CHANGING HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY COMPOSITIONS IN TURKEY: A
DEMOGRAPHIC EVALUATION FOR 1968 – 1998 PERIOD*
Sutay YAVUZ
SUMMARY
This study attempts to examine changing in family and household types in the last three decades in Turkey. The latest data related to family types was derived from analysis of TDHS - 1998. Two basic approaches are employed in this study. In the first one, compositional approach, the relationship structure among household members is considered. The second one is a modified version of Laslett’s family typology that mainly regards number and type of marital units in households. The trend in variation of different family types in the last three decades shows that nuclear family has always been the dominant family type. However, transition from the complex and large families to simple and small size families is seen as a proceeding process despite the prevailing regional differences. Proportion of the families composed of “husband & wife” and “one person” households have increased substantially, while all “extended” family types have decreased. “Solitaries” are mostly composed by the elder and women population groups in today. Nevertheless, they may become more widespread in the future by the effect of increasing propensity to live separately of youths and old people as well. The study also underlines the significant regional differences, in terms of family and household type distribution that related to the socioeconomic and demographic conditions.
Keywords: Family and Household Types, Nuclear Family, Extended Family, Population Surveys
ÖZET
Bu çalışma son otuz yıl içinde Türkiye’de aile ve hanehalkı tiplerinde meydana gelen değişimi incelemeye çalışmaktadır. Aile tiplerine ilişkin en son veri 1998 TNSA incelemesinden elde edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada iki temel yaklaşım kullanılmıştır. İlkinde, kompozisyon yaklaşımında, hanehalkı üyeleri arasındaki akrabalık yapısı gözönünde tutulmaktadır. İkincisinde, aile içindeki evlilik birliklerinin sayısı ve yapısını dikkate alan Laslett’in aile tipolojisinin değiştirilmiş bir şekli kullanılmıştır. Son otuz yıldaki eğilim temel olarak çekirdek aile tipinin daima baskın olan aile tipi olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna karşın, geleneksel ‘geniş (büyük) aile’ yapısından ‘çekirdek (küçük) aile’ yapısına doğru dönüşüm süreci, bölgesel farklılıklar içermekle birlikte, devam etmiştir. Tek kişilik hanehalklarının ve ‘Koca ve eş’den oluşan ailelerin oranı çarpıcı bir şekilde artarken, tüm ‘geniş aile’ tipleri oransal olarak azalmıştır. Yalnız yaşayanlar günümüzde çoğunlukla yaşlı ve kadın nüfus kesmi tarafından oluşturulmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, gelecekte genç ve yaşlıların artan ‘ayrı yaşama eğilimi’ etkisiyle yaygınlaşacakları beklenebilir. Çalışma, aynı zamanda aile ve
hanehalkı tiplerinin dağılışlarında, sosyoekonomik ve demografik koşullara bağlı önemli bölgesel farklılıkların altını çizmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Aile ve Hanehalkı Tipleri, Çekirdek Aile, Geniş Aile, Nüfus Araştırmaları
I.INTRODUCTION
Turkey has experienced various intensive social and economic changes in the 20th century. The size and the structure of the population have been exposed to a range of transitions along with alterations in the society. Providing peaceful and secure environment, the foundation of the Republic brought both an increase in the population and a renewal of demographic structure. The transformation trend of the Turkish population can be observed simply in the changes of some basic demographic measures, estimated even in the last few decades.
By its fluctuating growing rate, population increased 5 times in the last 70 years[1] (DİE, 2003). Improvements in health services and the living standards brought a steady decline in both child and adult mortality. Crude death rate[2], a simple measure of mortality level in overall society, declined from around 30 per thousand in the 1940s to 7 per thousand in the mid – 1990s (Population Reference Bureau, 1999). The second half of the 20th century witnessed dramatic declines in fertility rates. In the early 1970s, the total fertility rate[3] was around 5 children per woman, whereas estimates in the 1990s, according to TDHS surveys, presented less than 3 children per woman (HUIPS, 1994, 1999). As a result, the age structure of the population is rapidly changing. Although Turkey has a young population structure today, on account of the high fertility and growth rates of the past[4], the proportion of the elderly (population aged 65 and over) is going to constitute much higher share in the coming decades (U.N., 1999)[5]. Since the early 1950s, the country has had a long history of internal and external migration trends. As a result of the extensive urbanization process, which is still profoundly changing the spatial distribution in the country, the population is predominantly concentrated in urban settlements (province and district centers) nowadays[6] (DİE, 2003). Until the 1960s, the international migration had mainly changed ethnic composition of the Turkish population as it also did in the case of compulsory population exchange between Greece and Turkey between 1923 and 1930. (Arı, 2000). On the contrary, since the early 1960s, migration to West European countries and primarily to the oil – producing countries of the Middle East, and the reversal of these movements afterwards in the last two decades have affected the reshaping of the Turkish population in a certain degree.
Consequently, it is accepted by several researchers that Turkey entered into the last phase of demographic transition[7] during the1980s, and the last phase of the process is still continuing nowadays (SIS 1996, Koray, 1997, Ünalan, 1997, 2002). It is expected that Turkey’s demographic transition will be completed by the mid 21st century and the population of the country will remain more or less constant afterwards, between about 95 and 98 million (SIS, 1996). The regional disequilibria of demographic dynamics in the country, particularly between West and East regions, will gain more importance than today since diverse speeds in the change of demographic dynamics will determine the length of the last phase in the demographic transition of Turkey.
The continuing changes in the social life are still increasingly restructing the public in our day and it seems that these changes are higly likely to carry in the future. Therfore, population
dynamics, displaying high regional difference (not in direction but mainly in level), are not constant but they are in a permanent movement. As it well know, one of the basic fields of those dynamics affected so far is the family and hausehold structure in the society. Indeed, it is hard to comprehend adequately the social change without referring to its effect on the family institution and household structure.
Examining the relationship between family and social change may not be an easy attempt, given the complex nature of the affiliation. Nevertheless, for a long time, social science disciplines have been trying to perceive the nature of the change in social, economic and political institutions as following up their trails in the family and household structures. As families and households change, in response to social and behavioral movements, new forms of them may compel further diversifications in the society (Bumpass, 1990). This reciprocal nature of causation between society and family has also been increasingly forcing demographers to ask questions such as ‘What has happened to families?’, therfore introduces a sub – field in the demographic studies called ‘Family and Household Demography’.
