Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi ışığında yoksulluk ile ilgili stratejiler
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

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

on

  • 378 views

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

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
378
Views on SlideShare
181
Embed Views
197

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

4 Embeds 197

http://www.tr.undp.org 181
http://www.bb.undp.org 9
http://www.ly.undp.org 6
http://www.pk.undp.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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) (%)
  • 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!
  • 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
  • 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).
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • • Thank you.