2(100)1189

1.41

TownLBC

4.3(61)

3.1(15)

2.6(21)

—

3.8(100)

337

1.65

Type

VillageLBC

4.3(83)

3.8(8)

3.2(9)

—

4.2(100)1423

1.34

TurkeyLBC

4.2(68)

3.2(12)

2.8(16)

2.1(4)

3.9(100)3267

2.00

Husband's Occupation

As expected by classical trends, the differentiation of occupa-tional groups with respect to fertility is most pronounced among

33


the professionals and farmers (Table 5). While the former have anaverage of 2.3 live-born children, the latter have an average of 4.4.This comparison, however, must be tempered with the fact thatfarmers constitute the largest occupational category (51 percent),whereas professionals constitute the smalest (2 percent), Commerceand businessmen occupy the second lowest fertility category fol-lowed by clerks and! junior civil servants. After farmers, workers,and artisans are in the next two high fertility categories.

The same general pattern is observed in metropolitan centersbut fertility is lower than the national average in every category,except for workers. In other urban areas, once more professionalsand civil servants have the lowest fertility whereas commerce andbusinessmen as well as farmers (absentees) have the highest fer-tility. In all existing categories, towns have a higher fertiEty thanmetropolitan and urban areas. In rural areas where businessmenand professionals are non-existent, fertility is highest for all theremaining categories and no differentials are observed.

Income

A classification of families by per capita income shows aregular decline in fertility with rising levels, of income (Table 6). Inorder to maximize the accuracy of income reporting, questionswere asked about the income of each member of the household, aswell as each possible source of income in cash or in kind. In thiscontext, per capita income is a more refined variable than totalhousehold income. It controls for the total number of family mem-bers and earners. Otherwise, some of the extended families may beincluded in the highest income bracket in spite of the fact that theirstandard of living may not be high.

34


HABLE 5

Mean Number of live-Born Children by Husband'sOccupation and by Community Type

(Standardized by Marriage Duration, Women 14-44)

Husband'sOccupation

Commerce andBusinessmen(Percent distribution)Professionals(Percent distribution)

Clerks and juniorcivil servants(Percent distribution)

Artisans and smallscale retailers(Percent distribution)

Workers(Percent distribution)

Farmers and farmworkers(Percent distribution)

TOTAL LBCTOTAL PERCENTNUMBER

Metro-politan

LBC

2.4(6)1.9(8)

2.9(31)

2.4(32)

4.0(23)

——

2.8(100)

238Ratio of highest to lowest(lowest = 1) 2.11

Community

CityLBC

3.7(3)3.0(2)

3.0(22)

3.4(39)

3.3(29)

3.5(5)

3.3(100)

250

1.23

TownLBC

X

(2)X

(1)

3.8(13)

4.0(33)

3.3(25)

4.8(25)

3.8(100)

937

1.26

Type

VillageLBC

————

—(1)

3.9(8)

4.4(6)

4.4(85)

4.3(100)

251

1.13

TurkeyLBC

2.8(2)2.3(2)

3.1(10)

3.5(20)

4.4(15)

4.4(51)

3.9(100)

949

1.91

x Lass than 20 cases

35


TABLE 6

Mean Number of Live-Born Children by perCapita Income and by Community Type

(Standardized by Marriage Duration, Women 14-44)

Annual percapita family

income in TL. (x)

1-499(Percent distribution)

500 - 999(Percent distribution)

1,000 -1,999(Percent distribution)

2,000 - 3,999(Percent distribution)

4,000 +(Percent distrbution)

TOTAL LBCTOTAL PERCENT

NUMBERRatio of highest to lowest(lowest = 1)

Metro-politanLBC

—

4.7(3)

4.1(22)

2.7(34)

2.2(40)

2.8(100)

249

2.14

CityLBC

4.4(6)

4.2(18)

3.5(36)

2.8(28)

2.3(12)

3.4(100)

919

1.91

TownLBC

5.3(16)

4.2(22)

3.7(30)

2.8(20)

3.1(13)

3.8(100)

248

1.89

VillageLBC

4.6(38)

4.3(29)

4.0(16)

3.4(ID

3.7(6)

4.2(100)

1005

1.35

TurkeyLBC

4.6(26)

4.3(24)

3.8(22)

3,0(17)

2.7(12)

3.8(100)

2421

1.70

x 1 U. S. dollar = 14 Turkish liras

The number of children ever-born is 4.6 in the lowest incomebracket whereas it is 2.7 in the highest income group (Table 6).Although regular but slight decreases in fertility are observedamong the three lowest categories within each community type, abreak in fertility occurs only in the fourth income group. It shouldbe noted that among the three lowest categories comprising 72 per-

•36


cent of the total population, there are virtually no differentials bycommunity type. In other words, 25 percent of the metropolitanpopulation, 60 percent of the urbanités, 68 percent of the townpopulation and 83 percent of the villagers earning less than 2,000TL. per capita have the same high fertility (about 4 live births.)

The most interesting finding in Table 6, however, is thatfertility exhibits a U-shaped curve in towns, and villages; the highestfertility being found in the lowest income bracket, and graduallydecreasing to the highest group, where it increases slightly. Thus,rural fertility seems to be positively related to income in the highestgroup.

This pattern perfectly fits the classical fertility cycle theory.There is a well-defined transition from inverse association of eco-nomic status to fertility in urban areas to direct relation among theupper strata in rural areas.

Besides income, the amount of land owned, another indicator ofrural wealth, also reveals the same positive association of fertilitywith size of large land holdings.

Summary

In the presentation of the socio-economic determinants ofTurkish fertility differentials, an attempt was made to combine theaggragate and individual levels of analyses. In a nationwide sampleof Turkish couples, community structural implications for dif-ferentials at the individual level were investigated in addition to theimpact of individual socio-economic characteristics.

Although socio-economic variables were negatively associatedwith fertility at the individual level, the degree of this associationand sometimes even the direction was found to be different be-tween urban and rural communities. Thus, our findings so farclearly reveal that fertility varies with specific or different con-ditions of socio-economic structure.

The birth rate in Turkey is affected essentially by the samecauses acting towards its decline in developed countries. Contrary

37


to some recent studies in developing countries, almost all the tra-ditional (or historic) fertility differentials in industrially advancedcountries have been observed in Turkey. In the three metropolitancenters (Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir) that have gone farthest infertility decline, there were extremely wide fertility differentials bysocial class. The differentials were less pronounced in other urbanareas where fertility levels were also high. In rural areas wherefertility was highest, there were no differentials among socio -eco-nomis groups. In fact, high levels of income and large landowner-ship were positively associated with fertility.

38

COMPONENTS OF GROWTHSection B — Mortality

Miroslav Macura, Ph.D.Institute of Population. StudiesHacettepe University;

This section presents information on mortality in various seg-ments of the Turkish population. The information is derived fromthree data sources : population censuses, periodic Demographicsample surveys and the Turkish Demographic Survey. Mortality in-dices based on. the first two sources were derived,using some of theestimation techniques recently developed for extracting demograp-hic measures from incomplete and. defective data (5). Indeces basedon the TDS materials were calculated using convertional proceduresas well as some of the techniques used with the other, two sources.The census and survey materials were used to reconstruct nationaltrends in adult mortality for the past four decades and to ascertainlevels of infant and early child mortality at a few dates in the pastdecade and a half. The same materials were used to learn about re-gional and urban-rural mortality differentials in the late 1960s.

Trends in adult mortality by sex since the mid 1930s were re-constructed from the census age-sex distributions and the TDSdata (4). Estimates of adult mortality, expressed in terms of ex-pectation of life at age five, are shown in Table 1. Some of theestimates, it is almost certain, are biased in one Way or another, dueto changing completeness of census enumeration from one censusto another and possibly due to other data defects. Thus, it is livelythat the pick in e°5 attained during the 1955-60 period is spuriousand that'it was produced by a coverage of the 1960 census that wasmore complete than.that either of the 1955 or the 1965 census. Inspite of '• the errors in the estimates, the time pattern of mortalitychange in the population aged five and over is clear. The mortalityincreased during the years of the World War II and underwent arapid decline in a decade and a half folowing the War. The declinecontinued through the 1960s, at a pace much slower than before.

39


Table 1

Expectation of life at Age 5 Estimatedfrom Intercensal Survivorship Rates(1935-65) and the TDS Data (1966-67)

(years)

Period1935 - 401940 - 451945 - 50/a1950 - 55/a1955-601960-651966-67

e°5Males51.546.552.457.662.259.260.6

,fe°5Females

49.646.253.459.263.561.963.9

a The estimates for 1945 - 50 and 1950 - 55 were obtained by using ten year cumulatedsurvivorship rates for 1945 - 55 and interpolating. This was necessary to avoid the effectsof certain irregulativßs in the 1950 census.

Source: The whole table, except the 1966-67 figures, is reproduced from (4). The 1966-67figures are derived from both-sexes e°5 published in (2).

The estimates of e°5 also illustrate change in sex differences inadult mortality over time. They show that adult females experienceda mortality heavier than that of adult 'males in the early years ofthe period. Males were subject to comparatively heavier mortalitylater on. The change in the differential resulted from a com-paratively faster decline in female mortality.

The decline in mortality among adults was accompanied by adecline in infant and early child mortality. It is certain that somedecline took place prior to the mid 1950s, but it is not possible todetermine when did it start and how it progressed. For the yearsafter the mid 1950s, the estimates of infant mortality for both sexescombined do exist. They were obtained from data of children everborn and children surviving collected in the surveys of 1963 and1968, in the TDS and in the 1970 census and from the TDS currentdeath data. The estimates, derived using the Brass mortality pro-cedure and the üfe table technique, are shown together with theirreference dates in Table 2.

40


The table shows a decline of some fourty points during a decadebetween the late 1950s and the late 1960s. To what extent the esti-mated levels and the implied tempo of decline are accurate is some-what difficult to say. It is probably true that the infant death rateof the late 1960s was in the upper 140s or perhaps lower 150s. Indeed,this is what two independent estimates imply. The estimate for thelate 1950s is not probaply equally strong. It is lively that, to anunknown extent, it understates infant mortality of the period, pri-marily due to a tendency to understate numbers of death childrenwho were born to women passed age 30, or even 25 at the time ofsurvey. If this were true ,the estimated tempo of decline would beundurstated, too.

Different communities of Turkey participated in various deg-rees in the described mortality decline. This is revealed by regionaland community-size differentials in mortality recently uncoveredusing the TDS and 1970 census data.

Table 2

Estimates of Infant Mortality,Both Sexes Combined

Infant Deathsper Thousand

Births

Reference Dateof

Estimate

Source of Data

187/a 1955-60 Retrospectivedata from the 1963and 1968 Surveysand the TDS

152 1966-67 Current Datafrqm the TDS

145 1968 RetrospectiveData from the1970 Census

a) Th¡3 rate of 187 for 1955-60 was reached as an average of three infant death rates. Eachof the three rates reflects mortality experienced by children ever born to women age20-34 in one of the three surveys (1963-1968 and 1966-67 TOS).

Source : Infant death rates f j r 1955 - 60 and for 1966 - 67, on the one hand, for 1968, onthe other, come from (3) and (1), respectively.

41


Reliable information on regional differentials is available fortwo years in the late 1960s : 1967 and 1968. Mortality indeces of19*67, calculated from the TDS information and shown in the lowerpart of Table 3, refer to two large regions of the country. Westernand Coastal provinces, on the one hand, and Central and Easternprovinces, on the other. The indeces show that general, adult andchild mortalitp were ail higher in the former than in thlei latterregion. As far as child mortality is concerned, Map 1 of 1968 infantdeath rates (derived from the 1970 census data) supports this find-ing to a large extent. It also makes it possible to drow somewhatmore specific conclusion about regional differentials. Namely, thatthere is a considerable mortality' variation within each of the twolarge regions, especially within the second one. And also, that itis not necessarily true that Coastal or Western provinces enjoylower mortality than that of Central and Eastern provinces.

Information on mortality differentials by size of communitypresented here refers to 1967, comes from the TDS and is shownin the upper part of Table 3. When three types of mortality indicespresented for populations of metropolitan centers, and all-urlban andrural areas are examined it is possible to generalize that mortalityis lowest in the metropolitan areas, highest in rural areas andintermediate in all-urban places. It is evident that differences inmortality between all-urban and metropolitan are smaller (almostnonexistent among adults) than differences between rural and all-urban areas.

42

o

I

• I

i l sH I -

o


Table 3

Relatively Acceptable Indices of Mortality by Size and Locationof Community, Centered on 1967(ex° in years; radix •= 1000 for I5)

F E M A L E S M A L E SGeneral Adult Child General Adult Child

Population eu° e50 • 15 ^ e5

o 15

By Size of Community :AH Urban (2,000 + ) 60.7 64.8 868 57.0 62.1 849Rural (under 2,000) 52.4 61.6 784 49.2 59.3 763

By Location of CommunityMetropolitan Centers 61.2 64.8 875 57.8 61.4 868Western and Coastal

Provinces3) 56.1 63.2 820 53.5 60.8 808Central and

Eastern Provinces3) 49.4 60.3 753 45.6 58.2 718

a) The population oí the metropolitan centers (Ankara. Istanbul and Izmir) are excluded.Note : The estimates by size of communnlty were prepared by using one year of data from

all TDS subdivisions.Source : (3) • I •' . Î ' • I • •'

44


REFERENCES

(1) Macura, Miroslav, Unpublished materials on Turkish mortality.

(2) School of Public Health, Vital Statistics from the TurkishDemographic Survey, 1966-67, Ankara, 1970.

(3) Shorter, Frederic C, Demography of Turkey (forthcoming).

(4) Shorter, Frederic C, "Information on Fertility, Mortality andPopulation Growth in Turkey" Population Index, Vol. 34, No. 1,January-March, 1968.

(5) United Nations, Methods of Estimating Basic DemographicMeasures from Incomplete Data, New York, 1967.

45


Section C — International Migration

Samira Yener, M. A.State Planning Organization

Although the growth rate of the Turkish population has beeninfluenced marginally in the past by changes in territory and theflow of international migration, until I960, the effect of thesemovements on the growth rate was negligible. However, after 1960,the net flow of migration switched from positive to negative, i.e.from an inflow of Balkan Turks in the previous period, to a netoutflow of Turkish families to Western Europe. Therefore, thischapter will mostly concentrate on the emigration of Turkishworkers. • • . . . .

As a component of growth, the effect of emigrants is estimatednot only by the actual numbers of emigrants, but also by theirdemographic impact on each census as a result of their own growthcharacteristics. A recent analysis of census data and intercensalemigration movements reveals the fact that the demographic impactof this outward movement results in the reduction of the birth ratefrom 42.01 to 40.8.1

I. Causes of Labour Emigration

The main causes of labour movement from Turkey to othercountries are :

a) A labour shortage due to the rapid economic growth andlow birth rates in a number of European nations.

b) A high rate of unemployment prevailing in Turkey.

c) The current earning differentials between internal andexternal labour markets.

1 Yener Samira : A paper presented to HO, Seminar on Population and Population problemsIn Turkey, 11 December 1972.

46

1 COMPONENTS OF GROWTH

The pull effect of wage differentials and demand for labourattracts the skilled and employed workers of urban and industrialcenters,2 wehereas the unemployed and unskilled workers withlimited job opportunities in the agricultural sector bring about anoutward movement indicating the push effect of unemployment.

II. Trend Over Time

The statistics related with international migration are incompletedue to the fact that they do not cover all of the workers abroad.Informal entries to other countries are made even though an officialchannel, the Employment Bureau, attached to the Ministry ofLabour, exists.

According to statistics obtained from the aforementionedoffice, emigrations through official channels reached 569 thousandby 1971 (Table 1). When the foreign labour statistics are studied(e.g. Germán) it is observed that the annual increase¡in the numberof workers exceed the number sent by official channels. Table 2.shows the number of workers working in Germany and the annualnet increase in these figures. According to this table, the net increasebetween 1970 anid'71 is 96 thousand, whereas the number of workerssent officially to the European countries add up to a total of 88thousand in the same year. This reveals an out inter-countrymovement of workers in Europe.as well as the existence of informalmigration.

2 Saver, Ertan Ziver "A Socio-Economic Appraisal of Turkish Emigration (1965 - 72)", a paperpresented to SOPEMI.

47


Table 1

The Number of Workers Sent Abroad Through the Ministry ofLabour

Years

1960-6319641965196619671968196919701971

TOTAL

Male

39,83462,00040,34124,647

5,41431,86383,210

108,79974,242

470,350

Female

3,1554,176

11,1799,7633,533

11,34120,76520,77614,200

98,888

Total

42,98966,17651,52034,4108,947

43,204103,975129,57588,442

569,238

Source : Employment Office, Th£ Ministry of Labour.

Table 2

The Net Increase of Turkish Workers in Germany(June 1960-71)!

Years

1961196319641965196619671968196919701971

Total Number of Workers

5,193b

27,14469,211

121,121157,978137,081139,336212,951327,985424,374

Annual Increase

21,95142,06751,91036,85720,897

2,25573,615

115,03496,389

Source : Amthliche Nachrichten der Bundesanstalt Fuer . Arbeit. Arbeitsstatistik 1971Jahreszahlen J 1157 B — 'August 1972.

48

COMPONENTS OF CROWTB

The emigration of labour from Turkey reached its peak in the1970's, after which a decline was observed. This fluctuation is dueto the consequence of external factors effecting the aggregatedemand for labour, rather than the difficulties of meeting thisdemand in Turkey.

When the distribution of workers, according to their countryof destination is analyzed, it is clearly seen that more than 80 %went to Germany, and the percentage of those going to Franceincreased, while the percentage for Holland and Austria seems tohave decreased.

As the statistics on return migrants are inadequate both incoverage and quality, the net increase of Turkish workers in othercountries is estimated through the stock statistics of these countries.It has been found that during the 1965-70 period, Turkish workersabroad showed a net increase of around 297 thousand:1

in. Length of Stay

According to a survey conducted by the German ResearchInstitute2 the length of stay of the Turkish workers employed in1962 is as follows :

Length of stay

Less than 2 yearsBetween 2-4 yearsBetween 4-7 yearsMore than 7 years

As is seen from the table above,workers shows a tendency to stay for

Turkish Workers

(percentage)

Males

2037394

100

the greatermore than

Females

3542212

100

percentage of thetwo years.

1 Yener Samira "An Estimate of a Net Increase of Turkish Workers Abroad" State PlanningOffice, P.D. 5.

2 Bundesanstalt Survey, Autumn 1968.

49

T.HE, POPULATION OF TfJRKEY

IV: Social and Economic Characteristics of Turkish Workers Com-position by Sex and Age

The great proportion of Turkish emigrants in Germany are male(78 % in 1972). The age distribution is. as follows : . . '.

Age - Male (•%) Female (%)

Under 2525-3535-45Over 45

7602910

3241252

TOTAL 100 100

According to Bohning's study1 on the marital status1 anddistribution of married couples and whether or not the wife wasliving with her husband in Germany, allows us to conclude that thereis. an increased tendency of the married ¡workers to go abroad bring,their families with them. The proportion of married workers hasrisen from 78- % (in 1966) to 82 % (in 1968). The proportion of 'married workers living with their 'wives has gone up from 16 % to28%. ,,. ........

