OECD ÜLKELERİNDE CİNSİYET EŞİTSİZLİĞİNİN GELİR DAĞILIMI ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ

Year 2022, Issue: Özel Sayı, 194 - 217, 29.09.2022

Meral Çabaş Mustafa Torun

https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.1151966

Abstract

Gelirin iktisadi aktörler arasında nasıl dağılacağı, bu dağılımın adil olup olmadığı tarihten günümüze iktisat biliminin çözüm aradığı konuların başında gelmektedir. Toplumların hem sosyolojik hem de iktisadi anlamda odağındaki bir diğer konu da Birleşmiş Milletler tarafından hem “Bin Yıl Kalkınma Hedefleri” hem de “Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları” arasına alınan toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğidir. Global olarak gelir eşitsizliği ve cinsiyet eşitsizliği ile mücadelede ortak çözüm arayışı ulusların gündemini oluşturmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda çalışma cinsiyet eşitsizliğinin gelir dağılımı üzerine etkilerini ampirik olarak irdelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. 2006-2020 yılları arası dönemde 28 OECD ülkesine ait veriler panel veri analizi yardımıyla test edilmiştir. Çalışmada ilk olarak uygulanacak Panel Yöntemlere karar verebilmek adına yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve heterojenite test edilmiştir.Yatay kesit bağımlılığına sahip heterojen verilere ikinci nesil birim kök testleri olan CADF ve CIPS birim kök testlerinin ardından Westerlund & Edgerton Panel Eşbütünleşme Testi uygulanmış ve uzun dönem eşbütünleşik değişkenlerin katsayı tahminleri FMOLS katsayı tahmincisi ile hem panel genelinde hem de ülke bazında belirlenmiştir. Modele dair kısa dönem analizi VECM Hata Düzeltme Testi ile yapılmış sonuç olarak kısa dönem ve uzun dönem analizlerinden elde edilen kalıntılara göre her iki dönemde de panel genelinde ele alınan tüm açıklayıcı değişkenler gelirin daha adil dağılmasına katkı sağlamaktadır. Son olarak değişkenler arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri Dumitrescu & Hurlin Testiyle analiz edilmiş ve uzun dönemde cinsiyet eşitsizliğinden gelir dağılımına doğru tek taraflı kişibaşı gelir, eğitim harcamaları ve sosyal yardımlar ile gelir dağılımı arasında çift taraflı nedensellik ilişkisinin varlığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği, Gelir Dağılımı, Panel Veri Analizi

THE EFFECT OF GENDER INEQUALITY ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN OECD COUNTRIES

Abstract

How the income will be distributed among the economic actors, whether this
distribution is fair or not, is one of the issues that economics seeks for solutions from
history to the present. Another issue in the focus of societies, both sociologically and
economically, is gender equality, which is included in both the "Millennium
Development Goals" and "Sustainable Development Goals" by the United Nations.
The search for a common solution to combat income inequality and gender inequality
globally constitutes the agenda of nations. In this direction, the study aims to
empirically examine the effects of gender inequality on income distribution. Data
belonging to 28 OECD countries in the period between 2006 and 2020 were tested
with the help of panel data analysis. In order to decide on the Panel Methods to be
applied first in the study, cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity were tested.
After the CADF and CIPS unit root tests, which are the second generation unit root
tests, the Westerlund & Edgerton Panel Co-integration Test was applied to
heterogeneousdata with cross-section dependence, and the coefficient estimates of the
long-term cointegrated variables were determined with the FMOLS coefficient
estimator both across the panel and on a country basis. The short-term analysis of the
model was made with the VECM Error Correction Test, and as a result, according to
the residuals obtained from the short-term and long-term analyzes, all explanatory
variables considered throughout the panel in both periods contribute to a more
equitable distribution of income. Finally, the causality relationships between the
variables were analyzed with the Dumitrescu & Hurlin Test and it was concluded that
there was a unilateral causality relationship from gender inequality to income
distribution in the long run between per capita income, education expenditures and
social benefits and income distribution. 

Keywords

Gender Inequality, Income Distribution, Panel Data Analysis.

