YOKSULLUK ÇALIŞMALARINDA HANE/AİLE STRATEJİLERİ ÜZERİNE KAVRAMSAL BİR TARTIŞMA

Abstract

Hane ve aile, yoksulluğun yönetilmesinde en önemli birimlerdir. Hane ve aile stratejileri, geçim, başa çıkma, hayatta kalma, uyum sağlama gibi yoksullukla mücadele edilirken ulaşılmak istenen amacı niteleyen farklı kullanımlarla karşımıza çıkar. Bu çalışmanın amacı sosyal politika ve yoksulluk çalışmalarında sıklıkla kullanılan hane stratejileri ve aile stratejileri kavramlarının incelenmesidir. Bu çalışmada hane stratejisi ve aile stratejisi kavramlarının güçlü ve zayıf yönleri ele alınmış ve bu kavramlarının yoksulluk araştırmaları için önemi tartışılmıştır. Çalışmanın ilk kısmında hane ve ailenin farklı tanımlarına değinilmiştir. Her ne kadar hane ve aile arasında kavramsal farklılar bulunsa da hane stratejileri ve aile stratejilerinin benzer hayatta kalma ve geçim çabalarını içerdiği görülmektedir. Hanenin ve ailenin yoksulluk karşısında bireyin ayakta kalması için önemine rağmen, bu birimlerin toplumsal cinsiyet ve yaş başta olmak üzere çeşitli faktörlerin etkisiyle eşitsiz güç ilişkilerini içerdiği bilinmektedir. Bu eşitsizliklere rağmen hane ve aile üyelerinin bir arada kalarak stratejiler oluşturdukları görülür. Çalışmanın ikinci kısmı strateji kavramına ve bu kavramın yoksulluk çalışmalarında kullanımı üzerine yapılan tartışmalara odaklanmıştır. Hane ve aile birimlerinin strateji analizinde kullanılması, yoksulluk karşısında bireyi aşan kararlar ve eylemlerin anlaşılmasına olanak sağlar. Strateji analizi hanelerin ve ailelerin koşullarını dönüştürme yetisine önem veren bir analiz şekli olması nedeniyle yoksulluk literatürü için önemlidir.

Keywords

• Hane stratejisi
• Aile stratejisi
• “Kaynakların yoksulluğu”
• “Dayanışmacı çatışma”
• Yoksulluk çalışmaları

A CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION ON HOUSEHOLD/FAMILY STRATEGIES IN POVERTY STUDIES

Abstract

Household and family are critical units in coping with poverty. Different terms, such as livelihood, coping, survival, and adaptation, are used interchangeably to refer to the same activities to deal with poverty at the household level. This study aims to examine the concepts of household strategies and family strategies that are frequently used in social policy and poverty studies. In this study, the strengths and weaknesses of household strategy and family strategy concepts were discussed, and the importance of these concepts for poverty studies is discussed. Moreover, the opportunities provided by household and family units in the analysis of strategies to understand the decisions and actions going beyond the individual against poverty are elaborated. In the first part of the study, different definitions of household and family are elaborated. Although there are conceptual differences between household and family, household strategies and family strategies appear to involve similar survival and livelihood efforts. In the first of the study, it is elaborated that despite the importance of the household and the family for the survival of the individual against poverty, it is known that these units contain unequal power relations with the effect of various factors, especially gender and age. Despite these inequalities, the literature analyses the conditions and limitations of how people and family members stay together and form strategies are discussed. The second part of the study focuses on strategy and discussions on its use in poverty studies. By using household and family units in strategy analysis, decisions and actions beyond the individual can be understood. Strategy analysis is essential for the poverty literature as it is a form of analysis that emphasizes households and families' ability to transform their conditions.