V. Geographical Origin of Emigration

The provinces of the Marmara Region furnish the highestnumber of emigrants. Thds is the most developed area of Turkeywhere the rate of emigration is nearly twice that of the nationalaverage for the year 1971. Inf act the Marmara region is not actuallythe sending region, external migration being an extension of therural-urban internal migration 'biases the results.

1 W. R. Bohning, Foreign Workers in Post War Germany, University of Kent; 1970 Table 2. p. ;6.-

COMPONENTS OP QROWTR

Table 3

Emigration Rates According to the Regions

Regions

Marmara RegionCentral AnatoliaAgean Region

AntalyaÇukurovaWestern Black SeaEastern Black SeaEastern Anatolia

National Total

Emigrants

27,34421,61411,0872,4073,8674,0148,5029,607

88,442

Emigration Rate(thousands)

8.92

6.116.23

4.80,4.532.29 ~4.173.07

5.65

Bourco : State Planning Organization.

VI. Occupational Status

According to the skill definitions that are included in the officialstatistics of the Turkish Employment Office Bulletin, more thantwo thirds (64.6 % in 1972) of the emigrants are unskilled workerswith very limited work experience.

The breakdown of the skilled category in terms of occupationsis shown in the following table.


Table 4Occupations of Emigrants

Occupations

Unskilled WorkersMinersTextile WorkersTailorsLeather OperatorsBlacksmiths (hot)MouldersFitters, turnersMechanics and repairmenPlumbersAssemblymanWeldersBlacksmiths (cold)ElectriciansCarpentersBricklayersOtherTotal skilled workers

Total

.. 1967

56,0055,1731,5622,338

4111

2232,845

49814457

1,803246417

5,0054,0177,157

31,537

88,442

1972

56,4861,5721,527-2,472

—75

1021,778

31179

104903157254

4,9695,1729,268

28,743

85,229

As far as the sector of employment abroad is concerned, thechange in the industrial1 structure of Turkish workers can be tracedin Table 5. . .

Table 5 . . .Industrial Structure of Turkish Workers in Germany

(toy the end of September 1971)

196419681971

Agri-culture

0.70.70.9

Mining

14.56.57.3

Industry

54.567.565.5

Construc-tion

21.815.615.9

Com-merce

1.52.22.6

Transr>or-

tation

3.32.22.3

.,Serv-ices

3.75.45.4

Sourca : Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, J 1157. B.

52


As compared to 1964, the proportion of workers occupied withmining and construction decreased, whereas those in industryincreased to a considerable extend.

VII. Immigration.

As far as the immigration is concerned, the Turkish populationcan be considered a closed population, i.e. unaffected by migrationor by losses or gains due to territorial changes during the last threedecades, or until the Í960's, with the exception of the annexation ofHatay Province in 1939, and of the influx of a considerable numberof Turks from Bulgaria in the 1950's.

During the 1965-70 period, the influx from Bulgaria wasapproximately 30,000.

53


REFERENCES

Bacci M. Iivi, M. Hagmann, "Report an the Demographic andSocial Pattern of Migrants in Europe, Especially With Regard toInernational Migrations," paper presented to Council of Europe,2nd European Population Cenference - Strassbourg 1971.

Hume, Ian M'., "Migrant Workers in Western Europe," WorkingPaper prepared for International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment, October 1970.

Miller, Duncan R., Emigrant Turkish Workers : A Socio-Eco-nomic Analysis in Essays on Labor Force and Employment inTurkey, Miller Duncan, ed. AID publication.

Saver, Eftan Ziver, "A Socio - Economic Appraisal of TurkishEmigration (1965-1972)," paper presented to SOPEMI MeetingParis, 4-5 July 1973.

Yener, Samira, "An Estimate of Net Increase of TurkishWorkers Abroad," S.P.O. Mimeogr. 10 pages, September 1972.

Chapter III

THE STRUCTURE

OF

THE TURKISH POPULATION

by

Haluk CfiLLOV, Ph.D.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE TURKISH POPULATION

Haluk Cillov, Ph.D.Faculty of EconomicsIstanbul University

I. Sex Distribution of the Population

1. Importance of the male-female ratio

In the first part of the monograph the developments in Turkey'spopulation Were discussed. In this part we will discuss the structureof the population by it's various characteristics.

The sex distribution of a population is one of it's importantcharacteristics. In a population, the male-female ratio may be animportant element affecting the strength and development of thatpopulation. In addition, the functions of. a population variesaccording to it's sex distribution. For this reason, the knowledge ofthe sex distribution of a country's population enables one to evaluatethe social and economic structure, and even political strentgh ofthat population.

When the populations of the countries are examined, oneobserves a natural balance in male-female ratio. However, in manycountries the female population is slightly more than the malepopulation, or vice versa. In 1970 the number of males per 1000females in Great Britain was 947, in West Gremany 914, in Greece951, in Italy 958, in Yugoslavia 962, in the United States 948, inSoviet Union 854. On the other hand, there were 1064 males per1000 females in India, 1110 in Pakistan, 1013 in Peru and 1012in Egypt (UAR).1

Generally a female surplus is observed in many countries.Although more male births are recorded than female births, thedeath rates are higher in males, and this tips the scale in favour ofthe female .population.

57


In observing the populations, certain factors are noted whichdisturb the balance between the numbers of males and females :

a. Age structure is the most important factor disturbing thebalance. In general, more births occur in places Where the populationis young, and this raises the number of males. The imbalance infavour of males in Turkey may partly be attributed to this factor.

b. International migration is an artificial force affecting themale-female ratio. The males take the lead in migration, and thisresults in la malte surplus in countries! whiere in migration take place,and a female surplus in countries where there is outmigration.The 1023 to 1000 male-female ratio in Australia and the slightincrease in the female proportion in Turkey in 1965-70 period arerelated to international migration.

c. The wars are another factor which disturb the sex balance.In war years there is generally a decrease in the male population.In France in 1910 there were 1035 females per 1000 males. Anincrease in that number to 1103 in 192Ö is related to the First WorldW a r . . ; • i \ i n ,-•'-! ;••; r !

d. Finally, difficult living conditions for females in somecountries disturb the balance. In People's Republic of China thefewer number of females than males may partly be attributed tothis factor. . »

2. Sex Distribution of the Turkish Population

In Turkey the first general census was taken in 1927. Beginningin 1935 a census was taken every five years.

1. According to the censuses taken between 1927-1970, thenumber of males per 1000 females are shown in Table 1.

58


Table 1

Number of Males per 1000 Females

: Years Years

1927 927 males 1955 1031 males1935 965 " 1960 10421940 966 " 1965 10321945 1012 " 1970 1026

1950 1018 "

As we see, there were more women than men in Turkey until1945 and the reverse is true after that year. There are severalreasons for this :

a. The 1927 census was taken after two major Wars, the FirstWorld War and Independence War. The findings of this surveyreflects the losses in male population in these wars.

b. As Will be seen later, the number of births in Turkey itshigh. Furthermore, the high number of male births is more inTurkey than most other countries. Although general birth statisticsare not prepared in our country, it is estimated that there are 108male births per 100 female births.2 The surplus in male birthscontributed to the near balance established by 1945.

c. During the 1927-45 period Turkey received immigrants,especially from the Balkan countries. Since the male populationis more numerous among immigrants, it can be understood that thechange in male-female ratio in males' favour has been affected bythese immigrations. i

2. Several factors affected the change in male-female ratio IDmen's favour until 1960. But, beginning in 1963, a large number ofTurks went abroad as labourers. Since most of these labourers weremen, a reverse trend began taking place-in the population structure.Although the male population is still1 larger, in 1965 and 1970censuses we see a decrease in the proportion of the male population.

59


3. The distribution of Turkish population shows its characteris-tics especially when different age groups are taken into considera-tion. While there is a 1 to 3 percent male surplus in the 0-15 agegroup in most other countries, this figure is as high as ten percentin Turkey. This phenomeno is related to births, and results in amore than average male surplus in young ages.

The balance in the male-female ratio which normally takesplace in the 15-24 age group shifts to higher age groups (35-45 agegroups) in Turkey in rounded numbers in the censuses. In fact, in1935 census the male surplus continues to be present up to 25 yearsof age while the balance is established in the 35-44 age group in1950-70 period even though the circumstances were similar.

In Table 2, the numbers of men per 1000 women in different agegroups are shown (1965 and 1970 censuses)3.

Table 2

Age Groups

0 — 45 — 910 — 1415 — 1920 — 2425 — 2930 — 34

Number1965

104110731137113310689081003

of Men1970

10271054112310481124856873

per 1000 womenAge Groups

35 — 3940 — 4445 — 4950 — 5455 — 5960 — 6465 +

1965

10671040103710361083902744

1970

1028101410959141144907864

3. Geographic Distribution of Population by Sex

The male surplus observed in the Turkish population showsvariations according to the distribution of the population in thecountry. The variance is especially pronounced between the villagesand towns.

In 1965 there were 1032 men per 1000 women in Turkey-whilethis ratio was 3157 to 1000 in towns (settlements with populationsover 2000) and 983 to 1000 in villages. In other words, there is aconcentration of males in towns and females in villages.

60


This situation is not exactly like the other countries. Althoughit is generally true that we see a male surplus in towns, the femalesurplus in villages is greater in Turkey than most other places.. Infact in some countries the male surplus in villages is greater thanit is in towns. In Great Britain there are 936 males per 1000 femalesin towns while this ratio is 989 to 1000 in villages4.

In the United States these ratios are 940 ton 1000 in towns and1042 to 1000 in villages according to 1960 census. In other words thesituation is quite the reverse in the United States where there is amale surplus in villages.

The male surplus we observe in Turkish towns becomes moreapparent in the metropolitan cities. According to 1970 census therewere 1153 males per 1000 females in Istanbul and 1173 males per1000 females in Ankara.

We relate this situation in Turkey to rural to unban migrationwhich is particularly greater towards big cities5. We should alsopoint out that the nature of this migration in Turkey is differentfrom Western countries. Whereas in Western countries peopismigrate to unban centres to find better living conditions, in Turkeyit is generally done for a temporary period to supplement the farmincome.

The concentration of big male populations in Istanbul and An-kara is explained by people's belief that the possibility of earninga/better income in Istanbul is greater, and Ankara is a bureaucrats'city. Also there is a concentration, of military bases around big.cities which may contribute to the malö surplus in such places.

In conclusion, we may say that although there is a male surplusin Turkey, it is not a dangerous one. In fact it may be accepted'that this situation increases the military and economic strength ofthe country. Furthermore, the balance we see between the numbersof men and women in marriage age (25-44) eliminates the dangerof not being able to find marriage partners.

II. Age Distribution of the Population

1. Importance of the Age Distribution '

. The age distribution of the. population is important in. deter-

61


mining the needs and attitudes of human beings as well as theirsocial functions. In this respect studies on age distribution is animportant part of population studies. Hence, to find out the levelof fertility, or age specific death rates or causes of death we needto know the distribution of the population by ages. Thus, to studythe events associated with the age composition we have to knowthe age distribution of that population.

The differences in the definition of age by various countriesresult in difficulties When determining the age composition.

Generally, we accept number of days, weeks, months and yearssince birth of a person as his age. However, it is not easy to deter-mine age with this definition, it is especially difficult in countrieswhere the literacy rate is low. Age misreporting is generally due toignorance or indifference as well as preference of the digits endingin (0) and (5).

We see the effect of these factors in Turkey, where the literacylevel is relatively low.

1970 Census6 has shown that in Turkey 38,367 people (1.0.7 perthousand) did not know their ages.

The preference for the ages ending in 5 or 0 is still observedin the 1970 Census,7 although at a lower level, Hence, although thenumber of males aged 30 is 374,346 those aged 29 and 31 are 150,260and 130,130 respectively. It is observed that females round theirages too, and at older ages this tendency is more pronounced/ Hence,in 1970 Census, the females aged 40 werfe 503,654 whereas thoseaged 39 were 101,515 and 41 were 77,309. This strong tendency isobserved in males at very old ages. For example, in the samecensus the number of men aged 80 were 29,135 as opposed to 5,621and 4,383 at ages 79 and 81.

2. Characteristics of the Age Distribution in Turkey

A. The Turkish population is young. Those aged 15 or youngerin 1970 were 14,888,793 or 41.8 % of the total. If we define theyouth as those under 20, then this proportion is as high as 52.1 %.If we compare with France and England where those aged 15 or

62


younger are 32.2 % and 29.8% respectively, it is easily seen howlarge the population at younger ages is in Turkey.

The proportion under 15 has been steadily increasing in Turkey,due to the increase in births, as seen in the following table. Someother countries are also shown for comparison7.

Country

Turkey

»FranceGreeceYugoslaviaU.S.A.

Year

1955196519701968196919681970

Proportion aged.15 or Under

%

39.441.941.823.725.128.328.5

The table below shows the distribution of the young populationby age and sex :

Age % of Males % of Females ,% of Total

0 — 4 14.3 14.3 14.35 — 9 14.8 14.4 14.6

, 1 0 — 14 13.4 12.4 12.915 — 19 • 10.5 10.3 10.4

It is seen above that, .a¡ the first two age groups are especially large : ;

b. in addition to the large number of births, the facts thatmales understate their ages to postpone military duty and that thefemales understate their ages due to their fear not being able to getmarried, causes a relative increase in the younger ages in bothsexes* . - . •

B. In contrast to the number of younger people, we observe arelatively small number of those in the middle ages, especially the

active-population, 15-64; in 1970 those in this age group numbered

63


19,196,141. The following table gives their percentages in 1955, 1965and 1970; other countries are given for comparison :

CountriesTurkey

»FranceGreeceYugoslaviaU.S.A.

Years

1955196519701968196919681970

ProportionAged 15-64%

57.154.153.962.865.064.361.6

The above figures show that the proportion of those aged 15-64are relatively small and have a decreasing trend. However, thesefigures have been influenced by the preference for younger ages,and thus some of those in the 15-64 age group are seen in the 0-15age group9.

The following table shows that the population aged 15-34 islarger than that aged 35-64 in the 1955, 1965 and 1970 Censuses.

Proportion PropositionYears Aged 15-34 Aged 35-64%

1955 33.7 % 23.41965 31.1 % 23.01970 30.9 •% 23£

The above findings also support the fact that the Turkish popula-tion is a young one. In fact when those aged 15-34 are compared,it is 30.9 % in Turkey, whereas in France it is 28.1 •%, and in Greeceand USA 29.7 %. Those aged 35-64 are 23.0 % in Turkey but 34.7 %in France, 35 % in Greece and 31.9 % in USA. However, this smallpercentage in the ages 35-64 is due to other factors.

Those aged 35-64 in the 1960 and 1970 Censuses were bornbetween 1910 and 1925 and these years correspond to the FirstWorld War and the Independence War, and it is known that thenumber of births in these years were significantly small. Hencethe small proportion aged 35-64 is temporary and will change whenthe effect of these two wars reduce.

64


C. Finally, those 64 years old and above were 1,543,248 in the1970 Census. This is 4.3 % of the total population and is relativelysmall when compared with other countries.

Country

Turkey

FranceGreeceYugoslaviaU.S.A.

Year

1955196519701968196919681970

Proportion Aged64 or more

3.4 %4.0 %4.3 %

13.4 %9.9 %7.5 %9.9 %•

The proportion above 64 is small because the mean length oflife in Turkey is relatively smaller than that in the Western Countries.However, this proportion has been rising1 since 1935, which showsthat the mean length of life has also been increasing.

D. The median age for males was 19 and for females 20,according to the 1960 Census figures. The median for the totalpopulation was also 20. It is observed in 1970 that the median hasdecreased to 18 in each sex, hence implying again a trend towardsa younger population.; The median age in 1960 was 28 in USA, 31 in Greece, 33 inFrance and 35 in England and that it was 20 in Turkey shows1 howyoung the Turkish population is.

Briefly, the above findings show that the proportion of thepeople at younger ages is large and that at older ages is small.

E. Finally, we can observe the main feature of the age distribu-tion from the tables shown above. The large proportion inthe age group 5 - 9 is due to the high birth rates observed in1955-1965, especially in 1955-1960.

The shortages in some of age groups between 20 and 59 maycreate some socio-economic problems. Especially, the shortage inthe most productive ages, 15-34, reflects lower production capacityof a country.

65


We must note, however, that these irregularities in the agedistribution are not important enough to have effects on thenational economy in Turkey. We may even add that it has somegood effects, as will be shown below.

i) The large proportion under 15 shows that the populationof the country is growing and it will increase the potential labourforce in the future.

ii) The small proportion at older ages has an economic advan-tage, in the sense that their burden on the working population isrelatively low.

We note however that the dependency ratio 10 is large and hasa tendency to get larger. This ratio was 75 % in 1955 n and hasreached to 84.8 in 1965 and 85.6 in 1970. We must also keep inmind that this tendency is due to the increase in the proportion atyounger ages, and would have further increased, had there been anincrease in the proportion at older ages.

III. Distribution of the Disabled Population

Aibove we discussed the physical characteristics of the popula-tion. Although not quite as important as the characteristics wepreviously discussed, it is necessary to take a look at the disabilitysituation among the physical make up of the population of thecountry.

We should point out that the data concerning the physicalstructure is not always reliable. For this reason questions aboutdisability are not included in every census. For instance, in 1970census such questions were not asked. On the other hand, in 1965census people were asked whether they had any visible physicaldisability as whether they had it all their Üves.

In Turkey in 1955 there were 316,943 people with visiblephysical disability. This number went up to 380,985 in 1965. However,the proportion of physically disable people has decreased from1.31 percent in 1955 to 1.21 percent in 1965. In 1965, 62.« percentof the disabled were males and 37.4 percent were females.

66


Table 3

Disability Situation of the Population in 1955 and 1965

Arm disordersHunchbacksBlindsLeg paralysesDeafLameVarious disabilityOtherUnknown

1955

35,5437,204

101,1826.293

34,037107,882

9,0983,063

15,641

10.32.3

31.92.0

10.734.02.91.04.9

1965

27,1215,743

112,95619,93252,859

142,8905,998

13,486

%

7.11.5

29.65.2

13.937.6

1.6

3.5

Total number of disabled 316,943 100.0 380,986 100.023,747,820 — 31,010,436 —

Total population 24,064,763 — 31,391,421 —

In Table 3 we observe that :

a. The majority of the disabled in Turkey are the lame ones.

b. The blinds take the second place. 74,778 of the blinds wereblind in the one eye and the remaining 38,Í78 were blind in botheyes.

c. The third group of the disabled are the deaf and mutes.25,028 of these people were deaf and 27,830 were both deaf andmute. I ;'•. ,• .

d. In published statistics we are able to find the sex and agedistribution of the disabled and whether they were disabled alltheir lives13. However we are unable to establish any trends here.The reasons for disability varies according to the nature of disability,and there are no definite relations between age and disability.However we observe two important points when we look at thedistribution of the disabled by age :

i. There is a considerable decrease in the number of thedisabled under five years of age in 1965. This is a healthy indicationfor the physical structure of the future generations.

