Zaman açığı ve yoksulluk: Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•1,066 views
Zaman açığı ve yoksulluk: Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
More from UNDP Türkiye
More from UNDP Türkiye (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Zaman açığı ve yoksulluk: Levy Enstitüsü Zaman ve Tüketim Yoksulluğu ölçümü Türkiye değerlendirmesi
- 1. 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 College Emel Memiş, Ankara University and Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Prepared for the conference “New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement” Ankara, February 20, 2014
- 2. Outline • • • • Motivation of Project Theoretical Framework and Data Results Conclusions Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 2
- 3. 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) Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 3
- 4. 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 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 4
- 5. Time allocation Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 5
- 6. • 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 7 7 96 94 Nonsubstitutable household activities Total Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 6
- 7. 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. Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 7
- 8. Poverty-level household production requirements II (time-use data) Urban Rural 140 120 120 96 100 57 43 60 20 80 76 62 80 40 123 140 100 80 64 60 34 47 20 40 3+ adults 2 adults 0 No child 1 adult 1 child 2 children 42 2 adults 53 54 21 20 3+ adults 2 adults 0 No child 1 adult 1 child 3+ children Number of children 1 adult 71 67 60 49 60 43 95 88 80 2 children 3+ children Number of children 3+ adults 1 adult Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 2 adults 3+ adults 8
- 9. Person’s share in the total hours of household production (percent), persons 18 to 70 years Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 9
- 10. Time deficit and consumption poverty Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 10
- 11. 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. Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 11
- 12. 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 16,413 persons in 4,345 ZAMAN KULLANIM households. Completed time ANKETİ - MİKRO diaries were available for VERİ SETİ, 2006 10,893 individuals that were 15 (ZKA) years or older. Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 12
- 13. 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) Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 13
- 14. Time and Consumption Poverty in Turkey: Key Findings Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
- 15. Consumption poverty rate of households: Official and LIMTCP (percent) Official LIMTCP 51 (3,117) 39 (2,359) 35 (5,986) 26 (2,869) 24 (4,234) 17(1,875) Urban Rural Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş All 15
- 16. 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 5,558 6,710 1,152 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 12 16
- 17. Ratio of LIMTCP to official consumption deficit 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Official Income Poor, Time Poor Urban Rural Official Income Poor All Households Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 18
- 18. Men Women Type of time poverty by sex and location (percent distribution and the number of time-poor persons in millions) Rural Urban Rural Urban 0% 20% 40% 60% Men 80% 100% Women Urban Employment time-bind Housework time-bind Double time-bind Rural Urban Rural 3.57 0.01 0.02 1.73 0.02 0.06 1.42 0.38 0.04 1.78 0.52 0.36 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 20
- 19. Time poverty rates of individuals in time-poor households by sex and consumption poverty status All Nonpoor Turkey Poor Nonpoor Urban Poor Nonpoor Rural Poor Employed Men 21 29 Women 12 48 Men 34 42 Women 32 68 Men 21 29 Women 11 48 Men 33 42 Women 21 68 Men 19 24 Women 18 42 Men 29 34 44 67 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Women 21
- 20. Incidence of time poverty by weekly hours of employment and sex (percent) 120 100 80 Urban Men 60 Rural Men Urban Women 40 Rural Women 20 0 Less than 20 21 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 60 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 61+ 22
- 21. Weekly hours of required household production, by weekly hours of employment and sex 40 35 30 25 Urban 20 Rural 15 Turkey 10 5 0 Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Women Men Women 23
- 22. Ratio of monetized value of time deficit to earnings, by sex and earnings quintile (median value of ratio x 100) 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Bottom Urban Men Second Middle Urban Women Rural Men Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Fourth Top Rural Women 25
- 23. Poverty rate of employed persons by status in employment (percent): Official vs. LIMTCP 80 70 60 50 40 Official 30 LIMTCP 20 10 0 Wage/salary earner Casual Self-employed Unpaid family worker Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş All persons 27
- 24. Employment Simulations for the LIMTCP 2006 for Turkey Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
- 25. Outline • • • • Methodology Results for individuals Results for households Conclusions Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 29
- 26. 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, Masterson and Memiş 30
- 27. Effects of employment • • • 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) Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) 31
