KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 69

Çiftlerin Eğitimsel Eşleşmeleri ve Doğurganlık Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Örneğinden Bulgular

The Relationship Between Couples’ Educational Pairings and Fertility: Evidence from Türkiye

Selçuk Gemicioğlu(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İKTİSAT BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-7952-5456
Gamze Kargın Akkoç(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8436-0462
Sayfa
67–90
Yayın Tarihi
2026-07-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular, çiftlerin eğitimsel eşleşmelerinin doğurganlık sonuçlarıyla yakından ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmada 2018 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması (TNSA) verileri ve GPRM modeli kullanılarak Türkiye’de çiftlerin eğitimsel eşleşmeleri ile doğurganlık sonuçları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bulgular, çiftlerin eğitimsel eşleşmelerinin doğurganlık sonuçlarıyla yakından ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Buna ilaveten, düşük-düşük eğitimsel eşleşmesine sahip homogamik çiftlere kıyasla yüksek-orta eğitimsel eşleşmesine sahip hipergamik ve hipogamik çiftlerin daha düşük doğurganlık sonuçlarına sahip olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Eğitim Eşleşmesi · Aile Tipi · Doğurganlık

Özet

Bu çalışmada 2018 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması (TNSA) verileri ve GPRM modeli kullanılarak Türkiye’de çiftlerin eğitimsel eşleşmeleri ile doğurganlık sonuçları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bulgular, çiftlerin eğitimsel eşleşmelerinin doğurganlık sonuçlarıyla yakından ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Eğitimsel homogami, hipergami ve hipogami alt kategorilerinde doğurganlık sonuçları önemli ölçüde değişkenlik göstermektedir. Homogamik çiftler içinde orta-orta ve yüksek-yüksek eğitimsel eşleşmeye sahip çiftlerin, düşük-düşük eğitimsel eşleşmeye sahip çiftlerden daha az çocuk sahibi olmaya meyilli olduğu bulunmuştur. Buna ilaveten, düşük-düşük eğitimsel eşleşmesine sahip homogamik çiftlere kıyasla yüksek-orta eğitimsel eşleşmesine sahip hipergamik ve hipogamik çiftlerin daha düşük doğurganlık sonuçlarına sahip olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Abstract

This study aims to examine the relationship between couples’ educational pairings and fertility outcomes by using 2018 Türkiye Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) data and the GPRM model. Our findings show that couples’ educational pairings are closely associated with fertility outcomes. The fertility outcomes differ significantly across the subcategories of educational homogamy, hypergamy, and hypogamy. For homogamous couples, we find that those with medium-medium and high-high educational pairings are less likely to have children than those with low-low educational pairings. Additionally, it is revealed that hypergamous and hypogamous couples with high-medium educational pairings have lower fertility outcomes compared to homogamous couples with low-low educational pairings.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Gemicioğlu, S., Akkoç, G. K. (2026). Çiftlerin Eğitimsel Eşleşmeleri ve Doğurganlık Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Örneğinden Bulgular. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 69, 67–90. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2026.03.03

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (76)

