Eğitim Harcamaları, Gelir ve Eşitlik İlişkisi: Akdeniz Üniversitesi Örneği

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 801 - 823, 18.09.2021

Didem Köse Servet Akyol

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.870654

Cited By: 1

Öz

Çalışmanın temel amacı, farklı statüdeki bireylerin eğitim harcaması, gelir ve eşitlik ilişkisini Akdeniz Üniversitesi örneğinde incelemektir. Çalışmada, eğitim harcamaları ve gelir düzeyini ölçmek için nicel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş, sahaya ilişkin veriler anket aracılığıyla elde edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda araştırmanın örneklemini farklı statülerde bulunan akademik, idari ve işçiler oluşturmaktadır. Anketlerden elde edilen veriler, EKK ve Probit regresyon modelleri ile incelenmiştir.
Çalışmanın sonucuna göre, ebeveynlerin eğitim durumları, toplumsal statüleri ve gelir düzeyleri eğitim harcamalarını ve eğitim tercihlerini önemli ölçüde etkilemektedir. Ebeveynlerin aylık gelir miktarı ile çocuklarını özel eğitim kurumuna gönderme şanslarının aynı yönlü olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eğitim harcaması, gelir, eşitlik

The Relationship Between Education Expenditures, Income and Equality: Case of Akdeniz University

Öz

The main aim of this study is to examine the relationship between education spending, educational preferences and income in terms of the individuals of different status. In the study, quantitative research method was adopted to measure education expenditures and income level, and data were obtained through a survey. The sample consists of people who have different status such as academic and administrative staff and workers. The findings gathered in the fieldwork were analysed by using the OLS and Probit regression models.
According to the results of this study, the education level of families, their social status and their income level determine their educational preferences significantly. Parents' monthly income and their chances of sending their children to special education institutions were found to be in the same direction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Education Expenditure, Income, Equality

