Time Deficits and Poverty:
The Levy Institute Measure of Time and
Consumption Poverty for Turkey
Ajit Zacharias and Thomas...
Outline
•
•
•
•

Motivation of Project
Theoretical Framework and Data
Results
Conclusions

Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş
...
Why a Time – Income Nexus I
• Poverty lines are supposed to reflect the command
over a minimum quantity of goods and servi...
Why a Time – Income Nexus II
• The time requirement for household production
must be explicitly taken into account because...
Time allocation

Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş

5
• Average weekly hours
by persons 18 to 70
years
– Time for personal care
(time-use data)
– Time for minimum
leisure and
n...
Poverty-level household production
requirements I
• Households differentiated by the number of
adults and children (12 gro...
Poverty-level household production
requirements II (time-use data)
Urban

Rural

140
120

120

96

100

57

43

60
20

80
...
Person’s share in the total hours of household
production (percent), persons 18 to 70 years

Zacharias, Masterson and Memi...
Time deficit and consumption poverty

Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş

10
Two-dimensional poverty measure
Household: Consumption-poor if household consumption is less
than the consumption poverty ...
Empirical methodology I : statistical
matching
Survey subject

Name

Sample size

Income and
Expenditure

HANEHALKI BÜTÇE
...
Empirical methodology II : Valuing time
deficits, poverty line and consumption
• Valuing time deficit
– No data on domesti...
Time and Consumption Poverty
in Turkey: Key Findings

Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference ...
Consumption poverty rate of households: Official and
LIMTCP (percent)
Official

LIMTCP
51 (3,117)

39 (2,359)
35 (5,986)
2...
Poverty of individuals: Official versus LIMTCP
Rate (percent)

Number (thousands)

Official

LIMTCP

Hidden poor

Official...
Ratio of LIMTCP to official consumption deficit

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Official Income Poor, Time Poor
Urban

Rural
...
Men

Women

Type of time poverty by sex and location
(percent distribution and the number of time-poor
persons in millions...
Time poverty rates of individuals in time-poor
households by sex and consumption poverty status
All
Nonpoor
Turkey
Poor

N...
Incidence of time poverty by weekly hours of
employment and sex (percent)
120
100
80
Urban Men
60

Rural Men

Urban Women
...
Weekly hours of required household production, by
weekly hours of employment and sex
40
35
30
25
Urban

20

Rural

15

Tur...
Ratio of monetized value of time deficit to earnings, by
sex and earnings quintile
(median value of ratio x 100)
250
225
2...
Poverty rate of employed persons by status in
employment (percent): Official vs. LIMTCP
80
70
60

50
40

Official

30

LIM...
Employment Simulations
for the LIMTCP 2006 for Turkey

Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference...
Outline
•
•
•
•

Methodology
Results for individuals
Results for households
Conclusions

Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş

2...
Probable-hours work simulation
• What will be the picture of consumption and time poverty
if every employable adult who is...
Effects of employment

•
•
•

A = Available time; Lf = Full-time work; Y0 = Standard consumption poverty line;
y0CD = LIMT...
Probable-hours work simulation
• Outline of method
1. Assign most likely jobs (earnings and usual
weekly hours) to eligibl...
Actual and simulated time-adjusted
poverty rates for all adults (percent)
Actual

Simulation

60.0
50.0

50.0

39.4

40.0
...
Actual and simulated time and consumption
poverty rates for all individuals (percent)
60
Actual

Simulation

51.1

50
40.8...
Post-simulation time and consumption poverty status
of consumption-poor adults (aged 15 to 70) by sex
Distribution accordi...
Post-simulation poverty rates of recipient households
Official versus LIMTCP
Official

LIMTCP

70
61

59

60

57

50
40
30...
Time and consumption poverty status of rural
households from actual to simulation (percent)
Distribution of households acc...
Time and consumption poverty status of urban
households from actual to simulation (percent)
Distribution of households acc...
Time and consumption poverty status of recipient
households from actual to simulation (percent)
Distribution of recipient ...
Understanding the hard-core poor
• Households with no additional employable adults (18 to 70 years
old)
– 72.5 percent of ...
Job Recipients in hard-core poor
households, by sex, education and area
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
30...
Summary
• Employment does offer a way out of
consumption poverty for some households
• Many households already have all ad...
Cross-Country Comparisons

Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at
Ankara University, Ankar...
Comparisons I: Official vs. adjusted poverty rate of
households
60
50

50
41
Percent

40

35

30

24
18

20
11
10

11

Off...
Comparisons II: Factors behind hidden poverty rate

Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Turkey
LIMTIP minus official poverty rate...
Comparisons III: Understatement of poverty gap
(Official estimate as a percentage of adjusted estimate)
90
77

Official/Ad...
Comparisons IV: Time poverty rates of households by
poverty status (percent)
90

80
70
60
50

Poor

40

Nonpoor
All

30
20...
Comparisons V: Employment rates of women and men
by poverty status (percent)
Women

Men

Turkey

Turkey

Korea

Korea

Mex...
Comparisons VI: Time poverty rates of employed men
and women by poverty status (percent)
Women

Men

Turkey

Turkey

Korea...
Policy Considerations

Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at
Ankara University, Ankara, 2...
Policy considerations I
– Interlocking of time and consumption poverty
requires an integrated approach
•
•
•
•

providing ...
Policy considerations II
– Expanding employment opportunities for women
• Structural issues
• Legislations..

– Lower hour...
Concluding Remarks

Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at
Ankara University, Ankara, 20 F...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Zaman açığı ve yoksulluk: Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi

808 views

Published on

Zaman açığı ve yoksulluk: Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
808
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
282
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Zaman açığı ve yoksulluk: Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi

  1. 1. Time Deficits and Poverty: The Levy Institute Measure of Time and Consumption Poverty for Turkey Ajit Zacharias and Thomas Masterson, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Emel Memiş, Ankara University and Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Prepared for the conference “New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement” Ankara, February 20, 2014
  2. 2. Outline • • • • Motivation of Project Theoretical Framework and Data Results Conclusions Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 2
  3. 3. Why a Time – Income Nexus I • Poverty lines are supposed to reflect the command over a minimum quantity of goods and services that is necessary for survival • A certain minimum quantity of time must be devoted to household production for the typical household to reproduce itself as a unit • US thresholds implicitly assumed “that a household with income equal to the poverty standard must have a person working full time in the home to be nonpoor” (Clair Vickery 1977: 30) Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 3
  4. 4. Why a Time – Income Nexus II • The time requirement for household production must be explicitly taken into account because some households may not be able to meet that requirement and may not have sufficient income to purchase the requisite market substitutes • For such households, the standard poverty lines do not represent the command over a minimum quantity of goods and services • Ignoring time deficits leads to inconsistency: thresholds presuppose the time requirement but the definition of resources ignores time availability Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 4
  5. 5. Time allocation Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 5
  6. 6. • Average weekly hours by persons 18 to 70 years – Time for personal care (time-use data) – Time for minimum leisure and nonsubstitutable activities (assumptions) Urban Rural Personal maintenance 89 87 Personal care 79 77 Necessary minimum leisure 10 10 7 7 96 94 Nonsubstitutable household activities Total Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 6
  7. 7. Poverty-level household production requirements I • Households differentiated by the number of adults and children (12 groups); and rural/urban location • Average weekly hours of household production for households that have – Consumption near the official poverty line, so as to gauge poverty-level time requirements; – At least one nonemployed adult present, so as to ensure that the requirements are derived from households that are not as likely to be suffering from time deficits. Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 7
  8. 8. Poverty-level household production requirements II (time-use data) Urban Rural 140 120 120 96 100 57 43 60 20 80 76 62 80 40 123 140 100 80 64 60 34 47 20 40 3+ adults 2 adults 0 No child 1 adult 1 child 2 children 42 2 adults 53 54 21 20 3+ adults 2 adults 0 No child 1 adult 1 child 3+ children Number of children 1 adult 71 67 60 49 60 43 95 88 80 2 children 3+ children Number of children 3+ adults 1 adult Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 2 adults 3+ adults 8
  9. 9. Person’s share in the total hours of household production (percent), persons 18 to 70 years Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 9
  10. 10. Time deficit and consumption poverty Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 10
  11. 11. Two-dimensional poverty measure Household: Consumption-poor if household consumption is less than the consumption poverty threshold adjusted by the time deficit; time-poor if any of the members have a time deficit. Individual: Consumption-poor if household consumption is less than the consumption poverty threshold adjusted by the time deficit; time-poor if she has a time deficit. Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 11
  12. 12. Empirical methodology I : statistical matching Survey subject Name Sample size Income and Expenditure HANEHALKI BÜTÇE ANKETİ - MİKRO VERİ SETİ, 2006 (HBA) 34,939 persons in 8,556 households. There were 24,867 individuals aged 15 years or older. Time-use 16,413 persons in 4,345 ZAMAN KULLANIM households. Completed time ANKETİ - MİKRO diaries were available for VERİ SETİ, 2006 10,893 individuals that were 15 (ZKA) years or older. Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 12
  13. 13. Empirical methodology II : Valuing time deficits, poverty line and consumption • Valuing time deficit – No data on domestic workers – Average hourly wage of workers "similar" to domestic workers (HBA) – 3.48 liras nationally; 4.14 liras for urban and 2.54 for rural areas • Poverty line – Average caloric norm for adults (2450 kcal) – Official equivalence scale – Average values: 404 for 1-person HH, 611 for 2-person HH, 911 for 4-person HH etc. • Consumption expenditures – Official definition (excludes durables) Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 13
  14. 14. Time and Consumption Poverty in Turkey: Key Findings Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
  15. 15. Consumption poverty rate of households: Official and LIMTCP (percent) Official LIMTCP 51 (3,117) 39 (2,359) 35 (5,986) 26 (2,869) 24 (4,234) 17(1,875) Urban Rural Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş All 15
  16. 16. Poverty of individuals: Official versus LIMTCP Rate (percent) Number (thousands) Official LIMTCP Hidden poor Official LIMTCP Hidden poor TURKEY 30 40 11 21,406 29,035 7,629 Men 24 35 11 5,342 7,670 2,328 Women 26 36 10 6,243 8,722 2,480 Children 38 49 11 9,822 12,643 2,822 URBAN 20 30 10 9,225 13,546 4,320 Men 16 26 9 2,295 3,582 1,287 Women 17 26 9 2,667 4,030 1,363 Children 27 38 11 4,263 5,934 1,670 RURAL 45 58 12 12,181 15,490 3,309 Men 38 51 13 3,047 4,088 1,041 Women 40 53 13 3,576 4,692 1,116 Children 56 67 5,558 6,710 1,152 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 12 16