Keywords

• Household strategy
• Family strategy
• Poverty of Resources
• Cooperative Conflict
• Poverty studies

References

1. AMIS, Philip (1995), Making Sense of Urban Poverty. Environment and Urbanization, 7(1), ss. 145-158.
2. BENDER, Donald. R. (1967), A Refinement of the Concept of Household: Families, Co‐residence, and Domestic Functions. American Anthropologist, 69(5), ss. 493-504.
3. BOHANNAN, Paul (1957), An alternate residence classification. American Anthropologist, 59(1), ss. 126- 131.
4. BORA, Aksu (2011), Kadınlar ve Hane: “Olmayanın Nesini İdare Edeceksin?”. N. Erdoğan (Editör), Yoksulluk Halleri: Türkiye’de Kent Yoksulluğunun Toplumsal Görünümleri içinde (ss. 97-132). İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları.
5. BOURDIEU, Pierre (1976), Les Strategies Matrimoniales dans le Systeme de Reproduction (E. Forster Trans.). In R. Forster and O. Ranum (Eds.) Family and Society: Selections from the Annales (pp. 549-558). Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press (Original work published 1972).
6. BOURDIEU, Pierre (1990), In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology (M. Adamson Trans.). Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press (Original work published 1987).
7. BOURDIEU, Pierre (1998), Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. (R. Johnson Trans.) Stanford, Stanford University Press (Original work published 1994).
8. CALDWELL, John C. (1978), A Theory of Fertility: From High Plateau to Destabilization. Population and Development Review, 4(4), ss. 553-577.