67


ii. We also observe that the disabled and especially the lamepeople concentrate in the 40-44 and 50-64 age groups. The reasonsfor this may be found in the effects of the First World War, theIndependence War and the Balkan Wars.

IV. Distribution of the Population by Marital StatusTo study the age and sex structures of a population is not

sufficient when one is investigating the composition of that popula-tion. The social and economic characteristics of the population needto be studied as well. The marital status of the people is the firstcharacteristic to be looked at, for the social and economic trends ofa population is strongly related to this characteristic.

We find out the marital status of the people through questionsincluded in the censuses. Beginning with the first general censusof 1927 in all censuses questions of this nature are included and thefindings are published.

In Table 4 the marital status and the sex distribution of thepeople according to 1970 figures are shown14.

Table 4Marital Status and Sex Distribution of theTurkish Population in 1970 (in thousands)

Single

Married

Widowed

Divorced

Unknown

MFTMFTMFTMFTMFT

43123015732771227384

14506230

10901320

5479

133474693

%

36.625.931.360.563.662.02.09.45.70.50.6 ;.0.50.40.40.4

68

THE STRUCTURE OF TUE TURKISH POPULATION

1. In this table it is observed that :

a. A great majority of the population is married (62 %).b. The single population constitute one third of the total popula-

tion.c. The number of the divorced and especially the widowed are

small in the Turkish population. The presence of a greater numberof widows is largely due to their smaller chance of getting marriedagain. The same tiling is true for the divorced.

2. It is also necessary to study the developments in the maritalstatus of thé population. There is a difficulty here. Until the 1970census, the marital status of the people were recorded after 15years of age, but in 1970, this was done for people over 12. Webelieve this was a mistake, for it limits the possibility of comparisonbetween different censuses. To avoid this difficulty, we comparedthe 1955 and 1965 figures.15

Table 5

The Distribution of Population Over 15 years of Age by MaritalStatus and Sex (in percentage)

Single

. . Married

Widowed

•

Divorced

Unknown

MFTMFTMFTMFTMFT

1955

26.813.620.269.871.070.42.2

13.47.80.61.00.80.61.00.8

1965

26.514.520.570.472.771.52.3

11.77.00.70.90.90.10.20.1

69

THE POPULATION OF TURRET

In the above table we observe that :i) There has been a slight increase in the proportion married.ii) This increase is especially due to the reduction in the

number of widows (i.e. widows getting married again).iii) The proportion of single and divorced has been relatively

stable.

V. Family Structure

When studying the characteristics of a population, we need toknow the family structure in that population.

Data on family structure: and life-styles of the families is beingcollected since 1955. It is hard to state that the data was reliablein 1955. However, in addition to the censuses of 1960, 1965 and1970, some national surveys I6 have collected data on life-styles andhave shown the characteristics of the family structure in Turkey.

In the above mentioned censuses in Turkey, the household hasbeen defined as : One person or a group of persons with or withouta family relationship, who live in the same house or in the samepart of the house, who share their meals, earnings and expendituresand who take part in the management of the household and whorender services to the household.

The household head is the person who is responsible for theearnings and expenditures of the household and actually managesthe house.

According to the 1970 classifications established by samplingmethods, we observe that the number of families is 5,492,538.

The distribution of families by residence could be calculatedonly in 1955 and 1960. Thus, we see that in 1955, 32 % of familieswere living in rural districts and the rest in urban areas. The rateof families living in cities increased to 36 % in 1960.

Distribution of the Families by Size

The size of the families differs according to each household.In fact, it is not possible to derive the composition of families fromthe census. Although some valuable data were obtained on thissubject in research conducted on 4,800 families in 1968 17, we findit useful to review the increase of the household sizes between 1955-70 as seen in the censuses, thus providing a comparison.

70


The sizes of the households in 1955-70 are shown in table 6.

Table 6

The Evaluation of the Households by Size

1955 1965 1970

1 person families2 " "3 "4 " "56 " "7 + "Unknown

167,116

407,534

544,359674,594

678,494

571,8091,168,994

24,276

140,950

473,391

591,069

820,756

890,502

794,359

1,824,970

119

167,524

497,693

549,935

754,263

824,765

729,088

1,845,508123,762

Total 4,237,176 5,536,116 5,492,538

It can be seen that in Turkey the households are crowded. Tak-ing the year 1970 as a basis, we can calculate that 33.6 % of thefamilies consist of 7 or more persons, 15 % of 5 persons, and 14 %of 4 persons.

Characteristics of the Households

After determining the families forming the society, it is possibleto see the characteristics of the households. Examination of thesecharacteristics is of great importance as they show the economicand social lives of the families.

At present, 34 % of the households are living in two-roomhouses, 22 % in three-room houses, and 17 % in one-room houses.15

If we compare this situation to 1955, we see that the sizes ofthe houses occupied by the families have not changed, much. Thetable below confirms this point.

71


Table 7

Households by Number of Rooms Occupied

1 room, houses

2 room houses

3 room houses

4 room houses

5 + room houses

Unknown

Total

1955

1,192,150

1,639,488

732,757

382,634

214,688

75,459

4,237,176

1970

908,950

1,887,640

1,221,521

682,960

777,068

14,399

5,492,538

It is important from the points of view of economic and socialcharacteristics of the familes whether tihte¡y live in their own orrented house and how much rent they pay. ;

In fact, in 1970, 4,473,076 out of 5,492,538 families (81 %)were not paying rents. In other words, it is very probable that theylived in their own houses. When it is considered that 86 % of thehouseholds were living in their houses in 1955, it can be concludedthat a greater number of the families have moved to rented houseswithin the last fifteen years. Of the 4,473,000 rent paying familiesin 1970, 13.2 % paid up to 199 TL. per month, and therefore weobserve that the ones living in the low rent houses were the majority.

We see that many of the families were paying 200-299 TL. permonth and the number of families paying higher rents, that is tosay, those living in big and luxurious houses were few.

Monthly rents paid by households in the years 1955 and 1970are given below.

72


Table 8

Households by Monthly Rent Paid

Amount of Rent Paid

LESS than 200 TL.200 — 299 TL.300— 399 TL.400 — 499 TL.500 — 599 TL.600 — 699 TL.700 + TL.Unknown

1955

No. of Families

507.15812,9334,6292,0101,019

522888

38,091

1970

No. of Families

591,763163,822105,15157,83033,73317,90046,1693,083

The table above shows that the move towards houses withhigh rentals increased between 1955-70. This is true, but should, beconsidered in relation, to increased rents.

We have seen above that families living in rented houses paylow rents. Houses with few rooms are widespread. This situationgives the idea that generally speaking the families are poor andresidences are not of high quality because they are cheap. In orderto investigate this matter, it is necessary to know the physicalconditions of the houses.

In the 1965 and 70 censuses, data related to the facilities thathouses have, were obtained.

Taking these data as a basis, one can discover the technicalspecifications of the houses and the social lives of the families.

a. First, it ¡must be indicated that kitchen facilities of housesused by families are not very satisfactory. As can be seen in thetable below, in 1970, only 49 % of the 5,492538 families had separatekitchens and 42 % had none.

73


Table 9Kitchen Distribution in Houses

Number

Families with a separate kitchenFamilies with a common kitchenFamilies with no kitchenUnknown

2,698,721477,303

2,312,1274,387

49.18.7

42.10.1

TOTAL 5,492,538 100.0

b. The situation with regard to toilet facilities is even worse. In1970, only 60 % of the 5,403,000 households had the exclusive useof toilets; 27 % had no toilet at all.

Table 10Toilet Distribution in Houses

Number

Families with separate toiletFamilies with a common toiletFamilies with no toiletUnknown

3,324,279680,484

1,483,9773,798

60.512.427.0

0.1

TOTAL 5,492,538 100.0

c. The position regarding the distribution of the bath facilitiesis not any better. One learns that 56 % of the 5,493,000 families haveno baths, only 39 % have exclusive use of one and 5 % are usingcommon ones. '

Table 11Bath Distribution in Houses

Number %

Families with a separate bathroomFamilies with a common bathroomFamilies with no bathroomUnknown

TOTAL 5,492,538 100.0

74

2,125,150278,364

3,085,5623,462

38.75.0

56.20;l


d. The statistics show that electricity, water and heating facili-ties are also in bad condition.

i. First, one sees that only 39 % of houses used by familieshave electricity.

ii. 34 % of these houses have drinking water and the rest dowithout it.

iii.' Finally one learns that 81 % of families are using stoves,14 % are using fireplaces and only 3 % have central heating.

These findings are interesting as they help to illustrate the sociallives of families and the unsatisfactory state of housing in Turkey.

It is possible to observe the families' major occupations as wellas distribution of families working in various professions accordingto the rentals they pay.

However, because of some amendments made to occupationalcategories in 1970, it is not possible to compare the developmentof the heads of household according to their occupations between theyears 1955-1970. Therefore the occupational categories of the familyheads in 1970 will be examined.

Table 12Occupational Categories for the Household Heads

Number

Scientist and technicians, self employedPrivate entrepreneurs and directorsAdministrative personnelCommercial and sales personnelPersonal servicesAgricultural employeesOther than those agriculturally employedUndetermined professions

209,95245,470

161,212287,333248,427

2,827,830953,700758,614

3.80.92.95.24.5

51.517.413.8

TOTAL 5,492,538 100.0

a. It is seen that in Turkey 52 % of household heads' occupa-tions are related to agriculture. 17 % of them are working aslabourers or artisans in fields other than agriculture, and 4.5 % arein personal services. This shows the importance of agriculture inthe economy of Turkey.

75


b. It must be added that 96 % the household heads working inagriculture live in their own houses. Most of the rented houses areoccupied by scientists and technicians together with the self-em-ployed.

c. Finally, another interesting point arises which illustrâtesthe economic structure of families :

i. Among the ones living in houses of low rental1 (1-199) liras),labouers come first while entrepreneurs have the lowest proportion.

ii. Houses with high rental are occupied mostly by technicianstogether with entrepreneurs and directors. On the other hand thenumber of family heads working in agriculture living in houseswith high rental is veryfew.

VI. Distribution of Population by Nationality \In the censuses, the question of nationality was asked. The

establishing of this question has importance particularly in coun-tries with many foreigners, or those where the number of foreigners

/ may change by large amounts19.Nationality is described as "the allegiance to which persons

are legally attached".The great majority of Turkish society are "Turkish citizens",

îe division of Turkey's population by nationality according to thetour censuses is shown below20.

Table 13Distribution of Turkey's Population by Nationality

Vhe

Years1935194519551960

Male7,9999,427

12,20814,129

TurkishFemale8,1959,326

11,81213,568

ForeignerMale28202434

Female26181821

As seen in the table, the percentage of foreigners is very lowin Turkey. In addition to that, it is observed that this percentage isdescreasing year by year. In fact, in 1935, the rate of the foreigners(including both sexes) was 0.3 % of the total population, and this ratewas reduced to 0.2 % in 1960.

76


As can be derived from the table above :

It is possible to discern the nationalities of foreigners in thestatistics. In 1960 U. S. citizens predominated with a total numberof 16,102, Yugoslavs with 3,996, Italians with 3,598, West Germanswith 2,840 and English with 2,616.

VII. Distribution of Population by Religion

In the censuses in Turkey, the religious affiliations of the peoplewere looked at. The major religion of Turkish society is Islam andthe relative distribution of people of other religions is very low.However even the stability seen in the distribution of population byreligion is interesting.

. This is shown in Table 14 below, according to the 1955 and1965 censuses.

Table 14

Distribution of Population by Religion

ReligionMoslemChristianJewishOther religionsNonreligiousUknown

Total

1955No.

23,804,048208,86745,9952,746

6132,494

24,064,763

%

98.90.80.2

0.1

100.00

1965No.

31,129,854206,82538,26713,6611,212

602

31,391,421

%

99.10.70.1

0.1

100.00

1. As can be seen in the table, 99 % of the Turkish society isMoslem. This rate has retained its stability over the last ten years.

Christians are relatively diminishing in number. The samesituation is observed for the Jewish population;

On the other hand, the number of people, of other religions and;of the nonreligious has increased slightly.

2. In addition, it is possible to observe the distribution of thedifferent Christian sects. This is shown in the table below accordingto the 1955 and 1965 censuses.

77


Christians

CatholicOrthodoxProtestantGregorianOthers

Total

1955

21,78486,655

8,95260,07131,405

208,867

1965

25,83373,72522,98369,52614,758

206,825

It is observed thati) The Orthodox represent the majority in Christian communi-

ties but their number is relatively decreasing.ii) Gregorians come second.Mi) The number of Catholics is increasing, however, there are

only 25,000 of them.iv) The highest increase is seen among the Protestants.VIH. The Cultural Level of the Population1. Literacy.The social and economic power of a country depends on its

literacy. The economic development potential of a country with ahigh rate of literacy is high. Therefore, it is necessary to knowthe literacy and even the cultural level of the population.

In Turkish censuses literacy is a specific category. In someyears (1935 and 1945) even the number of people who could readbut not write, or could write but not read, was recorded separately.

In addition, literates and illiterates are classified by sex andage. Literacy in Turkey according to the 1927-1970 censuses isshown below22. : i

Table 15Literacy in Turkey (thousands)

Year

19271950196019651970

IlliteratesMale

4,0364,5165,3244,6894,620

Female5,3546,8198,3018,4508,726

LiteratesMale

8524,0556,1588,372

10,302

Female

2601,7252,7434,1335,825

UnknownMale

736

91311

0-5 AgeFemale Group

744

78

11

3,1333,7535,2135,7276,172

78


a) The literate population is increasing year by year. In 192789.4 % of the population over 6 years of age was illiterate. This ratewas reduced to 51.2 % in 1965 and to 45.3 % in 1970.

b) There are more males who are literate than females. At pre-sent 69 % of the male population is literate. This rate was only17.4 % in 1927, which shows the significance of the development.

c) The percentage of female literacy is low. But the relativeprogress of the rate of literacy among females is higher than that ofthe males. In 1927 only 4.7 % of the females were literate whereasthe rate increased to 40 % in 1970.

d) Great progress is recorded in literacy after 1960. This isconsidered a positive development.

Thé relative progress of literacy in Turkey is shown below.

Table 16Literacy Percentage ( % )

Year19271955196019651970

Male17.455.853.664.069.0

Female4.7

25.524.832.840.0

The Rate of TotalPopulation of 6 Years

of Age and Over10.640.939.5 . .48.854.7

2. The decreasing rate of illeteracy in Turkey is quite promisingwhen compared with that of other underdeveloped countries. Ac-cording to estimates, this rate was 60-65 % for the population over15 years of age in 1968. It was 85-95 % for Saudi Arabia andAfghanistan, 75-85 % for Pakistan, and 90-85 % for Ethiopia23.

The rate of illiteracy for the same age group is 15-20 % in Greece,10-20 % in Spain; 5 % in Hungary and Poland, 3 % in France;2 % in the Soviet Union, 1 % in West Germany, Sweden and Austria.These numbers show that Turkey has the lowest rate of literacy inEurope. ;

3. Statistics showing the distribution of literate population byprovince are also available.

79


a. If the conditions of literacy according to age are examined,some interesting results can be achieved. In 1970 the great majorityof literates was among the young people. For example 71 % of thepopulation aged 10 were literate in comparison to 32 % for the agegroup 50-54, and 16 % for the age group over. 65.

b. It must be indicated that the majority of literates live incities. :

Results of the 1965 census show that 66.9 % of the populationliving in cities are literate. This percentage is 38.53 % for the ruralareas.

We must add that both in urban and rural aras, the male, po-pulation predominates among the literates. The distribution.of theliterate population over 6 years of age living in urban and rural areasis shown below :

UrbanRural

Percentages

areasareas

Table 17of Literates

Male

79.454.6

(1965)

Female

52.322.9

Total

66.938.5

c. In comparison to 1935, a vast progress in the education levelof the urban and particularly rural population has been made.

As a matter of fact, the urban literacy rate was 47 %, and therural 14 % in. 1935; these have increased to 67 % and 39 % respec-tively in 1965.

2. The Mother Tongue of the Population.

In the censuses, the language of the population also forms aspecific category.

a. There are several methodological points of view as to how todescribe the "mother tongue"24. In Turkey, it is assumed that "thelanguage spoken within the house among the family" is the mothertongue. • ' . • • :

80


In fact, although the description is quite clear, soma mistakesare made when establishing what the mother tongue is by consider-ing it as the "mother's tongue". If the coincidental errors areignored, it can be said that in Turkish society, Turkish is the lan-guage predominantly spoken.

In the 1955 and 1960 censuses it is seen that Turkish is themother tongue of 90 % of the population. Also in the 1965 census,28,289,680 people (90,1 % of the total population) declared theirmother tongue to be Turkish.

b. The remaining 10 % of the population speak other languages.The most popular foreign languages are "Islamic minority" lan-guages" and Kurdish is the predominant one among these. In 1965it was ascertained that 2.2 million persons (7 % of the total po-pulation) spoke Kurdish, followed by Arabic which was wpokenby 365 thousand persons (1 %).

Among the other minority languages, 48 thousand people speakGreek and 33 thousand Armenian.

In addition, 28 thousand speak English, 5 thousand speak Ger-man while 7 thousand declared Serbian to be their mother tongue.

c. It is also possible to observe the distribution of the popula-tion according to sex and province.

3. The Cultural Level of the Population.

It is necessary to know a country's rate of literacy as well asits cultural level. Questions related to this matter were asked inthe census.

a. Among the 10,478,234 literate people in the 1965 populationcensus;

28.3 % had no education58.2 % had no primary school education6.6 % had no middle school education2.6 % had a lycee education4.3 % had some higher education (vocational schools).

The 1970 census made it possible to learn the cultural level ofthe population which is classified according to sexes below25.

81


Table 18

The Cultural Level of Literates, 1970 (Thousands)

No educationPrimary SchoolMiddle SchoolLyceeVocational SchoolHigher EducationUnknown

Total

MaleNumber

1,8415,429

734282257195

10

8,748

%

21.062.18.43.23.02.2

0.1

100.0

FemaleNumber

9522,978

367123137

/ 4211

4,610

• %

20.664.68.02.73.00.90.2

100.0

TotalNumber

2,7938,4071,101

405394237

21

13,358

%

20.962.98.23.03.01.80.2

100.0

Examining the above data :

i. 62.9 % of total literates had a primary school education. Thispercentage is almost parallel for both males and females.

ii. Approximately 8 % of the literates had a middle school edu-cation and 3 % had lycee education. Here the male percentage ishigher than the female as the latter do not have the ambition tocontinue.

iii. The percentage of literates having had higher education is1.77 % which is very low. This percentage is even lower for females.

b. The literate population of Turkey is concentrated in theyounger age groups :

40.6 %" of literates are in the 11-19 age group. This is relatedto the fact that younger generations have a greater opportunity tobe educated. It is derived from the statistics that the youngergeneration has more opportunity for higher education than theolder generation and this is considered a promising progress. .

82


N O T E S

1. Calculated from Demographic Yearbook 1970, United Na-tions, 1971.

2. Haluik Cillov, Turkey's Economy, Istanbul, 1972, p. 62 (InTurkish).

3. Calculated from the Turkish State Institute of Statistics publi-cations : 1965 Census of Population, Ankara, 1968, p. 39,1970 Census of Population, Ankara, 1971, p. 2.

