SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Nüfusbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 48

SEVENTEEN TO ONE: CAN TÜRKIYE'S 2026 PARENTAL LEAVE REFORM DELIVER WHAT ITS PRONATALIST PROJECT REQUIRES?

17'YE 1: TÜRKİYE’NİN 2026 EBEVEYN İZNİ REFORMU, PRONATALİST POLİTİKASININ GEREKTİRDİKLERİNİ KARŞILAYABİLECEK Mİ?

Ezgi Berktas(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, NÜFUS ETÜTLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0002-9775-4073
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A policy designed to encourage fertility may, through its institutional architecture, work to suppress it.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article offers an ex-ante evaluation of Türkiye's 2026 parental leave reform (Law No. 7578) against structural fertility constraints and comparative evidence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The reform extended paid maternity leave from 16 to 24 weeks and paternity leave from 5 to 10 days; of the 61 added days, 56 accrue to mothers, leaving mother-to-father ratio to 17:1.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A policy designed to encourage fertility may, through its institutional architecture, work to suppress it.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2026 Verileri
⚙️Variables:dusuk dogurganlik · iş-aile uyumsuzluğu · ebeveyn izni

Abstract

This article offers an ex-ante evaluation of Türkiye's 2026 parental leave reform (Law No. 7578) against structural fertility constraints and comparative evidence. The reform extended paid maternity leave from 16 to 24 weeks and paternity leave from 5 to 10 days; of the 61 added days, 56 accrue to mothers, leaving mother-to-father ratio to 17:1. Drawing on McDonald's (2000, 2006, 2013) institutional incoherence framework and Voydanoff's (2004, 2005) demands-resources model, the article argues the reform may deepen rather than alleviate these constraints through three mechanisms: accumulating care demand without matching resources, an employability paradox by which family policy renders women less employable, and normative codification of incoherence through the leave ratio. It develops the concept of second-order incoherence, where a state answers incoherence with instruments from the same order that produced it, so institutional lag is no longer transitional. Comparative evidence suggests this condition is neither necessary nor permanent: Hungary shows fiscal scale cannot escape it, while Spain and Germany show a different policy repertoire can. Türkiye's pronatalist goals require women's continued employment, yet the reform leaves the incompatibility between employment and motherhood intact. A policy designed to encourage fertility may, through its institutional architecture, work to suppress it.

Özet

Bu makale, Mayıs 2026'da yürürlüğe giren 7578 sayılı Kanun ile gerçekleştirilen ebeveyn izni reformunu, ülkenin yapısal doğurganlık kısıtları ve karşılaştırmalı kanıtlar çerçevesinde uygulama öncesi bir değerlendirmeye tabi tutmaktadır. Reform, ücretli analık iznini 16 haftadan 24 haftaya, babalık iznini 5 günden 10 güne çıkarmış; eklenen 61 günün 56'sını anneye tahsis ederek anne-baba izin oranını 17:1 düzeyinde bırakmıştır. Makale, McDonald'ın (2000, 2006, 2013) kurumsal tutarsızlık çerçevesi ile Voydanoff'un (2004, 2005) talepler-kaynaklar modelini uygulayarak reformun ele aldığı kısıtları hafifletmek yerine derinleştirebileceğini üç mekanizma üzerinden ileri sürmektedir: kaynak sağlanmaksızın bakım talebinin birikmesi, aileye yönelik politikanın kadınları istihdam edilebilirlik bakımından dezavantajlı kılabilmesi ve izin oranı aracılığıyla tutarsızlığın normatif olarak yasalaştırılması. Makale ayrıca ikinci düzey tutarsızlık kavramını geliştirmektedir: devletin kurumsal tutarsızlığa, onu üreten normatif düzenden devşirdiği araçlarla karşılık verdiği ve kurumsal gecikmenin düzeltilmeyi bekleyen geçici bir aşama olmaktan çıktığı koşul. Karşılaştırmalı kanıtlar bu koşulun ne zorunlu ne de kalıcı olduğuna işaret etmektedir: Macaristan mali ölçeğin koşuldan çıkış sağlamadığını, İspanya ve Almanya ise farklı bir politika repertuarının bunu sağlayabileceğini göstermektedir. Türkiye'nin pronatalist hedefleri kadınların istihdamda kalmasını gerektirmekte, ancak reform istihdam ile annelik arasındaki bağdaşmazlığı olduğu gibi bırakmaktadır. Doğurganlığı teşvik etmek üzere tasarlanan bir politika, kurumsal mimarisi aracılığıyla onu baskılama yönünde işleyebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Berktas, E. (2026). SEVENTEEN TO ONE: CAN TÜRKIYE'S 2026 PARENTAL LEAVE REFORM DELIVER WHAT ITS PRONATALIST PROJECT REQUIRES?. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 48. https://doi.org/10.67031/nufusbilim.1956014