The foremost researchers in this sub-field, like Evert van Imhoff, Anton Kuijsten and Leo van Wissen (1995), have asserted three main motivations that direct demographic insight into family and household studies. Firstly, most of the demographic processes are highly dependent on the household condition of the individuals involved. Demographic events take place within the family or they are somehow related to the family situation. For instance, fertility of women living alone is quite low compared to women living in a conjugal or consensual union[8]. Especially, in countries like Turkey, fertility event is almost directly related to marriage union. Mortality is also found related to individual’s marital status as well; it is lower for individuals living with a partner than people living as single (Kuijsten, 1987). Secondly, in most of the social, economic and cultural processes rather than the individual, families are considered as a relevant decision making unit. In his documentary essay, ‘Human Migration’, Michael Parfit (1998) shows how migration is strongly and deeply related to family issues in several ways throughout the world. Numerous other studies can be given as examples in this respect. This assessment may generalize a wide range of human behavior; budget expenditures, housing demands, transportation, labor force participation, and demand for educational and medical services are all related to family and household relationships (Delican, 1998). Lastly, developments in the number and composition of households in many countries over the past decades have been impressive. Various new forms of residence have emerged at the expense of traditional living arrangements while household size has become smaller in both developing[9] and developed countries. There have been several factors causing a change in household and family trends in European countries including Turkey in some aspects (Kuijsten, 1995). The major ones may be summarized as follows: Increasing trend of single living (solitaries), single parent families (especially female – headed single parent families), diverse parental home leaving patterns, late marriages and increasing divorce, reduced average household size etc.
The raising importance of a ‘family and household viewpoint’ is not only seen in the demography discipline. Sociology, Economy and Political Science have always been occupied with family issues and studies but, today we can also count Human Geography, Urban and Regional Planning, Gender Studies etc in this sense. All of these disciplines regard the change in the number and structure of family and households as crucial elements to understand the prevailing social trends. What family and household demography try to achieve basically is to link demographic components to the core of the population studies[10]. Family and household units mainly constitute the core in this respect, where demographic behavior appears.
The main objective of this study is submitting a new contribution to studies in Family and Household Demography in Turkey by analyzing changes in the distribution of family types and living arrangements during the last three decades. In order to understand contemporary family patterns more neatly, regional and urban/rural differences are also investigated. The study
primarily relies upon the analysis of the ‘Turkish Demographic and Health Survey 1998 (TDHS – 1998)’ data and the comparison of the results with earlier studies. Since TDHS – 98 was not originally designed to scrutinize family patterns and structure in Turkey; the study includes shortcomings in various aspects. Essentially, the change in the distribution of family types cannot be considered in relation to the change in socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the individuals interviewed. That is to say that it is not possible to describe transition probabilities of family types quantitatively in relation to socioeconomic changes occurring in the society. Thus, the factors affecting the alterations in the family and household structure are hypothetically examined without referring their qualitative impacts. The theoretical arguments, proposed to examine those mechanisms of altering family types, cannot be tested quantitatively with the present data set. Rather, existing family types in 1998 constructed merely from categorization of households and descriptive comparisons to similar preceding studies are also given.
In the second section of this study, definitions of family and households and discussions about these concepts are summarized. Theoretical arguments on family issues include wide range of debate literature as in the other sociological issues. The chief distinctions in this sense are highlighted and then ‘family and household types’, more appropriate units to qualitative analysis procedures, are also described in the study. In the third part of the study, findings from the analysis of TDHS – 98 and comparisons to previous studies in the field are given with emphasizing peculiar changes in the distribution of family types by means of their subcategories. In other words, the changes, occurred in the last decades, are tried to be revealed by decomposing general family types. Lastly, part four includes discussion on the significant findings of the study and some commentary statements about survey type researches on family issues.
II. DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS IN THE STUDY AND DATA
II.1. Definitions of Family and Household Concepts
Whether in the scope of the family and household demography or in the concern of any other social science discipline, it is interesting to realize that several researchers have had different opinions for both family and household concepts as a subject matter. The differentiation among studies arises from the definition of family and household units according to different approaches in the area of family studies. Hantrais and Letablier (1996) examined the definitions of family in the member states of the European Union, which are highly integrated with each other from many dimensions, and they discovered that social construction of the family concept varies from one society to another. It is obvious that historical, political, economic and cultural traditions of different nations bring about distinct conceptualization of families that should be considered in their own elaborate social contexts. The popular understanding of family and household concepts, for different social science perspectives and official definitions, might limit proper analyses of the data (Rao, 1992).
Hantrais and Letablier (1996) explored family concept in four main disciplinary usages in the E.U. These are namely ‘statistical definitions’, ‘institutional definitions’, ‘public policy definitions’ and lastly ‘sociological definitions’. The first three disciplinary usages of family concept can be expressed as ‘official definitions of family’, whereas the last one may be broadened as ‘social science definition’ with the contribution from other social science disciplines.
The family is a unit that has a formal, legal definition in most societies: laws specify who marries with whom and lay down rights of inheritance of property and titles (Marsh and Aber, 1992). In the official definitions, family is usually accepted as a core social institution that provides social protection to citizens whereas household is taken for the basic unit of measurement, primarily in the statistical conceptualization, family group is more often accepted as the reference point for legislation. In the most contemporary modern states, normative institutional framework of family is embodied in their national constitutions[11]. Either implicitly or explicitly
family affairs are considered a subject to a “Family Policy” that may be regarded as a part of population and social policy issue (Delican, 1998; Dumon, 1990). In the statistical definition of family, the subject matter is considered more technically than the other type of official definitions. For statistical purposes, definition of family unit is usually associated with households and conjugal family concept (Burch, 1982; Hantrais and Letablier, 1998). Indeed, these two terms, family and household are usually used interchangeably (Delican, 1998) or sometimes they are combined into the term family households (Kuznets, 1978). In this sense, family is regarded as a type of household among different household compositions.
Official definitions of family are highly affected by the singular social, political and ideological attributes of the countries. The essential similarity among the official definitions, on the other hand, would be the basic emphasis on a “family nuclei”, defined as married (or cohabiting) couples from opposite sexes and, if any, their biological (or adopted) children. Further generalizations of the concept are varied and these variations should be taken into account in any comparison attempt between family statistics.
Apart from statisticians and public policy makers, sociologists have been interested in family structure in a wider social context. Because, as well as involving biological or legal ties, family relationships are fundamentally social in their nature, which means that they prescribe norms of behaviors to their members (Marsh and Aber, 1992). Though founding fathers of sociology, like Le Play, Durkheim, Engels, Marx and Weber, addressed issues related to family as a social phenomenon, family gained sociological importance as a unit of research, increasingly after 1950s and 1960s. This raising relevance to family affairs is related to the fact that the nuclear family has been subject to strong social changes since 1960s (Cockerham, 1995) in the West world. Much of the alterations in family patterns have been gained at the expense of traditional ones, with the changing role of women in the society, individualization, declining fertility rates etc.
Definitions of the family have been frequently revised by social scientists from various disciplines. Nevertheless, for the presence of different approaches in family studies, it is hard to reach an overall definition that can contain the entire variety of family types. The particular social, economic, cultural, historical, demographic and political contexts of different societies create distinct family and household patterns. In addition to that, those structures are open to divergence and transformation in time. Thus, reductionism in this field, that is, stating some determined family structures assuming that these are the most comprehensive ones over societies and time, has always been subject to criticism. Studies of two well – known figures in sociology, Murdock and Parsons, from the 1940s and the 1950s, can be given as an example in this sense (Harris, 1972). Though the contribution of the structural – functionalist approach to family studies cannot be ignored, Murdock and Parson’s arguments have been criticized as being very ‘assertive’ as it is well known discussion in sociology[12].
