Why is the Family and Youth Fund important?
The Law No. 7474 on the Establishment of the Family and Youth Fund came into effect on November 29, 2023. The fund’s stated purpose is “to support and strengthen the institution of the family, to protect young people from social risks, and to provide resources to support their development and initiatives.” It should be emphasized that this goal is the tangible realization of the previously promised “Family and Youth Bank,” featured in the ruling party’s election pledges. The language used—support, empowerment, and protection against risks—signals an intention to adopt a restorative approach. Although it may appear as a precautionary measure, the establishment of the fund should fundamentally be understood within the context of encouraging the formation of stable and healthy families in society. Additionally, it requires a restorative perspective on Türkiye’s demographic shifts since 2010.
Specifically, Türkiye has rapidly entered the “low mortality–low fertility” phase, regarded as the critical juncture of the Demographic Transition Theory. Key factors include the normalization of small family structures and one-child households, driven by low mortality rates. However, the primary underlying reason appears to be the decreasing number of children per woman, falling well below the replacement level of 2.1—due largely to extended education periods and greater female participation in the workforce. Even though these are significant contributors, the phenomenon is undeniably shaped by multi-dimensional factors.
From this perspective, the emphasis on family development in the fund’s objectives aligns with official projections that anticipate further demographic stagnation. Thus, adopting a restorative policy approach becomes essential. Indeed, this type of proactive approach is already supported by constitutional principles. For provinces and regions where population growth is particularly slow, targeted support through the fund is critical, especially since data indicates serious demographic concerns in specific regions.
Additionally, it’s noteworthy that the fund’s design considered the 6 February earthquakes as a major natural disaster and factor in demographic change. Following the disaster, population movements and continued social vulnerability in the region have been observed. In a context where families and youth are prioritized, the rapid construction of housing to meet shelter needs in the earthquake zone underscores the importance of the fund in addressing both demographic stability and social risks. Furthermore, this fund could serve as a valuable starting point for longitudinal studies and social impact analyses examining how it influences demographic transformation.
How can the designated age group for fund eligibility be evaluated?
The fund’s founding objective emphasizes the protection of youth from social risks and specifies eligibility for those aged 18 to 27. In Türkiye, institutions such as the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) and the Ministry of Youth and Sports define youth differently. Likewise, the Labor Law and certain programs by the Ministry of Family and Social Services apply varying definitions to children and youth.
Therefore, a clear and consistent criterion is needed when designing policies that directly target young people. The basis for selecting the 18–27 age group is unclear, though several possibilities exist. For example, the upper age limit might be based on the average age of first marriage according to TÜİK data. Alternatively, it could be aligned with crude marriage rates.
However, it’s important to note that Türkiye’s 26 subregions reflect significant differences in youth population density. A more objective measure could be developed based on regional population data. As education durations increase and urban living becomes more common, marriage and family formation are increasingly postponed. In western Türkiye especially, it’s questionable whether the 18–22 university age group can be considered a suitable target.
Data from NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) youth shows that some countries define “youth” up to age 34. In Türkiye, women in western provinces stay in education longer, while men often delay marriage due to early-career job expectations, shifting marriage plans into their 30s.
Therefore, if the goal is to support and strengthen families in western and northern Türkiye, regional or subregional age thresholds should be adjusted. Otherwise, the fund may disproportionately benefit the 11 provinces initially targeted (e.g., the earthquake region) and other eastern, southeastern, Mediterranean, and central provinces—raising concerns about equitable and effective resource allocation.
Since the exact target beneficiaries are not fully defined, the higher human capital in western Türkiye compared to the east could result in an imbalance for public agencies and NGOs applying for the fund. This also raises the risk that the majority of resources may concentrate in western regions.
What can be said about the allocated fund amount in light of inflation?
Since the last quarter of 2021, changes in monetary policy, compounded by COVID-19 conditions, have led to both demand and cost-push inflation, disturbing price stability in Türkiye. Inflationary effects vary across regions depending on income distribution, and the cost of living in major cities is demonstrably higher than in other areas.
For young people in metropolitan cities, this means the 150,000 TL interest-free loan could be insufficient. Considering inflation is expected to remain high through June 2024 due to base effects, the amount might be revised monthly based on the Wholesale Price Index (TEFE) and Consumer Price Index (TÜFE).
Cultural shifts since COVID-19 have also influenced marriage practices: many now prefer civil ceremonies at municipal offices over costly weddings. This trend—driven largely by cost—should be factored into a differentiated strategy. Whether the loan is granted per individual or per couple will also shape this approach.
How should the management of the fund by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance be interpreted?
According to the law, the fund will be managed by a board chaired by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance, with deputy ministers from five ministries: Treasury and Finance, Family and Social Services, Youth and Sports, Energy and Natural Resources, and Industry and Technology.
The exact weight of funding sources other than donations is unclear. If The fund does not directly transfer money to young couples, The selection of The Treasury may be due to its financial oversight capabilities. However, since The fund’s core objective is to support marriage and strengthen family structures—clearly social in nature—it may be more appropriate for The Ministry of Family and Social Services to chair The board, especially if The main function is to support eligible projects.
If a cost-based approach becomes dominant, it could jeopardize the regional implementation strategies, especially given that each ministry has different visions and priorities. This discrepancy might obscure the fund’s balance between material and moral goals. Therefore, for alignment with its social mission, appointing the Ministry of Family and Social Services as chair could be more suitable.
What are the notable aspects of the fund’s sources and uses?
According to Law No. 7474, the fund will draw from 20% of petroleum and mining revenues and up to 10% of income from other funds established by laws and presidential decrees. Additional sources include repayments from funded projects and domestic or foreign donations, aid, and grants.
The fund’s usage is defined as including incentives, grants, support, credit, and guarantees. This diverse funding base is an advantage, enabling a wider beneficiary pool. Petroleum and mining revenues could provide significant financial resources, especially if current exploration efforts are successful. However, limitations imposed by the European Green Deal on fossil fuels may pose a long-term risk to such revenues.
Since these revenues will be excluded from the national budget, the need for oversight and transparency is critical. Public trust will hinge on clearly communicated accountability mechanisms, especially given shifting public perceptions around government-managed fundraising during past emergencies.
One advantage is that donations to the fund will be tax-deductible. Nonetheless, to ensure strong public confidence, transparency around all donations and grants must be strictly upheld.
Regarding usage, the name “Family and Youth Fund” suggests a focus on young people, yet eligibility criteria remain unclear. The law states that: “Resources shall be allocated to public institutions for projects approved by the fund's governing board.” This opens the door for direct funding of public institution projects aligned with the fund’s goals, such as strengthening families or protecting youth from social risks. NGOs recognized for public benefit may also be eligible.
All these scenarios raise the key question: Who will benefit most from the fund—young people, or public institutions and NGOs presenting projects in the name of families and youth?