References

• Baloch, Amdadullah, Noor, Zaleha Mohd, Habibullah, Muzafar Shah and Bani, Nor Yasmin Mhd (2018). “The Effect of the Gender Equality on Income Inequality: A Dynamic PanelApproach”. Journal Ekonomi, Malaysia 52 (2), 1-16.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2011). Econometrics. Fifth Edition, Springer, New York. Barro, Robert and Jong-Wha Lee (1994). Sources of Economic Growth. Carnegie– Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, (40): 1-46.
• Bastagli, Francesca, Coady, David and Gupta, Sanjeev (2012). Income Inequality and Fiscal Policy. IMF Staff Discussion Note, SDN/12/08.
• Breusch, T. and A. Pagan, (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Reviews of Economics Studies, 47(1), 239–253.
• Cherry, Andrew L. (2005). Examining Global Social Welfare Issues. Thompson Learning.
• Costa, Joana, Silva, Elydia and Vaz, Fábio (2009). The Role of Gender Inequalities In Explaining Income Growth, Poverty And Inequality: Evidence From Latin American Countries. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC – IG), Working Paper number 52.
• Demirbilek, Sevda (2007). Cinsiyet Ayırımcılığının Sosyolojik Açıdan İncelenmesi.Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 44 (511), 12- 27.Brooks/Cole, Belmont.
• Dollar, D. and Gatti, R. (1999). Gender Inequality, Income, and Growth: Are Good Times Good for Women? Policy Research Report On Gender and Development Working Paper Series, No. 1. Development Research Group/PREMN, The World Bank.
• Dumitrescu, E. I., and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 1450-1460.
• Enders, W. (1995), Applied Econometric Time Series, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
• Engle, R. F. and Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 251-276.
• Esteve-Volart, Berta (2004). Gender Discrimination and Growth: Theory and Evidence from India. London School of Economics and Political Science, DEDPS 42.
• Fonchamnyo, Dobdinga C. and Fokong, Nubonyin Hilda (2017). Educational Gender Gap, Economic Growth and Income Distribution: An Empirical Study of the Interrelationship in Cameroon. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 9(3), 168-176.
• Gradín, C., C Río and O Cantó (2006). Poverty and Women’s Labor Market Activity: The Role of Gender Wage Discrimination in the EU’, Working Paper 40, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
• Granger, C. W. (1981). Some properties of time series data and their use in econometric model specification. Journal of econometrics, 16(1), 121-130.
• Gonzales, C., Jain-Chandra, S., Kochhar, K., Newiak, M., and Zeinullayev, T. (2015). Catalyst for change: Empowering women and tackling income inequality. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/15/20. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
• Harkness, S. (2010). “The contribution of women’s employment and earnings to household income inequality: A crosscountry analysis”. Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) Working Paper Series, No. 531.
• Kanwal, Ayesha and Munir, Kashif (2015). The Impact of Educational and Gender Inequality on Income Inequality in South Asia. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), MPRA Paper No. 66661, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, 1-33.
• Karoly, Lynn A. and Gary Burtless (1995). Demographic Change, Rising Earnings Inequality, and the Distribution of Personal Well-Being, 1959-1989”, Demography, 32 (3), 379-405.
• Kılınç, Neslihan (2020). İşgücü Piyasasında Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği ve Gelir Dağılımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
• Klasen, S. and Lamanna, F. (2009). The Impact of Gender Inequality in Education and Employment on Economic Growth: New Evidence For a Panel of Countries. Feminist Economics, 15 (3), 91-132.
• Mill, J.S. (2001). Principles Of Political Economy : With Some Of Their Applications To Social Philosophy . London. 9. Baskı.
• OECD. Social benefits to households, Erişim: 9 Ocak 2022, https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-benefits-to-households.htm.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in Panels. Cambridge University,Working Paper, No. 0435.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2006). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section Dependence. Cambridge University, Working Paper, No. 0346.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross- Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 22(2), 265-312.
• Pesaran, M.H. and A. Ullah; T. Yamagata (2008). “A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross- section independence, royal economic society”. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105- 127.
• Pujol, M. A. (1992). Feminism and Anti-feminism in Early Economic Thought. Aldershot, U.K. Elgar.
• Sadeghi, Javad (1995). The Relationship of Gender Difference in Education to Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Analysis, The Economic Research Forum for the Arab Countries. Iran and Turkey (ERF) Working Papers 9521, 1-15.
• Solt, F. (2019). Measuring Income Inequality Across Countries and Over Time: The Standardized World İncome Inequality Database. Erişim: 26 Temmuz 2022, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/mwnje/
• SWIID, The Standardized World Income Inequality Database, Erişim: 1 Ekim 2022, http://myweb.uiowa.edu/fsolt/swiid/swiid.htm.
• Tarı, R. (2010). Ekonometri. 6. Basım, Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayın No:32.
• The Global Gender Gap Report 2021, Erişim: 9 Temmuz 2022, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf .
• The World Bank. World Development Indicators, Erişim: 9 Temmuz 2022, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
• Turgut, Ayşe, Şeyma (2019). “Türkiye’deki Gelir Eşitsizliğinin Toplumsal Cinsiyet, Kadının İstihdamı ve Kadın Yoksulluğu Açısından Değerlendirilmesi”. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2 (38), 315- 329.
• Uyanık, Y. ve Yeşilkaya, F. (2021). Eğitim Düzeyine Göre Kadın İstihdamının Gelir Eşitsizliğine Etkisi: Bir Panel Veri Analizi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 13 (24) , 11-22.
• Vamvoukas, A.G. (1998), “The Relationship Between Budget Deficits and Money Demand: Evidence from a Small Economy”, Applied Economics, Vol.30, Issue 3, 375-382.
• Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 23(2), 193-233.
• Westerlund, J. and D. L. Edgerton (2007). A Panel Bootstrap Cointegration test. Economics Letters. Vol. 97(3), 185-190.