TÜRKİYE’DE YOKSULLUĞUN RASSAL ETKİLER MULTİNOMİAL LOGİT MODEL İLE İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Yoksulluk bulunulan dönemdeki ve konumdaki refah düzeyindeki farklılıklara göre değişiklik gösterdiği için yoksulluğun dinamik yapısının incelenmesi oldukça önemlidir. Yoksulluğun dinamik yapısının panel verilerle incelenmesi yoksulluğun hem kronik ve geçici boyutunun öğrenilmesine hem de kronik ve geçici yoksul hanelerin profilinin ayrıntılı incelenmesine olanak sağlamaktadır. Panel verilerle aynı zamanda geçici yoksulların dönem dönem yoksulluğa giriş ve yoksulluktan çıkışlarını etkileyen etmenlerin de incelenmesi mümkün olmaktadır. Bu bilgiler doğrultusunda, bu çalışmada 2009-2012 dönemine ait TÜİK Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması (GYKA) panel mikro veri anketinden yararlanarak Türkiye’de hanelerin yoksulluktan çıkış, yoksulluğa geçiş ve kronik yoksulluk durumlarının belirleyicileri rassal etkiler multinomial logit modeli ile tahmin edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre hanehalkı reisinin ve hanenin özelliklerinin hanenin yoksulluk geçişi ve kronik yoksul olması üzerindeki etkileri farklılık göstermiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kronik Yoksulluk,Geçici Yoksulluk,Rassal Etkiler Multinomial Logit Model

AN EXAMINATION OF POVERTY IN TURKEY: AN EVIDENCE FROM MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL WITH RANDOM EFFECTS

Öz

It is important to examine the dynamic structure of poverty, as poverty can differ according to differences both in the welfare level and situation at a point in time. The examination of the dynamic structure of poverty by panel data allows both the learning of the chronic and transitory dimension of poverty and the examination of the profiles of chronic and transient poor families. It is also possible to investigate the factors influencing both of people who entries poverty at a point in time and people exist from poverty employing panel data. Therefore, this paper aims to provide the profile of poverty in Turkey,  examining the determinants of poverty taking into account the dynamics of poverty; poverty outflow, transitory poverty and chronic poverty in Turkey using Turkish Statistical Institute, Income and Living Conditions Survey (SILC) panel micro data estimated employing the multinomial logit model with random effects The results show that the feautures of the household’s head and household have a different impact both on the transitory poverty and chronic poverty of household. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Chronic Poverty,Transient Poverty,Multinomial Logit Model with Random Effects

Kaynakça

1. Acar, A. & Baslevent, C. (2013). Examination of the transition of Turkish households into and out of poverty between 2007-2010 (No. 5779). EcoMod.
2. Alisjahbana, A. & Yusuf, A. A. (2003). Poverty dynamics in Indonesia: panel data evidence. Working Paper in Economics and Development Studies. Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University.
3. Andriopoulou, E. & Tsakloglou, P. (2011). The determinants of poverty transitions in Europe and the role of duration dependence. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5692
4. Bane, M. J. & Ellwood, D. T.(1986). Slipping Into and Out of Poverty: The Dynamics of Spells. Journal of Human Resources,1986, 21(1): 1-23.
5. Baulch, B. & Hoddinott, J. (2000). Economic mobility and poverty dynamics in developing countries. The Journal of Development Studies, 36(6), 1-24.
6. Dalgıç, B., İyidoğan, P. V. & Güven, A. (2015). Yoksulluk ve Yoksulluk Geçişlerinin Belirleyenleri: Türkiye Örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 23(24).
7. Dartanto, T. & Nurkholis. (2013). The determinants of poverty dynamics in Indonesia: evidence from panel data. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 49(1), 61-84.
8. Devicienti, F. (2002). Poverty persistence in Britain: a multivariate analysis using the BHPS, 1991–1997. Journal of Economics, 9, 307-340.

