Türkiye İşgücü Piyasasında İnsana Yakışır İş: Cinsiyet Perspektifinden Ampirik Bir Araştırma

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 122 - 143, 26.03.2025

Zeynep Elitaş

https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1598310

Öz

Erkeklere kıyasla işgücü piyasasına katılımlarının düşük olması ve düşük statülü işlerde yoğunlaşmaları, Türkiye’de kadınların insana yakışır işlere erişiminin önünde önemli bir engel teşkil etmektedir. Ayrıca, Covid-19 salgını kadınlar üzerinde orantısız derecede olumsuz bir etki yaratmıştır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye işgücü piyasasında insana yakışır iş kavramını kapsamlı bir şekilde incelemekte ve kavramın toplumsal cinsiyet boyutları ile Covid-19 salgınının yol açtığı değişimlere dikkat çekmektedir. 2019-2023 yıllarına ait Hanehalkı İşgücü Araştırması (HİA) mikro verileri kullanılarak, insana yakışır ve yakışır olmayan işe ilişkin iki ayrı probit modeli tahmin edilmiştir. Ayrıca, cinsiyet farklılıklarını incelemek amacıyla düzgün ve düzgün olmayan iş bulma olasılıkları kadın ve erkeğe ait farklı regresyonlarla incelenmiştir. Bulgularımız, düzgün işe erişimde kalıcı cinsiyet eşitsizliklerinin varlığını ve kadınların düzgün olmayan istihdamda orantısız bir şekilde temsil edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu durum, özellikle hizmetler ve tarım sektörlerinde ve evli ya da boşanmış kadınlar arasında belirgin bir şekilde gözlemlenmektedir. Bu da toplumsal normların ve yapısal engellerin yaygın etkisini akıllara getirmektedir. Kadınlar arasında eğitim düzeyi ile insana yakışır olmayan istihdam arasındaki U şeklindeki ilişki, bu dinamiklerin karmaşıklığını daha da vurgulamaktadır. Diğer yandan, COVID-19 salgını ekonomik aksaklıklardan en fazla etkilenen sektörlerde yoğunlaşan kadınların istihdamını orantısız biçimde etkileyerek mevcut kırılganlıkları daha da artırmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Düzgün iş, Cinsiyete dayalı ücret farkı, Covid-19

Decent Work in the Turkish Labor Market: An Empirical Study from a Gender Perspective

Öz

Lower labor market participation compared to men and their concentration in lower-status jobs pose a substantial barrier to women’s access to decent work in Türkiye. Furthermore, Covid-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately adverse impact on women. This study provides a comprehensive examination of the concept of decent work within the Turkish labor market, emphasizing its gendered dimensions and the shifts induced by Covid-19 pandemic. We estimate two separate probit models for decent and non-decent employment by using microdata from the Household Labor Force Survey (HLFS) spanning 2019 to 2023. We run separate regressions for females and males to examine potential gender differences in the likelihood of decent and non-decent employment. Our findings highlight persistent gender disparities in access to decent work, with women disproportionately represented in non-decent employment. This overrepresentation is particularly notable in the services and agricultural sectors and among married or divorced women, suggesting the pervasive influence of societal norms and structural barriers. The U-shaped relationship between educational attainment and non-decent employment among women further underscores the complexity of these dynamics, where higher education paradoxically coincides with increased non-decent employment in some contexts. Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated existing vulnerabilities, disproportionately impacting women's employment due to their concentration in sectors most affected by economic disruptions and their dual burden of unpaid caregiving responsibilities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Decent work, Gender wage gap, Covid-19