  1. Abbasoğlu-Özgören, A. et al. (2018), “Birth and employment transitions of women in Turkey: The emergence of role incompatibility”, Demographic Research, 39, 1241-1290.
  2. Acar, T. (2022), “Türkiye’de Aile Süreçleri, Kadınların ve Çiftlerin Eğitim Durumu: 2018 TNSA’nın Analizi”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(4), 1544-1556.
  3. Adhikari, S. et al. (2024), “Forecasting Africa’s fertility decline by female education groups”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(46), e2320247121.
  4. Akça, H. & M. Ela (2012), “Türkiye’de eğitim, doğurganlık ve işsizlik ilişkisinin analizi”, Maliye Dergisi, 163, 223-242.
  5. Andersen, S.H. & B. Özcan (2021), “The effects of unemployment on fertility”, Advances in Life Course Research, 49, 100401.
  6. Bagavos, C. (2017), “Do different educational pairings lead to different fertility outcomes? A cohort perspective for the Greek case”, Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 15, 215-237.
  7. Beaujouan, É. & L. Toulemon (2021), “European countries with delayed childbearing are not those with lower fertility”, Genus, 77(1), 2.
  8. Becker, G.S. (1960), “An economic analysis of fertility”, in: Demographic and economic change in developed countries (209-240), Columbia University Press.
  9. Becker, G.S. (1993), Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Becker, G.S. & H.G. Lewis (1973), “On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children”, Journal of Political Economy, 81(2, Part 2), S279-S288.
  11. Bernhardt, E.M. (1993), “Fertility and employment”, European Sociological Review, 9(1), 25-42.
  12. Berrington, A. & S. Pattaro (2014), “Educational differences in fertility desires, intentions and behaviour: A life course perspective”, Advances in Life Course Research, 21, 10-27.
  13. Bloom, D. et al. (2003), The demographic dividend: A new perspective on the economic consequences of population change, Rand Corporation.
  14. Blossfeld, H.P. (2009), “Educational assortative marriage in comparative perspective”, Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 513-530.
  15. Budig, M.J. & M.J. Hodges (2010), “Differences in disadvantage: Variation in the motherhood penalty across white women’s earnings distribution”, American Sociological Review, 75(5), 705-728.
  16. Bueno, X. & J. García-Román (2021), “Rethinking Couples’ Fertility in Spain: Do Partners’ Relative Education, Employment, and Job Stability Matter?”, European Sociological Review, 37(4), 571-587.
  17. Busetta, A. et al. (2019), “Persistent joblessness and fertility intentions”, Demographic Research, 40, 185-218.
  18. Chen, S. (2022), “The positive effect of women’s education on fertility in low-fertility China”, European Journal of Population, 38(1), 125-161.
  19. Chua, S.J. et al. (2020), “Age-related natural fertility outcomes in women over 35 years: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis”, Human Reproduction, 35(8), 1808-1820.
  20. Consul, P.C. (1989), Generalized Poisson Distributions: Properties and Applications, New York: Dekker.
  21. Corijn, M. et al. (1996), “It takes two to tango, doesn't it? The influence of couple characteristics on the timing of the birth of the first child”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(1), 117-126.
  22. Craig, L. & K. Mullan (2011), “How mothers and fathers share childcare: A cross-national time-use comparison”, American Sociological Review, 76(6), 834-861.
  23. Da Silva, J.H.C.M. et al. (2022), “Educational pairings and fertility decline in Brazil”, Demographic Research, 46, 147-178.
  24. Dağlıoğlu, S. & U.E. Bektaş (2022), “102 sayılı ILO Sözleşmesi’ne Göre Aile Yardımı Olarak Sınıflandırılabilecek Türkiye’deki Mevcut Yardımlar”, Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 12(2), 327-346.
  25. Delbaere, I. et al. (2020), “Knowledge about the impact of age on fertility: a brief review”, Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 125(2), 167-174.
  26. Doepke, M. et al. (2023), “The economics of fertility: A new era”, in: Handbook of the Economics of the Family (151-254), North-Holland.