Kaynakça

• Acar, E.Ö., Günalp, B., ve Cilasun. M. S. (2016), “An Empirical Analysis Of Household Education Expenditures In Turkey”. International Journal of Educational Development, 23-35.
• Acemoğlu, D. ve Pischke, S. J. (2000), “Changes in the Wage Structure, Family Income, and Children’s Education”. NBER Working Paper, No.7986, 1-16.
• Bahçe, S. A. K. ve Bahçe, S. (2012), “Türkiye’de Eğitim ve Sınıf Üzerine Gözlemler”. Mülkiye Dergisi, Cilt XXXVI, Sayı. 274, 159-182.
• Bayar, A.A. ve İlhan, Y.B. (2016), “Determinants of Household Education Expenditures: Do Poor Spend Less on Education?”. Topics in Middle Easternand African Economies, 18(1), 83-111.
• Becker, S. G. (1962), “Investment In Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis”. The Journal Of Political Economy. 70(2), 9-49.
• Becker, G.S. ve Chiswick, B.R. (1966), “Education and Distribution of Earnings” The American Economic Review, 56(1-2),358-369.
• Bhagwati, J. (1976), “Eğitim, Sınıfsal Yapı ve Gelir Eşitliği”. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt1, Sayı 1, 24-29. (Çev. Ergun Türkcan).
• Bourdieu, P. (1986), The Forms of Capital. J.G. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of The Theory and Research Oryand Research for the Sociology of Education, (pp.241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
• Bowles, S. (1978), “Capitalist Development and Educational Structure”. World Development 6, 783-796.
• Bowles, S. (1999), “Eşitsiz Eğitim ve Toplumsal İşbölümünün Yeniden Üretimi”. Eğitim ve Yaşam, (Çev. Kemal İnal), 14-18.
• Bowles, S. (1986), Schooling and Inequality. R, C, Edwards, M, Reichve T, E, Weisskopf, (Eds.), The Capitalist System A Radical Analysis of American Society (pp.235-247). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (1975), “The Problem With Human Capital Theory: A Marxian Critique”. The American Economıcs Review, 65(2), 74-82.
• Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (1976), Schooling in Capitalist America:Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books. Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (1981), “Education as a Site of Contradictions in the Reproduction of the Capitalist-Labor Relationship: Second Thoughts on the ‘Correspondence Principle’”. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 2, 223-242.
• Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (2002), “Schooling in Capitalist America Revisite”. Sociology of Education, 75, 1-18.
• Checchi, D. ve Werfhorst, H. G. von de (2014), “Educational Policies and Income Inequality”. IZA Discussion Paper, No.8222.
• Çiftçi, C. ve Kangallı, S.G. (2015), “Eğitim ve Gelir”. Ege Akademik Bakış, 15(1), 141-152.
• Digdowiseiso, K. (2009), “Education Inequality, Economic Growth, And Income Inequality: Evıdence From Indonesia, 1996-2005”. Munich Personal Repec Archive, 1-19.
• Duman, A. (2008), “Education And Income Inequality In Turkey: Does Schooling Matter?”. Financial Theory and Practice, 32 (3), 369-385.
• Ercan, F. (1998), Eğitim ve Kapitalizm Neo-Liberal Eğitim Ekonomisinin Eleştirisi, İstanbul: Bilim Yayıncılık.
• Ercan, Fuat (1999), “Neo-Liberal Eğitim Ekonomisi: Eleştirel Bir Çerçeve Denemesi” Eğitim: Ne İçin? Üniversite: Nasıl? YÖK: Nereye? (ss.49-94). OES Ortak Yayını, Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi.
• Erdoğdu, M. M. (2010), “Beşeri Sermaye Perspektifinden Türkiye’de Kamu Eğitim ve Sağlık Harcamaları”. International Symposium on Social Rights, 324-336.
• Farooq, M. (2010), “Education and Income Inequality in Pakistan”. The Dialogue, 5(3), 228-240.
• Figueroa, A. (2010), “Is Education İncome-Equalizing? Evidence From Peru”. Cepal Review, 102, 113-133.
• Fine, B. (2008), Sosyal Sermaye Sosyal Bilime Karşı, (Çev. A. Kars), İstanbul: Yordam Kitap.
• Glomm, G. ve Ravikumar, B. (2003), “Public Education And Income Inequality”. European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 289-300.
• Göker, E. (2007), Ekonomik İndirgemeci mi Dediniz?. G. Çetin, E. Göker, A. Arlı & Ü. Tatlıca (Ed.), Ocak ve Zanaat (ss.277-302). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Gregorio, J.D. ve Lee, Jong-Wha (2002), “Education and Income Inequality: New Evidence From Cross-Country Data”. Review of Income and Wealth, 48(3), 395-416.
• Hansen, M. N. (2001), “Education and Economic Rewards Variations by social-Class Origin and Income Measures”. European Sociological Review, 17(3), 209-231.
• Keskin, H. D. ve Turna, B. G. (2010), “Ailelerin Devlet Ya Da Özel Okul Tercihlerini Etkileyen Faktörler (Rize Örneği)”. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 411-426.
• Kılıç, Y. (2014), “Türkiye’de Eğitimsel Eşitsizlik ve Toplumsal Tabakalaşma İlişkisine Dair Ampirik Bir Çalışma”. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, 4 (2), 224-262.
• Mincer, J. (1958), “Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income Distribution”. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.66, No.4, 281-302.
• Schultz, T. W. (1960), “Capital formation by education”. Journal of Political Economy, 68 (12),571-583.
• Schultz, W. T.(1961), “Investment in Human Capital”. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17.
• Susanlı, Z. B. (2013), “Gender And Household Education Expenditure In Turkey”. 10th EBES Conference Proceedings, İstanbul, Turkey, 271-281.
• Sylwester, K. (2002), “Can education expenditures reduce income inequality?”. Economics of Education Review, 21, 43-52.
• Tansel, A. (2002), “Determinants Of Scholl Attainment Of Boys And Girls In Turkey: Individual, Household And Community Factors”. Economics of Education Review, 21, 455-470.
• Tansel, A. ve Bircan, F. (2004), “Private Tutoring Expenditures in Turkey”. IZA Discussion Paper, No.1255, 1-28.
• Tomul, E. (2007), “Türkiye’de Eğitime Katılım Üzerine Gelirin Etkisi”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(22), 122-131.
• Ulrich, L. (1998), “Education and Earnings Inequality in Mexico”. Policy Research Working Papers, 1-30.
• Winegarden, R. C. (1979), “Schooling and Income Distribution: Evidence from International Data”. Economica, 46(81), 83-87.
• Yamane, T. (2001), Temel Örnekleme Yöntemleri (Çev. A. Esin, C. Aydın, M. A. Bakır ve E. Gürbüzsel), İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.