The determinants of income poverty and material deprivation for Turkey: A multinomial probit model

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 224 - 240, 31.01.2023

Mehmet Sedat Uğur

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1177542

Cited By: 2

Öz

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors that affect income poverty and material deprivation of the individuals simultaneously for different sub-categories in Turkey. The analysis was conducted with multinomial probit model by using cross-sectional data of TurkStat's Survey of Income and Living Conditions for the year of 2018. The findings indicate that education is the key factor influencing both income poverty and material deprivation for individuals in Turkey. Accordingly, the probability of individuals being both income poor and materially deprived decreases as the level of education increases. In addition, variables such as age, gender, marital status, health, employment status and household size also have an impact on income poverty and material deprivation. Families with single parents and children, as well as the unemployed, have the highest probability of being materially deprived and income poor. While the probability of being income poor and materially deprived decreases as age increases, and men are more likely to be income poor and materially deprived than women, the effects of marital status and health differ in sub-categories. This implies that the effects of variables are not always in the same direction or magnitudes for income poor and materially deprived individuals, and in this context, income poverty and material deprivation should be evaluated differently, and policy-makers should also produce different policies for these two different situations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Income poverty, material deprivation, multinomial probit model

Türkiye için gelir yoksulluğu ve maddi yoksunluğun belirleyicileri: Çok durumlu probit modeli

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye için eş anlı olarak hem gelir yoksulluğu ve maddi yoksunluğu veya bunlardan birini tecrübe edip, diğerini etmeyen bireylerin bu durumlarına etki eden faktörleri incelemektir. TÜİK’in Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması’nın 2018 yılı mikro-kesit verileriyle çok durumlu bir probit model kurularak analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, Türkiye’de bireylerin hem gelir yoksulluğunu hem de maddi yoksunluğunu etkileyen en önemli değişkenin eğitim olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna göre eğitim düzeyi arttıkça bireylerin hem gelir yoksulu hem de maddi yoksun olma olasılıkları azalmaktadır. Eğitim değişkeninin yanında yaş, cinsiyet, medeni durum, sağlık, iş durumu ve hanehalkı büyüklüğü gibi değişkenler de gelir yoksulluğu ve maddi yoksunluk üzerinde etkilidir. Hane içerisinde gelir yoksulu ve maddi yoksun olma riski en yüksek gruplar ise tek ebeveyn ve çocuklardan oluşan aileler ve işsizlerdir. Yaş arttıkça gelir yoksulu ve maddi yoksun olma olasılığı azalmaktadır. Erkeklerin kadınlara göre gelir yoksulu ve maddi yoksun olma olasılıkları daha fazla iken, medeni durum ve sağlığın etkileri alt-kategorilerde farklılaşmaktadır. Bu da değişkenlerin, bireylerin gelir yoksulluğuna veya maddi yoksunluğuna etkilerinin her zaman aynı yönde olmadığını veya farklı büyüklüklerde olduğunu ve bu bağlamda gelir yoksulluğu ile maddi yoksunluğun farklı değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. Politika-yapıcıların da bu iki farklı durum için farklı politikalar üretmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gelir yoksulluğu, maddi yoksunluk, çok durumlu probit modeli

