Kadın Eğitimi ve Sağlığının Ekonomik Kalkınmaya Katkısı: Türkiye'de Makroekonomik Aktarım Mekanizmaları

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de kadınların eğitimi ve sağlığı, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği ve ekonomik kalkınma arasındaki ilişkileri 1990–2023 yıllık verileriyle incelemektedir. Sınırlı gözlem sayısı nedeniyle ARDL yaklaşımı kullanılmış; gelir ile eşitsizlik arasındaki doğrusal olmayan ilişki dönüm noktaları, güven aralıkları, gözlemlenen veri aralığı ve istikrar testleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğinin kalıcı olduğunu ve gözlemlenen kalkınma sürecinin büyük bölümünde gelir artışıyla eşitsizlik endeksi arasında negatif bir ilişki bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak kübik gelir terimi güçlü değildir, ikinci dönüm noktası veri aralığının dışındadır ve temel modelde eşbütünleşme için yeterli kanıt yoktur. Dolayısıyla Türkiye’de uzun dönemli S-biçimli bir Toplumsal Cinsiyet Kuznets Eğrisi güçlü biçimde desteklenmemektedir. Kadınların eğitimi kalkınmayla pozitif ilişkili olsa da eğitim ve sağlıktaki ilerleme ekonomik katılıma aynı ölçüde yansımamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği
• Kalkınma
• Kuznets Eğrisi

The Contribution of Women’s Education and Health to Economic Development: Macroeconomic Transmission Mechanisms in Türkiye

Öz

This study examines the relationships between women’s education and health, gender inequality, and economic development in Türkiye using annual data for 1990–2023. Given the limited number of observations, it employs an ARDL approach and evaluates the proposed nonlinear relationship between income and inequality through turning points, confidence intervals, the observed data range, and stability tests. The findings indicate persistent gender inequality and a generally negative association between income growth and the Gender Inequality Index across much of the observed development trajectory. However, the cubic income term is weak, the second turning point lies outside the observed income range, and the baseline model provides insufficient evidence of cointegration. The results therefore offer limited support for a long-run S-shaped Gender Kuznets Curve in Türkiye. Women’s education remains positively associated with development, but gains in education and health do not translate proportionately into economic participation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gender Inequality
• Development
• Gender Kuznets

Destekleyen Kurum

This research received no specific grant or financial support from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Etik Beyan

This study is based exclusively on publicly available secondary data and does not involve human participants, personal data, interviews, surveys, or experimental procedures. Therefore, ethics committee approval and informed consent were not required. The authors declare that the study was conducted in accordance with established principles of research and publication ethics.

Teşekkür

The author would like to express sincere gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Murteza Ocaklı for his valuable contributions to the econometric analysis of this study.

Kaynakça

1. Barro, R. J., & Lee, J.-W. (2013). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.10.001.
2. Dhar, S., & Sarker, T. (2024). An ARDL method for evaluating Bangladesh’s economic growth concerning female secondary education. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629241253750.
3. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531.
4. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517.
5. Dijkstra, A. G., & Hanmer, L. C. (2000). Measuring socio-economic gender inequality: Toward an alternative to the UNDP Gender-Related Development Index. Feminist Economics, 6(2), 41–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700050076106.
6. Duflo, E. (2012). Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(4), 1051–1079. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.4.1051.
7. Eastin, J., & Prakash, A. (2013). Economic development and gender equality: Is there a gender Kuznets curve? World Politics, 65(1), 156–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887112000275.
8. Engle, R. (2002). Dynamic conditional correlation: A simple class of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(3), 339–350.

9. Fatima, G. (2011). Female education as a determinant of economic growth: The case study of Pakistan. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(11), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v4i11.6485.
10. Ferrant, G. (2015). How do gender inequalities hinder development? Cross-country evidence. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 117/118, (117/118), 313. https://doi.org/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.117-118.313.
11. Foukas, V. (2023). Women teachers’ education in Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey during the 19th century: Parallel paths and interactions. İmgelem, 7(13), 651–668. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1378171.
12. Gaye, A., Klugman, J., Kovacevic, M., Twigg, S., & Zambrano, E. (2010). Measuring key disparities in human development: The Gender Inequality Index (Human Development Research Paper 2010/46). United Nations Development Programme. https://hdr.undp.org/content/measuring-key-disparities-human-development.
13. Gebre, G. G. (2020). The role of female education on economic development: Cross sectional data. Developing Country Studies, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.7176/DCS/10-4-01.
14. Goldin, C. (1994). The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4707.
15. Gündüz-Hoşgör, A., & Smits, J. (2008). Variation in labour market participation of married women in Turkey. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2008.03.003.
16. Kabeer, N. (2003). Gender mainstreaming in poverty eradication and the Millennium Development Goals. Commonwealth Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848598133-en.
17. Kabeer, N. (2016). Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: The “endless variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints. Feminist Economics, 22(1), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1090009.
18. Klasen, S. (2000). Does gender inequality reduce growth and development? Evidence from cross-country regressions (Discussion Paper No. 212). Sonderforschungsbereich 386, University of Munich. https://doi.org/10.5282/ubm/epub.1602.
19. Klasen, S. (2002). Low schooling for girls, slower growth for all? Cross-country evidence on the effect of gender inequality in education on economic development. The World Bank Economic Review, 16(3), 345–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhf004.
20. Klasen, S. (2017). UNDP’s gender-related measures: Current problems and proposals for fixing them (Discussion Paper No. 220). Courant Research Centre, University of Göttingen. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/157265.
21. Klasen, S., & Lamanna, F. (2009). The impact of gender inequality in education and employment on economic growth: New evidence for a panel of countries. Feminist Economics, 15(3), 91–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700902893106.
22. Knowles, S., Lorgelly, P. K., & Owen, P. D. (2002). Are educational gender gaps a brake on economic development? Some cross-country empirical evidence. Oxford Economic Papers, 54(1), 118–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/54.1.118.
23. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979–1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103.
24. Nkoro, E., & Uko, A. K. (2016). Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) cointegration technique: Application and interpretation. Journal of Statistical and Econometric Methods, 5(4), 63–91.
25. Papaoikonomou, A. (2026). Exploring country-specific effects on the human capital index: A cross-national hierarchical regression using QoG (quality of government) data for Greece and Turkey. İmgelem, (18), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1802501.
26. Permanyer, I. (2013). A critical assessment of the UNDP’s gender inequality index. Feminist Economics, 19(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.769687.
27. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616.
28. Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335.
29. Santos Silva, M., & Klasen, S. (2021). Gender inequality as a barrier to economic growth: A review of the theoretical literature. Review of Economics of the Household, 19(3), 581–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09535-6.
30. Seguino, S. (2000). Gender inequality and economic growth: A cross-country analysis. World Development, 28(7), 1211–1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00018-8.
31. Seguino, S. (2020). Engendering macroeconomic theory and policy. Feminist Economics, 26(2), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2019.1609691.
32. Tansel, A. (2001). Economic development and female labour force participation in Turkey: Time-series evidence and cross-province estimates. Middle East Technical University.
33. Tembon, M., & Fort, L. (2008). Girls’ education in the 21st century: Gender equality, empowerment and growth. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7474-0.
34. Tuncer, C. O., Şimşek, S. S., & Akdemi̇r, N. (2021). Türkiye’de yerli dizilerin kadına yönelik şiddetle mücadele algısı üzerine etkileri. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(41), 3362–3395. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.975120.