9. CORNELL, L. Laurel (1987), Where can Family Strategies Exist. In Family Strategy: A Dialogue. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 20(3), ss. 120-123.
10. CROW, Graham (1989), The Use of the Concept of Strategy in Recent Sociological Literature. Sociology, 23(1), ss. 1-24.
11. ERTAŞ, N. (2000), Kentsel Geçim Stratejilerinde Kadının Rolü. M. Ersoy ve T. Şengül (Editörler), Kentsel Yoksulluk ve Geçinme Stratejileri: Ankara Örneği içinde (s. 112- 160). Ankara, ODTÜ Yayıncılık.
12. ELLIS, Frank (1993), Peasant Economics: Farm Households and Agrarian Development, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
13. ELLIS, Frank (1998), Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. The Journal of Development Studies, 35(1), ss. 1-38.
14. FINDLAY, Jeanette & WRIGHT, Robert E. (1996), Gender, poverty and the intra‐household distribution of resources. Review of Income and Wealth, 42(3), ss. 335-351.
15. FOLBRE, Nancy (1987), Family Strategy, Feminist Strategy. In Family Strategy: A Dialogue. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 20(3), ss. 115-118.
16. FONTAINE, Laurence & SCHLUMBOHM, Jürgen (2000), Household strategies for survival: an introduction. International review of social history, 45, ss. 1-17.
17. GIDDENS, Anthony (2007), New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. Cambridge, Polity Press.
18. GONZALEZ DE LA ROCHA, Mercedes (1994), The Resources of Poverty: Women and Survival in a Mexican City. Oxford and Cambridge, MA, Blackwell.
19. GONZALEZ DE LA ROCHA, Mercedes (2001), From the Resources of Poverty to the Poverty of Resources? The Erosion of a Survival Model. Latin American Perspectives, 28(4), ss. 72-100.
20. GONZALEZ DE LA ROCHA, Mercedes (2007), The Construction of the Myth of Survival. Development and Change, 38(1), ss. 45-66.
21. GUYER, Jane. I. (1981), Household and community in African studies. African studies review, 24(2/3), ss. 87-137.
22. GÜNEŞ, Fatime (2010), Yoksullukla Başa Çıkma Stratejileri, “Kaynakların Yoksulluğu” ve Kadın Emeği. Folklor/Edebiyat, 64, ss. 33-64.
23. KALAYCIOĞLU, Sibel (2006a), Yoksullukla Başetme Stratejileri ve Yoksulluğa Etkisi. E. Tuncer ve H. Yurtseven (Editörler), Yoksulluk (Yoksulluk Sempozyumu) içinde (ss. 81-96). Ankara, Sosyal Demokrasi Derneği Yayınları.
24. KALAYCIOĞLU, Sibel (2006b), Dynamics of Poverty in Turkey: Gender, Rural-Urban Poverty, Social Networks and Reciprocal Survival Strategies. M. Petmesidou ve C. Papathepdorou (Editörler). Poverty and Social Deprivation in the Mediterranean: Trends, Policies and Welfare Prospects in the New Millennium içinde (pp. 218-248). London, Newyork, Zed Books.
25. LINGARD, Bob & CHRISTIE, Pam (2003), Leading Theory: Bourdieu and the Field of Educational Leadership. An Introduction and Overview to this Special Issue. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), pp. 317-333.
26. MEERT, Henk, MISTIAEN, Pascale, & KESTELOOT, Christian (1997), The geography of survival: household strategies in urban settings. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 88(2), ss. 169-181.
27. MURDOCK, George Peter (1949), Social Structure. New York, Macmillan.
28. PÜSKÜLLÜOĞLU, Ali (2015), Çağdaş Türkçe Sözlük. Ankara, Arkadaş Yayınevi.
29. PAHL, Jan (1983), The allocation of money and the structuring of inequality within marriage. The Sociological Review, 31(2), ss. 237-262.
30. ROBERTS, Bryan (1994), Informal Economy and Family Strategies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 18(1), ss. 6-23.
31. ROSAS, Rocio Enriquez (2002), Women and Survival Strategies in Poor Urban Contexts: A Case Study from Guadalajara, Mexico. Journal of Developing Societies, 18(2-3), ss. 81-108.
32. SANT'ANNA, Anna Maria, MERRICK, Thomas W., MAZUMDAR, Dipak (1976), Income distribution and the economy of the urban household: the case of Belo Horizonte. Staff working paper: no. SWP 237 Washington, D.C., World Bank Group.
33. SCHMINK, Marienne (1984), Household Economic Strategies: Review and Research Agenda. Latin American Research Review. 19(3), ss. 87-101.
34. SEN, Amartya (1987), Gender and cooperative conflicts (WIDER working papers No. 18). Helsinki, World Institute for Development Economics Research. SILBAUGH, Katharine (2016), Distinguishing Households from Families. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 43 (4), ss. 1071-1105.
35. SMITH, Daniel S. (1987), Family Strategy: More than a Metaphor. In Family Strategy: A Dialogue. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 20(3), ss. 118-120.
36. ŞAHİN, Hande (2018), Yoksulluğun Gündelik Hayat Üzerinden Analiz Edilmesinde Anahtar Bir Kavram: Hayatta Kalma Stratejileri Üzerine Yapısal Bir Çalışma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), ss. 133-153.
37. TADMOR, Naomi (1996), The concept of the household-family in eighteenth-century England. Past & Present, 151(1), ss. 111-140.
38. THORNTON, Arland & FRİCKE, Thomas. E. (1987), Social change and the family: Comparative perspectives from the West, China, and South Asia. Sociological Forum, 2(4), ss. 746-779.
39. TILLY, Louise. A. (1979), Individual Lives and Family Strategies in the French Proletariat. Journal of Family History, 4(2), ss. 137-152.
40. TILLY, Louise. A. (1987), Beyond Family Strategies, What?. In Family Strategy: A Dialogue. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 20(3), ss. 123-125.
41. WALLACE, Claire (2002), Household Strategies: Their Conceptual Relevance and Analytical Scope in Social Research. Sociology, 36(2), ss. 275-292.
42. WHITTINGTON, Richard (2010), Giddens, Structuration Theory and Strategy as Practice. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl and E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice (pp. 109-126). Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press.
43. WILSON, Gail (1991), Thoughts on the cooperative conflict model of the household in relation to economic method. IDS Bulletin, 22(1), ss. 31-36.
44. WOLF, Diane (1990), Daughters, decisions and domination: an empirical and conceptual critique of household strategies. Development and Change, 21(1), ss. 43-74.