According to Birsen Gökçe, (1991) though it is very hard to reach a fully comprehensive definition, family can be conceptualized simultaneously in terms of different aspects. Family can be viewed as
●A group in terms of relationships among its members,
●A community and organization in terms of being a form of social life,
●An institution in terms of the systematized principles that are applied for the implementation of the association
●Also a part of social structure in terms of being a basic element in social life
Briefly, “family is an economic and social unity that is constituted by mother – father, child(ren) and blood relatives of both sides (for the requirement of family type)”. Validity of this
definition increases when adult members of the family are taken into consideration. For this sociological point of view, unity of family begins with marriage and marriage means unity of spouses to realize their objectives. Family continues its existence as being a small society model in order to prepare offspring to live themselves in the future. Thus, family is a unit that has both biological and social functions or roles, which are open to continuous change as social, political, economic and juridical structure of society transform into various directions.
Definitions of household units can be obtained from national Censuses and surveys. Rather than families, private households are taken into account as unit of measurement in these studies. Generally, definition of households, in different studies, contains two concepts simultaneously as the U.N (1989) proposed; namely, ‘housekeeping’ and ‘dwelling unit’ criterions. Usage of these two terms in the household definition provides examination of both ‘housing’ and ‘socioeconomic aspects’ of the households (Keilman, 1996). A dwelling unit, with its members, is accepted as a ‘household’ when there is a certain degree of resource share to provide its members food and other essentials for living. A household may reside in the whole of dwelling or in a part of it. On the other hand, households may also reside in more than one dwelling, in camps; guesthouses, hotels or various institutions or they can be homeless. People who are in military service and reside in military institutions or reside in penitentiaries, religious institutions, and hospitals or in dormitories etc. are not considered as household population. Instead, they are regarded as ‘institutional population’.
Household is typically regarded as a statistical unit in Censuses and surveys, whilst family is defined as a sub – unit of household in which members are related by blood, marriage or adoption and meets basic requirements of life and food jointly (UN, 1989). For the requirement of study, there have been different definitions assumed for the ‘household’ concept from the combination of five basic criterions. Criterions used in the different definitions of household concept can be summed up as follows: a) providing of foods jointly, b) providing of other necessities for life jointly, c) residing jointly, inside the whole of house or in a part of it, d) unifying income and sharing of expenditures, e) relationship in terms of blood, marriage or adoption.
In Demographic and Health Survey studies, a household was commonly defined as a person or a group of people living together (c) and sharing common sources of food (a) (DHS Analytical Reports No.1, 1996). In the last two Demographic and Health Surveys in Turkey, a dwelling unit is accepted as a sampling unit and households are attained by means of these dwelling units. It is demanded from a dwelling unit to expose (a) and (b) criterions clearly with (c) criterion to be accepted as a ‘household’ unit (HUIPS, 1994 and 1999). Official perception of household concept can be examined from the studies of State Institute of Statistics. In the Census of 2000, a household is defined as “A person or group of people with or without a family relationship who live in the same house or in the same part of a house, who share their meals, earnings and expenditures, who take part in the management of the household and who render services to household” (DİE, 2000). Both in Census and DHS studies in Turkey, the individuals, who are away from the household temporarily on census or survey date, are counted as household members. However relatives residing in a different dwelling unit did not count. Also, relatives residing in the same dwelling but not included in rendering household services and management, that is to say who have separate earnings and expenses, are accepted as different household units. Thus, both ‘housekeeping’ and ‘dwelling unit’ criterions are prevailed in the determination of households.
Since combinations of the criterions given above would be different in household definitions, as well as in the definitions of family concept, variance should be considered when comparing census or survey results of the individual countries. Terminology used in definitions of family and household types may be seen as same or similar. Nevertheless, what these concepts include or
exclude vary from one country to another or even from one Census period to another in the same country.
II. 2. Family and Household Types in the Study
Peter Laslett (1981) states in his Typologies of the Family essay that “….the fact that the family group may be the agent of transfer of external influences on the behavior of procreating persons, and that its effectiveness as such an agent may differ between family form and family form”. Laslett tries to explain that the influences of family institution on individuals may vary from one family type to another. For this reason, families have been elaborated in various studies by employing different categories for analytical purposes. Most typologies used today are based on the classic distinction made by Frederic Le Play, in the mid nineteenth century among nuclear or conjugal, stem and consanguine or extended families (Burch, 1982).
As it is seen in the definitions of family and household concepts, family types and their meanings vary for different theoretical perceptions. On the other hand, they can be categorized by their founding factors. According to Gökçe (1994), “authority relations” and “household (or household size”) may be regarded as the basic distinguishing factors in the determination of family types. When the former factor is brought in the forefront, family types are usually determined as ‘Maternal Family’ and ‘Paternal Family’. In the maternal family types there is ‘matrilocal’ residence for children, and kin relationships are ‘matrilineal’, whereas opposites are valid for paternal family types.
When the latter factor is brought in the forefront, family types are typically categorized as ‘large’ or ‘small’ families (Gökçe, 1994). The large families are also named as ‘traditional family’, ‘extended family’ or ‘village family’ (Yasa, 1972). On the other hand, small family (family conjugal) is also titled as ‘nuclear family’, ‘modern family’, ‘modern democratic family’ and ‘contemporary family’ in different studies for the requirement of their theoretical frameworks (Bal, 1995).
In the scope of ‘family and household demography’ studies in Turkey, the first and mostly used family typologies so far were produced by Serim Timur (1972). Timur’s classification approach has been extended by several other demographers such as Kunt (1978), Hancıoğlu (1985a and 1985b), Ünalan (1986), Koç (2000) and Yavuz (2002). By this system, comparable findings have been obtained from the successive demographic surveys conducted by Hacettepe University, Institute of Population Studies since 1968. In these studies, both family and household types are evaluated in the same body. The assumption behind this claim was that individuals, who are living in the same household, within the cultural context of Turkey generally, stay in a degree of kinship relation with each other. The households, which are comprised by families, are dominant forms in Turkey, thus the two terms are used interchangeably. Hence, in this system, family types are attained from household types that are more inclined to statistical investigation and categorization procedures. Many household measures, like ‘mean household size’, ‘headship rate’, ‘number of marital units per household’ etc., could be estimated for family households as well in this approach.
Timur’s household classification system, in which kinship composition of the households were taken into account essentially, is composed of four main types of families; namely, nuclear family, patriarchal extended family, transient extended family and dissolved family. These different family types are classified according to the positions of household members in relation to household head[13]. The composition of the household is taken as the basic criterion, but in addition to that authority structure of the household is also considered in a limited manner. By this method, though they may be comprised of exactly the same members, two structurally different extended family types could be distinguished for the place of household head in generation line (Hancıoğlu, 1985a).
