Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi ışığında yoksulluk ile ilgili stratejiler

1. Workshop on New Approaches to Poverty Measurement
20 February 2014, Ankara University
Strategies against Poverty
in light of
the LIMTCP Study on Turkey
İpek İlkkaracan Ajas
İstanbul Technical University
Faculty of Management

2. The LIMTCP Study on Turkey Implications for Economic and Social Policy Design
LIMTCP Study relates to two persistent structural economic
challenges in Turkey:
1. Very low employment rate (under 50% in the past decade)
caused by very low female employment rate (around 25%
female vs. 65% male employment rate)
2. One of the highest poverty rates in the OECD (child poverty
at 24.6% almost twice the OECD average)
•
•
The LIMTCP study sets the linkages between the two:
Shows that employment generation has a strong potential for
poverty alleviation;
Yet also points out to the limitations of employment generation as
an anti-poverty strategy given substantial time deficits faced by
households.

3. The LIMTCP Study on Turkey Implications for Economic and Social Policy Design
Gendered nature of the findings:
The study shows that in poor households most able bodied eligible
men are already in employment; hence
An overwhelming majority of job recepients in poor households would
consist of women;
Emerging perspective on poverty alleviation:
•
Transforming household structure from ‘male breadwinner, female carer
families’ to ‘dual earner, dual carer’ families as an anti-poverty strategy
Different from the current policy discourse on anti-poverty policy in Turkey emphasizes:
1. Social transfers - Focused primarily on women
– Conditional cash transfers to women for elderly, sick and disabled care
– Conditional cash transfers to mothers for children’s education
– ‘Family Insurance’ paid to women – a proposal by main opposition party in the last
elections
2. Employment – Focused primarily on male employment

4. Distribution of Households by Labor Supply Structure (SILC 2010)
Total Sample
Sample Excluding Family
Farming
Populat
ion
%
HHs
%
Population
%
HHs
%
15,372
21.55
3,821
19.77
6,988
11.64
1,930
11.53
23,748
33.29
6,105
31.60
22,987
38.29
5,871
35.09
7,715
10.81
1,462
7.57
6,625
11.04
1,290
7.71
Female Headed
7,307
10.24
2,901
15.01
6,896
11.49
2,771
16.56
Other
17,200
24.11
5,033
26.05
16,531
27.54
4,870
29.11
Total
71,343
100
19,321
100
60,027
100
16,732
100
Dual Earner
Single Male
Breadwinners
Male
Breadwinners
with Multiple
Earners
İ. İlkkaracan and S. Değirmenci (2013), The Impact of Household Labor Supply Structure
on Poverty, ITU Working Paper.

5. Poverty Rates by Household Labor Supply Structure (SILC 2010)
relative poverty rate (60% median)
No. of
Population
Median
Poor
Ratio of
(in 1000's) Income (TL) (in 1000's) Poor (%)
Dual Earner
Poverty
Gap
6,988
11,604
763
10.92
19.60
22,987
7,406
5,547
24.13
26.31
6,625
8,331
1,323
19.97
26.48
Female Headed
6,896
8,069
1,420
20.59
27.59
Other
16,531
7,701
4,427
26.78
33.92
Total
60,027
7,907
13,480
22.46
28.69
Single Male
Breadwinners
Male Breadwinners
with Multiple
Earners
İlkkaracan and Değirmenci, 2013

6. Poverty Rates by Household Labor Supply Structure and Education of HH
Reference Person (SILC 2010)
Population
(in 1000’s)
Median Income
(TL)
No. of Poor
(in 1000’s)
Ratio of
Poor
(%)
2,865
11,137
7,150
5,846
627
4,087
21.88
36.70
4,756
7,093
1,162
24.43
785
3,254
10,938
6,788
58
693
7.39
21.30
655
9,178
84
12.82
1,513
5,718
12,915
8,567
78
718
5.16
12.56
849
10,076
77
9.07
1,824
2,879
24,270
13,099
1
48
0.05
1.67
364
17,375
0
0
Primary Education and Less
Dual Earner
Single Male Breadwinners
Male Breadwinners with Multiple
Earners
Secondary Education
Dual Earner
Single Male Breadwinners
Male Breadwinners with Multiple
Earners
High School
Dual Earner
Single Male Breadwinners
Male Breadwinners with Multiple
Earners
University
Dual Earner
Single Male Breadwinners
Male Breadwinners with Multiple
Earners
İlkkaracan and Değirmenci, 2013

7. Impact of Dual Earnership on Poverty Risk - Logistic Regression Analysis
Dependent Variable: Relative Poverty (60% median Income)
Explanatory Variables
• Dual Earner HH
B
S.E.
Odds Ratio
[Exp(B)]
Marginal
Effects
-0,436
0,064
0,65
-0.05
•
Dual Earner HH * Spouse
Employed Full-time
-0,723
0,081
0,52
-0.07
•
Dual Earner HH * Spouse
Employed under Social Security
-1,672
0,175
0,21
-0.11
Other Controls
Individual Controls (x3)
HH Reference Person Controls (x6)
•
•
HH Ref Person Employed
with social security
-0,994
HH Ref Person University
0,042
0,39
-0.12
-3,436
,180
0,03
-0.18
-1.197
0,281
0,28
-0.07
Spouse Controls (x5)
•
Spouse University
HH Characteristics Controls (x3)
Regional Controls (x6)
İlkkaracan and Değirmenci, 2013