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (98)

  1. Abbasoğlu Özgören, A., Ergöçmen, A. B. and Tansel, A. (2018). Birth and employment transitions of women in Turkey: The emergence of role incompatibility. Demographic Research, 39, 1241-1290. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.46
  2. Adak, S. (2021). Grassroots familialism? NGO mobilization and neoconservatism in contemporary Turkey. European Journal of Turkish Studies, 33. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejts.7644
  3. Addabbo, T., Cardinali, V., Giovannini, D. and Mazzucchelli, S. (2023) ‘Italy country note’, in Blum, S., Dobrotić, I., Kaufmann, G., Koslowski, A. and Moss, P. (eds.) International Review of Leave Policies and Research 2023. Available at: https://www.leavenetwork.org/annual-review-reports/
  4. Akkan, B. (2018). The politics of care in Turkey: Sacred familialism in a changing political context. Social Politics, 25(1), 72-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxx011
  5. Akkan, B., Buğra, A. and Knijn, T. (2023). Gendered familialism in a Mediterranean context: Women's labor market participation and early childhood education and care in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey. 2023;69:111-127. 10.1017/NPT.2023.18
  6. Attar, M. A. (2024). The Post-2008 Pronatalist Rhetoric in Türkiye: There is No Robust Causal Effect on Actual Fertility! Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 46, 5-26. https://izlik.org/JA78HL98GB
  7. Billingsley, S. and Ferrarini, T. (2014). Family policy and fertility intentions in 21 European countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 428-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12097
  8. Brandth, B. and Kvande, E. (2019). Workplace support of fathers' parental leave use in Norway. Community, Work and Family, 22(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2018.1472067
  9. Buğra, A. (2014). Revisiting the Wollstonecraft dilemma in the context of conservative liberalism: The case of female employment in Turkey. Social Politics, 21(1), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxt001
  10. Buğra, A. (2020). Politics of social policy in a late industrializing country: The case of Turkey. Development and Change, 51(2), 442-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12566
  11. Bünning, M. (2015). What happens after the 'daddy months'? Fathers' involvement in paid work, childcare, and housework after taking parental leave in Germany. European Sociological Review, 31(6), 738-748. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv072
  12. Castellanos-Serrano, C. (2024). Parental leave system design impacts on its gendered use: Paternity leave introduction in Spain. Family Relations, 73(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12875
  13. Cindoglu, D. and Unal, D. (2017). Gender and sexuality in the authoritarian discursive strategies of 'New Turkey.' European Journal of Women's Studies, 24(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506816679003
  14. Cooke, L. P. (2009). Gender Equity and Fertility in Italy and Spain. Journal of Social Policy, 38(1), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279408002584
  15. Coşar, S. and Yeğenoğlu, M. (2011). New grounds for patriarchy in Turkey? Gender policy in the age of AKP. *South European Society and Politics*, 16(4), 555-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2011.571919
  16. Dildar, Y. (2015). Patriarchal norms, religion, and female labor supply: Evidence from Turkey. World Development, 76, 40-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.06.010.
  17. Dildar, Y. (2022). The effect of pronatalist rhetoric on women's fertility preferences in Turkey. Population and Development Review, 48(2), 579-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12466
  18. Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers. Official Journal of the European Union, L 188, 79-93.
  19. DİSK/GENEL-İŞ. (2025). Kadın Emeği Raporu 2025 [Women's Labor Report 2025]. İstanbul: DİSK/GENEL-İŞ Araştırma Dairesi.
  20. Duvander, A.-Z. and Johansson, M. (2012). What are the effects of reforms promoting fathers' parental leave use? Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 319-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928712440201
  21. Ekiz Gökmen, Ç. (2022). A new perspective on women's care burden and employment in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 66, 11-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2021.21
  22. Ergöçmen, B. (2012). Demographic profile of Turkey: Specifics and challenges. In H. Groth and A. Sousa-Poza (Eds.), Population Dynamics in Muslim Countries (pp. 117-130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27881-5_8
  23. Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). Incomplete Revolution: Adapting Welfare States to Women's New Roles. Polity Press. ISBN: 9780745643168