  27. Dribe, M. & P. Nystedt (2017), “Age homogamy, gender, and earnings: Sweden 1990-2009”, Social Forces, 96(1), 239-264.
  28. Dribe, M. & M. Stanfors (2010), “Family life in power couples: Continued childbearing and union stability among the educational elite in Sweden, 1991-2005”, Demographic Research, 23, 847-878.
  29. Eryurt, M.A. & B. Akadlı-Ergöçmen (2016), “Ebeveyn Eğitiminin Doğurganlık Üzerindeki Etkisi”, Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 30(1), 13-28.
  30. European IVF-monitoring programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) (2005), “Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2001. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE”, Human Reproduction, 20(5), 1158-1176.
  31. Famoye, F. (1993), “Restricted generalized Poisson regression model”, Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 22(5), 1335-1354.
  32. Fiori, F. et al. (2017), “Choosing to remain childless? A comparative study of fertility intentions among women and men in Italy and Britain”, European Journal of Population, 33, 319-350.
  33. Gemicioğlu, S. et al. (2019), “Türkiye’de doğurganlık analizi: Gelecekteki doğurganlık tercihlerinin önemi”, Sosyoekonomi, 27(41), 223-234.
  34. Goldscheider, F. et al. (2015), “The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior”, Population and development review, 41(2), 207-239.
  35. Goldstein, J.R. et al. (2013), “Fertility reactions to the ‘Great Recession’ in Europe: Recent evidence from order-specific data”, Demographic research, 29, 85-104.
  36. Gökburun, İ. (2020), “Türkiye'nin demografik dönüşüm sürecinde nüfus politikalarının rolü”, Gelecek Vizyonlar Dergisi, 4, 1-15.
  37. Harris, T. et al. (2012), “Modeling underdispersed count data with generalized Poisson regression”, The Stata Journal, 12(4), 736-747.
  38. Hashemzadeh, M. et al. (2021), “Childbearing intention and its associated factors: A systematic review”, Nursing Open, 8(5), 2354-2368.
  39. Hilbe, J.M. (2014), Modeling Count Data, Cambridge University Press.
  40. Hofman, J. et al. (2020), After Parental Leave: Incentives for Parents with Young Children to Return to the Labour Market, LU: Publications Office.
  41. Huber, S. & M. Fieder (2011), “Educational homogamy lowers the odds of reproductive failure”, PLoS One, 6(7), e22330.
  42. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (2018), Turkey demographic and health survey, Ankara (Turkey), Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Presidency of Turkey Directorate of Strategy and Budget and TÜBİTAK,, 15.03.2024.
  43. Jalovaara, M. et al. (2022), “Parity disparity: Educational differences in Nordic fertility across parities and number of reproductive partners”, Population Studies, 76(1), 119-136.
  44. Jimbo, M. et al. (2022), “Fertility in the aging male: a systematic review”, Fertility and Sterility, 118(6), 1022-1034.
  45. Josipović, D. (2007), “Education and Fertility: Do Educated Parents Have Fewer Children?”, Anthropological Notebooks, 13(2), 35-50.
  46. Karakaya, E. et al. (2017), “Suriyeli mülteci kadınların doğurganlık özellikleri ve etkileyen faktörler: Kalitatif bir çalışma”, Journal of International Social Research, 10, 417-428.
  47. Kreyenfeld, M. & G. Andersson (2014), “Socioeconomic differences in the unemployment and fertility nexus: Evidence from Denmark and Germany”, Advances in Life Course Research, 21, 59-73.
  48. Martin, S.P. (2000), “Diverging fertility among US women who delay childbearing past age 30”, Demography, 37(4), 523-533.
  49. Matysiak, A. & D. Węziak-Białowolska (2016), “Country-specific conditions for work and family reconciliation: An attempt at quantification”, European Journal of Population, 32, 475-510.
  50. Miettinen, A. et al. (2015), “Women’s housework decreases fertility: Evidence from a longitudinal study among Finnish couples”, Acta Sociologica, 58(2), 139-154.