Timur analyzed ‘1968 Family Structure and Population Problems Survey’ (Timur, 1972) with four main family types together with their some sub – categories. Afterwards, the four family types were maintained in consecutive studies but the sub – categories were renewed as much as the data permitted as in Kunt (1978), Hancıoğlu (1985a and 1985b), Ünalan (1986) and Yavuz (2002). In this study, ‘1998 Turkish Demographic and Health Survey’ Household Data analyzed with aforementioned family types and new sub – categories are added to previous ones in order to seize variability in each family type. Descriptions of four main family types are given below, as they were defined in Timur’s original study, and with new sub – categories of each type, as used in this study, are specified in Appendix I.
Nuclear Family: composed of husband, wife and their unmarried child(ren).
Patriarchal Extended Family: composed of a man and his wife, their married son(s) and wife(s) with their child(ren), and/or unmarried son(s)/daughter(s) of household head.
Transient Extended Family: in which the male, who is the household head, his wife and his unmarried child(ren) live together with either the man’s or his wife’s widowed parent(s) and/or their unmarried sibling(s).
Dissolved Family: in which one spouse is missing due to separation, divorce, death etc. or non – family households.
The above family typology has been considered as describing the family structure in Turkey appropriately and it has assumed that, with its sub – categories, much of variances in the family structure can be acquired. In addition to that compositional approach, a new analysis, based on a different typology rather than Timur’s system, would also widen our understanding in this field. Especially, it will be useful if this typology can produce internationally comparable results on family types. In this respect, 1998 TDHS has been scrutinized with a second classification system developed by researchers from ‘Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure’ in this study. Thus, a modified version of the household typology suggested by Laslett is used (1972 and 1981). Rather than Timur’s compositional approach, Laslett’s one basically considers number and type of family units in households.
In this approach, firstly households are divide into two basic groups: ‘family households’ and ‘non – family households’. Laslett regarded family households as ‘co- resident domestic groups’ of people. In such type of groups, the following three characteristics are in common. These are namely: i) sleeping habitually under the same roof (a location criterion), ii) sharing a number of activities (a functional criterion), and iii) being related to each other by blood or by marriage (a kinship criterion).
However, children who have left home, and kin affinities, who live closely, are not included in this definition, though they may collaborate so closely in the productive work of the family. Therefore, classification mentality, as in Timur’s case, permits to differentiate households compositionally as well. The word household particularly indicates shared location, kinship and activity and not necessarily directly family concept. Therefore, all solitaries and non – family co resident groups are taken as households. The typology used in this study for this view and explanation of household types is presented below.
No Family Households: this category includes; ‘solitaries’, ‘co – resident siblings’, ‘co- resident relatives and other kind’ and ‘people not evidently related’.
Simple Family Households: this category is used to cover what is described as the ‘nuclear family’ in Timur’s classification system. Nevertheless, single parent families are also included here based on the assumption that losing one of the spouses in the family does not change its conjugal family
unit status. Following household groups are included; ‘married couples alone’, ‘married couples with children’, ‘single parent with child(ren)’ and ‘single parent with children + other relative(s) & or person(s)’.
Extended Family Households: An extended family household is a conjugal family unit with the addition of one or more relatives other than offspring. If the resident relative is of a generation earlier than that of the conjugal family unit, the extension is identified as upwards. Similarly, if the resident relative is of a generation later than that of the conjugal family unit extension is identified as downwards. If the extension is formed by the same generation as that of the conjugal family unit, than the household is identified as lateral extended. If there are both vertical and horizontal generations present at the same time along with the conjugal family unit, this household is identified ascombined. Following households have been included in this category; ‘extended downwards’, ‘extended upwards’, ‘extended laterally (sideway)’, ‘combinations in extended family’ and ‘other extended’.
Multiple Family Households: A multiple family household comprises two or more conjugal family units at the same time. The first conjugal family unit, which contains the household head, is called ‘primary unit’ and other conjugal units are called ‘secondary’ units. If secondary unit’s conjugal link involves a generation earlier than that of the head, as for instance when father and mother (or father-in-law and mother-in-law) live with the head, that multiple family unit is called to be ‘UP’. An upwardly extended multiple family may include offspring of the head’s parents other than the head himself as well. If secondary unit’s conjugal link involves a generation later than that of the head, for example when a head’s married son or daughter lives with him/her along with his/her spouse and child(ren) if any, that multiple unit is called ‘DOWN’. If conjugal family units are all disposed laterally, such as when married brothers and/or sisters live together, that multiple family is called ‘units all on one level’. If a primary unit has extensions more than one direction that multiple family unit is coded ‘other’ subcategory. Thus, the following sub – categories are used in this section: ‘secondary unit(s) UP’, ‘secondary unit(s) DOWN’, ‘Units all on one level’ and lastly ‘other multiple families’.
Computing the proportions of different household types may provide considerable information on analyzing household composition and living arrangements of the society. However, these sorts of findings should be interpreted with great care when talking about the ‘family structure’. Because, occurrence of substantial changes during the lifetime of a family, in terms of household composition and living arrangements, may make it more difficcult to characterize family or household structures. Aggregated data at one point in time may catch households at different stages of this cycle but it will possibly obscure important temporal variations between the family types. Whether simple or extended, households are not static in composition but go through developmental cycles in which combination of kin and marital units are constantly changing.
According to Sönmez (2003), household types should be examined in two aspects: in terms of ‘prevalence’ and in terms of ‘dominance’ of them. For instance, according to Timur’s findings, nuclear families were most prevalent family types in the society (59.7 percent of all family types) in 1968. Nevertheless, when family formation stage is considered, it was seen that only 24.2 percent of all families had been established as a nuclear family at the beginning. In addition, 15 percent of these originally nuclear families were found in extended form during the survey period. Like families, there is a similar cycle valid for individuals as well. According to Ünalan’s (2002) study, a person is more likely to live in a nuclear family household in his/her schooling ages and in fertile period. On the other hand, one is very likely to live in a non-nuclear family household between the ages of 20 – 24 compared to other age groups (except elderly). Throughout their lives people are living in different household/family types related to individuals’ demographic, economic, cultural behavior. Especially timing of marriage, timing of first child, duration of
co-residence affects the changing nature of family types constantly (Koç, 2000). Therefore, findings from static, cross – sectional data, like proportion of a particular type of household, should be interpreted carefully in analyzing household structure of a society.
II. 3. Source of Data
Data used in this study comes mainly from the household questionnaire of ‘1998 Turkish Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS – 98)’. It is the seventh survey of the nationwide consecutive demographic surveys conducted by Institute of Population Studies as a part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys (Measure DHS +) program. The TDHS-98 was based on a nationally representative sample; the universe was defined as the total population of Turkey. An important peculiarity of TDSH-98 is that it was produced by a sample design that was methodologically and conceptually consistent with the designs of the previous demographic surveys conducted by the HUIPS.
