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

Strategies against Poverty

in light of

the LIMTCP Study on Turkey

İpek İlkkaracan Ajas

İstanbul Technical University

Faculty of Management

Workshop on New Approaches to Poverty Measurement

20 February 2014, Ankara University

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


Implications for Economic and Social Policy Design

Total Sample

Sample Excluding Family

Farming

Population % HHs %

Populat

ion % HHs %

Dual Earner 15,372 21.55 3,821 19.77 6,988 11.64 1,930 11.53

Single Male

Breadwinners 23,748 33.29 6,105 31.60 22,987 38.29 5,871 35.09

Male

Breadwinners

with Multiple

Earners 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

Distribution of Households by Labor Supply Structure (SILC 2010)

İ. İlkkaracan and S. Değirmenci (2013), The Impact of Household Labor Supply Structure

on Poverty, ITU Working Paper.

relative poverty rate (60% median)

Population

(in 1000's)

Median

Income (TL)

No. of

Poor

(in 1000's)

Ratio of

Poor (%)

Poverty

Gap

Dual Earner 6,988 11,604 763 10.92 19.60

Single Male

Breadwinners 22,987 7,406 5,547 24.13 26.31

Male Breadwinners

with Multiple

Earners 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

Poverty Rates by Household Labor Supply Structure (SILC 2010)

İlkkaracan and Değirmenci, 2013

Population

(in 1000’s)

Median Income

(TL)

No. of Poor

(in 1000’s)

Ratio of

Poor

(%)

Primary Education and Less

Dual Earner 2,865 7,150 627 21.88

Single Male Breadwinners 11,137 5,846 4,087 36.70

Male Breadwinners with Multiple

Earners 4,756 7,093 1,162 24.43

Secondary Education

Dual Earner 785 10,938 58 7.39

Single Male Breadwinners 3,254 6,788 693 21.30


Earners 655 9,178 84 12.82

High School

Dual Earner 1,513 12,915 78 5.16



Earners 849 10,076 77 9.07

University

Dual Earner 1,824 24,270 1 0.05



Earners 364 17,375 0 0

Poverty Rates by Household Labor Supply Structure and Education of HH Reference Person (SILC 2010)


Impact of Dual Earnership on Poverty Risk - Logistic Regression Analysis

Dependent Variable: Relative Poverty (60% median Income)

Explanatory Variables B S.E.

Odds Ratio [Exp(B)]

Marginal Effects

• Dual Earner HH -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

0,042

0,39

-0.12

• HH Ref Person University -3,436 ,180 0,03 -0.18

Spouse Controls (x5)

• Spouse University -1.197 0,281 0,28 -0.07

HH Characteristics Controls (x3)

Regional Controls (x6)


actual counterfactual

Median

Income (TL) No of Poor

(in 1000’s)

Ratio of

Poor (%)

Median

Income

(TL)

No of Poor

(in 1000’s)

Ratio of

Poor

(%)

Dual Earner

(Wife quits her job) 11,604 763 10.92

8,522 1,343 19.22

Single Male

Breadwinners

(Wife gets a job) 7,406 5,547 24.13

10,043 2,441 10.62

Male Breadwinners

with Multiple

Earners

(Wife gets a job) 8,331 1,323 19.97

9,948 912 13.77

Counterfactual Poverty Rates triggered by a Change in Wife’s Employment Status


• 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!


Implicationsfor Economic and Social Policy Design

28

47,9

62,8

82,4

73,2

89,6 85

88,4

18,2 18,9

29,2

73,4

92,6 95 96 97,8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

5-years primary orless

8 years primary high school university

La

bo

r F

orc

e P

art

icip

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

never married women

never married men

married women

married men

Urban Labor Force Participation Rates by Gender, Marital Status and

Education, Prime Working Age (20-49), 2011 HHLFS (İlkkaracan, 2014)

Time Use in Household and Workplace Work Hours, 2006

Unpaid household caring

labor hours (daily)

Workplace or job search

hours (daily)

Total (home and

workplace) labor hours

(weekly)

Total labor hours

W/M ratio

Household (unpaid) labor hours W/M ratio

Average 15+ population

Women 05:17 01:08 45 1,22

6,22 Men 00:51 04:27 37

Married Women 06:14 00:59 51

1,24

6,80 Men 00:55 04:53 41

Never married Women 03:36 01:44 34

1,13

5,68 Men 00:38 03:11 30

Ages 25-34

Women 06:27 01:23 55 1,15

6,67 Men 00:49 06:02 48

University graduate Women 03:52 02:37 45

1,22

3,57 Men 01:05 04:16 37

Primary school graduate

Women 06:11 01:02 51 1,24

7,00 Men 00:53 04:56 41

Employed Women 04:03 04:19 59

1,23

5,65 Men 00:43 06:08 48

Sweden Women 05:02 03:16 58

0,94

1,76 Men 02:52 06:02 62

France Women 05:18 03:07 57

1,15

2,29 Men 02:19 05:00 53

Spain Women 05:49 03:01 62

1,19

3,01 Men 01:56 05:27 52

Source: For Turkey data, TÜİK 2006 Time Use Survey; for France, Sweden

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.

Work-Life Balance Policies • Public provisioning of social

care services

• Care leave

• Labor market regulation for

decent work hours, wages

and formal employment

practices

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

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 work-

family 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.