  24. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019). Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: 2019 Edition. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2797/966808
  25. Eurostat. (2026). Fertility Statistics, 2024. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Fertility_statistics
  26. Eydal, G. B. and Gíslason, I. V. (2014). Caring fathers and parental leave in prosperous times and in economic crisis. In G. B. Eydal and T. Rostgaard (Eds.), Fatherhood in the Nordic Welfare States (pp. 277-296). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447310495.015
  27. Eydal, G. B. and Rostgaard, T. (2018). Handbook of Family Policy. Edward Elgar. ISBN: 978 1 78471 933 3 Farré, L. and González, L. (2019). Does paternity leave reduce fertility? Journal of Public Economics, 172, 52-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.12.002
  28. Farré, L., González, L., Hupkau, C., & Ruiz-Valenzuela, J. (2025). Paternity leave in Spain. SERIEs, 16(3–4), 749–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13209-025-00320-1
  29. Fodor, E. (2022). The Gender Regime of Anti-Liberal Hungary. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85312-9 Gábos, A. and Makay, Zs. (2023). Hungary country note. In S. Blum, I. Dobrotić, G. Kaufman, A. Koslowski and P. Moss (Eds.), International Review of Leave Policies and Research 2023. https://www.leavenetwork.org/
  30. Geisler, E. and Kreyenfeld, M. (2011). Against all odds: Fathers' use of parental leave in Germany. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(1), 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710385732
  31. Glass, C. and Fodor, É. (2022). Risk, reward, and resistance: Navigating work and family under Hungary's new pronatalism. Social Politics, 29(4), 1425-1448. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxac033
  32. Gorjón, L. and Lizarraga, C. (2024). Family-Friendly Policies and Employment Equality: An Analysis of Maternity and Paternity Leave Equalization in Spain. ISEAK Working Paper 2024/3
  33. Greulich, A., Dasre, A. and Inan, C. (2016). Two or three children? Turkish fertility at a crossroads. Population and Development Review, 42(3), 537-559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2016.00148.x
  34. Güneş-Ayata, A. and Doğangün, G. (2017). Gender politics of the AKP: Restoration of a religio-conservative gender climate. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 19(6), 610-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2017.1328887
  35. HUIPS. (2019). 2018 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies.
  36. İlkkaracan, İ. (2012). Why so few women in the labor market in Turkey? Feminist Economics, 18(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2011.649358
  37. İlkkaracan, İ., Kim, K. and Kaya, T. (2015). The Impact of Public Investment in Social Care Services on Employment, Gender Equality and Poverty: The Turkish Case. ILO Report. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/publications/impact-public-investment-social-care-services-employment-gender-equality
  38. ILO. (2025a). Decent Work for Turkish and Syrian Women in Türkiye's Labour Market: A Focus Group Study. ILO Office for Türkiye. https://doi.org/10.54394/KPLG4662
  39. ILO. (2025b). World Social Protection Database https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/WSPDB.action?id=19
  40. Kleven, H., Landais, C. and Leite-Mariante, G. (2025). The child penalty atlas. Review of Economic Studies, 92(5), 3174-3207. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdae104
  41. Koç, İ., Eryurt, M. A., Adalı, T., & Seçkiner, P. (2010). Türkiye’nin Demografik Dönüşümü: Doğurganlık, Aile Planlaması, Anne-Çocuk Sağlığı ve Beş Yaş Altı Ölümlerdeki Değişimler: 1968–2008. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü. ISBN 978‐975‐491‐285‐2
  42. Kongar, E. and Memiş, E. (2017). Gendered patterns of time use over the life cycle in Turkey. In R. Connelly and E. Kongar (Eds.), Gender and Time Use in a Global Context. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56837-3_15
  43. Kotsadam, A. and Finseraas, H. (2011). The state intervenes in the battle of the sexes: Causal effects of paternity leave. Social Science Research, 40(6), 1611-1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.06.011
  44. Kurnaz, I., & Cilasun, S. M. (2026). İşgücü Piyasası ve Kadın İstihdamı Ekseninde Aile Dostu Politikalar. Ankara: T.C. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı ve Birleşmiş Milletler Nüfus Fonu (UNFPA). Available at https://turkiye.unfpa.org/tr/isgucu-piyasasi-ve-kadin-istihdami-ekseninde-aile-dostu-politikalar-rapor
  45. MacFarlane, K. A., O'Neil, M. L., Tekdemir, D., Foster, A. M., & Elçi, Ö. C. (2016). Politics, policies, pronatalism, and practice: Availability and accessibility of abortion and reproductive health services in Turkey. Reproductive Health Matters, 24(48), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2016.11.002
