A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING WITH WELFARE INDICATORS: EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, ACCESS TO SERVICES AND MATERIAL DEPRIVATION

Öz

This study aims at presenting comprehensive model using welfare indicators such as socioeconomic status, access to services and material deprivation, and examining the relationships between these variables. In the analysis, we use the pooled cross-sectional data set of the Household Budget Survey of the Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT) covering the period 2015-2019. Since the simultaneous relationship between welfare indicators such as socioeconomic status, material deprivation and access to services is examined using latent variables, Structural Equation Modeling is preferred. The study finds that socioeconomic status, composed of education and income, increases households' access to services and decreases their material deprivation. In addition, as households' access to services increases, their material deprivation decreases. Our study also finds that women's socioeconomic status is lower than men's in Turkiye during the period analysed. Moreover men in households have more limited access to services and face more material deprivation than women. The increase in household size makes access to services more difficult, worsens the socioeconomic situation and increases deprivation. Considering the health status variable, it is concluded that healthy individuals have higher socioeconomic status and suffer from less deprivation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Socioeconomic Status
• Access to Services
• Material Deprivation
• Structural Equation Modeling

REFAH GÖSTERGELERİ İLE BİR YAPISAL EŞİTLİK MODELLEMESİ: SOSYOEKONOMİK DURUM, HİZMETLERE ERİŞİM VE MADDİ YOKSUNLUK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada sosyoekonomik durum, hizmetlere erişim ve maddi yoksunluk gibi her biri farklı bir refah göstergesi olan değişkenleri kullanarak kapsamlı bir model oluşturmak ve bu değişkenler arasındaki ilişkileri incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Analizde, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) Hanehalkı Bütçe Anketi'nin 2015-2019 dönemini kapsayan havuzlanmış yatay kesit veri seti kullanılmıştır. Sosyoekonomik durum, maddi yoksunluk ve hizmetlere erişim gibi refah göstergelerinin birbirleri ile olan eş zamanlı ilişkisi gizli değişkenler kullanılarak incelendiğinden Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi tercih edilmiştir. Bireyin sosyoekonomik durumunun eğitim ve gelir değişkenlerinin kompozisyonu olduğu çalışmada sosyoekonomik durumun hanelerin hizmetlere erişimini kolaylaştırdığı ve maddi yoksunluğunu azalttığı bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, hanelerin hizmetlere erişimi kolaylaştıkça maddi yoksunlukları azalmaktadır. Çalışmanın diğer önemli bulguları arasında, Türkiye’de incelenen dönemde kadınların sosyoekonomik durumunun erkeklerinkinden daha düşük olduğu yer almaktadır. Hanedeki erkeklerin kadınlara kıyasla hizmetlere erişimde daha sınırlı oldukları ve daha fazla maddi yoksunlukla karşılaştıkları da bulgular arasındadır. Hanehalkı büyüklüğündeki artış ise hizmetlere erişimi zorlaştırmakta, sosyoekonomik durumu kötüleştirmekte ve yoksunluğu artırmaktadır. Sağlık durumu değişkeni incelendiğinde, sağlıklı bireylerin sosyoekonomik statüsünün yüksek olduğu ve daha az yoksunluk çektiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyoekonomik Durum
• Hizmetlere Erişim
• Maddi Yoksunluk
• Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli

Kaynakça

1. Bal, M. D. (2014). General overview of gender inequalities. Journal of Women's Health Nursing, 1(1), 15-28. Boarini, R., & d'Ercole, M. M. (2006). Measures of material deprivation in OECD countries (Working Paper No. 37). OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers. https://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/866767270205.pdf?expires=1707417896&id=id&accname=guest&checksum= D7CE8E2766896553C4C05994E059A8A2. https://doi.org/10.1787/1815199X
2. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (Vol. 210). John Wiley & Sons.
3. Bruder, E., & Unal, H. (2017). Causes of deprivation in regions with different urbanisation level. Journal of Management (16487974), 31(2), 31-36.
4. Caglayan E., Kosan N. I., & Astar M. (2012). An empirical analysis of the determinants of household poverty in Turkey. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 2(1), 181-191.
5. Case, A., Fertig, A., & Paxson, C. (2005). The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance. Journal of Health Economics, 24(2), 365-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.09.008
6. Chisamya, G., DeJaeghere, J., Kendall, N., & Khan, M. A. (2012). Gender and education for all: Progress and problems in achieving gender equity. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(6), 743- 755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.10.004
7. Contreras, D., & Plaza, G. (2010). Cultural factors in women's labor force participation in Chile. Feminist Economics, 16(2), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701003731815
8. Cuesta J., Nopo H., & Pizzolitto G. (2011). Using pseudo panels to measure income mobility in Latin America. Review of Income and Wealth, 57(2), 224-246.