For TDHS – 1998, 9,970 households were selected as the sampling frame at the beginning but at the time of survey 8,596 of them were considered occupied. Nevertheless, since some dwelling units that had been listed were found to be vacant at the time of the interview, 8,059 (94 percent) of the occupied households were successfully interviewed. Also, interviewed households comprised 5,497 households (68 percent) from urban and 2,562 (32 percent) from rural residence. In the interviewed households, 37,991 household members were identified as eligible to collect individual information.
The household and family types used in this thesis are derived from the data from the first part of the ‘Household Questionnaire’, from the household schedule section. In determining the family type of each household, firstly ‘visitors’, who are not regular members but spent the night before the interview in the selected household, are excluded. In other words, friends, relatives and even non-resident family members in that household are excluded. Thus, only ‘usual residents’, who spent majority of their time within a year in the sample household, (‘de jure’ population) are taken into account. The household data contained 8,059 cases in total. However, since 116 of them comprised only temporarily resident population (not ‘de jure’ population), only 7,943 cases are analyzed in this study.
III. FINDINGS: CHANGING TRENDS IN FAMILY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITIONS 1968 –
1998
III.1. Distribution of Family Types by the Compositional Approach
Table III.1.1. Percentage distribution of family types in Turkey and each survey region* in 1998 Family
Types
West South Central North East Turkey
Nuclear 71.7 72.8 65.2 61.4 61.2 68.2
Patriarchal 6.0 8.4 12.4 18.0 18.3 10.4
Transient 8.0 7.9 9.5 11.3 11.8 9.1
Dissolved 14.3 11.0 12.8 9.2 8.7 12.3
* Boundaries of the survey regions are slightly different from the commonly known geographical division of Turkey. 5 main regions, with sub regions, constructed for survey – sampling frame. In order to get more specific information read ‘Appendix B’ in TDHS – 98 report (HUIPS, 1999).
The highest prevalence of nuclear family type in all regions and all through Turkey in 1998 is evidently seen from the analysis results, presented in Table III.1.1. There are important differences in the proportions of family types from one region to another. The share of the nuclear family type slightly exceeds 7 out of 10 households in West and South regions while it is only 6 out of 10 in North and East regions. Regarding the percentage of extended family types, a reverse picture is observed: patriarchal and transient extended family types together comprise 3 out of 10 households in North and East regions, while they cover only 1.5 out of 10 in the West and South. The proportion of households occupied by dissolved family types is found 1.6 times higher in the West region than it is in the East. Overall, it may be said that nuclear and dissolved families are found to be more prevalent in regions where population is predominantly urbanized, while extended families are found to be more widespread in regions where the share of rural population is still high.
It is known that there are important regional differences in terms of cultural and social structure, thus the degree of modernity, in Turkey. On the other hand, the most prevalent family type, whatever the degree of development, is the nuclear family type in all regions. The result obtained from this analysis is harmonious with the findings from previous studies. After having analyzed the first nationwide study on families in Turkey, ‘Family Structure and Population Problems in Turkey 1968’ conducted by Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Timur (1972) confirmed that contrary to general beliefs extended families have never been dominant either in rural or in urban residences in Turkey. She presented that extended family forms in rural areas could only be sustained by the support of wide agricultural land property. Likewise Alan Duben (1985) compares household size and structures of Turkish families in the 19th and early 20th centuries in the study of ‘Turkish Families and Households in Historical Perspective’. After collecting findings of different local studies for urban and rural residences of different geographical regions, he claimed that there is neither any empirical evidence nor any logical reason to expect that the percentage of the ‘multiple’ family households ever reached much beyond 30 percent of the total number at any point during the investigation period.
Sources: (1) Timur (1972), (2) Kunt (1978), (3) Ünalan (2002), (4) Ünalan (1986), (5) Yavuz (2002)
There have been seven nationwide demographic surveys conducted every five years since 1968 by Hacettepe University, Institute of Population Studies. Although only the first one was directly related to family structure, the remaining six surveys have also been examined by several researchers to obtain the picture of family type distribution throughout Turkey. In Figure III.1.1, findings of different studies are gathered together in order to see how the distribution of main family types has changed in the last three decades. It can be clearly observed that the proportion of nuclear and dissolved family types have increased whereas the share of extended family types has diminished in the period. Examination of the figure roughly reveals that the period of 1983 – 1998 witnessed a shrinkage in the proportion of the households composed of ‘extended’ family types, whereas the share of them were almost stable, or in a modest change, in the 1968 – 1983 period among all type of households.
The figure given above is clear and simple but it is also seen far from including ample explanations about the changing family types. Estimation of each family type with their subcategories yields a better result for understanding the differentiation among and within regions in the last decades. In this sense, findings derived from ‘1983 Turkish Population and Health Survey’ are selected for evaluation; Ünalan’s study on family types (1986) is the oldest available study, which includes broad subcategories.
Table III.1.2 presents percentage distribution of nuclear family types, with subtypes, and changes in the percentage in time by region and place of residence and in overall Turkey. What it is seen at the first glance is that the proportion of nuclear family types in Turkey has increased by 10.7 percent in that period. However, substantial change has taken place in “husband and wife” subcategory compared to “husband – wife and child(ren)” one. The proportion of the former category increased by nearly 70 percent, from 7.4 percent in 1983 to 13.5 percent in 1998, while the latter one increased only 1 percent in the same period. Thus, the increase in the share of nuclear family type, among all family types from 1983 to 1998, mainly appeared with the increase in the proportion of ‘husband and wife’ subcategory.
Table III.1.2 Percentage Distribution of ‘Nuclear Family’ with Subtypes by Region, Types of Place of Residence and in Turkey 1983 – 1998
Region & Types of Place of Residence
West South Central North East Urban Rural Turkey
19831
Nuclear 64.7 69.8 59.8 48.7 58.3 67.4 54.4 61.6
Husband & Wife + Children
53.3 62.8 52.2 45.5 54.8 — — 53.7
Husband & Wife 11.4 7.0 7.6 3.2 3.5 7.9
Husband & Wife
<50 4.1 3.2 2.2 1.4 1.6 — — 2.9
Husband & Wife >=50 1998
Nuclear 71.7 72.8 65.2 61.4 61.2 72.8 58.1 68.2
Husband & Wife + Children
56.7 60.3 50.1 48.8 53.7 59.8 43.4 54.7
Husband & Wife 15.0 12.5 15.1 12.6 7.5 12.9 14.7 13.5
Husband & Wife <50
6.8 5.4 5.0 3.5 2.2 6.4 3.1 5.3
Husband & Wife
>=50 8.2 7.1 10.1 9.1 5.3 6.5 11.6 8.2
Change in Percentage
Nuclear 10.8 4.3 9.0 26.1 5.0 8.0 6.8 10.7
Husband & Wife +
Children 5.4 - 5.0 - 5.0 6.3 - 3.0 — —
0.9
Husband & Wife 30.6 77.6 97.7 292.8 113.3 — — 69.9
Husband & Wife
<50 64.9 67.8 126.3 149.0
36.5 — — 81.8
Husband & Wife
>=50 11.3 85.8 86.0 404.6 177.9 — — 63.0
(1Source: Ünalan, 1986 and Ünalan, 2002)
‘Husband and wife’ subcategory can also be decomposed into two groups according to the age of wife. The age of 50, assumed the ending of reproductive period of a hypothetical woman, is determined as a cut off point in order to differentiate relatively ‘young’ and ‘old’ couples. It is found that the proportion of the ‘old’ couples (husband & wife >=50) was higher than the ‘young’ ones in both 1983 and 1998. In that period, the share of both of the subcategories increased among all family types; nevertheless increase in the proportion of ‘young’ couples exceeds almost 18 percent higher than the increase in the share of ‘young’ couples.