  51. Mills, M. & H.P. Blossfeld (2012), “The second demographic transition meets globalization: A comprehensive theory to understand changes in family formation in an era of rising uncertainty”, in: Negotiating the life course: Stability and change in life pathways (9-33), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  52. Modena, F. & F. Sabatini (2012), “I would if I could: Precarious employment and childbearing intentions in Italy”, Review of Economics of the Household, 10, 77-97.
  53. Nitsche, N. et al. (2021), “Educational Pairings and Fertility Across Europe: How Do the Low-Educated Fare?”, Comparative Population Studies - Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, 46, 533-554.
  54. Osiewalska, B. (2015), “Couples’ socioeconomic resources and completed fertility in Poland”, Studia Demograficzne, 1(167), 31-60.
  55. Piotrowski, M. & Y. Tong (2016), “Education and fertility decline in China during transitional times: A cohort approach”, Social Science Research, 55, 94-110.
  56. Poppel, F.V. et al. (2001), “Love, necessity and opportunity: Changing patterns of marital age homogamy in the Netherlands, 1850-1993”, Population Studies, 55(1), 1-13.
  57. Rindfuss, R.R. et al. (2003), “The Changing Institutional Context of Low Fertility”, Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 411-438.
  58. Rindfuss, R.R. et al. (2016), “The Emergence of Two Distinct Fertility Regimes in Economically Advanced Countries”, Popul Res Policy Rev, 35, 287-304.
  59. Schwartz, C.R. & R.D. Mare (2005), “Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003”, Demography, 42, 621-646.
  60. Selim, S. & Ş. Üçdoğruk (2005), “Türkiye’de Doğurganlık: Kalite-Miktar Yaklaşımı”, Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 27(1), 49-66.
  61. Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu (2022), “Analık ve Ebeveyn Yardımları Türkiye ve Seçili AB Ülke Örnekleri, Kurumsal Çocuk Bakım Hizmetleri Yoluyla Kayıtlı Kadın İstihdamının Desteklenmesi Projesi”, II. Araştırma Raporu, Ağustos, Ankara.
  62. Sobotka, T. (2015), “Low fertility in Austria and the Czech Republic: Gradual policy adjustments (No. 2/2015)”, Vienna Institute of Demography Working Papers.
  63. Thomas, A. et al. (2017), “A microsimulation model of fertility, childbearing, and child well-being”, International Journal of Microsimulation, 10(2), 3-58.
  64. Thomson, E. (1990), “Two Into One: Structural Models of Couple Behavior”, in: T.W. Draper & A.C. Marcos (eds.). Family Variables: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Uses (129-142), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  65. Tian, W. et al. (2023), “Study on Marriage Pairings and Women’s Fertility Intentions in China”, Journal of Family Issues, 45(8), 1949-1972.
  66. Turkish Statistical Institute (2025, February 24), Marriage and Divorce Statistics, 2025,, 25.07.2025.
  67. Turkish Statistical Institute (2025, June 23), Ulusal Eğitim İstatistikleri, 2025,, 20.05.2024.
  68. Vignoli, D. et al. (2020), “A reflection on economic uncertainty and fertility in Europe: The narrative framework”, Genus, 76, 28.
  69. Winkelmann, R. & K.F. Zimmermann (1994), “Count data models for demographic data”, Mathematical Population Studies, 4(3), 205-221.
  70. Winkler-Dworak, M. & L. Toulemon (2007), “Gender Differences in the Transition to Adulthood in France: Is There Convergence Over the Recent Period?”, European Journal of Population, 23, 273-314.
  71. Wood, J. et al. (2014), “The educational gradient of childlessness and cohort parity progression in 14 low fertility countries”, Demographic Research, 31, 1365-1416.
  72. Wood, J. & K. Neels (2017), “First a job, then a child? Subgroup variation in women’s employment-fertility link”, Advances in Life Course Research, 33, 38-52.
  73. Young, M. & P. Wilmott (2013), Family and kinship in East London, Routledge.
  74. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (2018), Turkey demographic and health survey, Ankara (Turkey), Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, T.R. Presidency of Turkey Directorate of Strategy and Budget and TÜBİTAK,, 15.03.2024.
  75. Turkish Statistical Institute (2025, February 24), Marriage and Divorce Statistics, 2025,, 25.07.2025.
  76. Turkish Statistical Institute (2025, June 23), Ulusal Eğitim İstatistikleri, 2025,, 20.05.2024.