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

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 CollegeEmel Memiş, Ankara University and Levy

Economics Institute of Bard College

Prepared for the conference “New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement”

Ankara, February 20, 2014

Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 2

Outline

• Motivation of Project• Theoretical Framework and Data• Results• Conclusions


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)


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


Time allocation

The subscript denotes individual in household .

= minimum substitutable household production required to subsist with the poverty-level of income.


Minimum required time for personal maintenance and nonsubstitutable household activities• 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

Nonsubstitutable household activities 7 7

Total 96 94


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.


Poverty-level household production requirements II (time-use data)

No child1 child

2 children3+ childrenNumber of children

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 adult

2 adults

3+ adults

2034

43 47

4357 60 64

62

76 80

96

Urban

1 adult 2 adults 3+ adults

No child1 child

2 children3+ childrenNumber of children

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 adult

2 adults

3+ adults

21

4253 54

4960 67 71

8088

95

123

Rural

1 adult 2 adults 3+ adults


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


Time deficit and consumption poverty

household time deficit

The subscript denotes individual in household .


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.


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

ZAMAN KULLANIM ANKETİ - MİKRO VERİ SETİ, 2006 (ZKA)

16,413 persons in 4,345 households. Completed time diaries were available for 10,893 individuals that were 15 years or older.


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)

Time and Consumption Poverty in Turkey: Key Findings

Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014


Consumption poverty rate of households: Official and LIMTCP (percent)

Urban Rural All

17(1,875)

39 (2,359)

24 (4,234)26 (2,869)

51 (3,117)

35 (5,986)

Official LIMTCP

16Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş

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 12 5,558 6,710 1,152


Ratio of LIMTCP to official consumption deficit

Official Income Poor, Time Poor Official Income Poor0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Urban Rural All Households


Type of time poverty by sex and location (percent distribution and the number of time-poor

persons in millions)

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

Men

Wom

en

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95%Men Urban Men Rural Women Urban Women Rural

Employ-ment time-bind

3.5714276143 1.72535321599999

1.42280398 1.78215276200001

House-work time-bind

0.0104375089 0.016916992 0.376084480000003

0.5153469376

Double time-bind

0.0172758768 0.057409792 0.0376451750000003

0.364416300400002


Time poverty rates of individuals in time-poor households by sex and consumption poverty status

All Employed

TurkeyNonpoor

Men 21 29Women 12 48

PoorMen 34 42

Women 32 68

UrbanNonpoor


PoorMen 33 42

Women 21 68

RuralNonpoor


PoorMen 29 34

Women 44 67


Incidence of time poverty by weekly hours of employment and sex (percent)

Less than 20 21 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 60 61+0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Urban MenRural MenUrban WomenRural Women


Weekly hours of required household production, by weekly hours of employment and sex

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men WomenLess than 20 21 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 60 61+

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

UrbanRuralTurkey


Ratio of monetized value of time deficit to earnings, by sex and earnings quintile

(median value of ratio x 100)

Bottom Second Middle Fourth Top0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Urban Men Urban Women Rural Men Rural Women


Wage/salary earner

Casual Self-employed Unpaid family worker

All persons0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

OfficialLIMTCP

Poverty rate of employed persons by status in employment (percent): Official vs. LIMTCP

Employment Simulations for the LIMTCP 2006 for Turkey



Outline• Methodology• Results for individuals • Results for households• Conclusions


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 and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University)

31

• 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)

Effects of employment


Probable-hours work simulation

• Outline of method1. 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


Actual and simulated time-adjustedpoverty rates for all adults (percent)

Argentina Chile Korea Mexico Turkey0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

11.1

17.8

8.2

50.0

35.9

6.510.9

6.4

39.4

25.8

Actual Simulation


34

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

Urban Rural Total0

10

20

30

40

50

60

25.6

51.1

34.6

16.8

40.8

25.2

Actual Simulation


Sex and time poverty status of consumption poor adults

Distribution according to time and consumption poverty after simulation

Time and consumption-poor

Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor

Time-poor and consumption-

nonpoor

Time-nonpoor and consumption-

nonpoorTotal

Male

Time-poor 74.01 6.02 15.93 4.05 80.7 4.28 61.1 6.47 31.15

Time-nonpoor 8 60.9 4.59 26.51 19.3 95.72 38.9 93.53 68.85

All consumption-poor 28.56 43.81 8.12 19.51

Female

Time-poor 82.38 5.99 7.49 4.14 56.14 6.32 17.12 7.76 29.53

Time-nonpoor 26.97 37.22 15.19 20.62 43.86 93.68 82.88 92.24 70.47

All comsumption-poor 43.33 28 12.92 15.75

Post-simulation time and consumption poverty status of consumption-poor adults (aged 15 to 70) by sex


Turkey Rural Urban0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

17

26

11

59 6157

Official LIMTCP

Post-simulation poverty rates of recipient households Official versus LIMTCP


37

Time and consumption poverty status of rural households from actual to simulation (percent)

Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty

Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation



Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor

Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor

Total

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% 19.7%

Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor 29.2% 29.2%

Total 37.5% 3.3% 28.0% 31.2% 100.0%


Time and consumption poverty status of urban households from actual to simulation (percent)


Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation



Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor

Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor

Total



Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor 26.4% 26.4%

Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor 47.9% 47.9%

Total 15.8% 1.0% 33.6% 49.7% 100.0%


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


Time-nonpoor and

consumption-poor

Time-poor and consumption-

nonpoor

Time-nonpoor and

consumption-nonpoor

Total



Total 56.2% 2.7% 33.0% 8.1% 100.0%


40

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


Job Recipients in hard-core poor households, by sex, education and area

Male Female Male FemaleUrban Rural

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Less than primary Primary school Middle schoolHigh school College


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

Cross-Country Comparisons



Comparisons I: Official vs. adjusted poverty rate of households

Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Turkey0

10

20

30

40

50

60

611

41

3

24

11

18

50

8

35

OfficialAdjusted

Perc

ent


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


Comparisons III: Understatement of poverty gap (Official estimate as a percentage of adjusted estimate)


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

68 66

77

56 58

Offi

cial

/Adj

uste

d (p

erce

nt)


Comparisons IV: Time poverty rates of households by poverty status (percent)


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PoorNonpoorAll


Comparisons V: Employment rates of women and men by poverty status (percent)

Argentina

Chile

Mexico

Korea

Turkey

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Women

NonpoorPoor

Argentina

Chile

Mexico

Korea

Turkey

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Men

NonpoorPoor


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

Argentina

Chile

Mexico

Korea

Turkey

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Women

NonpoorPoor

Argentina

Chile

Mexico

Korea

Turkey

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Men

NonpoorPoor

Policy Considerations



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


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

Concluding Remarks


Education

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