Explaining the Relationship between Female Labor Force Participation and Divorce in Turkey by means of Panel Regression and Granger Causality

Year 2018, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 13 - 44, 27.12.2018

Aziz Kutlar , Murat Sarıkaya , Ali Kabasakal

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between the course of divorce and women’s labor force participation in Turkey during 2004-2013 Period. While Trabzon has the highest rate, Mardin has the lowest rate of women participation in the labor force. A significant correlation between the participation of women in the labor force and per capita income, crude divorce rate, and added value exists. There is a significant relationship between the participation of women in the labor force and the crude divorce rate. Bi-directional causal relationships between the participation of women in the labor force and the crude divorce also exists.

Keywords

Turkey, Women Participation in Labor Force, Divorce, Panel Regression, Causality

Explaining the Relationship between Female Labor Force Participation and Divorce in Turkey by means of Panel Regression and Granger Causality

Abstract

This study
examines the relationship between the course of divorce and women's labor force
participation in Turkey during 2004-2013 Period. While Trabzon has the highest
rate, Mardin has the lowest rate of women participation in the labor force. A
significant correlation between the participation of women in the labor force
and per capita income, crude divorce rate, and added
value exists. There is a significant relationship
between the participation of women in the labor force and the crude divorce
rate. Bi-directional causal relationships between the participation of women in
the labor force and the crude divorce also exists.

Keywords

Women Participation in labor force, Divorce, Panel Regression, Causality

References

• Baltagi, B.H. (2008). Econometrics. Berlin: Springer.
• Becker, G. S. (1974). A Theory of Marriage Part II. Journal of political economy 82: 511-527.
• Becker, G. S. (1981). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Hardward University Press.
• Bracher, M., Santow, G., Morgan, S.P., and Trussell, J. (1993). Marriage Dissolution in Australia: Models and Explanations. Population Studies 47(3): 403-425.
• Cherlin, A. (1979). Work Life and Marital Dissolution. In Levinger G. & O.C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and Separation. Context, Causes and Consequences. New York: Basic Books.
• Çarkoğlu, A. and Kalaycıoğlu,E. (2009). The Rising Tide of Conservatism in Turkey, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Demirkan, S.Y. and Günindi A. (2009). Boşanma Nedenleri Araştırması. Ankara: Aile ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Genel Müdürlüğü.
• De Rose, A. (1992). Socio-Economic Factors and Family Size as Determinants of Marital Dissolution in Italy. European Sociological Review 8(1): 71-79.
• Frisco, M. L., and Williams, K. (2003). Perceived Housework Equity, Marital Happiness, and Divorce in Dual-Earner Households. Journal of Family Issues 24: 51–73.
• Glenn, N. and Supancic, M. (1984). Socio-Logical and Demographic Correlates of Divorce and Separation in the United States: An Update and Reconsideration. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46: 563-576.
• González-Val, R. and Marcén, M. (2012). Breaks in the Breaks: An Analysis of Divorce Rates in Europe. International Review of Law and Economics 32(2): 242–255.
• Goode, W. J. (1963). World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: Free Press.
• Goode, W. J. (1971). Force and Violence in the Family, Journal of Marriage and the Family 33: 624–636.
• Göksel, I. (2013). Female Labor Force Participation in Turkey: The Role of Conservatism. Women's Studies International Forum. 41(1): 45–54.
• Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica 37(3): 424-438.
• Gray, J. S. (1998). Divorce-Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married Women’s Labor Supply. The American Economic Review 88(3): 628-642.
• Gündüz-Hoşgör, A. and Smits, J. (2008). Variation in Labor Market Participation of Married Women in Turkey. Women's Studies International Forum 31(2): 104–117.
• IPA, (2015). Regional Competitivess Operational Programme. https://ipa.sanayi.gov.tr/en/content/what-is-regional-competitiveness/113.
• Jalovaara, M. (2003). The Joint Effects of Marriage Partners’ Socioeconomic Positions on the Risk of Divorce. Demography 40(1): 67–81.
• Kalmijn, M. and Poortman, A. R. (2006). His or Her Divorce? The Gendered Nature of Divorce and its Determinants. European Sociological Review 22(2): 201-214.
• Kneip, T. and Bauer, G. (2009). Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates in Western Europe?. Journal of Marriage and Family 71(3): 592-607.
• Lee, G. R. (1982). Family Structure and Interaction: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Poortman, A. R. and Kalmijn, M. (2002). Women's Labor Market Position and Divorce in the Netherlands: Evaluating Economic Interpretations of the Work Effect, European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie. 18(2): 175-202.
• Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Rothert, K., Standish, N. J., and Kim, Y. J. (2002). Women's Employment, Marital Happiness, and Divorce. Social Forces 81(2): 643-662.
• South, S. J. and Trent, K. (1988). Sex Ratios and Women's Roles: A Cross-National Analysis. American Journal of Sociology 93(5). 1096-1115.
• South, S. J. (1988). Sex ratios, Economic Power, and Women's Roles: A Theoretical Extension and Empirical Test. Journal of Marriage and the Family 50: 19-31.
• Stevenson, B. (2008). Divorce Law and Women’s Labor Supply. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5(4): 853–873
• TBMM, (2001). Türk Medeni Kanunu, https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k4721.html.
• TUIK (2014). Temel İstatistikler, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/.
• Tzeng, J. M. and Mare, R. D. (1995). Labor Market and Socioeconomic Effects on Marital Stability. Social Science Research 24: 329-351.
• Van Damme, M., Kalmijn, M. (2014). The Dynamic Relationships between Union Dissolution and Women’s Employment: A Life-History Analysis Of 16 Countries. Social Science Research 48: 261–278.