Teknoloji, yenilik ve demografi ekseni: Dijital dönüşümün işgücüne katılım üzerindeki cinsiyete dayalı etkileri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, dijitalleşme, beşerî sermaye birikimi, yenilik kapasitesi, ekonomik büyüme ve demografik yapı göstergelerinin kadın ve erkek işgücüne katılım üzerindeki etkilerinin yönünü ve göreli ağırlığını OECD ülkeleri ile Türkiye örneğinde karşılaştırmalı olarak ortaya koymaktır. Bu doğrultuda, 2000-2023 dönemine ait panel veri seti yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve ülke heterojenliğini dikkate alan CCE-MG yöntemiyle analiz edilmiş; Türkiye için ise ARDL modeli kullanılarak uzun ve kısa dönem ilişkiler ayrıştırılmıştır. Panel bulguları, dijitalleşme ve yenilik göstergelerinin istihdamın niceliğini artırmaktan çok işgücünün beceri bileşimini ve üretim yapısını dönüştüren yapısal bir mekanizma olarak işlediğini göstermektedir. Kadın işgücünde yükseköğretim düzeyinin pozitif etkisi yönsel olarak tutarlı olmakla birlikte OECD genelinde istatistiksel olarak zayıftır; buna karşın Türkiye’de kadınların yükseköğretime erişimi uzun dönemde en güçlü ve istikrarlı belirleyici olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Erkek işgücü modellerinde ekonomik büyüme etkisi belirginleşirken, dijitalleşme ve yenilik göstergeleri daha sınırlı bir rol oynamaktadır. Genel olarak çalışma, dijital dönüşümün toplumsal cinsiyet açısından simetrik olmayan sonuçlar ürettiğini ve kadınların teknolojiye erişimi ile beşerî sermaye kazanımlarının sürdürülebilir istihdam artışı için kritik önemde olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dijitalleşme
• beşerî sermaye
• yenilik kapasitesi
• işgücüne katılım

Technology, innovation, and demographic axis: Gender-based effects of digital transformation on labor force participation

Öz

The aim of this study is to comparatively reveal the direction and relative magnitude of the effects of digitalization, human capital accumulation, innovation capacity, economic growth, and demographic structure indicators on female and male labor force participation across OECD countries and in the case of Turkey. To this end, panel data covering the period 2000-2023 are analyzed using the CCE-MG method, which accounts for cross-sectional dependence and country heterogeneity; for Turkey, an ARDL model is employed to disentangle long- and short-run relationships. Panel findings indicate that digitalization and innovation indicators function as structural mechanisms that transform the skill composition of the labor force and the production structure rather than merely increasing the quantity of employment. While the positive effect of tertiary education on female labor force participation is directionally consistent, it is statistically weak across the OECD as a whole; by contrast, women’s access to higher education emerges as the strongest and most stable long-run determinant in Turkey. In male labor force models, the effect of economic growth becomes more pronounced, whereas digitalization and innovation indicators play a more limited role. Overall, the study demonstrates that digital transformation generates asymmetric outcomes in terms of gender and that women’s access to technology and human capital accumulation are of critical importance for sustainable employment growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• digitalization
• human capital
• innovation capacity
• labor force participation

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., ve Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. Handbook of labor economics, 4, 1043-1171. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5.
2. Acemoglu, D., ve Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 3-30. Doi: 10.1257/jep.33.2.3.
3. Acilar, A., ve Sæbø, Ø. (2023). Towards understanding the gender digital divide: A systematic literature review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 72(3), 233-249. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-09-2021-0147.
4. Adam, A., Griffiths, M., Keogh, C., Moore, K., Richardson, H., ve Tattersall, A. (2006). Being an “it” in IT: Gendered identities in IT work. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 368-378.
5. Addati, L., Cattaneo, U., Esquivel, V., ve Valarino, I. (2018). Care work and care jobs for the future of decent work. International Labour Organization.
6. Aghion, P., ve Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323-351. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2951599.
7. Bajaj, K. (2024). Digitization and its effects on female labour force participation in India. IWWAGE - Initiative for What Works to Advance Gender Equality.
8. Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

9. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., ve Fink, G. (2011). Implications of population aging for economic growth (NBER Working Paper No. 16705). National Bureau of Economic Research.
10. Boserup, E., Kanji, N., Tan, S. F., ve Toulmin, C. (2011). Woman’s role in economic development. Earthscan.
11. Cohen, P. N. (2004). The gender division of labor: “Keeping house” and occupational segregation in the United States. Gender & Society, 18(2), 239-252
12. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320-334. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.
13. David, R., ve Phillips, T. (2023). The gender digital gap: Shifting the theoretical focus to systems analysis and feedback loops. Information, Communication & Society, 26(10), 2071-2087. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2069507.
14. Dayıoğlu, T. (2025). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma için teknolojide kadın istihdamının ekonomiye katkısı: Ekonometrik bir analiz. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 60(1), 694-704.
15. Domar, E. D. (1946). Capital expansion, rate of growth, and employment. Econometrica, 14(2), 137-147.
16. Eberhardt, M., ve Teal, F. (2011). Econometrics for grumblers: a new look at the literature on cross‐country growth empirics. Journal of economic Surveys, 25(1), 109-155. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00624.x.
17. Ecevit Satı, Z., ve Oktay Yılmaz, B. (2020). Endüstri 4.0 ortamında değişen iş ve mesleklerin Türkiye’de kadın istihdamına etkileri. Strategic Public Management Journal, 6(11), 54-76.
18. Egaña-delSol, P., Bustelo, M., Ripani, L., Soler, N., ve Viollaz, M. (2022). Automation in Latin America: Are women at higher risk of losing their jobs? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175.
19. Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(1), 79-95. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(00)00166-7.
20. Faulkner, W. (2007). `Nuts and bolts and people’: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 331-356. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706072175.
21. Galpin, V. (2002). Women in computing around the world. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 94-100.
22. Goldin, C. (1994). The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history (NBER Working Paper No. 4707). National Bureau of Economic Research.
23. Greenbaum, J. (1987). The head and the heart. DAIMI Report Series No. 237.
24. Harrod, R. F. (1939). An essay in dynamic theory. The Economic Journal, 49(193), 14-33.
25. Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the global digital economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
26. ILO. (2019). A quantum leap for gender equality: For a better future of work for all.
27. ITU. (2023). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2023. ITU Publications.
28. Jones, C. I. (1995). R & D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 759-784.
29. Kaldor, N. (1966). Causes of the slow rate of economic growth of the United Kingdom: An inaugural lecture. Cambridge University Press. Kaldor, N. (1972). The irrelevance of equilibrium economics. The Economic Journal, 82(328), 1237-1255.
30. Karyotaki, M., Bakola, L., Drigas, A., Skianis, C. (2022). Women's leadership via digital technology and entrepreneurship in business and society. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 28, 246-252. Doi: 10.47577/tssj.v28i1.5907.
31. Kharouf, A. A., Weir, D. (2008). Women and work in a Jordanian context: Beyond neo‐patriarchy. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 4(2/3), 307-319. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/17422040810870060.
32. Kohlrausch, B., Weber, L. (2020). Gender relations at the digitalised workplace: The interrelation between digitalisation, gender, and work. Gender a výzkum/Gender and Research, 21(2), 13-31.
33. Livingstone, S., Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080335.
34. Lucas, R. E., Jr. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42.
35. Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., Krishnan, M., Ellingrud, K., Yee, L., Woetzel, J., Chui, M., Hunt, V., ve Balakrishnan, H. (2019). The future of women at work: Transitions in the age of automation. McKinsey Global Institute.
36. Mammen, K., ve Paxson, C. (2000). Women’s work and economic development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 141-164. Doi: 10.1257/jep.14.4.141.
37. Marjanović, I., Popović, Ž., ve Milanović, S. (2024). Determinants of female labour force participation: Panel data analysis. Central European Business Review, 13(2), 69-88. Doi: 10.18267/j.cebr.348.
38. Meda, D. (2012). Emek: Kaybolma yolunda bir değer mi?. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
39. Munck, R. (2003). Emeğin yeni dünyası: Küresel mücadele, küresel dayanışma. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
40. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
41. OECD. (2001). Understanding the Digital Divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 49. Paris: OECD Publishing
42. OECD. (2016). Structural transformation in the OECD: Digitalisation, deindustrialisation and the future of work (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 193). OECD Publishing.
43. OECD. (2017). Going digital: The future of work for women. OECD Publishing.
44. OECD. (2018). Bridging the digital gender divide: Include, upskill, innovate. OECD Publishing.
45. OECD. (2019a). Measuring the digital transformation: A roadmap for the future. OECD Publishing.
46. OECD. (2019b). OECD Skills Outlook 2019 : Thriving in a Digital World. Paris: OECD Publishing.
47. OECD. (2020). The digitalisation of science, technology and innovation: Key developments and policies. OECD Publishing.
48. OECD. (2024). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 2): Strengthening Connectivity, Innovation and Trust. Paris: OECD Publishing.
49. OECD. (2025). Pursuing gender equality in a changing world (OECD Policy Brief). Paris: OECD Publishing.
50. Olivetti, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2016). The evolution of gender gaps in industrialized countries. Annual review of Economics, 8(1), 405-434.
51. Özkaplan, N. (2009). Duygusal emek ve kadın işi/erkek işi. Çalışma ve Toplum, 2(21), 15-24.
52. Papastergiou, M. (2008). Are computer science and information technology still masculine fields? High school students’ perceptions and career choices. Computers & Education, 51(2), 594-608. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.009.
53. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
54. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x.
55. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. Doi: 10.1002/jae.951.
56. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. Doi: 10.1002/jae.
57. Psacharopoulos, G., ve Tzannatos, Z. (1989). Female labor force participation: An international perspective. The World Bank Research Observer, 4(2), 187-201.
58. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Pt. 2), S71-S102.
59. Rosenbloom, J. L., Ash, R. A., Dupont, B., Coder, L. (2008). Why are there so few women in information technology? Assessing the role of personality in career choices. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(4), 543-554. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.005.
60. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17.
61. Shuangshuang, Y., Zhu, W., Mughal, N., Vargas Aparcana, S. I., ve Muda, I. (2023). The impact of education and digitalization on female labour force participation in BRICS: An advanced panel data analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 598. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02020-2.
62. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.
63. Tunalı, İ., Kırdar, M. G., ve Dayıoğlu-Tayfur, M. (2019). Female labor force participation in Turkey: A synthetic cohort (panel) analysis, 1988-2013 (IZA Discussion Paper No. 12844). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
64. UNDP. (2022). Kadın Dostu Dijital Yol: Türkiye’de Turizm ve İmalat Sektörlerinde Dijitalleşme ve Kadın İş Gücü Araştırması Raporu.
65. UNESCO. (2017). Cracking the code: Girls’ and women’s education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Paris: UNESCO.
66. Vicens-Feliberty, M. A., ve Reyes, F. (2015). Female labor force participation and dependency ratios in border states. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 30(2), 137-150. Doi: 10.1080/08865655.2015.1042009.
67. Viollaz, M., ve Winkler, H. (2020). Does the internet reduce gender gaps? The case of Jordan (Policy Research Working Paper No. 9183). World Bank.
68. Wajcman, J. (1991). Patriarchy, technology, and conceptions of skill. Work and Occupations, 18(1), 29-45. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888491018001002.
69. Wajcman, J. (1996). Feminism Confronts Technology. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
70. Wajcman, J., Young, E., ve Fitzmaurice, A. (2020). The digital revolution: Implications for gender equality and women’s rights 25 years after Beijing. UNWOMEN Discussion Paper.
71. Wentling, R., Thomas, S. (2009). Workplace culture that hinders and assists the career development of women in information technology. Information Technology, Learning & Performance Journal, 25(1).
72. World Bank. (2025). World Development Indicators (WDI). World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
73. Yang, Y., Ghazanchyan, M., Granados-Ibarra, S., ve Canavire-Bacarreza, G. (2024). Digitalization and employment gender gaps during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean (IMF Working Paper No. WP/24/12). International Monetary Fund.