Poverty Dynamics in Turkey

Abstract

This paper examines poverty dynamics in Turkey using a nationally representative panel data covering the 2005-08 period. The aim is to understand mobility in and out of poverty and its correlates. We find that almost a quarter of the poor are persistently poor. The conditional and unconditional exit rates that we estimate are within the range of values reported for developed countries in the literature. That the income events-but not transfers-dominate both poverty entries and exits is indicative of the major role labor markets play in the lives of the poor. In particular, we argue that given the characteristics of the poor and modest levels of social assistance, the reason for mobility rates close to European averages must be sought in the informal economy.JEL Codes: D31, I32, I38

Child Poverty and Youth Unemployment in Turkey

“…Thus, rural poverty has been transferred to the cities at a time when the neoliberal economic order has further widened the socioeconomic disparities within society. Child poverty in Turkey can, then, be seen as the product of a number of factors (Kutlu, ; Şeker & Dayıoğlu, ; Şen & Kahraman, ): the devaluation of labor under neoliberal policies and the rise of informal work; the withdrawal of state support for agriculture (leading to collapse of the agricultural sector), so raising cost of living in urban areas (especially metropolitan centers); and the dissolution of social solidarity networks that otherwise could have helped the poor families integrate with the urban economy. …”

“…It can be argued that urban poverty, particularly urban child poverty, is increasingly becoming a permanent phenomenon in Turkey, slowly transforming itself into an intergenerational problem with little hope for vertical mobility. Şeker and Dayıoğlu () conducted a longitudinal analysis of households’ transition patterns into and out of poverty covering the period 2006–2009. They found that “51.4% of the persistent poor (individuals) are children younger than 15 years of age” (Şeker & Dayıoğlu, , pp.…”

“…Şeker and Dayıoğlu () conducted a longitudinal analysis of households’ transition patterns into and out of poverty covering the period 2006–2009. They found that “51.4% of the persistent poor (individuals) are children younger than 15 years of age” (Şeker & Dayıoğlu, , pp. 477, 489–490).…”

“…How this pro‐family social aid policy is implemented suggests the centrality of children in the anti‐poverty policy of the JDP government. But, this does not amount to a significant social aid contribution to lift the material well‐being of the children (and their family) above the poverty level (Dayıoğlu & Şeker, ; Şeker & Dayıoğlu, ). The conditional cash transfer program, for example, is designed to cover the education expenses of poor children by cash payable to their mothers, and seems to have had a limited effect, as it does not address other forms of child deprivation (Kahraman & Sallan‐Gül, ; Şen & Kahraman, ).…”

State Dependence in Welfare Benefits in a Non‐Welfare Context

“…The literature on Turkey also focuses on the role of social assistance benefits in the alleviation of poverty. SeeBuğra (2009) andŞeker and Dayioğlu (2015).2 It is also reported that total public expenditure as a part of GDP is 13.7 percent in Turkey, which is clearly below the OECD average, of 20.6 percent, and the share in the U.S., of 15.9 percent(Immervoll, 2010).3 For reference, see http://www.maliye.gov.tr/Konus maSun umlar i/Sunum Merke zi/index.html?kt-p=2015YBSK, retrieved on November 24, 2015.4 SeeHansen et al (2014),Cappellari and Jenkins (2008), andScholz et al (2009) for Canada, the U.K., and the U.S., respectively.5 The persistence rate is defined as one minus the exit rate. Note also thatFigure 1shows the total share of the working-age population in receipt and the shares by benefit type.…”