  46. Maptriks. (2025). 2025 İstanbul Kreş Haritası: Okul Yer Seçiminde Coğrafi Erişilebilirlik. https://www.maptriks.com/2025-istanbul-kres-haritasi-okul-yer-seciminde-cografi-erisilebilirlik/
  47. McDonald, P. (2000). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2000.00427.x
  48. McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2006.00134.x
  49. McDonald, P. (2013). Societal foundations for explaining fertility: Gender equity. Demographic Research, 28, 981-994. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2013.28.34
  50. Mills, M., Begall, K., Mencarini, L. and Tanturri, M. L. (2008). Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 18, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.18.1
  51. Ministry of Development, Republic of Türkiye (2015). Ailenin ve Dinamik Nüfus Yapısının Korunması Programı Eylem Planı (Onuncu Kalkınma Planı 2014-2018) Action Plan for the Protection of the Family and Dynamic Population Structure Programme (Tenth Development Plan 2014–2018). Ankara.
  52. Ministry of Development, Republic of Türkiye. (2013). Tenth Development Plan 2014-2018. Ankara. Ministry of Labor and Social Security, Republic of Türkiye. (2025). Asgari Ücret Tespit Komisyonu Kararı 2025. Official Gazette No. 33119, 26 December 2025.
  53. OECD. (2022). Reducing the Gender Employment Gap in Hungary. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/fe5bc945-en
  54. OECD (2024). Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://oecdch.art/7711e3afdd https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en
  55. OECD. (2025). OECD Economic Surveys: Türkiye 2025 (Vol. 2025). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/d01c660f-en
  56. OECD. (2026). Time use database. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/time-use-database.html OECD. (2026a). OECD Family Database: SF2.1 Total Fertility Rate https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/oecd-family-database.html
  57. OECD. (2026b) Family Database: PF2.1. Parental leave systems. https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf
  58. Oláh, L. Sz. (2003). Gendering fertility: Second births in Sweden and Hungary. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(2), 171-200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025089031871
  59. O'Neil, M.L., Mercimek Göğüş, E., Çelik, E. and Değirmenci, S. (2026). “The state gives me the right not to do it”: Reproductive governance, structural violence and barriers to abortion care in Türkiye. Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2025.103247.
  60. Öztürk, S. Ç. (2026). Measuring the gender wage gap in Türkiye using administrative panel data for the period 2013-2022. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/elr.2025.10050
  61. Patnaik, A. (2019). Reserving time for daddy: The consequences of fathers' quotas. Journal of Labor Economics, 37(4), 1009-1059. https://doi.org/10.1086/703115
  62. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595-628. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2950710
  63. Presidency of Strategy and Budget (2024). Twelfth Development Plan (2024-2028). Ankara: T.R. Presidency of Strategy and Budget.
  64. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye. (2024a). Ailenin Korunması ve Güçlendirilmesine İlişkin Eylem Planı: Presidential Circular No. 2024/6. Official Gazette No. 32530, 9 May 2024.
  65. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye. (2024b). Presidential Decree No. 172 on the Establishment of the Population Policies Council. Official Gazette No. 32729, 21 December 2024.
  66. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye. (2025). 2025 Aile Yılı Tanıtım Programı, 13 January 2025. https://aileyili.gov.tr/
  67. Raute, A. (2019). Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits. Journal of Public Economics, 169, 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.010
  68. Rege, M. and Solli, I. F. (2013). The impact of paternity leave on fathers' future earnings. Demography, 50(6), 2255-2277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-013-0233-1
  69. Republic of Türkiye. (1965). Civil Servants Law No. 657 [Devlet Memurları Kanunu]. Official Gazette No. 12056, 23 July 1965.
  70. Republic of Türkiye. (1983). Social Services Law No. 2828. Official Gazette No. 18059, 27 May 1983.
  71. Republic of Türkiye. (2003). Labor Law No. 4857. Official Gazette No. 25134, 10.06.2003.
  72. Republic of Türkiye. (2006). Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510 [Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu]. Official Gazette No. 26200, 16 June 2006.
  73. Republic of Türkiye. (2013). Regulation on Working Conditions for Pregnant or Nursing Women and on Nursing Rooms and Childcare Nurseries [Gebe veya Emziren Kadınların Çalıştırılma Şartlarıyla Emzirme Odaları ve Çocuk Bakım Yurtlarına Dair Yönetmelik]. Official Gazette No. 28737, 16 August 2013.
