Büyümenin Ötesinde: Türkiye'de Orta Sınıfın Erozyonu ve Kırılgan Refah

Abstract

Ekonomik büyümenin toplumsal refaha ne ölçüde dönüştüğü, son yıllarda iktisat literatüründe yeniden tartışılmaya başlanmıştır. Özellikle gelir eşitsizliğinin derinleşmesi, yaşam maliyetlerinin yükselmesi ve ekonomik güvencesizliklerin artması, büyüme ile refah arasındaki ilişkinin yeniden değerlendirilmesini gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, ekonomik büyümenin sürdüğü koşullarda orta sınıfın neden giderek daha kırılgan bir yapıya dönüştüğünü incelemek ve bu dönüşümü “kırılgan refah” kavramı çerçevesinde değerlendirmektir. Çalışma, kavramsal ve literatür temelli karşılaştırmalı bir araştırma niteliğindedir. Kuznets sonrası gelir dağılımı tartışmaları, refah devleti yaklaşımları, orta sınıfın dönüşümüne ilişkin güncel literatür ve Türkiye ekonomisine ait güncel göstergeler birlikte ele alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda gelir dağılımı, ücret yapısı, hanehalkı borçluluğu, tüketim harcamaları ve ekonomik kırılganlık göstergeleri analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, ekonomik büyümenin tek başına refahın sürdürülebilirliğini garanti etmediğini göstermektedir. Özellikle yaşam maliyetlerindeki artış, tasarruf kapasitesindeki zayıflama, borçluluk oranlarındaki yükseliş ve tüketim harcamalarının zorunlu ihtiyaçlar üzerinde yoğunlaşması, orta sınıfın ekonomik dayanıklılığını azaltmaktadır. Çalışma sonucunda, günümüz ekonomilerinde yoksulluğun yalnızca gelir eksikliğiyle açıklanamayacağı; ekonomik güvenlik, refahın sürdürülebilirliği ve ekonomik şoklara karşı dayanıklılık unsurlarının da refah analizlerinin ayrılmaz bileşenleri haline geldiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu yönüyle çalışma, orta sınıfın dönüşümünü makroekonomik kırılganlıklar bağlamında ele alan bütüncül bir değerlendirme sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kırılgan refah
• Ekonomik büyüme
• Orta sınıf
• Ekonomik kırılganlık
• Refahın sürdürülebilirliği

Supporting Institution

Çalışma, kamusal, özel, ticari nitelikte ya da kar amacı gütmeyen herhangi bir kurumdan destek alınmadan hazırlanmıştır.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiği beyan olunur.

Thanks

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma ve değerlendirilme sürecinde sundukları yapıcı geri bildirimler ve katkılar dolayısıyla editör ve hakemlere teşekkür ederim.

Beyond Growth: Middle-Class Erosion and Fragile Welfare in Türkiye

Abstract

The extent to which economic growth translates into social welfare has become a renewed subject of debate in the economics literature. In particular, rising income inequality, increasing living costs, and growing economic insecurity have raised important questions regarding the relationship between growth and welfare. This study aims to examine why the middle class has become increasingly vulnerable despite the continuation of economic growth and to evaluate this transformation through the concept of “fragile welfare.” The study adopts a conceptual and literature-based comparative approach. Post-Kuznets debates on income distribution, welfare state perspectives, contemporary discussions on the transformation of the middle class, and recent indicators related to the Turkish economy are examined within an integrated analytical framework. In this context, income distribution, wage dynamics, household indebtedness, consumption patterns, and economic vulnerability indicators are evaluated. The findings suggest that economic growth alone does not guarantee the sustainability of welfare. Rising living costs, declining saving capacity, increasing household indebtedness, and the growing concentration of household expenditures on basic needs weaken the economic resilience of the middle class. The study concludes that poverty can no longer be explained solely by income deprivation and that economic security, welfare sustainability, and resilience to economic shocks have become essential dimensions of welfare analysis. In this respect, the study provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the transformation of the middle class within the context of contemporary macroeconomic vulnerabilities.

Keywords

• Fragile Welfare
• Economic Growth
• Middle-Class Erosion
• Economic Vulnerability
• Welfare Sustainability

Supporting Institution

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical Statement

It is declared that scientific and ethical principles have been followed while carrying out and writing this study and that all the sources used have been properly cited.

Thanks

I would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their constructive feedback and valuable contributions during the preparation and evaluation process of this study.