4. Demographic Yearbook 1970, p. 370.

5. Erol Tiimertekin, Distribution of the Male-Female Ratioin Turkey. Journal of the Institute of Geography, Volume 5,Number 9, Istanbul, 1958 (in Turkish).

6. 1970 Census of Population Results Based on 1 % Sample:7. De H. Furgac, "Incorrect Age Reporting in Turkish censuses

of Population", Journal of Faculty of Economics, Volume 10,Number 1-4, Istanbul, 1960, p. 64 (in Turkish).

8. In this section, the Turkish data is calculated from StatisticalYearbook 1968 and 1970 Census of Population, and. theforeign data from U. N. Demographic Yearbook 1970.

9. Orner Celâl Sarc, Age and Sex Distribution of Population,Diyarbakir Lectures, Istanbul, 1942 (in Turkish).

10. Ratio of those under 15 and above 65 to 15-65 age group.11. Second Five Year Development Plan, State Planning Organi-

zation, Ankara, 1967, p. 48.

12. Statistical Yearbook 1965, p. 64, and 1965 Census of Pro-pulation, p. 242.

13. "1965 Census of Population; Social and Economic Charac-terists of the Population", State Institute of Statistics, Ankara,

. p . 2 4 2 . . • . ' . • • . . , ••';• ; ; " ;

83


14. 1970 figures are calculated from 1970 Census of PopulationSample Results.

15. Haiuk Cillbv, Turkey's Economy, Istanbul, 1972 (in Turkish).16. Serim Timur, Turkish Family Structure, Haeetitepe Uni-

versity, Ankara, 1972.17. Ibid.18. Results of 1970 Census of Population, 1964-65 Statistical

Yearbook and 1968 Statistical Yearbook.19. Methods de Secensement de la Population N. U., New

York, 1950, p. 70.20. 1955 Census of Population, Istanbul, 1961, p. 122, Statistical

Yearbook 1960-62, Ankara, 1964, p. 79. We should add thatthe distribution of the population by nationality is not yet cal-culated for the 1965 and 1970 Censuses of Population.

21. 1963 Statistical Yearbook, p. 63 and 1965 Census of Popula-tion : Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population,Ankara, 1969, p. 227.The distribution of the population by religious affiliation is notdone for 1970 Census yet.

22. "Statistical Yearbook 1959," Ankartai, 1961, p. 79, "StatisticalYearbook 1960", Ankara, 1964, p. 76, "Statistical Yearbook1968", Ankara, 1969, p. 40, "1970 Census of Population", An-kara, 1972, p. 3.

23. Population. Information, Population Reference Bureau,Washington D. C, March 1968.

24. Methods de Recensement de la Population, p. 83.25. 1970 Census of Population Sample Results, p. 4.26. Haluk Cillbv, Turkey's Economy, Istanbul, 1972, p. 96, (in

Turkish).27. Demographic Yearbook 1963, a U. N. publication, New York,

1964, pp. 417-481.28. Table is prepared from the data in 1970 Census of Population

Results.29. Haluk Cillov, Turkey's Economy, p. 106.30. There are around 2 million disguised unemployed in Turkey.

84

Chapter IV

INTERNAL MIGRATION

AND POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION

by

Handan TEZMEN, M. A.

INTERNAL MIGRATION AND POPULATIONREDISTRIBUTION IN TURKEY

Handan Tezmen, M. A.Ph.D. Student atUniversity of Pennsylvania

I. Introduction

The main objective of this paper is to analize the trends andvolume of internal migration in Turkey for the period 1955-1965.

Turkey can be considered as an illustrative example for thediscussion of high and constant fertility, high but fast decliningmortality and rapid urbanization in today's underdeveloped coun-tries. Therefore, from this point of view, to analize the pattern ofinternal migration can be also helpful in understanding, in general,the various effects of economic variables on internal migration.

H. Spatial Unit of Analysis and Definitions

For this paper we adopted the five regions (see map I) of theTurkish Demographic Survey as the spatial units to analize theinternal migration among these regions. These regional boundariesivhich are arbitrarily drawn to coincide with the provincialboundaries are approximately composed of 13 provinces (there are67 provinces in Turkey) with similar social, economic and demograp-hic characteristics.

Before going into the analysis of internal migration, let us firstgive its definition : Internal migration can be- defined as "change ofresidence from one clearly defined geographical unit to anotherwithin the national boundaries"1.

On the basis of this general definition ¡we can also define thelifetime migrant as a person whose area of residence at the census

1 D. S. Thomas, "Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials", Social SciencesResearch Council Bulletin, (43. N. Y. 1938), P. 4.

87

—

£'-xo

CQ

f!0

/.i '_

S

N

ZU4

Q

I1

v) • • • •

\

Vi-: o

<

KA

R

/á

• 1 :T

¿£

j

\

•c •

s\

//

<J

r

.

iw

A

/Íi

: • /

•

} } ^

V ^;'\ri r ^

! ' " • •••'

/ í ,-• r, - •

^ N

' V

W-• Al.T

WSM

,3

•

" 1 *

•

, ; - • •

*i i

i • *

m

hJ n

j: , _ !

ÍG= • .;\ •

-'

S*-

:-

0

•¿j •

0

<

•f

' • • • . • '

E"• i .

i

.{, \

0.

;•

•

\\

, ¡

E.'

•À

úr-,,: •

'm

*».i

y..

c

Ö'i :

V.• •:

J

' • - :

s«£

2

'•V

/••i

i~>

;/' i

: •

cr'\

i»

A |

"iiT^

• i

" " • ' \

i¿ ..• \

s •

! t '>• /-ZÍ--\ \ ic

\

(

b '

Of

•-•O :•{.

17*? ' * • • -

! *1 V

\1

i('\\I -.^\'\

j /

O \\

v^ )•Of /f

9

1

s-i.

H

z1 u0)

f /*!U )

f «

di

c2ai

leal

2


or survey date differs from his area of birth2. Thug, it is possible toclassify the population enumerated into two groups :

(1) Non-migrant : A person whose place of residence, at thetime of enumeration, is the same place where he was born.

(2) Migrant : A person whose place of residence is differentfrom his place of birth, at the time of enumeration, within the na-tional boundaries.

i n . Data and Methodology

In order to give the possible maximum knowledge about theinternal migration volume and direction, we made the study in bothlifetime migration method and census survival1 ratio method. Be-cause lif etime migration provides us 'both the volume and directionof migration while the latter method gives us migration volume byages.

A) Lifetime Migration

Censuses are the only source of data to estimate migration inTurkey. The iformation directly related with migration whichcensuses have is the cross classification of the province of birth andthe province of residence by sex. These data are represented as amatrix of 67 by 67, that is by province of birth and province ofresindence, exluding the foreign-born.

We reduced this 67 by 67 matrix to 5 by 5 (Tables IA, IB, ICand ID). These tables show the distribution of population by regionsand sex, where the volumes show the places of birth and the rowsshow the places of residence, and the diagonal cells give the lif e timemigrants for each region. Thus the migrant category is subvididedinto migration streams on the basis of five regions of birth placesand five regions of places of residence.

The sum of lifetime immigrants or lifetime outmigrants givesthe number of persons who were enumerated away from their birthplaces; that is the number of lifetime migrants for the country3. This

2 United Nations, Methods of Measuring Internal Migration, ST/SOA/Serles A/4T, New York,1970, P. 2. '

3 United Nations, op. dt . p. 5.

89

in4-

a

,a4-

ra

c

Bir

th

'Stío'S)otí

«M

o

ion

•

sí&

ig

tío

ÜSo

J1io

-••3

Mig

ra

>tío'oía)tí

M

OToiDtí

Bao'§?tí

wMtío'So01

tí

H

C

.2&Otí

<u

den

'5?

tí

wCOCO0000tr-IN

INCOo00

1

291

COa iotr-cooIN

inCDCO00in

T

599

o•**OíCO03oCO

tr-int -t -

o• *+

897

COCO• *

COrHIr-rH

00

00O3CO

1

S?CO

00

inT-írHIN

cqoCNi-<CO

I

233

S

O3incs

O Äco m

oo3

tío'S)al

tí

ao'Soa j

tí

tíO

'bo01

tí

O -44m on cq

031

207

oocomcq• *

COooCMCO

00T-í

COCOCO

cq

i ni nCO

CD

COt-COt~r-i

IN03O

co

IOIOHT-l

IN

NCO

03O3

550

CDCO

r-^COOH

tr-00inINO3

CO

IMCO

inIN

rHrHCOCO

oT-i

rHinr-i00CO

CO

03i n

16

0

C3I—rHrÎN

INO3IN<NrH

CO• *rH

t-rHtr-CMt -

a>r-t

00i n0000

in

IN• *

CO

i n

in

00iHO3O0

do'Sotí

tío%9tí

cq

oO3rH00l

O3t>OrH

O3t -O

amO3

COt -rH

CO

in

î

I

ï •?

6 18

3

00

coIN

riCOIr-inINCOM

667

836

V

tí' S

oH. w .

<u

H>

rlin

ai

a3

the

¡nus

;(T

ota

1—'OJ3*ëo>

Ití3

nu

s

's

O

o

2rH

Xl

U

.ag

1«S:

8 I

g s3 3

90

fi J?

tío'S)tí

>Hao'3btí"

(3

CD

tí

ao

IoTo

ao

tí

g g.2 T

$1tí fti

1Í5O Í 'T - l

cooIN

in01rHIN

COinCM

C M '

S5 gO . rH03 in

Oin iH

O«0CX)

mINCOO00CO.

CO-CM

OíIN.CO

in oco t-H • *

o mm H

CD • NrH inOî CDH CO

co 3

OíCO

CO

OmOíCi

CDin<oO3CMCOT-l

COl-m1-cOM

01

l>

Oí00Oícq

11*~T-l

rH CM

l - l 00CM COO

' inCD

incom

CO

CM

rHgCOINCO

rHCO•tfOCD

OíCDCOO1O

t>coinCOCO

a • a a aO O Q O'¡10 so 'ooa> <u eu

Ci . 05 . K _

i

H H S t >

O)

Oi

o

oCD

OiO

O«o

INOiinorH

oCM

inooOí

00COO)r-tinCDC l

COCM,

rj tl)

91

ü

ii« oj

s § « st - g. 00 COco e-* co N

ffi • * S?a s ISS co e»

S g S St- o » N

to10

a>

00

oococo

r - l COCD • *

1(5 CO tOO TH COT-l r-l IN

1A enIN N• * IN05 ^<N

i i

r-l JH

r-lC0

S

SCO

oo1-1

co01

oS S | S Seq iß H

Oi «i - l • *00 CN

ce w o>w w THi-i t -

IN

INr-lCO

rj

cp

euooriOi

CO00

r-l • * Ol00 O> • *m m «m co toce co iHrH

co

1-1

eoo

r-lototoOíes

MCO

oinco

SCN00

encoo

coCMt -

totot -co

s

•g

22

•a

- i

92

Q M

I S

tí

U6

feO

O

PSPU)

4-1 * J0> cj

"i8 1„s

i Co

532

CO

CO

8

745

CN

rH1-1

725

COrHt-CO

OO

g

181

IMlOCMCN

CO

SCNi-l

253

tineq

COoi*

i-lCO

COCO

CN «CO &*CO ©

§

giinin

ft oo03 CO"* *1O iH

g coco

CO CO

S 00CC CD

tN

00

§

enco

oooo

rHCO

CO

tN

00

CNCO(Ni-H00

t- O 0*

ÏH ?5 SIM t - O 1

CO 00 ^

00

35w

CO

o

IM

i-i

t-

S1Í5

CNCO(N

t-(NCO

00 © CO55 S ¡5CO Cp ©«5 1O COtN CN rH

2

OCO

1OtNt

CN

INCO

8

CO1-Hoo

O)a>CO

•I

93

FIGURE IA - Ratios of lifetime in-migrants and lifetimeout-migrants, to the non migrants, by regions, and sex; 1955

30-

.20-

.10-

.00-

.10-

.20-

.30-

• MalesR%3 Females i

« mTj mP G m^

I II HT • E -, Y Regien

FIGURE I B - Ratios of lifetime in-migramts and lifetime out-migrants, to the non migrants, by regions and sex; 1965

Region

FIGURE H A - Ratios of net lifetime! migrants, to the nonmigrants, by regions, and sex; 1955

Y. Region

FIGURE IIB - Ratios of net lifetime migrants, to the nonmigrants, by regions, and sex; 1965

IS. Y Region

INTERNAL MIGRATION AND POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION

total is obtained from the aibove mentioned tables by subtractingthe numbers in the diagonal cells from the corner grand total (seenotes below the above mentioned tables).

The sum of net life time gains (or the total of net losses) is ameasure of redistribution due to lifetime migration for the countryas a whole (Tablell). This table is obtained from the tables men-tioned formerly by horizontal totals and summing the differenceswith like signs.

The sum total of lifetime immigrants for all the regions in acountry is equal to the sum total of Mf etime outmigrants, since eachimmigrant to an area is an outmigrant from some other area4. There-fore the sum of net balances for all areas is necessarily zero.

After obtaining in and out and net lifetime migration as ex-plained above, we have computed the percentage table (table HI)for the in and out lifetime migrants for 1955 and 1965 by regionsand sex.

There are several theoretical problems in the measurement ofmigration particularly in lifetime migration. It is impossible to com-pute a rate in terms of annual number of migrants. However, forthe purpose of comparison among regions, intensity and as a relativemeasure of the migration phenomenon, migrant to non-migrantratios are calculated using migrants as numerator and non-migrantsas denominator (Table IV).

Findings : In order to understand the findings better it isnecessary to point out very briefely some socio-economic charac-teristics of the regions.

Among the regions, there is an uneven distribution of naturalrichness. For instance in region IV the agricultural land is abundantand rich and new openings of land for cultivation is very usualthrough irrigation whereas no such possibility exists in Region IIwhich is very mountaneous even though the main economic activityis still agriculture.

4 ibkL P. 5

96

o

m

a33)

o00oes

OS00r-iCO

OSt-rHt~in

in

esO

s g s s ses —i eo" rH T-iW S, rt 1-1 Ci

•41 00 t- OSH rH IN O)"Ï t- CO 00

e * 6 «

Iß00CO

alen

G a, in m» o g gCO ". OSI «.. .

S3 a a a

eoin

mesoC0

Cle}• * .

oo"

ost-io

o

8

ososos

00 CO rHCO CO CIN OÍ OÍ03 CÓ 00t-l ri rt

Ol H *es o <N

C¿ rH Ö

Oqöo

S g g g gï "S § I 'f

tí

97

1

ÎS

g

03

r-( £ -

+• r + rt• *» o nO O o

0> H rH¡Ó O Mu5 <N •*O Ort

- * O3

5 O

toCO

s s i1 +

O) m- N It- o co w teO O iH o <N

O

N O 2 O

S S S 8O H O O

I". + I f« rl » $ Itt - M M S <O

o I 8 p g

t- •* o S t-•t • * •* S3 »-1

O O iH P O

S ñ S 8I í + I

2 P

S00 MO ©

MO

cqt -o

g g g § §•a •& •& •& •&

98

TABLE IV

VOLUME OF NET MIGRATION BY SEX,AGE AND REGION

Males Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V

10—1415—19

20—24

25—34

35—44

45-54

55—64

65 +

— 5 975—12 035

—44 683

— 7960

— 5 300

— 85

— 1287

i+ 1406

— 2 077

— 38925

— 72 754

— 9 630

— 1732

— 3 691

+ 2 832

+ 4641

+ 54 299

+ 109 036

+ 115 677

— 4 776

— 16 747

+ 15 834

— 3 410

+ 15 834

— 310

— 8 368

—22157

+ 16 952

— 4 778

— 2 956

— 1220

+ 1580

— 27 523

— 48 721

+ 8 397

— 88 022

— 1625

— 9 646

+ 5 492

— 2 746

TOTAL —75 919 —121336 —267 800 —21257 -164 394

Females10—14

15—19

20—24

25—34

35—44

45—54

55—64

65+

—18 976

— 8 586

— 2 406

1+19 862

—20 987

— 3 505

— 1575

— 9 695

— 21686

— 10 502

— 22 269 :

— 37 712 :

— 13 330 ,

— 2072 ;

— 4960

— 2119 ;

+ 64 048

+ 62 942

+ 8 391

+ 401

+ 44 087

+ 19 591

+ 10135

+ 15 926

+ 1377

— 6360

— 1143

—12 240

+ 1268

— 3 569

+ 211

— 425

— 56 660

— 41108

+ 17270

,+ 9 682

— 26 541

— 11 942

— 6481

— 8 355

TOTAL —45 868 —114 650 +225 521 —20 881 —124135

99

\ INTERNAL MIGRATION AND POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION

It is not only the agricultural land, but also the urban settlementis very uneven due to the uneven concentrtion of industrial centes. Inthis respect Region III is the most industrialized and urbanized rergion within which two metropolitan areas, Izmir and Istanbul, arelocated.

The least urban and industrialized and with relatively poor.incuLtivaJble land is Region V, Region I can be called as the transitoryregion in every respect, especially for the migration flows. It is thetransition area between Region V to III and Region II to IV. If we.exclude Ankara, the nation's capital, it is mainly agricultural andrural in settlement.

Throughout the period under study, Region i n has been thepredominant center of attraction for migrants. It is the only regionwhich gains population through migration in both census year(figures IA, IB, IIA end IIB). All the others are losing populationdue to internal migration.

Both Regions II and V are the main regions of loss of popula-tion. While Region II loses population to Region I and III, Region Vloses population mostly to IV and I. There we see the important roleof distance in migration. The general view given by these data isthat a large proportion of the migrants to any region was 'born inthe adjacent regions.

The highest loss of population is from Region II where agri-culture is predominant and cultivable land is scarce. In 1965 thisloss was reduced for Region II while the second most losing region,Region V, began to lose more.

As for Region I, if we had controlled for Ankara, it would haveshown a much higher rate of loss of population.

Region IV is the most stable region from the migration pointof view due to its rich and abundant agricultural land.

~ Furthermore, when we look at the findings from the sexselectivity point of view we see that males are much moremigratory than females. In 1955, without exception, females migratedless than males. In 1965 the sex difference was reduced even thoughthe main pattern remained the same.

100


So far, this method of analysis provided us with the estimates1

of the volume and direction of migration by sex among regions.However, from our definition of lifetime migration, we can concludethat the estimation of migration by this method gives us the mini-mum of the total amount, as the definition assumes a single move-ment directly from the region of birth to the region of residence.

• Therefore the final result is balance of surviving migrants whichexcludes return migrants, multiple movement and dead migrants.For this reason, now let us look at the net migration rates by ageand sex to complete the analysis of internal migration.

B) Net Migration Estimates by Census Survival Ratio Method

In order to estimate the net migration from the census agedata an adjusted census survival ratio method is used.

A census survival ratio is simply the ratio of the populationage x at a given census to the population (x-t) at the census (t) yearsearlier. Computed for a nation as a whole, this ratio is then multi-plied by the population aged (x-t) of the spatial units at the firstcensus, and the "expected surviors" subtracted from the corres-ponding population at the second census to yield estimates of netmigration5.