Kaynakça

• Acar, A., Anil, B. & Gursel, S. (2017). Mismatch between material deprivation and income poverty: The case of Turkey. Journal of Economic Issues, 51(3), 828-842.
• Acar, A. & Başlevent, C. (2014). Examination of the Transitions of Households into and out of Poverty in Turkey. BETAM Working Papers, No.15.
• Aran, M. A., Demir, S., Sarıca, Ö. & Yazici, H. (2010). Poverty and inequality changes in Turkey (2003-2006). State Planning Organization of the Republic of Turkey and the World Bank Welfare and Social Policy Analytical Work Program Working Paper, No.1.
• Aydin, K. & Güloğlu, T. (2011). Türkiye'de Nispi Yoksulluğun Sosyo-Ekonomik Analizi. Journal of Social Policy Conferences, 60, 89-118.
• Ayllón, S. & Gábos, A. (2017). The interrelationships between the Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion indicators. Social Indicators Research, 130(3), 1025-1049.
• Berthoud, R. & Bryan, M. (2011). Income, deprivation and poverty: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Social Policy, 40(1), 135-156.
• Betti, G., Cheli, B., Lemmi, A. & Verma, V. (2006). Multidimensional and Longitudinal Poverty: an Integrated Fuzzy Approach. In A. Lemmi & G. Betti (eds.), Fuzzy Set Approach to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement (p. 115-138). New York: Springer.
• Boarini, R. & Mira d'Ercole, M. (2006). Measures of material deprivation in OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers N.37. OECD: Paris.
• Bowen, H. P. & Wiersema, M. F. (2004). Modeling limited dependent variables: Guidelines for researchers of strategic management. İçinde D. J. Ketchen & D. Bergh (eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol.1, 87-134). Elsevier Press.
• Bradshaw, J. & Finch, N. (2003). Overlaps in dimensions of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 32(4), 513-525.
• Callan, T., Nolan, B. & Whelan, C. T. (1993). Resources, deprivation and the measurement of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 22(2), 141-172.
• Cameron, A. C. & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics Using Stata. Stata Press: Texas.
• Canbay, T. & Selim, S. (2010). Türkiye'de Hanehalkı Yoksulluğu. Ege Akademik Bakış, 10(2), 627-649.
• Cerioli, A. & Zani, S. (1990), A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty. In C. Dagum & M. Zenga (eds.), Income and wealth distribution, inequality and poverty (p.272-284), Springer Verlag: Berlin.
• Cheli, B. & Lemmi, A. (1995). A Totally Fuzzy and Relative Approach to the Multidimensional Analysis of Poverty. Economic Notes. Vol. 24 (1), p. 115-134.
• Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (1994). A New Approach to Evaluation of Well-being and Poverty by Fuzzy Set Theory. Giornale degli economisti e annali di economia. Vol. 53, p. 367-388.
• Crettaz, E. (2015). Poverty and material deprivation among E uropean workers in times of crisis. International Journal of Social Welfare, 24(4), 312-323.
• Dalgıç, B., İyidoğan, P. V. & Güven, A. (2015). Yoksulluk ve yoksulluk geçişlerinin belirleyenleri: Türkiye örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 23(24), 51-70.
• Deaton, A. (2006). Measuring poverty. In A.V.Banerjee, R. Bénabou, & D. Mookherjee (eds.), Understanding Poverty (p.3-15). New York: OUP.
• Dickens, C. (1850). David Copperfield. Bradbury & Evans
• Dow, J. K. & Endersby, J. W. (2004). Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: a comparison of choice models for voting research. Electoral Studies, 23(1), 107-122.
• Eurostat (2022). Glossary: Material Deprivation. http://ec.europa.eu (Erişim Tar.: 24.08.22).
• Evcim, N., Güneş, S. & Karaalp-Orhan, H. S. (2020). Türkiye'de Hanehalkı Göreli Yoksulluğunu Etkileyen Faktörler: Lojistik Regresyon Analizi. Sosyoekonomi, 28(43), 11-32.
• Fahey, T. (2007). The Case for an EU-wide Measure of Poverty. European Sociological Review, 23(1), 35-47.
• Figari, F. (2012). Cross-national differences in determinants of multiple deprivation in Europe. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 10(3), 397-418.
• Fusco, A., Guio, A. C. & Marlier, E. (2011). Income poverty and material deprivation in European countries. CEPS Working Paper No 2011-04. CEPS/INSTEAD: Luxembourg.
• Greene, W. H. (2011). Econometric Analysis (7th edition). Prentice Hall.
• Guio, A. C. (2009). What can be learned from deprivation indicators in Europe. Eurostat Methodologies and Working Papers, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
• Guloglu, T., Aydin, K., & Guloglu, F. K. (2012). Relative Poverty in Turkey between 1994 and 2006. Economics and Management, 17(1), 163-175.
• Hicks, N. & Streeten, P. (1979). Indicators of development: The search for a basic needs yardstick. World Development, 7(6), 567-580.
• Iceland, J. & Bauman, K. J. (2007). Income poverty and material hardship: How strong is the association? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 376-396.
• Israel I. & Spannagel D. (2013), Material Deprivation - an Analysis of Cross-country Differences and European Convergence. COPE FP7 Project: Work Package 3 - Poverty and its socio-economic structure in Europe. Oldenburg: CETRO.
• Karcı, Z. & Arlı, N. B. (2018). Maddi Yoksunluğu Etkileyen Değişkenlerin Lojistik Regresyon Analizi ile Belirlenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 1039-1048.
• Kenworthy, L., Epstein, J. & Duerr, D. (2011). Generous social policy reduces material deprivation. In L. Kenworthy (ed.), Progress for the poor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kizilgöl, Ö. A. & Demir, Ç. (2010). Türkiye'de Yoksulluğun Boyutuna İlişkin Ekonometrik Analizler. Business and Economics Research Journal, 1(1), 21-32.
• Kızılgöl, Ö. A. & Üçdoğruk, Ş. (2011). 2002-2006 yılları arasında Türkiye’de yaşam standartları ve yoksulluğa ilişkin Mikro Ekonometrik analizler. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(Özel), 373-391.
• Kropko, J. (2008). Choosing between multinomial logit and multinomial probit models for analysis of unordered choice data. Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