When the change in the distribution of nuclear families are investigated according to regions and types of place of residence types, the highest increase from 1983 to 1998 in this sense, is observed in North region. The raise in the proportion of ‘husband & wife’ and ‘husband & wife >=50’ subcategories are seen more effectively in this process.
What is significant here is that in both North and East regions there was a greater increase in the percentage of ‘old’ couples than the ‘young’ couples against the general trend in the country. In the West and Central regions we can observe a reverse trend. The nuclear family type has been observed to be a more prevalent family type in both 1983 and 1998 in urban than in rural areas. The ‘Husband & Wife’ subcategory, composed of mainly ‘old’ couples, is found more widespread in rural areas in 1998. Presumably, findings of this analysis indicate the effect of internal migration, between regions and from rural to urban, on the distribution of nuclear family types. The regions where the share of ‘old’ couples is found increased actually have been subject to severe out – migration in the last decades. The increase in the share of ‘husband & wife >=50’ nuclear family composition in North and overall rural places of Turkey might have appeared due to out – migration of younger population towards other regions.
The changes in the distribution of extended family types are examined with two distinct family type categories; namely, patriarchal and transient extended, as it was given in the previous sections. Firstly, the patriarchal extended family types are going to be scrutinized here. Approximately 83 percent of all patriarchal extended family types in 1998 are composed of ‘head & or spouse and married son(s), daughter – in – law(s), and if any, grandchild(ren), daughter(s) of head’ subclass, which is illustrated as ‘Head & or Spouse + Marr. Son(s)’ in the Table III.1.3. On the other hand, the same subclass was comprised of nearly 90 percent of all patriarchal extended families in 1983. The proportion of patriarchal family types has declined since 1983 in all regions with varying degrees; particularly, the decline in the West region is outstanding. The withdrawing process of this family type has occurred rather less significant in degree in the East compare to other regions. There is 3 times quantity difference in the percentage distribution of patriarchal family type in urban and rural residences; as it is expected that patriarchal extended families are much more prevalent in rural than they are in urban areas.
Table III.1.3. Percentage Distribution of ‘Patriarchal Extended Family’ with Subtypes by Region, Types of Place of Residence and in Turkey 1983 – 1998
Region & Types of Place of Residence
West South Central North East Urban Rural Turkey
19831 Patriarchal
Extended
11.6 11.2 15.6 24.6 19.7 — — 15.1
Father & or Mother
+ Mar. Son(s) 9.9 9.8 13.2 20.2 15.0 — — 12.5 Other P.E.F 1.7 1.4 2.4 4.4 4.7 — — 2.6 1998 Patriarchal Extended 6.0 8.4 12.4 17.8 18.2 6.6 18.4 10.4
Head & or Spouse
+ Mar. Son(s) 4.9 6.9 10.6 14.8 15.7 5.7 15.3 8.7 Other P.E.F 1.1 1.5 1.8 3.0 2.5 0.9 3.1 1.6 Change in Percentage Patriarchal Extended - 48.3 - 25.0 - 20.5 - 27.6 - 7.6 — — - 31.1
Head & or Spouse
+ Mar. Son(s) - 50.5 - 29.6 - 19.7 - 26.7 4.7 — — - 30.4
Other P.E.F - 35.3 7.1 - 25.0 - 31.8 - 46.8 — — - 38.5
(1Source: Ünalan, 1986)
Proportion of transient extended families has decreased by 29 percent in overall Turkey as well, as it is demonstrated in Table III.1.4 below. The highest decrease in the proportion is observed in the South, whereas the lowest decrease is found in the East region. On the contrary, it is estimated that the proportion of the ‘head and spouse and mother and/or father’ subtype
has increased by 9.8 and 6.4 percent respectively in the North and East regions, contrary to general decrease trend of this family type.
Table III.1.4. Percentage Distribution of ‘Transient Extended Family’ with Subtypes by Region, Types of Place of Residence and in Turkey 1983 – 1998
Region & Types of Place of Residence
West South Central North East Urban Rural Turkey
19831
Transient Extended 11.5 11.9 12.8 16.8 14.5 — — 12.8
H & W and Mother
and/or Father 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.1 4.7 — — 5.0
Other T.E.F 6.7 6.8 7.4 11.7 9.8 — — 7.8
1998
Transient Extended 8,0 8,0 9,5 11,5 11,8 7,4 12,8 9,1
Head & Spouse + Mother and/or Father 3,0 3,1 4,6 5,6 5,0 2,9 6,0 3,8 Other T.E.F 4,9 4,9 4,9 5,9 6,8 4,5 6,8 5,3 Change in Percentage Transient Extended - 30,4 - 32,8 - 25,8 - 31,5 - 18,6 — — - 28,9
Head & Spouse + Mother and/or Father
- 37,5 - 39,2 - 14,8 9,8 6,4 — — - 24,0
Other T.E.F - 26,9 - 27,9 - 33,8 - 49,6 - 30,6 — — - 32,1
(1Source: Ünalan, 1986)
The figures in Table III.1.3 – 4 expose that the proportion of both of the two main ‘extended’ family types has diminished by nearly 30 percent in the last two decades. However, the process was realized with different degrees among the regions of Turkey and within family types. Extended family types were more prevalent in the North and East regions compared to others in 1983 (still) as they are in 1998 as well. The pace of the dissolve in the extended family forms in the East region, which is the least developed part of Turkey in terms of socioeconomic structure, is seen to be the slowest one, especially in terms of patriarchal family type. On the other hand, the households composed of patriarchal family types have diminished to a very large extent in the West region, where extended family types had already been observed in rare percentages. This gives an impression that solvent forces on extended family types were much effective in the West than they were in the East.