- 28. Probable-hours work simulation • Outline of method 1. 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 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 32
- 29. Actual and simulated time-adjusted poverty rates for all adults (percent) Actual Simulation 60.0 50.0 50.0 39.4 40.0 30.0 25.8 17.8 20.0 11.1 10.0 35.9 10.9 6.5 8.2 6.4 0.0 Argentina Chile Korea Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Mexico Turkey 33
- 30. Actual and simulated time and consumption poverty rates for all individuals (percent) 60 Actual Simulation 51.1 50 40.8 40 30 20 34.6 25.6 25.2 16.8 10 0 Urban Rural Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) Total 34
- 31. Post-simulation time and consumption poverty status of consumption-poor adults (aged 15 to 70) by sex Distribution according to time and consumption poverty after simulation Sex and time poverty status of consumption poor adults Time-poor Male Time-nonpoor All consumption-poor Time-poor Female Time-nonpoor All comsumption-poor Time and Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor consumption-poor 74.01 80.7 8 19.3 28.56 82.38 56.14 26.97 43.86 43.33 Time-poor and consumptionnonpoor Time-nonpoor and consumptionnonpoor 15.93 61.1 4.59 38.9 8.12 7.49 17.12 15.19 82.88 12.92 4.05 6.47 26.51 93.53 19.51 4.14 7.76 20.62 92.24 15.75 6.02 4.28 60.9 95.72 43.81 5.99 6.32 37.22 93.68 28 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Total 31.15 68.85 29.53 70.47 35
- 32. Post-simulation poverty rates of recipient households Official versus LIMTCP Official LIMTCP 70 61 59 60 57 50 40 30 20 26 17 11 10 0 Turkey Rural Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Urban 36
- 33. Time and consumption poverty status of rural households from actual to simulation (percent) Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty Time and consumptionpoor Time-nonpoor and consumptionpoor Time-poor and consumptionnonpoor Time-nonpoor and consumption- Total nonpoor 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% Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor Total 19.7% 29.2% 37.5% 3.3% Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) 28.0% 29.2% 31.2% 100.0% 37
- 34. Time and consumption poverty status of urban households from actual to simulation (percent) Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty Time-nonpoor Time-nonpoor Time and and Time-poor and and consumption- consumption- consumption- consumption- poor poor nonpoor Total nonpoor Time and consumption-poor 11.1% 0.0% 3.9% 0.3% 15.2% Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor 4.7% 1.0% 3.3% 1.5% 10.4% Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor 26.4% Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor Total 26.4% 47.9% 15.8% 1.0% Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 33.6% 47.9% 49.7% 100.0% 38
- 35. 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 Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty Time-nonpoor Time-nonpoor Total Total Time-poor and and consumption- consumption- consumption- poor Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor and consumption-poor Time and consumption-poor Time and nonpoor nonpoor 33.6% 0.3% 16.7% 1.5% 52.0% 22.6% 2.4% 16.4% 6.7% 48.0% 56.2% 2.7% 33.0% 8.1% 100.0% Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 39
- 36. 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 Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University) 40
- 37. Job Recipients in hard-core poor households, by sex, education and area 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Male Female Male Urban Less than primary Female Rural Primary school Middle school Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş High school College 41
- 38. 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 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 42
- 39. Cross-Country Comparisons Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
- 40. Comparisons I: Official vs. adjusted poverty rate of households 60 50 50 41 Percent 40 35 30 24 18 20 11 10 11 Official Adjusted 8 6 3 0 Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Turkey 44
- 41. 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 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 45
- 42. Comparisons III: Understatement of poverty gap (Official estimate as a percentage of adjusted estimate) 90 77 Official/Adjusted (percent) 80 70 68 66 56 60 58 Korea Turkey 50 40 30 20 10 0 Argentina Chile Mexico Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 46
- 43. Comparisons IV: Time poverty rates of households by poverty status (percent) 90 80 70 60 50 Poor 40 Nonpoor All 30 20 10 0 Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş Turkey 47
- 44. Comparisons V: Employment rates of women and men by poverty status (percent) Women Men Turkey Turkey Korea Korea Mexico Nonpoor Mexico Nonpoor Poor Poor Chile Chile Argentina Argentina 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 20 40 60 80 100 48
- 45. Comparisons VI: Time poverty rates of employed men and women by poverty status (percent) Women Men Turkey Turkey Korea Korea Mexico Nonpoor Mexico Nonpoor Poor Poor Chile Chile Argentina Argentina 0 20 40 60 80 0 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 20 40 60 80 49
- 46. Policy Considerations Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
- 47. 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 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 51
- 48. 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 Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 52
- 49. Concluding Remarks Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014