• Layte, R., Maître, B., Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2001). Persistent and consistent poverty in the 1994 and 1995 waves of the European Community Household Panel Survey. Review of Income and Wealth, 47(4), 427-449.
• Limanlı, Ö. (2015). Intertemporal poverty in Turkey. Procedia Economics and Finance, 30, 487-497.
• Long, J. S. & Freese, J. (2014). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. Stata Press: Texas.
• Mack, J. & Lansley, S. (1985). Poor Britain. London: G. Allen & Unwin.
• Madden, D. (2002). A Review of Recent Research into Poverty in Ireland. UCD Center for Economic Research. WP No. 32. University College, Dublin.
• Marx, K. (1933[1891]). Wage-Labour and Capital. New York: International Publishers.
• McGranahan, D.V., Richard-Proust, C., Sovani, N.V. & Subramanian, M. (1972). Contents and Measurement of Socioeconomic Development. (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, A Staff Study). New York: Praeger.
• Morris, D. (1979). Measuring the Condition of the World’s Poor: The Physical Quality of Life Index. London: Cass.
• Nelson, K. (2012). Counteracting material deprivation: The role of social assistance in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(2), 148-163.
• Nolan, B. & Whelan, C. T. (1996). The relationship between income and deprivation: A dynamic perspective. Revue économique, 47(3), 709-717.
• Nolan, B. & Whelan, C. T. (2010). Using non‐monetary deprivation indicators to analyze poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 305-325.
• OECD (2013). OECD Guidelines for Micro Statistics on Household Wealth. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264194878-en (Erişim Tarihi: 13.08.2022).
• Özdamar, Ö., Kılınç, Z. S. & Giovanis, E. (2021). Türkiye’de İşsizliğin Ekstra Maliyeti ve İşsizlik Ödeneklerinin Maddi Yoksunluk Üzerine Etkisi. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 36(3), 535-554.
• Paetz, F. & Steiner, W. J. (2018). Utility independence versus IIA property in independent probit models. Journal of choice modelling, 26, 41-47.
• Perry, B. (2002). The mismatch between income measures and direct outcome measures of poverty. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 101-127.
• Piachaud, D. (1981). Peter Townsend and the holy grail. New Society, 10(81), 421.
• Ram, R. (1982). Composite indices of physical quality of life, basic needs fulfilment, and income: A ‘principal component’representation. Journal of Development Economics, 11(2), 227-247.
• Ravallion, M. (1996). Issues in Measuring and Modelling Poverty. The Economic Journal. Vol. 106, No. 438 (September). 1328-1343.
• Ravallion, M. (2012). Poverty Lines across the World. In P. N. Jefferson (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Poverty (p. 76-104). Oxford University Press.
• Ray, D. (1998). Development Economics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Ringen, S. (1988). Direct and indirect measures of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 17(3), 351-365.
• Saltkjel, T. (2018). Welfare resources and social risks in times of social and economic change: A multilevel study of material deprivation in European countries. European Journal of Social Work, 21(5), 639-652.
• Sen, A. (1976). Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement. Econometrica. Vol. 44, No. 2 (March). 219-231.
• Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Sen, A. (2004). Özgürlükle Kalkınma (çev. Y. Alogan). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
• Sigeze, Ç. & Şengül, S. (2018). Türkiye’de yoksulluğun rassal etkiler multinomial logit model ile incelenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 20(4), 503-521.
• Šoltés, E. & Ulman, P. (2016). Material deprivation in Poland and Slovakia - a Comparative analysis. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie/Cracow Review of Economics and Management, (11 (947)), 19-36.
• Streeten, P. (1998). Beyond The Six Veils: Conceptualizing and Measuring Poverty. Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall). 1131
• Topgül, S. (2013). Türkiye'de Yoksulluk Ve Yoksulluğun Kadınlaşması. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 277-296.
• Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: a survey of household resources and standards of living. University of California Press.
• Townsend, P. (1987). Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, 16(2), 125-146.
• Turgut, M. (2021). Türkiye'nin Maddi Yoksunluk Oranındaki Değişiminin İncelenmesi. Uluslararası Finansal Ekonomi ve Bankacılık Uygulamaları Dergisi, 2(1), 63-108.
• TÜİK (2018). Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması 2018. TÜİK: Ankara.
• Ünver, Ş. & Alkan, Ö. (2020). Türkiye’de Bireylerin Maddi Yoksunluk Durumlarını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Modellenmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(2), 1334-1370.
• Watts, H. W. (1968). An Economic Definition of Poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 5-68. The University of Wisconsin, Madison.
• Whelan, C. T. Layte, R., & Maître, B. (2004). Understanding the mismatch between income poverty and deprivation: a dynamic comparative analysis. European Sociological Review, 20(4), 287-302.
• Whelan, C. T. & Maître, B. (2007). Measuring material deprivation with EU-SILC: Lessons from the Irish survey. European Societies, 9(2), 147-173.
• Whelan, C. T. & Maître, B. (2012). Understanding material deprivation: A comparative European analysis. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(4), 489-503.
• World Bank (1990). World Development Report 1990: Poverty. New York: OUP.
• Wulff, J. N. (2015). Interpreting results from the multinomial logit model: Demonstrated by foreign market entry. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 300-325.
• Yildirim, J., Bakır, M. A. & Savas, A. (2018). State dependence in poverty: the case of Turkey. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 54(9), 1963-1972.
• Yin, Q., Ntim-Amo, G., Xu, D., Gamboc, V. K., Ran, R., Hu, J. & Tang, H. (2022). Flood disaster risk perception and evacuation willingness of urban households: The case of Accra, Ghana. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 78, 103126.