; There are three basic assumptions involved in this method forthe utilization of the survival ratios :

i. Closed population : This assumption cannot be valid for Tur-gey due to the migration of Turkish workers to West Germany dur-ing the 1960-65 period. Therefore international migration adjustmentswere made to obtain the closed population figures6. Briefly, themethod of adjustment involves the estimation of the survivors ofthe external migrants in 1960 and the application of this figure tothe 1965 census population to get the closed population figure.

5 K. C. Zachariah, A Historical Study of Internal Migration in the Indian Subcontinent,1S01-1931, New York, Asia Publishing House, 1964, Ch. 4 P. 136.

6 During this adjustment process, the immigration of 29.300 people from the Balkan, coun-tries and the emigration of 220,000 Turkish workers, 20,000 families and 4,800 nstumeswere taken into account. These figures are taken from Samira Berksan's unpubliahedpaper- "Interregional Migration in Turkey, 1955-65", Universiyt of Pennsylvania, May1969.

101

• INTERNAL MIGRATION AND POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION

ii. Equality of survival ratio among1 regions : Also this as-sumption is not valid for Turkey where mortality rates, especiallythe infant and child mortality rates, vary considerably amongregions. Therefore an adjustment is made by using the data ofTurkish Demographic Survey. We obtained e°o and e°5 values firstfrom the Turkish Demographic Survey and then by choosing thecorresponding model life tables. After choosing these life tables weadjusted our national census survival ratios for mortality dif-ferences among regions7.

iii. The third assumption is that the ratio of the enumeratedpopulation in any age-sex group to the actual population is thesame at each census, for each region as for the nation. The factthat the percent error in the national census is the weighted averageof the regions, percent errors can be taken for a built-in correctionfactor for under or over enumeration for the utilization of thecensus survival ratios. Therefore having no other source for theadjustment of enumeration errors, we can assume the variationrange for the regions is small enough to proceed With the method ofcensus survival ratio.

/ We computed the rates of net migration by taking the averagepopulation as our base; that is, by taking the arithmetic mean ofthe cohort population at the beginning of the decade and thecohort population at the end of the decade.

Findings : In general the findings through this method are inline with the findings of the former analysis.

Again, the two most losing regions are the second and the fifth.Region IV is the most stable. Region I, due to the inclusion of An-kara, does not show heavy losses. Economically the most developedregion, Region III, is the only gaining one. Region IV is also theonly region where female migration is equal to the male migrationin volume and rate, while in all the other regions males are muchmore migratory compared to females.

7 This method has been explained and utilized in detail in the above mentioned atujdymade by S. Berksan.

102


The labor force movement from the east to the west is againone of the observations clear through our findings.

As we said before, the main advantage of this method is that,it gives us the possibility of analizing age selectivity in migration.This age selectivity of migration is mainly clue to :

i) Induced migration in the case of the males who are requiredto go to the military service,

ii) Migration of the labor force from rural to urban or fromless developed to more developed agricultural regions.

This labor force movement starts at early ages, (Table IV and' Table V). The peak ages for migration are 20-24 for males and 10-19 for females in general.

This general pattern for males does not show itself only inRegion V where the 20-24 age group shows a heavy loss. The gain canbe attributed to the military establishments in this region whichdraw young males from all over the country. For the loss in the 25-34age group, the reason can be due to the fact that this region iaeconomically the least developed one where there is lack of jobopportunities.

The main reason for the very young women to migrate morethan the others is again an economic one. In Turkey the service sectoris growing faster than the rest of the economy, and this growthis partially due to the abundance of job opportunities in domesticservices. Another reason behind these high rates of migration foryounger females is.the family migration. In Turkey, as in most ofthe other countries, there is an age difference between the husbandsand Wives. Therefore when a male of 20-24 migrates with his family,the same movement affects the female migration rate of youngerages.

To conclude our findings let us see the general internal mobilityin Turkey by referring to another study made by Irene Taeuber.8

According to this study the level of internal mobility was fairly lowarid did not show any significant increase over the decades. In the

8 Irene Taeuber, "Population and Modernization In, Turkey", Population Index, Vol. 24April 1958.

103

TABLE V

RATE OF NET MIGRATION BY SEX,AGE AND REGION

Males

10—14

15—19

20—24

25—34

35—44

45—54

55—64

65 +

TOTAL

Females

10—14

15—19

20—24

25—34

35—44

45—54

55—64

65 +

TOTAL

Region I

— 11.82

— 31.16

—157.23

— 15.01

— 13.78

— .31

— 5.24

+ 9.92

— 27.96

— 42.01

— 24.00

— 8.70

+ 37.00

— 52.01

— 14.81

— 7.02

— 50.03

— 16.96

Region II

— 5.07

—140.09

—374.82

— 25.99

— 6.01

— 19.00

+ 15.84

+ 39.29

— 62.07

— 61.16

— 40.05

—113.91

— 89.98

— 44.12

— 9.90

— 25.95

— 10.84

— 55.01

Region HI

+ 117.89

+ 259.00

:+313.99

— 5.98

— 30.09

+ 45.01

— 10.99

— 9.03

+ 77.98

:+148.96

+ 167.97

+ 28.01

+ .59

+ 92.04

;+ 62.06

+ 33.00

+ 49.03

+ 72.00

Region IV

— .90

— 33.94

—124.16

+ 52.00

— 20.00

— 18.81

— 9.23

+ 16.01

— 12.99

+ 4.00

— 28.14

— 6.99

— 39.02

+ 5.11

— 23.93

+ 1.02

— 3.04

— 13.00

Region V

— 69.03

—169.00

+ 36.01

—220.90

— 6.07

— 60.97

• + 44.99

— 22.99

— 83.99

—169.95

—164.02

+ 91.98

+ 24.99

— 96.03

— 73.90

— 51.05

— 69.92

— 67.99

lOi


same study it is found that only 8 % of the Turkish population livedoutside their province of birth in 1935, and by 1950 the figure wasstill only 9 % \ However, between 1950-60. this proportion rose to13 % 10.

Although these figures underestimate the total internal migra-tion, they are still sufficient to indicate that since 1950there has been a significant increase in internal mobility due mostlyto the growing of the industrial sector and the advancement oftechnology in agriculture and transportation which altogetherfacilititated and gave rise to the need for the laJbor force redistribu-tion among regions.

IV. Interregional Migration

Mobility, among provinces within the regional boundariesreveals a trend similar to that of intraregional, migration. In all theregions the percentage of people who were born and living in thesame province at the time of the census decreased between 1955and 1965. However this decrease is greater than the decrease ofthose who were born and living in the same region. Therefore, theratio of those who were born and living in the same province tothose who were born and living in the same region is decreasedfrom 98.2 % in 1955 to about 96.3 '% in 1965. This means that in theten year period, the number of intraregional migrants has increasedby approximately two percent.

Another noteworthy finding is that every region has showna gain of approximately 1 to 3 percent in intraregionalmigration. This fact stands in contradiction to the large differenceswe have observed among regions with regard to gains (or losses)from intraregional migration.

Thus, we can conclude that intraregional migration is increas-ing at approximately similar rates in all the regions whereas theinterregional migration grows fast but unproportionately withregard to different regions which creates problems from the popula-tion distribution and balanced economic growth point of view.

9 Ibid, p. 109.10 Turkey, Institute of Statistics, Census of Population, 23 Oct. 1960, Ankara, 1962.-

105

INTERNAL MIGRATION AND POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION1

V. Population Redistribution and Urbanization

To have a complete picture of the mobility of the Turkish po-pulation, let us very briefly look at the population redistribution.

The index of redistribution that we utilized for this purposecan be defined as the percent of population in 1960 or 1965 thatwould have to be redistributed to obtain the 1955 distribution.

The results we obtained are as follows :

Index of Redistribution

Males Females

1960 3.15 2.851965 3.89 3.61

Depending on these results we can state that the populationredistribution in Turkey during the 1955-65 period has been moderate.It is also evident that even if the redistribution of females is atlower levels, the rate of increase over the 10 years is very similar tothat of males.

When we look at the situation from the regional point of viewthe region that has the highest gain due to immigration between1955 and 1965 is again Region III which is relatively the mostindustrialized one. Therefore we can generalize this fact as "thepopulation redistribution is from the eastern part to the westernpart of Turkey where most of the large cities and the relativelyadvanced industrial establishments are located".

This increasing concentration of population in the west is alsothe characteristic of the Turkish urbanization process. Due tomigration from the rural to urban areas the growth rate of the citieshas always exceeded that of the country as a whole.

Another fact is that the larger cities are growing at a fasterrate than the smaller cities, and thus they form a larger part of thetotal population than they did before11.

11 Irene Taeut^r, op. cit p. 104

106


Kemal özok, also, notes that 61 % of those who have evermigrated within Turkey were living in cities of 100,000 or over atthe time of the 1960 census, and six of the nine of these cities arein the west12.

Thus we can conclude that the process of urbanization in Tur-key has contributed significantly to the unequal distribution ofpopulation over the country through internal migration.

12 Kemal özok, "Urbanization and Internal Migration In Turkey", United Nations, WorldPopulation Conference, 1965, (unpublished paper), p. 6

107

Chapter V

THE LABOUR FORCE

by

Sunday ÜNER, Ph.D.

THE LABOUR FORCE

Sunday Uner, Ph.D.Institute of Population StudiesHacettepe University

Introduction

The labour force is generally defined as that part of thepopulation which participates in economic activities. In other wordsthat part of the population which contributes to the supply of labouravailable for the production of economic goods and services duringa specified period. Therefore, the labour force of a country coversthe individuals who work for profits and gains or those who are notat work but are eager and looking for work and profit That meansthat the labour force covers all those who are employed andunemployed.

In Turkey, data on economic activities of individuals arecollected by means of quinguennial censuses. Data on occupationaldistribution of the labour force are hardly reliable for the periodof 1927 to 1945. From 1950 onwards, censuses provide reliable dataon the distribution of the labour force by individual occupations,by branch of economic activity and employment status collectedaccording to international standards.

Size of the Labour Force and Participation Rates

, Turkey's population reflects the characteristics of lessdeveloped countries. The size of the population and the high rateof population growth are the dominant factors in determining thesize of the labour force. Labour force participation rates determinewhat portion of the population joins the labour force. If the effectsof participation rates are not considered, the population with ahigh rate of growth means, also a high rate of growth in the sizeof the labour force. It is obvious that this does not mean the fullemployment of the labour force. On the contrary, the increasingpart may affect the size of visible and disguised unemployed orunderemployed. In fact, a fast growth of the labour force due to

11*


a high population growth rate gives rise to an increase in the rateof visible and disguised unemployment as in the case of most ofthe less developed countries and Turkey.

Turkey's labour force was 5 million in 1927. In 1965, it reached13.5 million, an increase of more than 2.5 times in 42 years. Accord-ing to the 1970 census, it is now 14.5 million. In addition to theeffects of a high population growth rate, increasing rates of femaleparticipation has generated the countinuous increase of the labourforce.

As it can be observed in other less developed countries, 70 .%of Turkey's population lives in rural areas. This phenomenon doesnot only affect the size of the labour force through high fertilityrates, but it also increases the rates of female participation throughthe economic activities of small agricultural establishmentsemploying unpaid family workers.

The size of the population and its age and sex structure isnot sufficient for determining the size of the labour force. Althoughthe 15-64 age group of the population is a potential source for labour,it is hardly possible that the bulk of this group is involved in econo-mic activities. A number of factors of different origins affect thelabour force participation rates which determine the size of thelabour force. Apart from employment opportunities, many factors ofnon-economic origins affect the rates of female participation.

Changes in the labour force participation rates in Turkey aregiven in Table 1.

Table 1Changes in the Labour Force Participation Rates (1950-1970)

Years19501955196019651970

TotalLabourForce10,72412,04012,99313,59114,533

FemaleLabourForce4,7665,2825,2955,187

na

MaleLabourForce5,9566,7587,6978,404

na

;Labour ]ForceParticipation Rates

Total5150474341

Female46453933na

Male57555452na

Source : H. Cilov, Turkish Economy, p. 93, Sennet Matbaasi, Istanbul (in Turkish) and StatePlanning Organization, Third Five Year Plan.

112

TBE LABOUR FORCE

Inspection of Table 1. provides the following information :

1. Male participation rates are higher than female participationrates as it is observed in other developed and less developed countries.

2. Labour force participation rate has started to decline from1955 onwards. This decline has been rather sharp in recent years.

3. In the same period, female participation rates have shown asharper decline than mate rates. These changes in femaleparticipation are largely due to the census methods and differentdefinitions. Especially the treatment of unpaid family workersaffects to a great extent female participation rates.

4. In Turkey, the labour force participation rates have to dowith the age structure of the population. Meanwhile it partly reflectsthe level of economic development of the country. In fact, the highparticipation rates for females due to the effect of unpaid familyworkers inflate the genera! participation rates. If this effect could beeliminated, the general participation rates would (be a much lowerlevel.

5. Finally, with the present data available in Turkey, it is verydifficult to set up the real trends in the participation rates. Differenttechniques employed at each census with different definitions makeit more complicated. Therefore, one should act cautiously whencomparing these rates.

Labour Force Participation and Unemployment

Turkey has a young population with high rate of growth. Hence,a considerable portion of youngsters join the labour force everyyear. Labour demand can not match this dynamic growth of laboursupply. The chronic imbalance between the labour supply anddemand forms the structure of employment and limits its size.

Therefore, the solution of the problem largely depends on thepossibility of an increase in labour demand to a degree that Willabsorb visible an disguised unemployed and/or underemployed.

113


Although the strategic importance of population growth insolving the employment problem has been recognized earlier withthe introduction of the Firts Five Year Plan in Turkey, theapproaches were different. The first plan sees the solution of theemployment problem as an independent target. The second plantackles it as a dependent variable of the income-increasing target.Finally, the third plan poses the employment as a dependent variableof economic growth. Accepting that industrialization alone will notcreate enough jobs to solve the employment problem in the shortrun, the third plan foresees special provisions in this context.

Table 2 indicates the trends in employment for the period of1962-1972.

114

£i

-3

IIIits

I?

¡ ..i

'I

o>

p

O CO r-j Ui »O T)Î CO \ñ CO <£> i-î

OOrlHNMiíinfflNllO

riHHHrIHHriHHH

OOOOOOOOTHT-I

î T™I i'* î î î î TH ^H ^H TH

5 î î T^ co ^ i *rTi c? ^^ co iÔ Cv( CO IQ €O 00 *O TH Cí Î COO D 5 c5 w> ^ TH TH TH î r4

ö ci ^î cô a w io oö T-Î - î t^

C^CO^lOCDt— OOGi O r i WCO CO CD CO CO CO CO £*• t** b-H H T - Í H T - Í H T W H T - Í T H - H

I

1

115


The first point to consider is the emergence of the "laboursurplus" which was sharply increased during the indicated period.This clearly shows that employment targets have not been realized.According to the figures of the Third Plan, the "labour surplus"which indicated the difference between the labour supply andemployment has risen from 235 thousand in 1962 to 750-800thousand in 1972. With the addition of surplus labour in agriculture,the total labour surplus has reached 1.6 million- at the end of thesecond plan.

The second point is related with the structure of employment.The third plan identifies the labour surplus as the main problem tobe tackled. It also claims that the nature of the labour surplus canbe recognized as underemployment rather than visible unemploy-ment. But, due to a lack of employment statistics, the portion ofvisible unemployment within the total labour surplus can not befigured out definitely. Therefore, the third plan admits that theplan figure is only an estimate which covers both unemployed andunderemployed.

Composition of Labour Force by Major Economic Sectors

The sectoral distribution of Turkish labour force reflects thecharacteristics of a less developed economy. The majority of labourforce works in agriculture. Table 3 shows the distribution between1955-1970.

- Table 3

Distribution of Labour Force by Major Economic Sectors

1955 1960 1965 1970

AgricultureIndustryServicesOthers

77.48.14.0 .

10.5

74.09.65.4

11.0

71.410.211.1

7.3

67.012.111.4

9.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Source : State Institute of Statistics.

116

THE LABOUR FORCE

Although there is a considerable decrease in its coverage, still67 % of the labour force works in agriculture in 1970. The industrialsector covers 12.1 % of the labour force, 8.4 % of this ratio coversthe manufacturing industry. Same ratios for 1965 was 10.2 % and7.2 % respectively. That implies a transfer of labour from agricul-tural sector.

For the third sector a sharp increase can be observed after1965.

Composition of Labour Force by Branch of Economic Activity-Distribution of labour force by branches of economic activities

shows similar trends as in the distribution by economic sectors.Table 4. gives the distribution of labour force by branch of economicactivity between 1955-1970.

Table 4

Distribution of Labour Force by Branches of Economic Activities

Agriculture, HuntingForestry and FishingMines and ExtractionIndustriesManufacturing IndustriesConstructionElectricity, Gass andWater ProductionCommerce, Banking, andInsuranceTransportation andCommunications ServicesServicesNot well defined

1955

77.4

0.56.01.6

0.1

2.8

0.54.06.0

1960

74.0

0.77.21.7

0.2

3.2

1.65.55.5

1965

71.4

0.67.22.4

0.2

2.9

2.16.46.5

1970

67.0

0.88.42.8

0.1

6.1

2.611.4

0.9

Source : State Institute of Statistics.

117


The ratio of those working in agriculture, hunting, forestry andfishing is as high as it can be expected in less developed countries.The ratios of those working in the branch of extraction industriesand mines together with electricity, gas production are low as theyaie in most of the developed or less developed countries. The ratiofor the construction industries is also low. This is a common featureof less developed countries. On the other hand, the ratio for com-merce, banking and insurance is only 3 %. The same ratio fordeveloped economies reaches up to 15-20 '%. Similar observationscan be made in the branches or transportation, communication andactivities related to services. When again compared with the ratiosof developed countries, the ratios are found to be much lower.

Another distinction of developed economics can be seen in theratio of those engaged in manufacturing industries. The ratio hereis 25-35'% for developed countries. In Turkey, the same ratio isonly 8.4 %.

One of the features of the Turkish economy is the slow rateof growth of industrialization. In spite of the efforts of recent years,the rate of industrialization has not yet reached the level that caninject an industrial character to the structure of the labour forceby eliminating the effects of a high population growth.

Occupation Composition of the Labour Force

The occupation composition of the labour force in Turkey againreflects its less developed and agricultural character. The followingtable gives the distribution of labour force by occupational groupsaccording to 1965 and 1970 census.

118

THE LABOUR FORCE

Table 5

Distribution of Labour Force by Occupation and Sex in 1965 ( % )

1965 1970

2.712.0

4.8

10.0

—2.8

—_

2.08.7

3.5

3.7

2.512.6

3.9

4.6

Male Female Total TotalProfessional and TechnicalPersonnel and Related Occupations 2.7 1.1 2.1 3.4Administrators and Enterpreneurs 3.8 . 0.8 2.6 2.9Salesmen and Related Occupations 4.4 — 2.8 3.1Farmers, hunters, forestrymen, andrelated occupations 57.0 94.0 71.7 66.8

Miners and related occupationsfor extraction 0.7 — 0.5 0.7Occupations related to Trans-portation and Communications

Craftsmen and construction workers

Occupations related to services

Unknown occupations

Sources : State Institute of Statistics, 1965 Census and 1970 Census.