  17. 17. Ratio of LIMTCP to official consumption deficit 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Official Income Poor, Time Poor Urban Rural Official Income Poor All Households Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 18
  18. 18. Men Women Type of time poverty by sex and location (percent distribution and the number of time-poor persons in millions) Rural Urban Rural Urban 0% 20% 40% 60% Men 80% 100% Women Urban Employment time-bind Housework time-bind Double time-bind Rural Urban Rural 3.57 0.01 0.02 1.73 0.02 0.06 1.42 0.38 0.04 1.78 0.52 0.36 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 20
  19. 19. Time poverty rates of individuals in time-poor households by sex and consumption poverty status All Nonpoor Turkey Poor Nonpoor Urban Poor Nonpoor Rural Poor Employed Men 21 29 Women 12 48 Men 34 42 Women 32 68 Men 21 29 Women 11 48 Men 33 42 Women 21 68 Men 19 24 Women 18 42 Men 29 34 44 67 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Women 21
  20. 20. Incidence of time poverty by weekly hours of employment and sex (percent) 120 100 80 Urban Men 60 Rural Men Urban Women 40 Rural Women 20 0 Less than 20 21 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 60 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 61+ 22
  21. 21. Weekly hours of required household production, by weekly hours of employment and sex 40 35 30 25 Urban 20 Rural 15 Turkey 10 5 0 Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Women Men Women 23
  22. 22. Ratio of monetized value of time deficit to earnings, by sex and earnings quintile (median value of ratio x 100) 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Bottom Urban Men Second Middle Urban Women Rural Men Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Fourth Top Rural Women 25
  23. 23. Poverty rate of employed persons by status in employment (percent): Official vs. LIMTCP 80 70 60 50 40 Official 30 LIMTCP 20 10 0 Wage/salary earner Casual Self-employed Unpaid family worker Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş All persons 27
  24. 24. Employment Simulations for the LIMTCP 2006 for Turkey Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
  25. 25. Outline • • • • Methodology Results for individuals Results for households Conclusions Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 29
  26. 26. Probable-hours work simulation • What will be the picture of consumption and time poverty if every employable adult who is currently non-employed in consumption-poor households were to work under the existing pattern of employment and earnings? • Household income and thus consumption would increase in households with employable adults • The time allocation of individuals in households with employable adults would change • Some of the newly employed adults and their household members may face increased time deficits • The increase in household consumption due to increased earnings would be offset to some extent by increases in time deficits Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 30
  27. 27. Effects of employment • • • A = Available time; Lf = Full-time work; Y0 = Standard consumption poverty line; y0CD = LIMTIP poverty line Z = Observed position of the household (consumption-poor, time-nonpoor) Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) 31
  28. 28. Probable-hours work simulation • Outline of method 1. Assign most likely jobs (earnings and usual weekly hours) to eligible non-working adults in consumption-poor households 2. Re-assign household production hours to all adult members of households with job recipients 3. Adjust household consumption expenditures for households with job recipients 4. Re-calculate LIMTCP for all recipient households Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 32
  29. 29. Actual and simulated time-adjusted poverty rates for all adults (percent) Actual Simulation 60.0 50.0 50.0 39.4 40.0 30.0 25.8 17.8 20.0 11.1 10.0 35.9 10.9 6.5 8.2 6.4 0.0 Argentina Chile Korea Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Mexico Turkey 33
  30. 30. Actual and simulated time and consumption poverty rates for all individuals (percent) 60 Actual Simulation 51.1 50 40.8 40 30 20 34.6 25.6 25.2 16.8 10 0 Urban Rural Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) Total 34
  31. 31. Post-simulation time and consumption poverty status of consumption-poor adults (aged 15 to 70) by sex Distribution according to time and consumption poverty after simulation Sex and time poverty status of consumption poor adults Time-poor Male Time-nonpoor All consumption-poor Time-poor Female Time-nonpoor All comsumption-poor Time and Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor consumption-poor 74.01 80.7 8 19.3 28.56 82.38 56.14 26.97 43.86 43.33 Time-poor and consumptionnonpoor Time-nonpoor and consumptionnonpoor 15.93 61.1 4.59 38.9 8.12 7.49 17.12 15.19 82.88 12.92 4.05 6.47 26.51 93.53 19.51 4.14 7.76 20.62 92.24 15.75 6.02 4.28 60.9 95.72 43.81 5.99 6.32 37.22 93.68 28 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Total 31.15 68.85 29.53 70.47 35
  32. 32. Post-simulation poverty rates of recipient households Official versus LIMTCP Official LIMTCP 70 61 59 60 57 50 40 30 20 26 17 11 10 0 Turkey Rural Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Urban 36
