Determinants of the Attribution of Poverty in Turkey: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract

This study explored poverty attribution in terms of socio-economic factors, based on a survey of 1,110 participants living Turkey’s three largest cities, namely Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir. We include the following socio-economic variables: income, subjective class status, subjective destiny perception, education level, political position, gender, marital status, and age. Participants with higher education levels mostly explain poverty using structural reasons whereas participants with lower education levels tend to explain it with fatalistic reasons. Left- wing participants tend to explain poverty in terms of structural factors for reasons whereas right-wing participants tend to give individualistic reasons. Finally, men tend to offer more individualistic attributions of poverty than women do. Individualistic and structuralist approaches agree on several specific policies for reducing poverty whereas the fatalistic approach suggests different policies.

Poverty attributions in Guyana: Between self-interest, resentment, and ideology

“…Despite contradicting the selfinterest logic, it aligns with the enlightening effect of education (Kreidl, 2000). The effect of socioeconomic status in terms of the household assets confirms the self-interest theory, as possessing more household assets is associated with a stronger propensity for individual blame and with less support of social fate as an explanation for poverty (Svallfors, 2002;Yúdica et al, 2021;Özpinar and Akdede, 2022). Ethnicity is an important predictor: Indo-Guyanese are more likely to blame the individual and less likely to attribute poverty to the social structure.…”

“…For instance, a tendency to associate poverty with individual shortcomings might lead people to endorse policies focussed on job creation and skill development. Conversely, fatalistic attributions might foster support for direct assistance to impoverished individuals, while structural attributions could enhance support for policies targeting minimum income and free education (see Özpinar and Akdede, 2022). Considering the prevalent adherence to structural or external explanations in Guyana, there is likely a substantial support for the latter type of policies addressing these societal dynamics and hence aiming to alleviate poverty.…”

“…Individuals who tend to attribute poverty primarily to individual behaviour for poverty will be less likely to support welfare interventions for the poor (Yúdica et al, 2021), whereas those who emphasise social structures or fate are more likely to support state-driven interventions (Marquis and Rosset, 2021). Furthermore, specific types of poverty policies may garner support depending on the attributed causes of poverty by individuals (e.g., Marquis and Rosset, 2021; Özpinar and Akdede, 2022). For instance, a tendency to associate poverty with individual shortcomings might lead people to endorse policies focussed on job creation and skill development.…”

“…The validity of this three-dimensional model was upheld by many researchers over time. Several studies confirm the individualistic, structural (e.g., Furnham, 1982; van Oorschot and Halman, 2000; Cozzarelli et al, 2001; Nasser et al, 2002; Sales, 2002; Bullock, 2004), and fatalistic dimension (Feather, 1974; Morçöl, 1997; Nasser et al, 2002), while some have made use of the framework without assessing it (e.g., Bastias et al, 2019; Özpinar and Akdede, 2022). However, some authors argue that the three-tier model is not always entirely supported by the data and might not be exhaustive as it fails to reflect the ambiguity of public perceptions of poverty.…”

“…As a commonly used operationalisation of the ideology framework, the impact of left–right political orientation is investigated. It is long-established that right-wing or conservative individuals are generally more likely to adopt individualistic explanations and to blame the poor (Pandey et al, 1982; Lee et al, 1990; Özpinar and Akdede, 2022), as they adopt more conditional notions of solidarity, are more likely to accept social inequality and hold more negative attitudes towards the poor (van Oorschot, 2006; Weiner et al, 2011). In addition to political ideology, egalitarianism is linked to the various poverty attributions.…”