  74. Republic of Türkiye. (2025). Regulation on Birth Assistance [Doğum Yardımı Yönetmeliği]. Official Gazette No. 32866, 10 April 2025.
  75. Republic of Türkiye. (2026). Social Services Law and Amendments to Various Laws, Law No. 7578 [Sosyal Hizmetler Kanunu ve Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun]. Official Gazette No. 33240, 1 May 2026. Royal Decree-Law 6/2019, of 1 March (Real Decreto-ley 6/2019). Boletín Oficial del Estado, No. 57, 7 March 2019.
  76. Salem, M. B., Bensidoun, I. and Pelek, S. (2011). Informal employment in Turkey: An overview. Région et Développement, 34, 57-84. ⟨halshs-00754514⟩
  77. Saraceno, C. (1994). The ambivalent familism of the Italian welfare state. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 1(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/1.1.60
  78. Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies, 12(5), 675–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.483006
  79. Sobotka, T., Matysiak, A., & Brzozowska, Z. (2019). Policy Responses to Low Fertility: How Effective Are They? UNFPA Working Paper No. 1. New York: UNFPA. https://www.unfpa.org/publications/policy-responses-low-fertility-how-effective-are-they
  80. State Planning Organization [DPT]. (2006). Ninth Development Plan 2007-2013. Ankara. Tamm, M. (2019). Fathers' parental leave-taking, childcare involvement and labor market participation. Labour Economics, 59, 184-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.04.007
  81. Telli, P., Cesuroğlu, T. and Aksu Tanık, F. (2019). How Do Pronatalist Policies Impact Women's Access to Safe Abortion Services in Turkey? International Journal of Health Services, 49(4), 799-816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731419855877
  82. Thévenon, O. (2011). Family Policies in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57-87. 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x
  83. Thévenon, O. and Solaz, A. (2013). Labour Market Effects of Parental Leave Policies in OECD Countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 141. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k8xb6hw1wjf-en
  84. Turkish Council of Ministers. (2015). Çeyiz Hesabı ve Devlet Katkısına Dair Yönetmelik. Karar Sayısı: 2015/8302, 14.12.2015
  85. TURKSTAT. (2015). Zaman Kullanım Araştırması, Mikro Veri Seti 2014-2015. Turkish Statistical Institute.
  86. TURKSTAT. (2022). Türkiye Family Structure Survey, 2021 (No. 45813). Turkish Statistical Institute. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/45813
  87. TURKSTAT. (2025a). Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Statistics, 2024 (No. 54054). Turkish Statistical Institute. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/en/press/54054
  88. TURKSTAT. (2026a). Birth Statistics, 2025 (No. 58018). Turkish Statistical Institute. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/en/press/58018
  89. TURKSTAT. (2026b). Labor Force Statistics, 2025 (No. 57996). Turkish Statistical Institute. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/en/press/57996
  90. United Nations. (1995). Report of the International Conference on Population and Development. United Nations General Assembly A/RES/49/128. Available at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/172198?v=pdf
  91. UNDP. (2026). Caring for the Future: A Multi-country Analysis of Care Systems in Europe and Central Asia. United Nations Development Programme. Available at https://www.undp.org/moldova/publications/caring-future-multi-country-analysis-care-systems-europe-and-central-asia
  92. UN Women and TURKSTAT. (2026). Women in Türkiye: A Statistical Overview 2025. Ankara. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/media/announcements/women_in_Turkiye2025.pdf
  93. Voydanoff, P. (2004). The Effects of Work Demands and Resources on Work‐to‐Family Conflict and Facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 398–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00028.x
  94. Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a Conceptualization of Perceived Work‐Family Fit and Balance: A Demands and Resources Approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 822–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00178.x
  95. World Bank (2026a) World Development Indicators: Labor Force Participation Rate, Female (% of Female Population Ages 15+). Washington, DC: World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?name_desc=false
  96. World Bank. (2026b). World Development Indicators: Fertility Rate, Total (Births per Woman). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
  97. Yavuz, S. (2025). Türkiye’de Doğurganlık Dönüşümü (2001-2023): Düşük Doğurganlık Karşısında Pronatalist Adımlar. ASA Dergisi, 3(2), 157-198. https://doi.org/10.71313/asa.1684315
  98. Turkish Council of Ministers. (2015). Çeyiz Hesabı ve Devlet Katkısına Dair Yönetmelik. Karar Sayısı: 2015/8302, 14.12.2015