IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sos/sosjrn/190311.html

Analysis of Fertility in Turkey: The Importance of Future Fertility PreferencesAbstract: Fertility analyzes are generally not carried out considering future fertility preferences. However, future fertility preferences should be considered in terms of both family planning and the updating of fertility policies currently in practice. In this study, fertility analysis was conducted using data from 2008 and 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). Two models have been created that take into account the future fertility preferences of households and these models have been estimated with the Generalized Poisson Regression Model. It was found that the standard models that do not take into account the future fertility preferences of the households and the findings obtained from the model taking into consideration differ. In the model that takes into account the future fertility preferences of households, it is seen that the coefficient signs of age, marriage age, employment status and husband age variables change. For this reason, policy-makers should be cautious when making a policy towards fertility, because findings from standard analyzes can lead to false policy practices

Author

Listed:
  • Selçuk GEMİCİOĞLU
  • Hasan ŞAHİN
  • Emrah ER

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Selçuk GEMİCİOĞLU & Hasan ŞAHİN & Emrah ER, 2019. "Analysis of Fertility in Turkey: The Importance of Future Fertility PreferencesAbstract: Fertility analyzes are generally not carried out considering future fertility preferences. However, future fertility preferences should be considered in terms of," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 27(41).
    • Handle: RePEc:sos:sosjrn:190311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/772870
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alicia Adsera, 2006. "An Economic Analysis of the Gap Between Desired and Actual Fertility: The Case of Spain," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 75-95, March.
    2. James McIntosh, 1999. "An analysis of reproductive behaviour in Canada: Results from an intertemporal optimizing model," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 12(3), pages 451-461.
    3. Dieudonne Ndaruhuye Muhoza, 2019. "The heterogeneous effects of socioeconomic and cultural factors on fertility preferences: evidence from Rwanda and Kenya," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 347-363, December.
    4. Gary S. Becker, 1960. "An Economic Analysis of Fertility," NBER Chapters, in: Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, pages 209-240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Tammy Harris & Zhao Yang & James W. Hardin, 2012. "Modeling underdispersed count data with generalized Poisson regression," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 12(4), pages 736-747, December.
    7. Weiren Wang & Felix Famoye, 1997. "Modeling household fertility decisions with generalized Poisson regression," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 10(3), pages 273-283.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohamed Amara, 2015. "Multilevel Modelling of Individual Fertility Decisions in Tunisia: Household and Regional Contextual Effects," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 477-499, November.
    2. Miranda, Alfonso & Trivedi, Pravin K., 2020. "Econometric Models of Fertility," IZA Discussion Papers 13357, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Lin, Siyuan & Argys, Laura M. & Averett, Susan L., 2023. "Exposure to the One-Child Policy and Fertility among Chinese Immigrants to the US," IZA Discussion Papers 16329, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Siyuan Lin & Laura Argys & Susan Averett, 2025. "Exposure to the one-child policy and fertility among chinese immigrants to the US," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 969-1002, September.
    5. George Hondroyiannis, 2010. "Fertility Determinants and Economic Uncertainty: An Assessment Using European Panel Data," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 33-50, March.
    6. Westerberg, Thomas, 2006. "Two Papers On Fertility - The Case Of Sweden," Umeå Economic Studies 683, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    7. Tomo Nishimura, 2012. "What are the factors of the gap between desired and actual fertility? - A comparative study of four developed countries," Discussion Paper Series 81, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Feb 2012.
    8. repec:ehu:dfaeii:6577 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Westerberg, Thomas, 2006. "MoreWork, Less Kids - The Relationship Between Market Experience and Number of Children," Umeå Economic Studies 682, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    10. Daishin Yasui, 2017. "A Theory Of The Cross‐Sectional Fertility Differential: Job Heterogeneity Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(1), pages 287-306, February.
    11. Wen-Jen Tsay, 2007. "The Fertility of Second-Generation Political Immigrants in Taiwan," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 07-A004, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
    12. Alison L. Booth & Hiau Joo Kee, 2009. "Intergenerational Transmission of Fertility Patterns," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 71(2), pages 183-208, April.
    13. Verónica Amarante & Marco Manacorda & Edward Miguel & Andrea Vigorito, 2016. "Do Cash Transfers Improve Birth Outcomes? Evidence from Matched Vital Statistics, Program, and Social Security Data," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-43, May.
    14. Sascha Becker & Francesco Cinnirella & Ludger Woessmann, 2010. "The trade-off between fertility and education: evidence from before the demographic transition," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 177-204, September.
    15. Tia Palermo & Sudhanshu Handa & Amber Peterman & Leah Prencipe & David Seidenfeld, 2016. "Unconditional government social cash transfer in Africa does not increase fertility," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(4), pages 1083-1111, October.
    16. Veloso, Fernando A., 2003. "A Competitive Growth Model with Endogenous Fertility," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 23(1), May.
    17. Galindev, Ragchaasuren, 2008. "The Evolution of Population, Technology and Output," MPRA Paper 17116, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 22 Aug 2009.
    18. Dierk Herzer & Holger Strulik & Sebastian Vollmer, 2012. "The long-run determinants of fertility: one century of demographic change 1900–1999," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 357-385, December.
    19. Ho-Po Crystal Wong, 2015. "The Quantity and Quality Adjustment of Births when Having More is Not Subsidized: the Effect of the TANF Family Cap on Fertility and Birth Weight," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    20. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    21. de la Croix, David & Gosseries, Axel, 2012. "The natalist bias of pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 271-287.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sos:sosjrn:190311. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Aysen Sivrikaya (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sosyoekonomijournal.org/home.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.