Evolution of Altruistic Motive and Crowding-out Effect in Turkey: Does Private Housing Support Matter?

Yıl 2022, , 93 - 116, 30.01.2022

Selin Pelek Sezgin Polat

https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1064817

Öz

This paper aims to contribute to the growing literature on crowding out/in effects of public transfers in Turkey. We estimate the effects of public transfers on the amount and likelihood of receiving private transfers. We find that individual-level public transfers lead to crowding out whereas public transfers targeting households have no significant neutralizing effect.
Comparing consecutive periods, the effect of altruistic motivation and crowding out are both decreasing. The broadly defined private transfers including housing support have a downstream character, are less altruistically motivated and produce less crowding out than with the narrow definition. This study has several policy implications: (i) public transfers
for families excluded from social security coverage should be increased; (ii) public transfers targeting households should be strengthened; (iii) lone parents, particularly female-headed households should be prioritized; (iv) social welfare policy needs to complement private solidarity channels as the family structure and income composition of households change.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Private transfers, public transfers, crowding out, altruism, housing support

Kaynakça

• Akarçay-Gürbüz, A. and Polat, S. (2017). Schooling opportunities and intergenerational educational mobility in turkey: An iv estimation using census data. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(9):1396–1413.
• Albarran, P. and Attanasio, O. (2002). Do public transfers crowd out private transfers? evidence from a randomized experiment in mexico. WIDER Working Paper Series 006, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
• Amuedo-Dorantes, C. and Juarez, L. (2015). Old-age government transfers and the crowding out of private gifts: The 70 and above program for the rural elderly in m exico. Southern Economic Journal, 81(3):782–802.
• Arrondel, L., and Masson, A. (2006). Altruism, exchange or indirect reciprocity: what do the data on family transfers show? Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, 2, 971-1053.
• Attias-Donfut, C. and Wolff, F.-C. (2000). Complementarity between private and public transfers. The Myth of Generational Conflict, London und New York, pages 47–68.
• Aybars, A. I., & Tsarouhas, D. (2010). Straddling two continents: Social policy and welfare politics in Turkey. Social Policy & Administration, 44(6), 746-763.
• Barro, R. J. (1974). Are government bonds net wealth? Journal of political economy, 82(6):1095–1117.
• Baslevent, C. (2014). Social transfers and income inequality in turkey: How informative is the survey of income and living conditions? Ekonomi-tek-International Economics Journal, 3(3):23–42.
• Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of political economy, 82(6):1063–1093.
• Bernheim, B. D., Shleifer, A., and Summers, L. H. (1985). The strategic bequest motive. Journal of Political economy, 93(6):1045–1076.
• Buğra, A. and Adar, S. (2008). Social policy change in countries without mature welfare states: The case of turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 38:83–106.
• Buğra, A. and Candas, A. (2011). Change and continuity under an eclectic social security regime: The case of turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 47(3):515–528.
• Buğra, A. and Keyder, Ç. (2006). The turkish welfare regime in transformation. Journal of European social policy, 16(3):211– 228.
• Chamberlain, G. (1984). Panel data. Handbook of econometrics, 2:1247–1318.
• Cox, D. (1987). Motives for private income transfers. Journal of political economy, 95(3):508–546.
• Cox, D., Eser, Z., and Jimenez, E. (1998). Motives for private transfers over the life cycle: An analytical framework and evidence for peru. Journal of Development Economics, 55(1):57–80.
• Cox, D., Galasso, E., and Jimenez, E. (2006). Private transfers in a cross section of developing countries. Center for Retirement Research Working Papers, page 111.
• Cox, D., Hansen, B. E., and Jimenez, E. (2004). How responsive are private transfers to income? evidence from a laissez-faire economy. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9):2193–2219.
• Cox, D. and Jakubson, G. (1995). The connection between public transfers and private interfamily transfers. Journal of Public Economics, 57(1):129–167.
• Cox, D. and Jimenez, E. (1990). Achieving social objectives through private transfers: A review. The World Bank Research Observer, 5(2):205–218.
• Cox, D. and Jimenez, E. (1992). Social security and private transfers in developing countries: The case of peru. The World Bank Economic Review, 6(1):155–169.
• Cox, D. and Rank, M. R. (1992). Inter-vivos transfers and intergenerational exchange. The review of economics and statistics, pages 305–314.