Inspection of Table 5. provides us with the fact that a greatmajority of the population engages in occupations of agriculturalnature. This is especially certain for females (94 % in 1965). Evenfor males the relative importance of other occupations of non-agri-cultural nature is quite low.

Composition of Labour Force by Employment Status

Censuses in Turkey provide also information about employmentor occupational status of individuals who are involved in economicactivities. Table 6. below gives the breakdown of the labour forceby employment status acording to the 1965 census.

119


Table 6

Distribution of Labour Force by Employment Status in1965-1970 (%)

1965 1970Number Ratio Number Ratio

(thousand) (%) (thousand) (%)

EmployersSelf employedUnpaid Family WorkersEmployeeUnknown

Total

1333,8866,4193,638

82

13,558

1.028.747.322.40.6

100.0

1014,1646,4383,757

73

14,533

0.7

28.644.325.90.5

100.0

Sources : State Institute of Statistics. 1965 and 1970 Census.

Table 6. reveals that a great portion of the labour force com-prises unpaid family workers. (47 % in 1965 and 44 % in 1970).This group is largely employed in agricultural activities. We shouldgive atention to the fact that the ratio of this group in developedcountries is only 1-5 %.

Parallel to this group, own-account workers are the secondlargest group (28.7 % of the labour force). We should note thatunpaid family workers are employed "by this group rather than theemployers group. These two groups together cover 73 % of thelabour force in Turkey. Meanwhile, the ratio of these two groups indeveloped countries only reach 15-20 %. This feature also denotesthe size and organizational shape of economic activities in Turkeyas it'does in other less developed countries.

The sex differentiation in each statuts group is also interesting.According to the 1965 census, 96 % of the employers and 90 % ofown-account workers are males. On the other hand, in the unpaidfamily workers group, the ratio is 26 % for males and 76 % forfemales. We should add that males in this group are belonging torather young age groups.

120

THE LABOUR FORCE

Labour Force and Education

Educational institutions are regarded as the. major means oftraining the various types of the labour required in less developedcountries. In this content, knowledge ajbout the educational attain-ments of the labour force and the degree of literacy are useful.Taible 7. gives the distribution of literates by branch of economicactivity.

Table 7

Distribution of Literates Iby Branch of Economic Activity

Branch of Activity

AgricultureExtraction IndustriesManufacturing IndustriesElectricity, gas, water productionConstructionCommerceFinancial AssociationsServicesNot well defined

1960

16.444.756.748.843.162.591.281.561.0

1965

33.471.183.770.4821891.098.076.786.0

1970

37.974.981.093.066.084.1

98.091.496.0

Source : State Institute of Statistics.

Table 7 indicates that the literacy ratio is high for most of theeconomic branches. Among these branches of economic activity,financial activities, electricity, gas and water production have thehighest literacy ratios. As can be expected, agriculture, mining andconstruction have lower ratios. The latter activities require lessskilled labourers in the less developed countries.

Taible 8 gives us the educational attainments of the labour force.When the 1960 and 1970 ratios are compared, a slight improvementcan be observed in 1970. But ratios above the primary school levelare very low and reflect the poor level of the education on thewhole for the labour force.

121

03ÖO

•"§o•gH

I *CO <N

( O O O Ó1O • *

iq •* qo o o

fr

1II ffiMO«

CO O i

f-l

oci

.3© © IN i-¡N M O OO IN

TÍI 1-1

H H Oö o ö

oo

I CI} O) IßO <N 1Í300 00 IN00 <N

t> 01 00esi os

S

122

THE LABOUR FORCE

REFERENCES

1. Cillov, Haluk, Turkey's Population (in Turkish), Istan-bul; 1962.

2. Ekin, Nusret, Labour Force and Economic Growth (inTurkish), Istanbul, 1968.

3. Ekin, Nusret, Unemployment in Developing Countries andin Turkey (in Turkish), Istanbul, 1972.

4. Gürtan, Kenan, Methods of Demographic Analysis (inTurkish), Istanbul, 1968.

5. State Institute of Statistics : Population Censuses (1950-1970).

6. State Planning Organization : First Five Year Plan (1963-1967).

State Planning Organization : Second Five Year Plan (1968-1972).State Planning Organization : New Strategy and Develop-ment Plan, Third Five Year (1973-1977), (in Turkish).

7. Türkay, Orhan, Disguised Unemployment (in Turkish),Ankara, 1968.

8. Tuncer, Baran, The Impact of Population Growth on theTurkish Economy, Hacettepe University Publication No. 3,Ankara, 1969.

123

Chapter VI

POPULATION

PROJECTIONS

by

Samiia YENER, M. A.

Chapter VI

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Samira Yemer, M. A.State Planning Organization

Introduction

The role of population projections within the economic andsocial planning context is two-fold. In view of the fact that thepopulation, by determining the labour supply, is an essential factorin the production of all goods and services, and by defining thenumber of consumers, it describes the needs of the nation.

However, one should bear in mind that a population projectionis not a prediction of future trends but an illustration of the growthpatterns Which a population would experience under sets ofassumptions about the demographic situation. How close the predic-tions to the actual population comes, depends on several factorssuch as :

(a) the accuracy of the base data and the vital rates,

(b) the accuracy of the actual population estimated throughthe future census,

(c) the accuracy in estimating the patterns of migration,mortality and fertility.

Thus, the main aim of the projections is to provide a range ofassumptions concerning the future and indicating the most possibleone among them.

In this section, consideration will be given primarily to popula-tion projections for Turkey on the whole, as covering the periodfrom 1970 to 1980 (the medium range) and to 2000 (the long range),by five year intervals.

127


For the preparation of the Third Five Year Plan, six differentsets were developed by the State Planning Organization to studythe range of possibilities for the future trend of the population, fourof which will be presented below. The brief description of the modelthat is used for the projections is as follows :

(a) The component, method of projection was utilized with agiven starting age distribution and the possible future improvementsin the selected survivorship rates among the East Model levels \ aswell as the possible change in the shape as well as the level offertility schedule.

. (b) The census results, were corrected for misreporting ofages. But, as it is not possible to detect the omission errors inenumeration due to the lack of a post enumeration survey, the 1per cent sample is taken as face value.

The previous census show that the sampling errors were about01 %. Therefore no correction was made for sampling errors.

(c) For all the assumptions the improvements in mortalityhave the same trend which enable an increase in life expectation atbirth to 73 years for females and 67 years for males in the year2000.

(d) With regard to the fertility assumptions, three differentsets were prepared :

(1) High fertility (both shape and the level of the fertilityschedule is assumed to be constant).

(2) Low fertility (starting with 1970, both shape and levelof the fertility will change according to the target set for 1995).

The prevailing fertility level (2.95) and the shape of the fertilityschedule in Istanbul at present is taken as a target to be reachedby the whole population for 1995. According to the recent studies,during the 1965-70 period, the total fertility level is estimated to be

1 Coale Ansley, Paul Demeny "Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations", Princeton,Princeton University Press, 1966.

128

; POPULATION

5.78| for the total population K(3) Medium fertility. The decline will not be as sharp as in (2)

starting in 1970, but with a gradual decline of 5 per cent in leveland shape up to the year 1985, it will then reach the target in 1995.This is what to expect. A drastic decline can not be started in 1970,because the family planning programs are not yet fully implementedand the socio-economic change which forms the basis of theacceptance of such programs Will be bearing their fruits ten yearsfrom now. In addition, the change in age structure after 15 yearswill strengthen the decline in fertility by slowing down the growthof child bearing ages.

In two of the three alternatives the emmigration assumptionwas not introduced. With the fourth alternative the possibleemmigration of one million people till 1995 was given consideration.

The results of four sets of projections are presented on Table1 a, b, c, d, together with the changes in the perspective vital ratesand expectation of Life and GRRS.

I. Labour Force ProjectionsThe labour force is generally defined as that part of the popula-

tion which contributes to the supply of labour available for theproduction of economic goods and services during a specified,period including employers, self-employed persons, and those whoassist without pay in a family economic enterprise, as well as emplo-yees. It also includes unemployed persons, who are not at work andaré seeking work and profit.

Lalbour force projections can be categorized into two maingroups as-estimation of labour supply, and labour demand.

Labour supply projections are in fact the product of two separateprojections, a projection of total population by sex and age and aprojection of the activity rates for each group considered.

Non-agricultural labour supply estimates :As the readability of the statistics on inactive population is

somewhat inaccurate, it has been difficult to estimate the trend ofthis population for the future. Therefore, another method wasutilized for projecting the supply of non-agricultural labour force.1 Yener, Samlra "III. Bes Yillik Niifus Projeksionlan lçln kullamlan Yöntem", DPT:

1300-SPD : 254, Ankara 1973. ':

129

THE POPULATION OF TURKEY.

The brief description of this method is as follows : the openunemployment figures obtained on the basis of household surveys ',together with the employment figures derived from the populationcensuses, yielded the current labour supply figures. These in turnlead to more reliable estimates of the activity rates.

By taking into account the past trend and the projected changesin the economy's manpower needs and the growth of the urbanpopulation, the future activity rates of the non-agricultural popula-tion are estimated. (Table 2.) As for estimating the agriculturallabour supply, it has been assumed that until the year of 1995, thecurrent activity rates will be maintained.

Trends in

RuralUrban

, , Total population

Table 2

Future Activity

1972

383838

1977

383838

Rates

1987

383939

1995

38414 0 • . -i

Source : Third Five Year Development Plan.

By using the total urban and rural population estimates an<Jthe activity rates accordingly, labour supply for the perspectiveplan period is estimated (Tablo 3.)

For estimating the labour demand, the following methodologyis utilized : ; : : .

a) Non-agricultural labour demand.

The estimates of the production levels which will be attainedin thé future years, evaluation of the past production trend, .as wellas the employment/output elasticities for different sectors wereanalyzed in depth and utilized for the projection of non-agriculturale m p l o y m e n t . • • • . . -

1 Household Surveys on Labour Force art being conducted by th» Stat« InitituU of

130


b) Agricultural employment estimates.

For the short run, the employment estimates are derived withthe method which takes into account the number of workersrequired to attain given levels of output and productivity, throughthe usage of average hour iworked per day at the peak season. Forthe long term projections, e.g. for the year 1995, the target ofeliminating disguised unemployment till 1995 was emphasized inthe Third Five Year Plan. Accordingly, the level of employment forthat year and the years preceding it will be exactly that appropriateto production requirement and to the maximum labour productivitywhich production techniques will permit.

Table 3

Projections of Labour Supply and Labour Demand(millions)

Civilian Labour Force 1972 1977 1987 1995

(15-64 age group)1

Civilian Labour SupplyAgricultural

. Non-agriculturalLabour DemandAgricultural Employment

Labour Demand in most active seasonDisguised Unemployment

Non-Agricultural EmploymentIndustryServicesNon-Agricultural unemployment

14.38.85.5

13.58.87.90.94.71.53.20.8

16.08.67.4

14.98.67.90.76.32.14.21.1

21.08.0

13.019.0

8.07.50.5

11.03.47.62.0

26.06.2

19.825.2

6.26.2—

19.05.6

13.40.8

1 Hounding « T O » should b» consldared.

H. Regional Population Projections

Provincial estimates ibased on the crude extrapolation techniqueswere made. However, the anaJLysia of 1970 censuses are required forrefined provincial1 estimates, the sex and age distribution and migra-tion estimates which will be obtained after the results are completed.

131

s

3

•s2 t

Cl

•aoo

•a

ao'S) S

132


in. Urban and Rural Population Projections

According to the targets set within the Third Five Year Plan,a functional and gradual pattern of urbanization comparising 75percent of the population will be realized in 1995. The ruralûrbanpopulation projections of both medium and long range were madeon the basis of the. above mentioned target, and the followingdistribution of the population among these two main groups weremaintained :

; Tableo

Rural and Urban Distribution of the Population

Urban

Rural

as 5

as Ji

% of

o Of

total

total

1972

38

62

1977

47

53

1987

62

38

1995

75

25

Source : HI. Uve Year Plan.

IV. Household Projections

Projections of numbers of household are useful in economicand social planning in view of the fact that there' exists a variety ofservices for which the households are the units of consumption.

The method of household projections which are included in theThird Five Year Plan, consists of utilizing the ratio of the number ofhouseholds to the total population.

It is estimated that with the urbanization and industrialization,there will be a further decline in this ratio which follows a reduc-tion of one percent per year. This reduction is assumed to be thesame for both rural and urban areas. Table 6 shows how householdprojections extend till the year 1995 on the basis of the abovementioned methodology.

133

THE POPULATION OF TUBKBY

Table 6

Household Projections !

Year

197219731974197519761977197819851995

Urban

Average Sizeof Household

5.095.085.075.065.055.045.014.964.86

No. ofHouseholds(thousands)

2,8062,9903,1923,4053,6363,8804,6306,330

10,000

RuralAverageSize of

Household

5.835.825.815.805.795.785.755.705.60

No. ofHouseholds'(thousands)"

3,9883,9663,9873,9973,9923,8933,9973,7752,920

Source : III. Five Year Development Plan, pp 836.

V. Projections of School Population

These types of projections can be categorized into two com-ponents. The first is estimation of the future school age population:which is a section of total population projections. The second is theestimation of enrollment or scholarization ratios.

The future enrollment ratios are presented on Table 7. Whilesetting the targets for the secondary education, the enrollmentratios in future years are assumed to be compatible with the futureeconomic and social deveJiopment taken aa targets to be reached forthe years 1977 and 1995. In other words, the scholarization ratesof 1995 will be in accordance with tüie social and economic conditionsof 1995. For the higher education, the scholarization target» oftechnical education were developed on the basis of manpower pro-jections, whereas for the other sections of higher education, thecurrent trend is assumed to prevail, :


Targets

Primary education1st cycle2nd cycle

Secondary educationHigher education

Table 7

for Scholarization

1972

8430.4186.8

1977

1005025

9

1995

100 ;7545.15

Source- State Planning Organization

Table 8

Fiiturfe School Population (Primary and Secondary Education)1973 -1996 (in thousand population)

Primary "Education" Lycee (Secondary Ed.)!First Cycle Second Cycle

School Scho. School Scho. School Scho.Years Pop. Rate Pop. Rate Pop. Rate1

1973—741974—751975—761976—771977—781982—831987—881992—931995—96

5,1935,4085,6895,9286,2427,2148,1669,5209,859

90929597

100100100100100

1,1701,2081,2611,3431,4411,7892,2592,9273,454

44.344.946.048.150.757.046.071.075.2

326338345352359444516595645

13.213.413.413.413.415.115.815.915.7

Source : Third Five Y0«r Development Plan, PMe 743.

TBE POPULATION OF TURKEY

REFERENCES

Alpay, Aysel, "Age Heaping Problem in the Turkish Censuses 1935to 1965", Istatistik, Turk îstatistik Dernegi Dergisi Cilt 1, Sayi 3.Brass, William, et al, The Demography of Tropical Africa, NewJersey, Princeton University Press, 1968.

Brass, WiHimi, "Uses of Census and Survey Data for Estimation ofVital Rates", U. N., African Seminar on Vital Statistics, AddisAbaba, 1964.Coate, Ansley, Paul Demeny, Regional Model Life Tables and StablePopulations, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1966.Hume, Ian, "Migrant Workers in Western Europe", InternationalDevelopment Bank Report, May 1971.

Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry, State Institute of Statistics, 25October 1970 Census of Population 1 percent Results ' (mimeogra-phed 28 pages).

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry, State Institute of Statistics,1965 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics ofthe Population, S. I. S. Printing Division, Ankara, 1969.

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministrp, State Planning Organization,Third Five Year Development Plan 1973-1977, DPT 1272, PRIMEMINISTRY Printing Office, Ankara 1973.

Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Schoolof Public Health, Vital Statistics from the Turkish DemographicSurvey 1966-67.

Shorter, Frederic and Demieny, Paul, Türkiye'de ölüm Se-viyesi, Dogurganhk ve Ya§ Yapisi Tahmini, Istanbul1 UniversityYayim No. 1306, 1968.U. N. Manual IV, Method of Estimating Basic DemographicMeasures from Incomplete Data, New York, 1967.Yener, Samara, Method of Population Projections Utilized inthe Third Five Year Plan, DPT : 1300, SPD : 254, Ankara, 1973.

Yener, Samara, Population Projections. SPO (Thesis) October, 1969(Mimeographed 25 pages).

FEMALES

AGE

05

1015202530354045505560657075 +IOT

MALES

1970

Table 1. aHigh Fertility

Population Projection (Thousand)

1975 1980 1985

2740.32366.32144.41924.11341.51090.61960.71070.1862.4685.6487.7559.7449.9392.2231.3199.4

7605.6

3198.82641.82352.12131.41907.61327.11076.31044.81050.4

841.8662.7463.9517.6395.6315.8250.8

20178.4

3902.43111.32629.02340.1

• 2115.81890.11312.91062.31027.81027.6815.8632.6431.2458.5321,8337.8

23417.1

4674.213827.13099.72618.12325.92099.71873.21298.31047.21007.7

998.5781.4591.0384.7376.7388.1

27391.4

1990

32191.1

1995

37954.2

2000

5513.64616.83815.93089.52605.62311.82084.41855.81282.41029.0

981.7959.9734.0531.6319.8

:459.1

6492.05475.44606.7

' 3806.43078.12953.22298.42068.61836.61262.91005.4

947.7907.1666.3447.7461.5

7729.66468.75466.7

: 4598.03795.7

' 3067.02581.6

' 2284.72051.11813.01237.8

974.7901.3831.5

' 569.1569.8

14940.2

05

1015202530354045505560657075 +TOT

2766.72441.22215.61896.81504.81177.11002.3

' 1124.7926.0709.5485.4603.0465.5377.6222.0

' 142.818061.0

TOTAL 35666.6

BIRTH RATE -

DEATH RATE

NATURAL INC

MIGRATION

POP

LIFE

E

É

INCREASE

EXPECTANCY

(0) FEMALES

(0) MALES

FERTILITY GRR.

3282.72663.52426.82200.01875.71484.91160.7

985.91100.5

897.4676.2450.8

•539.2392.9290.0207.0

20634.3

. 40812.7

39.3

12.327.0

0.0

27.0

59.455.8

•2.82

4011.83185.3

• 2649.72411.1•2177.3

• 1852.8• 1465.81143.1

966.21068.5

857.1629.6

• 404.4457.0303.4281.5

23864.5

47281.6

40.6

11.1

2914

. .0.0

29.4

62.3

58.2

2.82

4814.23921.83170.82634.02388.42153.01830.91445.5

. 1122.0939.9

1022.8. 800.1

566.6344.2355.0325.2

27834.2

55225.6

40.8

9.8

31.1

0.0

31.1

65.0

60.5

2.82

5686.24739.6

. 3906.13153.82611.52364.22129.8

. • . 1807.81420.91093.5

901.7957.4722.5484.6269.2382.8

. 32631.4

, 64822.5

40.3

8.2

32.0

. 0.0

32.0

67.8

62.8

2.82

6703.85630.3

. 4723.13887.43129.72587.82341.32105.5

. 1779.S1387.41051.6846.5

• 868.0621.3

. 381.8354.1

38399.2

76353.4

39.5

6.8

32.7 :

0.0

32.7

70.4

65.0

2.82.