References

1. Alkire, S. and Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 476-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006
2. Atkinson, A.B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done?. In Inequality. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674287013
3. Aydiner-Avsar, N. and Onemli, M. B. (2023). Working poverty in Türkiye: A dynamic panel analysis. Social Indicators Research, 168, 139-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03127-4
4. Balasubramanian, P., Burchi, F., & Malerba, D. (2023). Does economic growth reduce multidimensional poverty? Evidence from low- and middle-income countries. World Development, 161, 106119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106119
5. Choi, H. (2013). The Modigliani-Brumberg endowment saving theory (SSRN Working Paper No. 2284545). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2284545
6. Crouch, C. (2011). The strange non-death of neo-liberalism. Polity Press. https://archive.org/details/strangenondeatho0000crou/page/n5/mode/2up
7. Dabla-Norris, M.E., Kochhar, M.K., Suphaphiphat, M.N., Ricka, M.F. and Tsounta, M.E. (2015). Causes and consequences of income inequality: A global perspective. International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513555188.006
8. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243774920_The_Three_Worlds_Of_Welfare_Capitalism

9. International Labour Organization. (ILO). (2021). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2021. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/publications/world-employment-and-social-outlook-trends-2021
10. Karabarbounis, L. and Neiman, B. (2014). The global decline of the labor share. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 61-103. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt032
11. Karahasan, B. C. and Bilgel, F. (2021). The topography and sources of multidimensional poverty in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 154(2), 413-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02557-8
12. Khan, H. A. (2004). Development as freedom. CIRJE Discussion Paper No. F-257, Graduate School of Economics, University of Tokyo. https://ideas.repec.org/p/tky/fseres/2004cf257.html
13. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581?seq=1&cid=pdf
14. Lakner, C., Mahler, D. G., Negre, M., & Prydz, E. B. (2022). How much does reducing inequality matter for global poverty? The Journal of Economic Inequality, 20(3), 559-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09510-w
15. Lapavitsas, C. (2014). Profiting without producing: How finance exploits us all. Verso Books. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=77lvDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=Lapavitsas,+C.+(2014).+Profiting+without+producing:+How+finance+exploits+us+all.+&ots=E2rZ3Qqd73&sig=AIgMhsSp77OxQ6UGdVAvkcBnoMQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Lapavitsas%2C%20C.%20(2014).%20Profiting%20without%20producing%3A%20How%20finance%20exploits%20us%20all.&f=false
16. López-Calva, L. F., & Ortiz-Juarez, E. (2014). A vulnerability approach to the definition of the middle class. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 12(1), 23-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-012-9240-5
17. Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press. http://pinguet.free.fr/branko16.pdf
18. Modigliani, F. (1966). The life cycle hypothesis of saving, the demand for wealth and the supply of capital. Social Research, 33(2), 160-217.
19. Modigliani, F. and Brumberg, R. (1954). Utility analysis and the consumption function: An interpretation of cross-section data. In K. K. Kurihara (Ed.), Post-Keynesian economics (pp. 388-436). Rutgers University Press. (Reprinted in: The Collected Papers of Franco Modigliani, Volume 6, MIT Press, 2005).
20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Under pressure: The squeezed middle class. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/under-pressure-the-squeezed-middle-class_689afed1-en.html
21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2011/12/divided-we-stand_g1g1483d/9789264119536-en.pdf
22. Pierson, P. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 48, 143-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25053959
23. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer/Belknap. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wpqbc
24. Pressman, S. (2007). The decline of the middle class: an international perspective. Journal of Economic Issues, 41(1), 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2007.11507000
25. Rohde, N., Tang, K. K., Osberg, L., & Rao, D. P. (2017). Is it vulnerability or economic insecurity that matters for health? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134, 307-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.010
26. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. https://www.academia.edu/download/62207935/10._Sen_1999120200226-89537-10i3ce1.pdf
27. Stampini, M., Robles, M., Sáenz, M., Ibarrarán, P., & Medellín, N. (2016). Poverty, vulnerability, and the middle class in Latin America. Latin American Economic Review, 25, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40503-016-0034-1
28. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury academic. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/58691
29. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. WW Norton & Company. https://doi.org/10.1111/npqu.11358
30. Stockhammer, E. (2017). Determinants of the wage share: A panel analysis of advanced and developing economies. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12165
31. Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası. (2025). Finansal istikrar raporu: Mayıs 2025. TCMB. https://tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/72d745d3-f8b1-404d-bc65-04b9469084f3/Tam+Metin.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-72d745d3-f8b1-404d-bc65-04b9469084f3-psw6bM3
32. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2025). Gelir dağılımı istatistikleri, 2025. TÜİK. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/53993
33. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2026a). Hanehalkı tüketim harcaması, 2025 (Sayı: 58010). TÜİK. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/58010
34. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2026b). Hanehalkı tüketim harcaması, 2025: Gelire göre sıralı %20'lik gruplarda tüketim harcamasının türlerine göre dağılımı, İBBS 1. Düzey, 2024-2025 [Veri seti]. TÜİK. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr
35. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2026c). Yoksulluk ve yaşam koşulları istatistikleri, 2025 (53994). TÜİK. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/53994
36. World Bank. (2026). FY27 updated country income classification for analytical purposes. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099063026190549947
37. World Bank. (n.d.-a). Gini index [Data set]. Poverty and Inequality Platform. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
38. World Bank. (n.d.-b). Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) [Data set]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG
39. World Bank. (n.d.-c). Poverty headcount ratio at societal poverty line (% of population) [Data set]. Poverty and Inequality Platform. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.SOPO
40. World Bank. (n.d.-d). Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) [Data set]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS
41. World Bank. (n.d.-e). Vulnerable employment, total (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) [Data set]. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.VULN.ZS