# The Effects of Eighth Years of Compulsory Schooling Enforcement in Turkey

0.00

## Description

The Effects of Eighth Years of Compulsory Schooling Enforcement in Turkey, Is A Well-Researched Topic, It Is To Be Used As A Guide Or Framework For Your Research.

## Abstract

This dissertation consists of two chapters that cover Education, Labor and Health Economics. Chapter 1. Impacts of Compulsory Schooling Reform on Higher Education and Intergenerational Educational Mobility we estimate the e ects of an exogenous increase in mandatory schooling (5 years to 8 years of schooling), as a result of a change in compulsory schooling law, on higher education, potential intergenerational educational mobility, and labor market outcomes among women in Turkey. Our empirical strategy addressesa well-known identi cation problem where women’s years of schooling are endogenous to individual characteristics. The Law took e ect in 1997, whereby girls born before January 01, 1987, were allowed to drop out after primary school, while girls born after that date were required to stay in school for at least three more years. This created a natural experiment that we empirically capture by a Regression Discontinuity Design. We use data from the latest round of the Turkish Demographic Health Survey conducted in 2013, allowing us to compare cohorts of college-age women. We nd that the bene ts of compulsory schooling laws may be magni ed as women covered by the law attended not only junior high school but also high school and beyond at a higher rate. We also nd evidence of upward intergenerational education mobility, as those women also achieved higher levels of education compared to their mothers. However, we nd little evidence that additional years of schooling a ects labor force participation in signi cant ways, though it increases the likelihood of getting a paid job or one with bene ts.
Chapter

2. The E ects of Compulsory Schooling Law on Reproductive Health
Behavior in Turkey I exploit a change in compulsory schooling to estimate reproductive health behavior by using the Turkish Demographic and Health Survey 2013. The reproductive health behavior comprises of pregnancy behaviors, namely the number of antenatal visits, birth weight, an examination from a professional/a non-professional, and preferences for reproductivity namely contraceptive usage, number of desired children, preference of children gender (boy vs. girl). The law came into the force in 1997 resulted in individual born before January 01, 1987, were allowed to drop out after primary school (5 years of schooling), while individual born after January 01, 1987, were required to get junior high school at least (8 years of education). Thus, this natural experiment allows me to nd out the e ect of meaningful casual estimates of schooling by implementing Regression Discontinuity
(RD) design. The results indicate that an increase in mother’s education improves their sensitivity to pregnancy behavior, as measured by antenatal visits, an examination from a professional. Moreover, an increase in years of mother’s education changes her preferences
for reproductivity, as shown by contraceptive usage, number of desired children. On the other hand, the results of the law indicate that there is not any signi cant e ect on birth weight or preference for having boys/girls.

Contents vii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
1 Impacts of Compulsory Schooling Reform on Higher Education and Inter-
generational Educational Mobility 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The History of Compulsory Schooling Law (CSL) Change in Turkey . . . . . 6
1.2.1 Education in Turkey prior to 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2 The 1997 Education Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.3 Overall Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.1 Dependent Education Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.2 Control variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.3 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Empirical Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5.1 Educational Transition Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CONTENTS viii
1.5.2 Internal Validity of the RD design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5.3 Impact on Individual High School and College Enrollment . . . . . . 17
1.5.4 Impact on Intergenerational Mobility in High School and College Enrollment
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5.5 Heterogeneity across Rural and Urban Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.5.6 Labor Market Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.5.7 Placebo tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2 The E ects of Compulsory Schooling Law on Reproductive Health Behav-
ior in Turkey 41
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2 Overview of the Compulsory Schooling Law Change in Turkey . . . . . . . . 44
2.3 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.3.1 Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.2 Control Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.3.3 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.4 Empirical Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.5.1 Pregnancy Behavior Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.5.2 Reproductive Preference Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A Appendix for Chapter 1 69
B Appendix for Chapter 2 80
Bibliography 89