7999.66664.05613.44703.03860.93104.3

, 2565.42317.42076.11741.4

. 1337.8. 990.6.. 770.9

750.9, 493.7

, 423.8..45413.3

90353.4

39.2

5.6

33.7

0.0

33.7

72.9

67.0

2.82

I

Table 1. b

Medium FertilityPopulation Projection (Thousand)

FEMALES

AGE

05

1015202530354045505560657075 +TOT

1970

2740.32366.32144.41924.11341.51090.01060.71070.1862.4685.6487.7559.7449.9392.2231.3199.4

17605.6

1975

3038.32641.82352.12131.41907.61327.11076.31044.81050.4

841.8662.7463.9517.6395.S315.8250.8

20017.9

1980

3524.32955.22629.02340.12115.81890.11312.91062.31027.81027.6815.8632.6431.2458.5321.8337.8

22882.9

1985

4062.53456.32944.12618.12325.92099.71873.21298.31047.21007.7

998.5781.4591.0384.7376.7388.1

26253.4

1990

4081.64012.73445.22934.52605.62311.82084.41855.81262.41029.0981.7959.9734.0531.6319.8459.1

29630.2

1995

3903.24053.34003.83437.62923.72593.22298.42068.61836.61262.91005.4947.7907.1666.3447.7461.5

32817.3

2000

MALES

05

1015202530354045505560657075 +TOT

2766.72441.22215.61896.81504.81177.11002.31124.7

926.0709.5485.4603 0465.5377.6222 0142.8

18061.0

TOTAL 35666.6

BIRTH RATE

DEATH RATE

NATURAL INC

LIFEE

E

EXPECTANCY

(0) FEMALES

(0) MALES

FERTILITY GRR.

3118.02663.52426.82200.01875.71484.91160.7

985.91100.5

897.4676.2450.8539.2392.9290.0207.0

20469.6

40487.5

37.5

12.1

25.4

59.4

55.8

2.S8

3623.13025.42649.72411.12177.31852.81465.81143.1

966.21068.5

857.1629.6404.4457.0303.42S1.5

23316.0

. 46198.9

37.2

10.8

26.4

62.3

58.2

2.55

4184.23541.93011.72634.02388.42153.01830.91445.51122.0

939.91022.8

800.1566.6344.2355.0325.2

26665.1

52918.6

36.7

9.5

27.2

65.060.5

2.42

4209.44119.43527.62995.62611.52364.22129.8

% 1807.81420.91093.5

901.7957.4722.5484.6269.2382.8

29997.7

59628.0

31.8

7.9

23.9

67.8

62.8

2.04

4030.54168.04105.03510.82972.72587.82341.32105.51779.81387.41051.6

846.5868.0621.3381.8354.1

33112.0

65929.3

26.7

6.6

20.1

70.4

65.0

1.67

1

21.7

5.7

16.1

72.9

67.0

1.29

n

Table 1. cLow Fertility


FEMALES

AGE

05

1015202530354045505560657075 +TOT

MALES

a5

10. 15

20253035404550

. 5560657075 +TOT

TOTAL

1970

2740.32366.32144.41924.11341.51090.01060.71071.1862.4685.6487.7559.7449.9392.2231.3199.4

17605.6

2766.72441.22215.61896.81504.81177.11002.31124.7

926.0709.5485.4603.0465.5377.6222.0142.8

18061.0

35666.6

BIRTH HATE

DEATH RATE

NATURAL INC

MIGRATION

POP INCREASE

LIFE EXPECTANCY

E (0)E (0)

FEMALBS

MALES .

FERTILITY GRR.

1975

2905.52641.82352.12131.41907.61327.11076.31044.81050.4

841.8662.7463.9517.6395.6315.8250.8

19885.1

2981.72663.52426.82200.01875.71484.91160.7985.9

1100.5897.4676.2450.8539.2392.9290.0207.0

20333.3

40218.4

36.011.924.0

0.0

24.0

59.455.82.56

1980

3234.62826.12629.02340.12115.81890.11312.91062.31027.81027.6815.8632.6431.2458.5321.8337.8

22464.0

3325.32893.22649.72411.12177.31852.81465.81143.1

966.21068.5857.1629.6404.4457.0303.4281.5

22885.9

45349.8

34.610.624.0

0.0

24.0

62.358.22.31

1985

3040.23172.22815.42618.12325.92099.71873.21298.31047.21007.7

998.5781.4591.0384.7376.7388.1

25226.3

3551.53250.72880.02634.02388.42153.01830.91445.51122.0

939.91022.8800.1566.6344.2355.0325.2

25609.6

50835.9

32.19.3

22.8

0.0

22.8

65.060.52.05

1990

3586.53405.93162.92806.22605.62311.82084.41855.81282.41029.0981.7959.9734.0531.6319.8459.1

28116.7

3698.73496.53237.62864.62611.52364.22129.81807.81420.91093.5

901.7957.4722.5484.6269.2382.8

28443.2

56559.9

29.37.9

21.3

0.021.3

67.862.81.80

1995

3565.43561.63398.43155.02795.92593.22298.42068.61836.61262.91005.4

947.7907.1666.3447.7461.5

30971.9

3681.73662.33484.33222.22842.72587.82341.22105.51779.81387.41051.6846.5868.0621.3381.8354.1

31218.2

62190.1

25.86.8

19.0

0.0

19.0

70.465.01.55

2000

3378.23552.63555.93392.03146.12765.72581.62284.72051.11813.01237.8

974.7901.3831.5569.1569.8

33625.2

3496.23659.93651.43469.53200.22819.72565.42317.42076.11741.41337.8

990.6770.9750.9493.7423.8

33764.8

67390.0

22.16.0

16.1

0.0

16.1

72.967.01.29

ra

Table l . dMedium Fertility + Migration


FEMALES

AGE

• 0

. 51015202530354045505560657075 +TOT

MALES

05

10,15202530354045505560657075 +

' : TOT

TOTAL

1970

27-40.32366.32144.41924.11341.51090.01060.71070.1862.4

. 685.6487.7559.7

• 449.9392.2231.3199.4

17605.6

2766.72441.22215.61896.81504.81Í77.11002.31124.7

926.0709.5435.4

' ' 603.0465.5377.6222.0242.8

18061.0

35666.6

BIRTH RATE

DEATH RATE

NATURAL INC

MIGRATION

POP' INCREASE'

LIPS EXPECTANCY

E' (0) FEMALES

E (0) MALES ;

FERTILITY GRR.

1975

3007.12627.62339.22123.41889.41298.01052.51026.41036.0

834.4661.7463.9517.6395.6315.8250.8

49839.0

3085.92668.52472.62192.71867.01432.51069.8

913.51057.3875.0870.1450.8539.2

' 392.9290.0207.0

20104.0

39942.9

37.'4

12.1

25.3

—2.6

22.6

59.4

55.8

2.68

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

3494.92910.52601.92319.02089.41843.01264.21020.4995.3

1006.1807.7631.7431.2458.5321.8337.8

3983.23427.52899.62591.12305.0

. 2073.61826.51246.31005.9

975.8977.6773.6590.1384.7376.7388.1

22529.4

3592.92979.22620.62389.72161.51790.81322.2

981.2852.0

1004.1• 829.6

623.9404.4

' 457.0303.4281.5

22593.8

• 45123.3

37.7

11.0

26.7

—2.4

24.3 '

62.3

58.2

2.55

25825.1

4102.53512.32965.72605.12367.22137.31769.61303.8

963.1820.7961.1774.456L4344.2355.0225.2

25876.7

51701.9

36.8

9.6

27.2

0.027.2

65.0

60.5

2.42

4021.83934.43417.52890.12578.72291.02058.41809.61230.9

988.4950.7939.9726.7530.8319.8459.1

3854.23993.93925.73408.92879.42566.52277.72042.91790.81212.3

965.8917.8888.2659.6447.0461.5

29147.7

4147.74039.03498.22949.92582.92343.22114.31747.31281.7938.6795.0

• 899.6699.4480.2269.2382.8

29168.8

58316.5

32.0

8:0

24:1

0.0

24.1

67.3

62.8

2.04

32292.2

3979.94106.94024.93481.52927.32559.32320.62090.21720.21251.5

• 902.6746.4815.7601.4378.4354.1

32260.7

64552.9

27.0

6.3

20.3

0.020.3

70.4

65.0

1.67

21.9

5.7-

16.2

0.0

16.2

72.9

67.0

1.29

rv

Chapter VU

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

OF POPULATION GROWTH AND

POPULATION POLICY

by

Hüsnü A. KÎSNÎSÇÎ, M. D.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OFPOPULATION GROWTH AND POPULATION POLICY

Hüsnü A. Kisn%i, M. D.

Institute of Population StudiesHacettepe University

Especially after World War U, many countries came face toface with the problem] of a high rate of population growth, such ashad never previously been experienced. The problem is being feltmore seriously in less-developed countries in which the annual percapita income is already very low.

In the post-war years, due to the improvement of health «HTditíona, there was a large decrease in mortatiitp rates. On the otherhand, birth rates did not change considerably when compared tothose of the pre-war years. This situation is the main cause for thehigh' rate of population growth Which the world is facing at thepresent.

Lately, the high' rate of population growth' has also drawn theattention of the Turkish public, like it has in many other lessdeveloped countries. According to economists, this high rate in Tur-key may, in time, present a serious threat to this country.

Economist have been studying the economic consequences ofpopulation growth for a long time and were primarily interested inthe size of the population. Lately, this approach' has been replacedby stressing the importance of the composition of the population.Today, it is stressed that the age distribution of the population isone of the most important factors which affect the economy of acountry. In countries where the population growth rate is higherthan in others, the ratio of the age group below 15 is considerablyhigher in proportion to the total population. Therefore, a large partof economic resources are necessarily spent for consum.ptk>n pur-poses, which in turn causes a decrease in the amount to be spent forinvestments. , ; , . ! • ¡ , ; • . ;

139


In this article, after studying the social and economical conse-quences of the high population growth rate in Turkey, we will,consider the relationship between economic, social and populationpolicies.

Economic Development in Turkey

Even though income per capita in Turkey seems to be some-what higher compared to other less developed countries, when theeconomic structure of the country is examined closely it presentsitself as an underdeveloped economy.

IT IS ACCCEPTED IN GENERAL THAT THERE AREMANY indicators which show a country's economic development.But for comparative purposes between countries and for showingchanges through time in the same country, per capita income seemsto be most widely used indicator, despite the difficulties involvedin using it. High rates of population growth In Turkey seem to havenegative effects on per capita income. This shows itself in a study,taking 1961 prices constant and taking the base year of 1950 GNPas 100.0. In 1955, GNP appears as 136.0 while per capita GNP is118.2. In 1965 these indices were found to be 215.5 and 141.0 res-pectively.

This negative effect will appear more clearly when per capitaincome projections are carried out, as can be seen from Table 1. .

Table 1

Projections of GNP and Per Capita GNP

Per Capita GNP (TL.)2 % Population 2 .6 % Population

Years GNP* Growth Growth

1965197219922000

* GNP is assumedSource: B. Tuncer;

73,127.1119,363.1461,897.2793,625.3

2,3293,3108,622

12,643to increase by 7 % throughout the periodThe Impact of Population. Growth, op. thç Turkish

2,3293,1777,359

10,297

Ifconomy, H. U. Publi-cations No. 3. 1968. p. 57

HO


If the present level of population growth continues to increaseat the same rate, in the year 2000 per capita income will be 2,346TL. less than what it would have been if this rate had decreased to2 %. As can also be seen from Table 1, this figures is slightly morethan per capita income in 1965. In other words, if population growthcould be slowed down from the existing rate of 2.6 % per yearto 2 % per year, capita income diferencia in the year 2000 will be2 3 %•'•• • • i ' • / ' • . • . - . . . . . : : - . i

Income Distribution

As there have been few studies carried out on income distribu-tion in Turkey, it is difficult to say much on this topic. Neverthelessthe available studies show that there is an inverse relation betweenthe income level and the birth rate. If the birth rate increases whilethe income level is decreasing, it will firstly increase the proportionof low income groups in the total population having an adverse ef-fect on the growth of a country's economy. Again when the birthrate stays high in this group their share of the income, in propor-tion to the total income, will decrease in time. Of course, a highrate is not the only cause for the changes in unequal income distri-bution, but its effect on the low income groups cannot entirely beignored.

In a study carried out by Bulutay et al, it has ibeen pointed outthat in Turkey the average household income after taxes is 11,077TL. The same study shows that the annual income of 42 % of thefamilies is below 5,000 TL., 48.6 % earned between 5,000 - 25,000, andonly 9.2 % earned more than 25,000 TL. The situation becomesmore interesting when we consider individual income distributionafter tax. In 1968 average individual income after tax is 1,805 TL.Of these, 93.5 % earned less than 5,000 TL., 5.7 % earned 2,500 -5,000 TL., and only 0.8 % had an average income of over 25,000 TL.Table 2 shows this distribution more clearly.

141

THE POPULATION OF TURKEY.

Table 2

Percentage of Families and Their Share of Income;From Low to High Income Groups

20 4.5 3.0 20 4.5 3.020 8.5 7.0 40 13.0 10.020 ' 11.5 10.0 60 24.5 20.020 18.5 20.0 80 43.0 40.020 57.0 60.0 100 100.0 100.0

Source Tuncer Bulutay et al.,: Income Distribution in Turkey 1968. A. U. 8BF Publication«,No. 325. 6evinc Matbaasi, Ankara 1971. P. 16.

Inspite of all the socio-economic measurements taken in Turkey,the income distribution between the years 1963-1968 showed *negative trend. As we can also see from Table 2. the share of thelow income groups decreased considerably iwhile the share of the highincome groups increased.

Demographic Investment

As a consequence of a high rate of population growth, there alaoappears another important economic problem! in less developed coun-tries. ;

While thé rate of population growth in Turkey between 1960-1965 was 2.46 ,%, it increased to 2.56 % in the period 1965-1970.If we also consider the population working abroad, the rate of popula-tion growth reached 2.73% in the later period. ¡When iwe considerthat this increase is closely related to the children born in poBt-War

142


years, who are now reaching the fertile stage, the population willgrow at least at this rate within a very short period.

On the other hand, in the (state) plans, the rate of economicgrowth has been put forward as being 7 %. Also, fixed capital-in-come ratio has been planned as 3 % while the total investmentsconsist of only the 21.% of the GNP during the period 1962-1972.That is to say, a growth rate of 2.6 % in the population causea the7.7 !% of the share laid aside for investments from the GNP to beabsorbed by the increasing population as demographic investments.Therefore, only 13.3 % are left for the economic investment» whichare necessary for economic development.

Capital Requirements foe Employment

Another socio-economic problem to be cosawdered in countrieswhere there is a high population growth: rute, is a high supply ofthe labour force. This situation continuously produces a need forfinding additional employment possibilities. The provision of ad-ditional employment possibilities is closely related to the openingof new Work areas and this, in turn, requires investment la lessdeveloped countries, per capita income is already; low, thereforesaving possibilities are limited, which makes investments difficult.

The above mentioned problem is more clearly determined whenwe project the effects of certain rates of population growth' on theamount of capital which wil absorb the labour force untUi the year2000. Here, two basic assumptions have 'been considered. Firstly,the mcreasing rate of labour force supply will1 move to sectorsother than agriculture (services and industries), until the year20ÓO. Secondly, until1 this year, capital requirements per labourer foremployment, on the average, will be 50,000 TL.

The results of this estimation can be seen in Table 3. whichalso shows that the high rate of population increase has adverseeffects on employment.

143


Table 3

Capital Requirements for Employment(in million TLi.)

Years

1967197219922000

Capital Requirements forEmployment*

2 % Pop.Growth

7,62516,50026,50031,900

.2.6 % Pop.Growth

9,97522,10039,95052,100

Labour2 % Pop.Growth

305330520638

Supply2.6 % Pop.

Growth

399442799

1,042

• Labour supply in given years is 79 % of the 15-64 age group.• The labour supply figures are multiplied by 25,000 TL. in the year 1967, and by ,50,000

up to 2,000.

Population Growth, Food Supply and Consumption

At present, some of the less; developed countries experiencinga rapid population growth are faced with a food shortage, and inother countries, even though there is a certain amount of increasein food production, food shortage will inevitably present a problemto them. The procurement of a sufficient food supply for the peopleliving in every country is an important problem and of deep concernto policy makers.

Here we will study the pattern of food supply in Turkey in thepast, present and future.

No doubt, in order to study the food problem seriously, we needdata on production and consumption levels of various goods, andfood consumption patterns amongs various socio-economic groupsin different regions of the country. Since at this state the carryingput of such a study does not seem possible, in this article only theproduction and the consumption of the basic food supplies vital tohuman life, such as wheat, meat and milk, have been selected asthe three basic staples of food,

The problem of food-shortage which comes together with arapid population growth and which has become a subject of great

144


controversy recently, if studied carefully, does not seem to presenta problem for Turkey at the present, or in the near future.

The number one food item in terms of consmption is wheat;for example, in 1972, wheat consumption per person Was 193.4 kg.This figure was 141.1 kg. in 1950. Although, from 1950 onwards,the application of new techniques in agriculture resulted, im a consi-derable increase in the total production of goods, this did not reflectitself in the per person wheat consumption figures. One of the mainreasons for this phenomenon is of course a rapid rate of populationgrowth.

Table 4Per Capita Wheat Production and Consumption

Total Production Total Consumption Per Capita

Years

195019671972

(tons)

3,871,9007,935,0009498,000

(tons) Consumption (kg.)

3,058,8106,269,0007,266,000

146.1189.7193.4

Note : It is assumed that 79 % of the total production is used for consumption purposes.

Table 5Per Capita Wheat Consumption

(Projections)

Years

19922000

Per Capita Consumption (kg.)2 % Pop. 2.6 % Pop. ProductionIncrease Incrase (tons)

244.9264.8

209.1 16,620,000215.7 21,041,000

Consumption(tons)

13,130,00016,622,000

Reta : It Is assumed that 79 % of total production is used for consumption purposes.Source : B. Tencer, the Impact of Population Growth on the Turkish Economy p. 58.

The other staple chosen as representative of food consumptionis meat. Turkey is considered to have a great potential for animalhusbandry but the level of meat production is relatively low and,consequently, consumption is also below the world standards.

145

POPULATION OF TURKEY

An exact figure for the total meat consumption in Turkey isdifficult to estimate since only the quantity coming out of theslaughterhouses is known. Also, a large number of slaughterhousesare situated in areas where the population is above 2,000. Thereforeit is assumed that the consumption pattern of areas with 2,000people is representative of the areas where the population is below2,000. Actually, in this study we are more concerned with therelationship between per capita meat consumption and the highrate of population growth. Therefore, the non-availability of exactmeat consumption figures does not seem to create an importantproblem.