• Ezemenari, K. (1997). The link between public and private interhousehold transfers: Implications for the design of safety net programs in developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(2):666–671.
• Fan, E. (2010). Who benefits from public old age pensions? evidence from a targeted program. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(2):297–322.
• Ferrera, M. (1996). The southern model of welfare in social europe. Journal of European social policy, 6(1):17–37.
• Gerardi, K. and Tsai, Y. (2014). The effect of social entitlement programmes on private transfers: New evidence of crowding out. Economica, 81(324):721–746.
• Gough, I. (1996). Social assistance in southern europe. South European Society & Politics, 1(1):1–23.
• Grütjen, D. (2007). Social Security in Turkey An Example of the Southern Model?. The role of state, market, and the family in welfare provision, Netzwrk Türkei Working Paper, No:1 Holzmann, R., Hinz, R. P., & Dorfman, M. (2008). Pension systems and reform conceptual framework. World Bank Discussion Paper, 824.
• Holzmann, R. & Hinz, R. (2005). Old-age income support in the 21st century: An international perspective on pension systems and reform. Washington DC: World Bank Publications. Iacovou, M., Kaminska, O., and Levy, H. (2012). Using eu-silc data for cross-national analysis: strengths, problems and recommendations. Technical report, ISER working paper series.
• Jensen, R. T. (2004). Do private transfers ’displace’ the benefits of public transfers? evidence from south africa. Journal of Public Economics, 88(1):89–112.
• Juarez, L. (2009). Crowding out of private support to the elderly: Evidence from a demogrant in mexico. Journal of Public Economics, 93(3):454–463.
• Jung, H., Pirog, M., and Lee, S. K. (2016). Do public pensions crowd out private transfers to the elderly?: evidence from south korea. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 15(4):455–477.
• Kananurak, P. and Sirisankanan, A. (2016). Do public transfers crowd-out private transfers? evidence from the thai socio-economic panel survey. Applied Economics Journal, 23(2):29–47.
• Kang, S. J. (2004). Are private transfers crowded out by public transfers? the case of nepal. The Developing Economies, 42(4):510–528.
• Kang, S. J. and Lee, M.-j. (2003). Analysis of private transfers with panel fixed-effect censored model estimator. Economics Letters, 80(2):233–237.
• Kaufmann, D. and Lindauer, D. L. (1986). A model of income transfers for the urban poor. Journal of Development Economics, 22(2):337–350.
• Kaya, E. (2010). Yoksullukla mücadelede avrupa’nın ve türkiye’nin sosyal yardım modeli (1. basım). Ankara: BaĢbakanlık SYDGM Yayınları.
• Kim, J. W. and Choi, Y. J. (2011). Does family still matter? public and private transfers in emerging welfare state systems in a comparative perspective. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20(4):353–366.
• Kunemund, H. and Rein, M. (1999). There is more to receiving than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out. Ageing and society, 19(01):93–121.
• Laferrère, A. and Wolff, F.-C. (2006). Microeconomic models of family transfers. Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, 2:889–969.
• Maitra, P. and Ray, R. (2003). The effect of transfers on household expenditure patterns and poverty in south africa. Journal of development Economics, 71(1):23–49.
• McConnell, K., Merdjanoff, A., Burow, P. B., Mueller, T., & Farrell, J. (2021). Rural Safety Net Use During the Covid-19 Pandemic. SocArXiv, [Doi]
• McKernan, S.-M., Moskowitz, D., and Pitt, M. M. (2005). Use of the formal and informal financial sectors: does gender matter? Empirical evidence from rural Bangladesh. The World Bank.
• Nikolov, P. and Adelman, A. (2019). Do private household transfers to the elderly respond to public pension benefits? evidence from rural china. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 14:100204.
• Nikolov, P. and Bonci, M. (2020). Do public program benefits crowd out private transfers in developing countries? a critical review of recent evidence. A Critical Review of Recent Evidence. IZA Discussion Paper, -(13081).
• Pinarcioglu, M. M. and Isik, O. (2009). Segregation in istanbul: Patterns and processes. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 100(4):469–484.
• Reil-Held, A. (2006). Crowding out or crowding in? public and private transfers in germany. European Journal of Population/ Revue europeenne de Demographie, 22(3):263–280.
• Schoeni, R. F. (1997). Private interhousehold transfers of money and time: New empirical evidence. Review of Income and Wealth, 43(4):423–448.
• Subbarao, K., Bonnerjee, A., Braithwaite, J., Carvalho, S., Ezemenari, K., Graham, C., and Thompson, A. (1997). Safety net programs and poverty reduction: Lessons from cross-country experience. The World Bank.
• Tekgüç, H. (2018). Declining poverty and inequality in turkey: the effect of social assistance and home ownership. South European Society and Politics, 23(4):547–570.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2016). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Nelson Education.