The change in the proportion of households consisted of dissolved family types, in aforementioned period, is presented in Table III.1.5. Overall, an increase of 18.1 percent in the percentage of all dissolved family types has been seen in Turkey. Interestingly, except for the North region, the change in all other regions has contributed to this process. The boost of abovementioned family type in the South region is so remarkable that the increase reaches almost to 55 percent. The increase trend in the South appeared mainly on account of boost in
the proportion of ‘solitaries’, especially households comprised by ‘single male’ subcategory. Likewise, the share of solitaries among all family types has also found broadened in the North and East regions as well. The proportion of ‘single male’ category significantly increased in the North as in the South region. While the percentage of ‘single male’ category has decreased, contrary to the trend in other regions, the ‘single female’ subcategory has enormously raised, from 0.5 percent in 1983 to 3.4 percent in 1998 in all family types. The data about distribution of dissolved family types in 1983 in urban and rural areas was absent. Thus, comparison was not possible for this section. According to 1998 survey results, dissolved family types were estimated as more prevalent in urban than in rural areas. The proportions of solitaries in both urban and rural residences are almost identical to each other around 5 percent in all households comprised by families.
Table III.1.5. Percentage Distribution of ‘Dissolved Family’ with Subtypes by Region, Types of Place of Residence and in Turkey 1983 – 1998
Region & Types of Place of Residence
West South Central North East Urban Rural Turkey
19831 Dissolved 12.2 7.1 11.8 9.9 7.5 — — 10.5 Only Male 1.5 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.3 — — 1.0 Only Female 3.2 1.9 2.5 1.7 0.5 — — 2.3 No Kinship 0.2 - 0.1 0.1 0.3 — — 0.2 Other Dissolved 7.3 4.8 7.9 7.3 6.4 — — 7.0 1998 Dissolved 14.4 11.0 12.7 9.2 8.9 13.2 10.7 12.4 Only Male 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.9 0.1 1.8 2.2 1.9 Only Female 4.2 2.3 3.8 1.9 3.4 3.5 2.9 3.3 No Kinship 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.6 Other Dissolved 6.6 6.8 6.2 5.6 6.0 7.1 5.1 6.6 Change in Percentage Dissolved 18.0 54.9 7.6 - 7.1 18.7 — — 18.1 Only Male 53.3 300 61.5 137.5 - 66.7 — — 90.0 Only Female 31.1 21.1 52.0 11.7 580.0 — — 43.5 No Kinship 400.0 — 500.0 100.0 0.0 — — 200.0 Other Dissolved - 9.6 41.7 - 21.5 - 23.3 - 6.3 — — - 5.7
Here, a further investigation for the distribution of two dissolved family subtypes; namely, for ‘solitaries’ and ‘single parent families’ is seen worthwhile to perform. Since, firstly the share of the former category has noticeably increased in that period and secondly; an interest arose in documenting and analyzing the circumstances of ‘solitaries’ and ‘single parent family households’ in the family studies (Bumpass, 1990). In this regard, single person households (solitaries) are divided into two groups by employing age and sex criterions. Along with the sex of the person, the age of 65 was chosen as cut off point in order to differentiate ‘old’ (elderly) and relatively ‘middle’ aged solitaries.
As it is seen in Table III.1.6, the overall proportion of ‘single female’ subclass is 1.65 times higher than the overall proportion of ‘single male’ subclass in Turkey. Except for the West region, due to the low number of the case, the distribution of the two subclasses do not enable a meaningful comparison among and within regions.
However, when the age criterion is considered, it is observed that the share of households comprised by ‘single person <65’ and ‘single person >=65’ are almost same in Turkey. Together with the age, categorization by sex reveals that the distribution of ‘single male <65’ and ‘single female <65’ is also identical in overall Turkey. Nevertheless, the sharing of ‘single female >=65’ composition is 2.7 times higher than ‘single male >=65’ one that presumably reflects the higher mortality of men compared to women in general.
Table III.1.6. Percentage Distribution of ‘Solitaries’ and ‘Single Parent Families’ with Subtypes by Region, Types of Place of Residence and in Turkey 1983 – 1998
Region & Types of Place of Residence
West South Central North East Urban Rural Turkey
Solitaries Single M <65 1.5 * (1.4) * * 1.4 1.0 1.3 Single M>=65 0.8 * * * * 0.5 1.1 0.7 N (Single M) 76 18 39 10 11 99 54 153 Single F<65 1.7 1.1 1.5 * * 1.6 1.0 1.4 Single F>=65 2.5 1.1 2.3 * * 2.0 1.9 1.9 N (Single F) 139 26 70 11 17 190 73 263 Single Parent Male Head * * * * * (0.4) * (0.5) Female Head 4.2 4.7 4.4 (4.0) 3.6 4.8 3.4 4.4
(*An asterisks indicates that an item is based on fewer than 25 cases and has been suppressed. Parentheses indicate that a figure is based on 25-49 cases).
The further step examination on ‘solitaries’ in Turkey, in Table III.1.7, shows an additional clearer picture. The median age values present a great deal of difference between ‘male’ and ‘female’ solitaries; namely, overall median age for ‘single female’ subclass is estimated 14 years higher than the other. Indeed, the difference in this measure increases when the solitaries below 65 category is considered. The median age of men is 23 years lower than that of women. Indeed, the analysis presents that the majority of women, in this group, are ‘widowed’ women, while the majority of men, in the same group, had never been married before. Except the prevalence, both median age and marital status of single male and female above 65 years of age do not show any significant difference. Therefore, when the age category and marital status criterion are brought in the foreground it can be claimed that ‘single male’ and ‘single female’ family types are structurally different from each other in Turkey.
Table III.1.7. Distribution of Male and Female Heads, “Solitaries”, By Median Age and Marital Status in Turkey in 1998.
Single Male Single Female
< 65 >= 65 < 65 >= 65 Median Age 33.3 70.0 56.2 71.0 52.0 66.0 Never Married 56.5 0.6 23.8 1.1 Widowed 12.4 86.2 60.3 95.9 Divorced 14.4 7.0 12.3 1.3 Married 14.1 6.2 1.6 0.8 Not living together 2.6 - 1.6 0.8
Second important dissolved family type subclass is the households comprised by ‘single parent families’. Approximately, 90 percent of this subclass in Turkey is comprised by ‘female head single parent’ family type according to 1998 TDHS results. The proportion of ‘female head single parent’ is observed as the highest in the South and the lowest in the East region. In other regions the share of this subclass is around 4 percent among all family types. In addition, it is observed that the proportion of the subclass in urban regions is 70 percent higher than it is in rural regions. This situation is seen to be related to the higher effect of ‘patriarchal’ cultural values in rural areas and in the East region compared to other regions. Indeed, ‘patriarchal’ extended families are more widespread in these areas. Thus, it may be assumed that social context in these regions lessens the prevalence of ‘female head single parent’ family type simply because of the dominance of ‘patriarchal extended’ families and related settlement rules in these regions. III.2. Distribution of the Family Types by Number and Type of Marital Unions
In this part of the study, a modified version of household typology suggested by Laslett is employed in order to obtain the distribution of family types in a different perspective. A similar approach was used by Koç (1999) to obtain family patterns from ‘1978 Turkish Fertility Survey (TFS)’ and ‘1993 Turkish Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS – 93)’. Hence, findings in this study, from TDHS – 98, are compared to findings from TFS – 78 and the changes in distribution in time are presented.