Estimated meat production in. Turkey was 177,520 tons in 1950.It has been assumed that 95 % of production goes in to consump-tion. This shows us that for 1950, per capita consumption is 8.051kg. Although total meat consumption increased 174 % between theperiod 1950-1967, per capita meat consumption increased only 74 %,Table 6. shows meat production, consumption, and per capitaconsumption figures for different years.

Table 6

Supply of Meat and Per Capita Meat Consumption

Per CapitaProduction Consumption Consumption

Years (in tons) (in tons) (kg.)

1950 177,520 168,644 8.0511967 486,000 462,000 13.9801972 629,000 597,000 15.890

Table 7. shows the amount! of meat that would be avaliable forconsumption up to 2,000 according to two rates of populationgrowth. There would be a 7,500 kg. difference in per capita meatproduction between the growth rates of 2 % and 2.6 %. This dif-ference seems low, but when it is considered that in 1950 the percapita consumption estimation was only 8,051 kg. its importance be-comes quite clear.

146


Table 7

Supply of Meat and Per Capita Meat Consumption(Projections)

Per Capita Consumption (kg.)Production Consumption 2 % Pop. 2.6 % Pop.

Years (in tons) (in tons) Growth Growth

1992 1,765,000 1,677,000 31.300 26.7202000 2,666,000 2,533,000 40.350 32.860

Nota : The production Is assumed to increase by 5.3 % annually.Source : B. Tuncer, the Impact oí Population Growth on the Turkish Economy p. 59.

The third item chosen for examination in this study is milk.Again, when we have production, consumption, and per cepita pro-duction estimates of milk for different years and for different po-pulation increase rates, we can see the negative effect of a rapid po-pulation growth on this item.

Supply of milk and per capita wilk consumption figures are givenin Table 8. As can be seen from these figures, although supply ofmilk increased 25 % in 1972 compared to 1967, the figures for percapita milk consumption increase only reached 10 % for the sameyears. This situation can be related to a high rate of populationgrowth.

• Table 8Supply of Milk and Per Capita Milk Consumption

Production Per Capita ConsumptionYears (tons) (kg.)

1950 3,173,000 151.4271967 3,234,000 97.9001972 4,050,000 107.800

Note : It Is assumed that total production m used for consumption.

In Table 9. the effects of a high rate of population growth canbe observed more clearly. If we assume a 4.6 % average annual in-crease in milk production and a 2 % population increase, per capitamilk consumption in 2.000 will be 163.80 kg. If the population in-creases by 2.6 % annually, per capita milk consumption will be only144.000 kg. for the same year.

147

THE POPULATION OP TURKEY

Table 9Supply of Milk and Per Capita Milk Consumption

Per Capita Consumption (kg.)Production 2 % Population 2.6 % Population

Years (in tons) Growth Growth

1992 9,952,000 185.800 158.5002000 14,262,000 227.200 185.000

Nnte : It is assumed that production -will increase 4.6 % annually.Source : B. Tuncer, the Impact of Population Growth on the Turkish Economy p. 60.

Education

The manpower factor which is of 'great importance from thepoint of economic development, presents a problem in Turkey likeit does in many other less developed countries. Although importantdevelopments have been accomplished in manpower in the plannedperiod, there are still problems involved in the desired quality ofmanpower.

In 1971, only 48 % of those who graduated from primaryschools found possibilities of attending secondary schools, and therest took their places in the production process without gettingany kind of vocational training. Since public education for trainingmanpower in Turkey is on a very low level, attendance in formaleducational institutions has gained in importance. Therefore, study-ing the qualitative changes in the educational institutions seemsto be the most important point for consideration in Turkey's edu-cational level.

In general, the following trends have (been observed in the 7-12age group between the period 1950-1970: While in 1950 there were3,183,200 people in this age group, this figure rose to 6,024,594 in1970. That is to say, from 1950 to 1970, there has been a 89 % in-crease in this age group. But there was an increase of 210 % in thenumber of primary school students for the same time period. Inthe secondary education age group, 13-18, the observed increase is1,957,348 persons which makes a total of 4,843,848, for the abovementioned period. This gives us a 68 % increase in the number of

148


secondary school children for the last 20 years. Consequently it canbe said, that there its a great discrepancy between the level of in-crease in the school age group and the schooling ratio.

In 1950, the schooling ratio in the primary school level was50.8 %. This figure reached only 83.2% in 1970 while the rate ofincrease in the primary school students is 89 %. Also, the schoolingratio for the secondary schools which was 7.7 % reached only27.1 % in 1970, while the increase in the number of students hasbeen 491 % between 1950 and 1970.

Qn the other hand, the number of primary school teachers in1950 was 35,870, and the number of students per teacher was 45. In1970, the number of teachers reached 132,721, but the teacher stu-dent ratio could be ony decreased to 38.

The situation in the secondary education level also presentsproblems. There werte 15,458 teachers at this level in 1950. This figurereached 47,620 in 1970. Therefore, whereas there were 14 studentsper teacher in the previous year, the ratio reached 28 in the laterperiod.

We can also consider education from the point of expendituresinvolved in this area. In particular, the relation between differentrates of population increase and per student expenditures until theyear 2000 seems to give meaningful results. For this estimation, a100 % schooling ratio for primary schools from 1972 to 2000 hasbeen assumed.

There were 578,000 students in the 7-12 age group in 1972, andper student expenditure was estimated as 338.2 TL. Accordingy,the total expenditure is calculated to ¡be 1,955.8 million TL. On thebasis of a % 2 annual population growth, this age group will reach7,836 thousand in 1992. During the year per student expenditurewill be 610.2 TL., and the total expenditures will reach 4,781.5 mil-lion TL. A 2.6 % population growth rate will give us 8,778 thousandpeople who will require 5,356.8 million TL. in total.

With a 2 % annual population growth rate for the year 2000,there will be 9,053 thousand students in the age group 7-12, which

149


will require 773.0 million TL. per student, and a total of 6,998.0 mil-lion TL. will have to be spent. If the annual population growth is2.6 % this age group population will be 10,547 thousand with a re-quirement of 8,158.2 million TL. in total.

In a country where rapid industrialization is a target, the needfor a high level of educational investment creates obstacles for othereconomic investments. This situation is created because of a highrate of population growth.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, a high rate of popula-tion growth also creates difficult social problems in adidition tocreating economic problems.

Health

The main reason for a slower population growth made prior to1950, was a high death rate. However, since 1950, there havei beenmany improvements in Turkey's health conditions. Between 1953 -63 per capita health expenditures rose 7 % annually, and the rate ofincrease since this period has been around 9.5 % annually. Thisunusual rate of increase is assumed to fall to 7 % until 2,000 andwill constitute 7.5 % of the total health expenditures. Therefore, percapita health expenditures which have been 27.5 TL. in 1965, willreach 504.3 TL. It is also estimated that a 2.6 % population growthwill require 38,866.9 million TL., and a 2 % growth will require31,654.9 million TL.

This shows us that only a 0.6 % difference in population growthcauses a 7.212 million TL. difference in expenditures, and this, ofcourse, is an obstacle in Turkey's economic development.

We can also consider the health problem from another angle :In 1950 there was a total of 3,020 doctors in Turkey. This figurereached 13,843 which constitutes an increase of 358 %. On theotheU hand, while there was one doctor to 6,933 persons, this figuredecreased to 2,577 in 1970. Also, the number of beds which was18,837 in 1950, reached 72,034, but the number of beds per 100,000persons has only increased from 89.9 to 103.3.

150


Urbanization

One of the most important issues Turkey is facing at prersent is the high rate of rural to urban migration which has speededup especially during the recent years. Various social and economicreasons have been stated for this event. According to one view,the main reason for migration is the "pull" of the newly developingindustrial centers in the urban areas. Howover, in many studiescarried out in Turkey, it is stated that as a result of a high birthrate the villages become too crowded in relation to their relativelyfixed resources. Consequently, this view stresses the "push" of therural areas as the main reason for internal migration.

The urban population grew considerably faster after 1950. Thatyear only 18.7 % of the total population lived in urban areas, butthis ratio reached 26.3 % by 1960. The rate of increase in the citypopulation was about 5.0 % per annum between 1960-65, 6.0 % in1970¿ and it reached 35.9 % of the total population in 1970.

According to estimated figures, the rate of urbanization willdecrease in the near1 future and will fall to 3.0 % until1 the year 2000.This, will give us a ratio of 60 % living in urban areas.

Another important point which1 should be stressed, is thequality of urbanization in Turkey. Urbanization in Turkey does notoccur because of industrialization or the development of real urbanfunctions. The process is taking place in the form of accumulationof population (demographic urbanization) in certain areas. Themovement from' rural to urban areas is directed especially to citiesof more than 100,000. In the planned period, the population move-ment has been mostly to centers above ;50,000. At present, more thanone third of the total urban population lives in areas over 500,000.

Although urbanization can be considered to be a natural eventduring transitional periods, and is also considered as giving an im-petus to development, an increase in the urban population whichreaches one million per annum brings with it important social prob-lems, •

15»


Aliso, in countries where per capita income is already low andwhere the pace of economic growth is slower than desired,accumulation of population in cities prevents the implementation ofsocial and,economic measurements necessary for the development ofthe urban areas.

Housing

Meeting the housing requirements of people in every society isan important social and economic issue. Thus housing becomes oneof the most serious problems involved in Turkey's urbanizationprocess. As there are no dwelling censuses carried out in Turkey,we cannot give a dynamic picture in this area. Also, for penetratingstudies we need the socio-economic levels of the groups who havehousing requirements. Therefore, when dealing with the housingrequirements, we will consider areas over 10,000 population. Thisdoes not mean that the problem is non-existent for areas with asmaller population, but our assumption is that the problem is moreserious in the larger settlements.

When it is estimated that the rate of urbanization will be 6.0to 6.5 % in the following years anuually the housing problemgains in importance. In 1963 approximately 23.8 % and in 1971about 21.7 % of the total investment was spent for housing.

In order to determine the number of dwellings necessary forthe needs of an increasing population, we must know the number ofthose who will live in cities in the future, as well as the averagesize of the families. It is estimated that there will be one tenth of1 % decline in the family size by 1980, and 2 tenths of 1 % by 2000.This would make the family size about 4.5 persons in 2000 asagainst 5.0 in 1965 and 4.9 in 1972.

If there is a 2 % population increase by 2000, the number ofhousing requirements for the same year will be 8,495 thousand inareas with more than 10,000 population. If the annual population in-crease is 2.6 %, this figure reaches 10,432.

Another problem in a high rate of rural to urban migration iathe development of "gecekondus" or squatter houses. Since the

15?


relatively poorer people who move into cities are not able to providethemselves with decent dwellings the suburb areas of the cities havebecome the site of "squatter" houses, lacking sewage, water, elec-tricity and gas.

According to calculations, there were 450,000 squatter housesin 1967 which constitutes 21 % of the housing units. The "gece-kondu" problem will continue to exist for some time, unless, stan-dard housing units are built at the required speed. This requirementhas, ofcourse, social1 as well as economic consequences.

Population Policy as an Element in Social and Economic Policy

During certain periods in Turkey pronatalist or antinatalistpolicies have been preveiant depending on the socio-economic factorsof the country. There is no doubt that a population policy will favouran increased 'growth rate when the population of the country is gro-wing at a low rate, and there is the need for manpower and spe-cialization for utilizing the natural resources and for the military.However, the problem to be kept in mind is the fulfillment of thehealth, education, food, housing and employment requirements ofthe growing population.

According to 1927 census results Turkey's population was 13million 648 thousand. In the next 7 years from 1927 to 1935 theaverage rate of population growth stayed at 2.1 % per annum.During 1935-45 this rate decreased to 1 %, increasing to 2.2 %between 1945 -1950, and finally reaching 2.9 % in 1960. After 1960,there was a minor decrease in the population growth rate. Accor-dingly, Turkey's population increased by 22,048 million in 43 years.

This short review of population trend in Turkey should beconsidered together with the population policies implemented in thecountry.

Regarding the population policies put into effect, the historyof the Turkish Republic can be divided into two periods. The firststarts from the beginning of the Republic (1923) and extends tothe mid-sixties during which a high birth rate was officially reco-mended and supported. During the second period which starts fromthe 1960's an antinatalist policy was adopted.

153


The fundemental reasons for the population policy during thefirst period, were demographic/military and economic in nature.

Prior to the establishment of the Republic, involment in variouswars such as the Italian War, the Balkan Wars World War I andthe War of Independence caused a considerable decrease in the malepopulation which, in turn reflected a temporary decrease in the birthrate. Apart from that during the first period, the total death rate(30-40 per thousand.) and the infant mortality rate were alt anincreasingly high level. Moreover, during this period the power of ácountry was judged by the size of its army, and rtihe size of theTurkish army was considerably small compared to the armies of themore powerfull countries.

The main economic consideration for the acceptance of the po-pulation policy in this period was the shortage of manpower in theagricultural sector. Also the fact that increased production necessia-ted large scale investments and that children started working atearly ages made possible the bringing up of children at low costs.

Due to these roughly outlined reasons the policy makers of theyoung Republic had pass a law declaring any kind of family planningmethod to be illegal, in order to put the previously mentioned popula-tion policy into effect.

According to this law, any kind of publication and advertisementon the subject of population planning methods, and manufacture,sale and import of the population planning devices were prohibited.Also, some tax exemption benefits were given to those families whohad more than certain number of children.

From the demographic point of view, there appeared a significantdecrease in the death rates (15 per thousand) after 1950's. At thesame time, birth rate reached 40 per thousand as a result of thepronatalist policy adopted. Both these factors have been the maincauses of present rate of population increase.

With an increase in the average expectation of life at birth andbirth rate a balance between the males and females at fertile ageswas established. Consequently, the increase in the fertility levelcaused a distortion of the balance between the economically active

154


and the dependent segments of the population. For example, in 1955every 1.000 economically active population had to support 753persons whereas this number increased to 836 per thousand in 1970.

Another factor causing a change in the Population PlanningLaw in Turkey was the mother and child health conditions. Althoughwe have no reliable information, it is calculated that the number ofwomen who die because of abortion is about 10.000 per annum. Also,infant death rate seems to be very high (155 per thousand).

Due to the aJbove mentioned factors, it was felt that the timehad come for a change from the pronatalist approach, which wasimplemented for a long time to the Population Control Act whichwas consequently put into action.

However prior to discussing the extend of the benefits of Popu.latiori Control Act it will be more penetrating to consider the socio-economic policies in Turkey.

In the Third Development Plan (1973-1977) the long term goalsare stated as; improvement in the standards of living; industrializa-tion, less dependency on external sources, solving of the unemploy-ment problem and improvement of the income distribution. There-fore, the socio-economic implications of a high rate of populationincrease so far discussed should be considered in connection with thesocial and economic policies adopted.

A high population growth rate will have an adverse effect onthe accumulation of capital, which in turn will hinder investments.The main reason for this adverse effect is the high proportion of theconsuming age group in the total population. The dependency of alarge group makes savings difficult, which thus limits investments.

As previously mentioned, there is yet another relationship be-tween population growth and investments. This is the prdblem bet-ween invenstments (demographic) which aim to prevent a decrease inpercapita income and economic investments. Since any improvementin the standard of living is related to an increase in per capita income,the higher the rate of increase in the latter, the faster an improve-ment in the former will be registered.

155


The investments required for the next 10 years in order toreach an increase of 4 % in per capita income, show a difference of15 % with a 2.6 % population increase, andl with a 2 % populationincrease.

The composition of the investments is also influenced by thepopulation growth. Mainly, as the proportion of adult population islow, investments such as health, education and housing reach a highlevel. Consequently, the increase of the income level through totalinvestments, will stay at a low state.

As in other less developed countries, unemployment presents aproblem for Turkey. The high population growth rate increases thesupply of labour, but job opportunities are still limited. It is difficultto give the correct unemployment and over-employment figures inTurkey for the time being. However, according to the Third FiveYear Plan, it is stated that in 1972 ^ there were 1.6 millionunemployed and/or unproductive labour force in Turkey.

At present, it seems difficult to solve the employment problemthrough creating new job opportunities, for, even a decrease at thepresent level of population growth will not influence the people Whowill join the labour force for the next 15 years.

It should also be stated that the lowering of the dependencyto the external sources, which is an economic target, is related tothe proportion of the investments that can be taken from the GNP.This becomes difficult to the extent that the rate of populationgrowth affects the level of demographic investments.

Available data shows that income distribution trend in Turkeyis working against the low income groups. In a country with a bigunemployment problem it is inevitable that the majority of thefamilies will receive a very small share of the total income. It isquite difficult to have a just income distribution in such a country.This situation is felt seriously in Turkey.

Previously its was stated that the birth rate in low income groupsis quite high. This means that more people will share an income.

156


Consequently, it can be said that social and economic policiesin Turkey do not seem to take into consideration the high rate ofpopulation growth.

We can therefore pose the following question : What has beenachieved so far? — On the 1st of April 1965 the Population ControlAct was put into action; the prohibition of the manufacturing, im-porting and selling of birth control devices was abolished. A Po-pulation Planning Department was established within the administra-tion of the Ministry of Health, its first target t>eing the achievementof a decrease in the present level of the population to 2 %.

However, due to the organizational factors involved and theprograms not fitting the socio-economic structure of Turkey, notmuch has been achieved in the stated program.

According to many surveys, it is stated that the women'sattitudes and practices in the use of birth control devices differaccording to their socio-economic levels.

Therefore, implementation of a population policy where socialand economic policies are not taken into consideration, will not besuccessful in reducing the birth rates.

157


REFERENCES

Bulutay, Tuncay; Timur, Serim; and Ersil, Hasan, Income Distri-bution in Turkey, 1968, Sevinç Matbaasi, Ankara, 1971.

Gökgöl, TürMz, A., Socio-Economie Determinants of KAP in Po-pulation Planning in Turkey, M. A. Thesis. Hacettepe University,Ankara, 1972.

Gökgöl, Türkiz A., "An Essay on the Relationship of Population andEducation", Unpublished paper. Hacettepe University, Ankara,1971.

Keles, Rugen and Can, T., The Problem of "Squatters Huts", Re-public of Turkey, Prime Ministry, State Planning Organization, An-kara, 1966.

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry, State Planning Organization,Third Five Year Development Plan 1973-1977. Publication No.DPT 1272. Prime Ministry Printing Office, Ankara, 1973.

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry State Planning Organization,Second Five Year Development Plan 1968-1972. Prime MinistryPrinting Office, Ankara, 1967.

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry State Institute of Statics,Census of Population 1950, Publication No. 359. Ankara, 1950.

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry State Institute of Statistics,Census of Population 1960, Publication No. 452. Ankara, 1964.

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry, State Planning Organization,Problems of Urbanization. Report of Special Commission, Ankara,1972.

Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry, State Institut© of Statistics,Turkish Statistical Manual 1971. Publications No. 670. Ankara, 1973.Tuncer, Baran, The Impact of Population Growth on the TurkishEconomy, Hacettepe University Publication No. 3, Dogus Matbaasi,Ankara, 1968.

158

Documents

THE POPULATION OF TURKEY - CICREDcicred.org/Eng/Publications/pdf/c-c52.pdf · THE POPULATION OF TURKEY Trends in the Actual Rate of Population Growth During this century, more reliable