9. Doğan, E. (2014). Türkiye'de Yoksulluğun Ölçülmesi. Yayınlanmamış uzmanlık tezi. T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Bölgesel Gelişme ve Yapısal Uyum Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
10. Foster, J., Greer, J. & Thorbecke, E. (2010). The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 8(4), 491-524.
11. Gradin, C., Del Rio, C. & Canto, O. (2012). Measuring Poverty Accounting for Time. Review of Income and Wealth 58(2).
12. Gürsel, S. & Acar, A. (2015). Türkiye'de Yoksulluk Dinamikleri. Betam Araştırma Notu, 15/175, 29 Ocak.
13. Haan, P. & Uhlendorff, A. (2006). Estimation of multinomial logit models with unobserved heterogeneity using maximum simulated likelihood (No. 573). DIW Discussion Papers.
14. Haddad, L. & Ahmed, A. (2003). Chronic and transitory poverty: Evidence from Egypt, 1997–99. World Development, 31(1), 71-85.
15. Hasegawa, H. & Ueda, K. (2007). Measuring chronic and transient components of poverty: a Bayesian approach. Empirical Economics, 33(3), 469-490.
16. Haynes, M., Western, M., Yu, L. & Spellak, M. (2008). Analysing nominal data from a panel survey: Employment transitions of Australian women. In American Sociological Association 103rd Annual Meeting 2008: Worlds of Work. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Western/publication/43521790_Analysing_nominal_data_from_a_panel_survey_Employment_transitions_of_Australian_women/links/0c96051cd06e8ce6d3000000.pdf (erişim tarihi: 04.04.2017).
17. Hulme, D. & Shepherd, A. (2003). Conceptualizing chronic poverty. World Development, 31(3), 403-423.
18. Israeli, O., & Weber, M. (2014). Defining chronic poverty: comparing different approaches. Applied Economics, 46(31), 3874-3881.
19. Jalan, J. & Ravallion, M. (1998). Transient poverty in postreform rural China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 26(2), 338-357.
20. Jalan, J. & Ravallion, M. (2000). Is transient poverty different? Evidence for rural China. The Journal of Development Studies, 36(6), 82-99.
21. Kızılgöl, Ö. (2009). Türkiye'de yoksulluk sorunu: Ekonometrik bir bakış. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
22. Krishna, A. (2006). Pathways out of and into poverty in 36 villages of Andhra Pradesh, India. World development, 34(2), 271-288.
23. Limanlı, Ö. (2015). Intertemporal Poverty in Turkey. Procedia Economics and Finance, 30, 487-497. McCulloch, N. & Baulch, B. (1999) “Distinguishing the chronically from the transitorily poor: Evidence from rural Pakistan” Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. IDS Working Paper 97.
24. McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. https://eml.berkeley.edu/reprints/mcfadden/zarembka.pdf, (erişim tarihi: 06.02.2017).
25. Ravallion, M. (1988). Expected poverty under risk-induced welfare variability.The Economic Journal, 1171-1182.
26. Ravallion, M., van de Walle, D. & Gautam, M. (1995). Testing a social safety net. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 175–199
27. Rodgers, J. R. & Rodgers, J. L. (1993). Chronic poverty in the United States. Journal of Human Resources, 25-54.
28. Şeker, S. D. (2011). The Dynamics of Poverty in Turkey. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi İktisat Bölümü, Ankara.
29. Şeker, S. D. & Dayıoğlu, M. (2014). Poverty dynamics in Turkey. Review of Income and wealth, 61(3), 477-493.
30. Temiz, H. E.(2008). Dünya’da Kronik Yoksulluk ve Önleme Stratejileri, Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, Sayı:2, İstanbul. The Chronic Poverty Report 2004-2005 http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/CPR1_ReportFull.pdf, (erişim tarihi: 21.10.2016).
31. TÜİK (2016). Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları İstatistikleri. www.tüik.gov.tr, (21.01.2016).
32. Walelign, S. Z., Charlery, L., Smith-Hall, C., Chhetri, B. B. K. & Larsen, H. O. (2016). Environmental income improves household-level poverty assessments and dynamics. Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 23-35.
33. Yaqub, S. (2000). Poverty dynamics in developing countries (Vol. 16). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.