  33. 33. Time and consumption poverty status of rural households from actual to simulation (percent) Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty Time and consumptionpoor Time-nonpoor and consumptionpoor Time-poor and consumptionnonpoor Time-nonpoor and consumption- Total nonpoor Time and consumption-poor 31.6% 0.2% 3.7% 0.5% 35.9% Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor 5.9% 3.1% 4.6% 1.6% 15.2% Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor 19.7% Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor Total 19.7% 29.2% 37.5% 3.3% Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) 28.0% 29.2% 31.2% 100.0% 37
  34. 34. Time and consumption poverty status of urban households from actual to simulation (percent) Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty Time-nonpoor Time-nonpoor Time and and Time-poor and and consumption- consumption- consumption- consumption- poor poor nonpoor Total nonpoor Time and consumption-poor 11.1% 0.0% 3.9% 0.3% 15.2% Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor 4.7% 1.0% 3.3% 1.5% 10.4% Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor 26.4% Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor Total 26.4% 47.9% 15.8% 1.0% Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 33.6% 47.9% 49.7% 100.0% 38
  35. 35. Time and consumption poverty status of recipient households from actual to simulation (percent) Distribution of recipient households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty Time-nonpoor Time-nonpoor Total Total Time-poor and and consumption- consumption- consumption- poor Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor and consumption-poor Time and consumption-poor Time and nonpoor nonpoor 33.6% 0.3% 16.7% 1.5% 52.0% 22.6% 2.4% 16.4% 6.7% 48.0% 56.2% 2.7% 33.0% 8.1% 100.0% Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 39
  36. 36. Understanding the hard-core poor • Households with no additional employable adults (18 to 70 years old) – 72.5 percent of hard-core poor households (89.7 percent in urban areas and 58.8 percent in rural areas) – Why do they have no additional employable adults? • Disabled, retired, in school, or in the military (minor factor) • Already employed (94.4 percent of all adults in hard-core poor households) • Households with additional employable adults – Additional earnings are insufficient to close the income poverty gap – Why? – Existing patterns of pay are heavily biased against people with characteristics of the additional employable adults in hard-core poor households Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) 40
  37. 37. Job Recipients in hard-core poor households, by sex, education and area 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Male Female Male Urban Less than primary Female Rural Primary school Middle school Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş High school College 41
  38. 38. Summary • Employment does offer a way out of consumption poverty for some households • Many households already have all adults employed • Most of the non-employed adults in consumption-poor households are unlikely to get a good-paying job Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 42
  39. 39. Cross-Country Comparisons Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
  40. 40. Comparisons I: Official vs. adjusted poverty rate of households 60 50 50 41 Percent 40 35 30 24 18 20 11 10 11 Official Adjusted 8 6 3 0 Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Turkey 44
  41. 41. Comparisons II: Factors behind hidden poverty rate Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Turkey LIMTIP minus official poverty rate (percentage points) 5 7 9 5 10 Time-poor and offically nonpoor/All (percent) 49 55 40 56 34 Hidden poor/Time-poor and officially nonpoor (percent) 10 13 22 9 30 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 45
  42. 42. Comparisons III: Understatement of poverty gap (Official estimate as a percentage of adjusted estimate) 90 77 Official/Adjusted (percent) 80 70 68 66 56 60 58 Korea Turkey 50 40 30 20 10 0 Argentina Chile Mexico Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 46
  43. 43. Comparisons IV: Time poverty rates of households by poverty status (percent) 90 80 70 60 50 Poor 40 Nonpoor All 30 20 10 0 Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Turkey 47
  44. 44. Comparisons V: Employment rates of women and men by poverty status (percent) Women Men Turkey Turkey Korea Korea Mexico Nonpoor Mexico Nonpoor Poor Poor Chile Chile Argentina Argentina 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 20 40 60 80 100 48
  45. 45. Comparisons VI: Time poverty rates of employed men and women by poverty status (percent) Women Men Turkey Turkey Korea Korea Mexico Nonpoor Mexico Nonpoor Poor Poor Chile Chile Argentina Argentina 0 20 40 60 80 0 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 20 40 60 80 49
  46. 46. Policy Considerations Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
  47. 47. Policy considerations I – Interlocking of time and consumption poverty requires an integrated approach • • • • providing employment opportunities, achieving decent work conditions, widespread public provisioning of social care services social policies to achieve poverty reduction Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 51
  48. 48. Policy considerations II – Expanding employment opportunities for women • Structural issues • Legislations.. – Lower hours of employment and higher earnings – Public provisioning of social care services as a support for employment – Active social assistance Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 52
  49. 49. Concluding Remarks Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014

×