9. De Graaf-zijl, M., & Nolan, B. (2011). Household joblessness and its impact on poverty and deprivation in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(5), 413-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928711418854
10. Dudek, H., & Landmesser-Rusek, J. (2023). What explains the differences in material deprivation between rural and urban areas in Poland before and during the COVID-19 pandemic?. Statistics in Transition New Series, 24(4), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.59170/stattrans-2023-050
11. Elmas, Ç., & Adak N. (2023). Post-divorce experiences in Turkiye and the social structures behind the reasons for divorce. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology, 43(1), 84-97. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.1.0030B
12. Fouarge, D., & Layte, R. (2003). Duration of poverty spells in Europe. Colchester: University of Essex.
13. Fusco, A., Guio, A. C., & Marlier, E. (2011). Income poverty and material deprivation in European countries. CEPS Working Paper No 2011-04. Luxembourg: CEPS/INSTEAD.
14. Guio, A. C. (2009). What can be learned from deprivation indicators in Europe? Eurostat. Methodologies and Working Papers, presented at the Indicator Subgroup of the Social Protection Committee. https://www.poverty.ac.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Deprivation-indicators-in-Europe_Eurostatworking-paper_2009.pdf.
15. Gustafsson, S., & Jacobsson, R. (1985). Trends in female labor force participation in Sweden. Journal of Labor Economics, 3(1, Part 2), 256-274.
16. Hyder, A., & Sadiq, M. (2010). Determinants of poverty in Pakistan. Hamburg Review of Social Sciences, 4(3), 193-213.
17. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
18. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional wellbeing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489-16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107
19. Karcı, Z., & Arlı, N. (2018). Determination of variables affecting material deprivation by using logistic regression analysis. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 23(3), 1039-1048
20. Kılıç, D., & Öztürk, S. (2014). The barriers to the labor force participation of women in Turkey and solution suggestions: An empirical application. Amme Idaresi Dergisi, 47(1), 107-130.
21. Kızılgöl, Ö. A., & Demir, Ç. (2010). Econometric analyses of poverty dimension in Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 1(1), 21-32.
22. Kızılgöl, Ö. A., & Üçdoğruk, Ş. (2011). 2002-2006 yılları arasında Türkiye’de yaşam standartları ve yoksulluğa ilişkin mikro ekonometrik analizler. Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 25(Özel), 373–391.
23. Makame, I. H., & Mzee, S. S. (2014). Determinants of poverty on household characteristics in Zanzibar: A logistic regression mode. Developing Country Studies, 4(20), 188-195.
24. Nelson, K. (2012). Counteracting material deprivation: The role of social assistance in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928711433658
25. Özaydınlık, K. (2014). Women in Turkey on the basis of gender and education. Journal of Social Policy Studies, (33), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.21560/spcd.03093
26. Parlaktuna, İ. (2010). Analysis of gender-based occupational discrimination in Turkey. Ege Academic Review, 4(10), 1217-1230.
27. Pradhan, R. P. (2008). Quality of life in North-Eastern India: The totally fuzzy analysis. Social Change, 38(2), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/004908570803800201
28. Rao, N., & Sweetman, C. (2014). Introduction to gender and education. Gender & Development, 22(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2014.902230
29. Ravallion, M. (1996). Issues in measuring and modelling poverty. The Economic Journal, 106(438), 1328-1343. https://doi.org/10.2307/2235525
30. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
31. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.
32. Sen, A. (2004). Özgürlükle kalkınma [Development with freedom]. Ayrıntı Publications.
33. Shafiei, S., Shakerian, S., Yazdani, S., Jadidfard, M. P., & Zafarmand, A. H. (2020). A structural equation modeling of the wealth and welfare components in Iranian households: Rural and urban dichotomies. Research Square, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-89817/v1
34. Shimada, H., & Higuchi, Y. (1985). An analysis of trends in female labor force participation in Japan. Journal of Labor Economics, 3(1, Part 2), 355-S374.
35. 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. https://doi.org/10.15678/ZNUEK.2015.0947.1102
36. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/8131721/8131772/StiglitzSen-Fitoussi-Commission-report.pdf.
37. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. Allen Lane and Penguin Books.
38. UNESCO (2023). Gender-equality and education. https://www.unesco.org/en/gender-equality/.
39. Uğur, M. S. (2023). The determinants of income poverty and material deprivation for Turkey: A multinomial probit model. Academic Review of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 16(1), 224-240.
40. Unterhalter, E., Arnot, M., Lloyd, C., Moletsane, L., Murphy-Graham, E., North, A., & Saito, M. (2014). Interventions to enhance girls' education and gender equality: Education rigorous literature review. Department for International Development.
41. Ünver, Ş., & Alkan, Ö. (2020). Modelling of the factors affecting the material deprivation status of individuals in Turkey. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(2), 1334-1370.
42. Wang, P., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Empirical research on factors related to the subjective well-being of Chinese urban residents. Social Indicators Research, 101, 447-459. https://doi.org/10. 1007/sl 1205- 010-9663-y
43. Whelan, C. T., & Maître, B. (2012). Understanding material deprivation: A comparative European analysis. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(4), 489-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2012.05.001