Table III.2.1. Percentage Distribution of Family Types by Region and Place of Residence in Turkey
1998
The detailed categorization of the households in Turkey by 1998 for the Laslett’s household typology is given in Table III.2.1. As it is clearly seen, households in Turkey are predominantly composed by ‘simple family’ type with more than 7 out of 10. Households, comprised by ‘complex’ type of families; namely, ‘extended’ and ‘multiple’ families, constitute the second widespread category with 2 out of 10 among all type of households. Extended family households are observed as slightly more prevalent than the multiple family households and in each category there is one dominating subcategory. Together with ‘Upwardly extended family’ type, in the households comprised by extended families, and ‘secondary unit(s) down’ subcategory in the multiple families constitutes 68 percent of all complex family households in Turkey. Solidarities constitute the third common household type afterwards with 0.5 out of 10 households.
This figure, presented for the Laslett’s typology in Table III.2.2, is seen to be in agreement with the findings presented in the previous section in general terms. Majority of the households in Turkey, and in all regions, are occupied by ‘family’ households that are predominantly ‘simple’ (or nuclear) type according to their compositions. Overall proportion of simple family type has
Family Types n % %
Solidarities 416 5.2 5.2
Single (One) Person Households
Married couples alone 1067 13.5
Married couples with
child(ren) 4321 54.7
Single Parent with
child(ren) 333 4.2
72.4 Simple Family
Households
Co-resident Siblings 43 0.5
Co-resident relatives and
other kind 80 1.0
Persons not evidently
related 51 0.6 2.2 No Family Households Extended Downwards 112 1.4 Extended Upwards 425 5.4 Extended Laterally (Sideway) 86 1.1 Combinations in Extended Family 109 1.4 Other Extended 94 1.2 10.4 Extended Family Households
Secondary unit(s) DOWN 647 8.2
Secondary unit(s) UP 67 0.9
Units all on one level 36 0.5
Other Multiple Families 14 0.1
9.7
Multiple Family Households
increased by 15 percent in 20 years since 1978. Regionally, the highest increase in the distribution has been observed in the North in which the share of the simple family was the lowest in 1978 among all regions. Secondly, the rise in the West region comes which is an interesting finding, because the West has always been included to the high proportion of simple family type. Shrinkage in the share of complex family types is also significant in the West during the period. Thus, it can be argued that both trends in internal migration towards this region and the continuing urbanization process and dissolve of complex family types may have contributed collectively to this process.
Table III.2.2. Percentage Distribution of Family Types and the Changes in the Percentage by Region and Place of Residence in Turkey 1978 – 1993 – 1998
Region & Types of Place of Residence
West South Central North East Urban Rural Turkey
19781 Solitaries 4.1 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.8 3.3 2.5 2.9 Simple Family 66.0 72.8 62.7 54.7 58.8 68.9 58.5 62.7 Extended Family 18.8 17.8 19.3 21.7 20.0 17.4 21.1 19.3 Multiple Family 11.0 6.6 16.0 21.6 19.4 10.3 18.0 14.5 No Family ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ 0.5 19931 Solitaries 5.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 2.1 4.3 4.5 4.3 Simple Family 74.6 78.3 70.4 58.7 69.7 77.2 62.9 71.5 Extended Family 12.1 12.0 14.2 17.2 11.2 11.6 15.1 12.8 Multiple Family 7.5 6.1 11.5 20.5 17.0 5.4 17.5 10.7 No Family ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ 0.5 1998 Solitaries 6.5 3.9 5.9 3.5 2.6 5.3 5.1 5.2 Simple Family 76.0 77.4 69.7 64.9 64.7 77.5 61.3 72.4 Extended Family 9.1 9.4 10.4 13.8 13.9 8.6 14.4 10.4 Multiple Family 5.6 7.7 12.0 16.2 16.8 6.1 17.4 9.7 No Family 2.7 1.6 2.0 1.6 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.2 Changes in Percentage 1978 -1998 Solitaries 58.5 34.5 136 84.2 44.4 60.6 104.0 79.3 Simple Family 15.2 6.3 11.2 18.6 10.0 12.5 4.8 15.5 Extended Family - 51.6 - 47.2 - 46.1 - 36.4 - 30.5 - 50.6 - 31.8 - 46.1 Multiple Family - 49.1 16.7 - 27.7 - 25.0 - 13.4 - 40.8 - 3.3 - 33.1
No Family ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ 440 (1Source: Koç, 1999)
The South region, which highly resembles to the West in the distribution of family types, has had a different experience. The proportion of multiple family types has been seen slightly increased in that period instead of a decreasing trend. Likewise, the least increase in the distribution of simple family types is observed in this region as well. It is hard to suggest any comment on this trend from the present data, but further investigation in sub regional level in the South may express illustrative results.
Another striking result is that there is an increase in the proportion of ‘solitaries’ category in all regions, but especially in overall rural areas in Turkey. As it is described in the previous section that ‘age and sex’ structure in this category shows great deal of variance in the country. The increase in the proportion of ‘solitaries’ in rural areas is more than 100 percent As we have seen it from the previous section, there was a particular rise in the ‘old female’ subcategory which contributed to this process. There is also seen a considerable degree of increase in the proportion of households comprised by ‘non – family’ type living arrangement, which predominantly composed by individuals who have some degree of ‘kinship’ relationship (Table III.2.1).
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this study, the distribution of the family types in Turkey and variations in their proportional distribution during the last three decades are examined in terms of the ‘Turkish Demographic and Health Survey 1998 (TDHS – 98)’ and similar previous studies. The distributions of family types are obtained according to two approaches. In the first one, which was initially proposed by Timur (1972), compositional structure in the households is brought in the forefront so as to obtain family types. In the second one, a modified version of Laslett’s household typology is employed in which the number and type of conjugal units prevailed. In other words, ‘family types’ are basically obtained from the categorization of households according to relationship structure of their members. Thus, ‘family type’ in this study, essentially refers to ‘form’ of the family rather than to ‘function’.
When the trends in the distributional change of family types is considered from 1968, it can be clearly seen from the analysis of cross – sectional demographic surveys that the prevailing family type has always been the ‘nuclear family’ (or ‘simple’ for Laslett’s typology) type in Turkey. Compositional (or morphological) categorization of family types reveals the most prevalent family type in society but that may also conceal the (prevailing) ‘dominant’ family structure (Sönmez, 2003). There are some opinions that make us suspicious when comparing different family structures via family types, which were constructed by only ‘compositional’ categorization approaches.
Firstly, nuclear family, which means ‘conjugal family unit’ of spouses and children in the Laslett’s conceptualization (Laslett, 1972), beyond its formation, may appear in different structures for its social function. In other words, even though nuclear family type has the same composition throughout the world, the function of it in the society and the internal relationship inside the family unit varies in the social and cultural context of different societies. For instance, Bottomore (1977) distinguished four main family systems that include nuclear family types:
1. Family systems in which nuclear families are relatively independent