8. Counterfactual Poverty Rates triggered by a Change in Wife’s
Employment Status
actual
Median
Income (TL)
Dual Earner
(Wife quits her job)
Single Male
Breadwinners
(Wife gets a job)
Male Breadwinners
with Multiple
Earners
(Wife gets a job)
counterfactual
No of Poor
(in 1000’s)
Ratio of
Poor (%)
Median
Income
(TL)
11,604
763
10.92
8,522
1,343
19.22
7,406
5,547
24.13
10,043
2,441
10.62
8,331
1,323
19.97
9,948
912
13.77
İlkkaracan and Değirmenci, 2013
Ratio of
No of Poor
Poor
(in 1000’s)
(%)

9. The LIMTCP Study on Turkey Implicationsfor Economic and Social Policy Design
• The LIMTCP study on Turkey sets the linkages between
employment generation, dual earnership and poverty reduction;
• Yet also points out to its limitations since
Women’s earnings will be too low and the working time
requirements too high to produce a net positive effect on household
welfare given:
1. current labor market conditions of long work hours, and
low wages; and,
2. lack of social care services provisioning.
Hence even if and when jobs are available, many women
are unlikely to enter the labor market and indeed they do
not!

10. Labor Force Participation Rate (%)
Urban Labor Force Participation Rates by Gender, Marital Status and
Education, Prime Working Age (20-49), 2011 HHLFS (İlkkaracan, 2014)
120
100
92,6
80
96
97,8
85
88,4
82,4
never married women
73,4
95
89,6
never married men
73,2
62,8
60
married women
47,9
married men
40
29,2
28
20
18,2
18,9
0
5-years primary or 8 years primary
less
high school
university

11. Time Use in Household and Workplace Work Hours, 2006
Unpaid
Workplace or Total (home
Total
and
household caring job search workplace)
labor
labor hours
hours
hours
labor hours W/M ratio
(daily)
(daily)
(weekly)
Women
Men
Women
Married
Men
Women
Never married
Men
Women
Ages 25-34
Men
Women
University graduate
Men
Women
Primary school
graduate
Men
Women
Employed
Men
Women
Sweden
Men
Women
France
Men
Women
Spain
Men
Average 15+
population
05:17
00:51
06:14
00:55
03:36
00:38
06:27
00:49
03:52
01:05
06:11
00:53
04:03
00:43
05:02
02:52
05:18
02:19
05:49
01:56
01:08
04:27
00:59
04:53
01:44
03:11
01:23
06:02
02:37
04:16
01:02
04:56
04:19
06:08
03:16
06:02
03:07
05:00
03:01
05:27
45
37
51
41
34
30
55
48
45
37
51
41
59
48
58
62
57
53
62
52
Household (unpaid)
labor hours W/M ratio
1,22
6,22
1,24
6,80
1,13
5,68
1,15
6,67
1,22
3,57
1,24
7,00
1,23
5,65
0,94
1,76
1,15
2,29
1,19
3,01
Source: For Turkey data, TÜİK 2006 Time Use Survey; for France, Swede
and Spain EC 2008 (1998-2004 data).

12. Anti poverty policy design – What are the options?
Social Transfers
• Risk of
institutionalizing
gendered
dependency patterns;
• Drain on public
budgets;
• Political corruption.
Employment Generation
•
•
•
Decent jobs generating
growth as the priority
objective of macroeconomic
policy
Yet by itself, positive net
welfare effect will be
limited;
Labor market regulation and
social service provisioning
need to accompany
Work-Life Balance Policies
• Public provisioning of social
care services
• Care leave
• Labor market regulation for
decent work hours, wages
and formal employment
practices

13. Is Flexible Work policy likely to achieve both employment
generation and work-life balance policy in one shot?
Draft policy proposal on flexible employment and workfamily balance announced in June 2013:
• Proposes to improve women’s labor market
attachment through extended maternity leave
(proposed as long as 6 years on a part-time basis);
• Combined with expanding opportunities for women’s
part-time work and;
• Work from home as “appropriate forms of work” for
women.
WORK-FAMILY BALANCE A LA TURCA!!!
• Gender equality perspective is lost!
• Aim is to improve quantity of employment for women (?) with no
attention to quality or sustainability

14. Anti poverty policy design – What are the
options?
• Decent jobs generating growth
+
• Work-Life Balance through
– Service provisioning and
– Gender egalitarian labor market regulation
Policy Vision:
• Supporting self-sufficiecy
• Gender equality
• Sustainable poverty alleviation

15. Upcoming research
• Impact of Public Investments in Social Care Services on
Employment, Gender Equality and Poverty in Turkey
Levy Economics Insitute and Istanbul Technical University
Objectives:
• to assess the need for social care services and necessary
scale of public investments
• to explore the impact of these investments on employment
generation by industry and occupation
• to assess the likely distribution of jobs by gender, education
level, rural/urban status, etc.
• to contextualize these outcomes in comparison to similar
effects of alternative public investments in other areas such
as physical infrastructure

16. • Thank you.