Kaynakça

• Aldan, A., Çıraklı, M. E., & Torun, H. (2021). Covid-19 and the Turkish labor market: Heterogeneous effects across demographic groups. Central Bank Review, 21(4), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbrev.2021.12.003
• Allan, B. A., Tebbe, E. A., Bouchard, L. M., & Duffy, R. D. (2019). Access to decent and meaningful work in a sexual minority population. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3), 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718758064
• Anker, R., Chernyshev, I., Egger, P., Mehran, F., & Ritter, J. (2003). Measuring decent work with statistical indicators. International Labor Review, 142(2), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2003.tb00257.x
• Anker, R., Chernyshev, I., Egger, P., Mehran, F., & Ritter, J. (2002). Measuring decent work with statistical indicators (Working Paper No. 2). ILO, Policy Integration Department. https://www.ilo.org/publications/working-paper-no-2-measuring-decent-work-statistical-indicators
• Barrientos, S., Mayer, F., Pickles, J., & Posthuma, A. (2011). Decent work in global production networks: Framing the policy debate. International Labor Review, 150, 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2011.00118.x
• Baloğlu, F., & Güngör-Delen, M. (2024). The trajectory of decent work in Türkiye: A review with gender-oriented statistics. Journal of Social Policy Conferences, JSPC 2024, 86, 106–124. https://doi.org/10.26650/jspc.2024.86.1434438
• Bescond, D., Chataignier, A., & Mehran, F. (2003). Seven indicators to measure decent work: An international comparison. International Labor Review, 142(2), 179–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2003.tb00258.x
• Bonnet, F., Figueiredo, J. B., & Standing, G. (2003). A family of decent work indexes. International Labor Review, 142(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2003.tb00259.x
• Bletsas, A., & Charlesworth, S. (2013). Gender equality and decent work in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2012.760524
• Blustein, D. L., Olle, C., Connors-Kellgren, A., & Diamonti, A. J. (2016). Decent work: A psychological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00407
• Blustein, D. L., Duffy, R., Ferreira, J. A., Cohen-Scali, V., Cinamon, R. G., & Allan, B. A. (2020). Unemployment in the time of COVID-19: A research agenda [Editorial]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, Article 103436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103436
• Blustein, D. L., Lysova, E. I., & Duffy, R. D. (2023). Understanding decent work and meaningful work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012821-024047
• Burchell, B., Sehnbruch, K., Piasna, A., & Agloni, N. (2014). The quality of employment and decent work: Definitions, methodologies, and ongoing debates. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38, 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu032
• Büyükgöze-Kavas, A., & Autin, K. L. (2019). Decent work in Turkey: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.003
• Charlesworth, S., & Macdonald, F. (2015). The decent work agenda and the advancement of gender equality: For emerging economies only? International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 31(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2015001
• Çarkıt, E. (2024). Decent work among Turkish working adults: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727231248785
• Çiftçi, A. N. (2023). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma perspektifiyle toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğinin insana yakışır işle ilişkisi ve Türkiye. In G. Gülay and Ö. Güney (Eds.), Ekonomi, sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve işletme alanında akademik çalışmalar (pp. 87–100). Gazi Kitabevi. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369592952_Ayse_Nur_CIFTCI_2023_Surdurulebilir_Kalkinma_Perspektifiyle_Toplumsal_Cinsiyet_Esitliginin_Insana_Yakisir_Isle_Iliskisi_ve_Turkiye_s_87-100_Ekonomi_Surdurulebilir_Kalkinma_ve_Isletme_Alaninda_Akademik
• Dedeoğlu, S., & Gökmen, Ç. E. (2021). Kadınlar için daha çok ve daha iyi işler programı: Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Çalışma Yaşamında Kadın. ILO, https://www.ilo.org
• Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Autin, K. L. (2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000102
• Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., England, J. W., Blustein, D. L., Autin, K. L., Douglass, R. P., Ferreira, J., & Santos, E. J. R. (2017). The development and initial validation of the decent work scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000200
• Erdem-Karahanoğlu G., & Kumaş, H. (2022). Türkiye’de İyi ve Kötü İşler: Genç Çalışanlar Üzerinden Bir Analiz. Sosyoekonomi, 30(51), 427-447. https://doi: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2022.01.21
• Ferraro, T., Pais, L., Rebelo Dos Santos, N., & Moreira, J. M. (2018). The decent work questionnaire: Development and validation in two samples of knowledge workers. International Labor Review, 157(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12062
• Ferreira, J. A., Haase, R. F., Santos, E. R., Rabaça, J. A., Figueiredo, L., Hemami, H. G., & Almeida, L. M. (2019). Decent work in Portugal: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.005
• Fapohunda, T. M. (2012). Towards improved access to full employment and decent work for women in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(8), 104-112. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tinuke_Fapohunda/publication/258344081_Towards_Improved_Access_to_Full_Employment_and_Decent_Work_for_Women_in_Nigeria/links/0c960527fd0bc85ec7000000.pdf
• Ghida, I., Valdivia, M., & Orleans, Reed, S. (2022). COVID-19 impact and recovery for women informal workers – A view from 2021. Gender & Development, 30(1-2), 115-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2022.2067134
• Gürcan, N. (2022). A conceptual discussion on discrimination against female employees in Turkish business life: Vertical segregation. Akdeniz Kadın Çalışmaları ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dergisi, 5(1), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.33708/ktc.1007817
• Hepple, B. (2001). Equality and empowerment for decent work. International Labor Review, 140, 1-12. https://doi:10.1111/J.1564-913X.2001.TB00210.X
• İlkkaracan, İ., & Memiş, E. (2021). Transformations in the gender gaps in paid and unpaid work during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from Turkey. Feminist Economics, 27(1–2), 288–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2021.1918186
• Kim, H. J., McNeil-Young, V. A., Wang, D., Duffy, R. D., & Underill, B. D. (2022). Women of color and decent work: An examination of psychology of working theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 70(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12260
• Kim, H. J., Büyükgöze-Kavas, A., Duffy, R. D., & Perez, G. (2023). A cross-cultural validation of Psychology of Working Theory with Turkish working adults. Journal of Career Assessment, 31(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727231222867
• King-Dejardin, A. (2008). Gender Dimensions of Globalization. [Paper presented at the meeting on Globalization – Decent Work and Gender]. Geneva: ILO. 2019. https://www.cawtarclearinghouse.org/storage/AttachementGender/GENDER%20AND%20GLOBALIZATION%20ILO.pdf
• Kozan, S., Işık, E., & Blustein, D. L. (2019). Decent work and well-being among low-income Turkish employees: Testing the psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(3), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000333
• Özkubat, G., Üçdoğruk Birecikli, Ş., & Selim, S. (2023). Is COVID-19 an advantage to disadvantaged groups? Evidence from administrative data on working hours in Turkey. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 69, 100–121. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2023-1316118
• Rai, S. M., Brown, B. D., & Ruwanpura, K. N. (2019). SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth – A gendered analysis. World Development, 113, 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.019
• International Labor Organization. (2009). Gender equality at the heart of decent work. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_105119.pdf
• Standing, G. (2002). From people’s security surveys to a decent work index. International Labor Review, 141(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2002.tb00097.x
• Ünlütürk-Ulutaş, Ç., & Durusoy-Öztepe, N. (2021). Barriers against women’s entry to decent work: A qualitative analysis on Bursa and Konya. Çalışma ve Toplum, 4(71), 2713–2738. https://doi:10.54752/ct.1155463