A Critical Assessment on the Conditional Cash Transfer Programme in the context of Gendered Poverty in Turkey

Abstract

This article attempts to critically discuss the relation between the gendered nature of poverty and outputs of Conditional Cash
Transfer (CCT) programme of Turkey, a poverty reduction programme that has been designed to break the intergenerational
transmission of poverty by investing long-term development of human capital in poor families since the CCT programme is
argued to have a strong gender perspective. Therefore, this article will first address the discussions on relation between poverty
and gender from the perspective of feminisation of poverty and gendered poverty approaches which are used synonymously
in this article. Later, the article will attempt to picture gendered nature of poverty in Turkey using various resources. This article
will be concluded a critical discussion on whether or not the CCT programme in Turkey could be a significant remedy to the
problems caused by gendered nature of poverty.

Keywords

• Conditional Cash Transfer Programme, Feminisation of Poverty, Gendered Poverty in Turkey

TÜRKİYE'DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ YOKSULLUK YAKLAŞIMI KAPSAMINDA ŞARTLI NAKİT TRANSFERİ PROGRAMI ÜZERİNE ELEŞTİREL BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Bu makale, yoksulluğun toplumsal cinsiyet temelli doğası ile güçlü bir toplumsal cinsiyet vurgusuna sahip olduğu savunulan
ve yoksul hanelerin uzun dönemli insani sermayesine yatırımda bulunarak yoksulluğun nesiller arası geçişine engel olmayı
amaçlayan Şartlı Nakit Transferi (ŞNT) programının çıktıları arasındaki ilişkiyi eleştirel bir şekilde tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu
nedenle, bu çalışma öncelikle eşanlamlı olarak kullandığı yoksulluğun feminizasyonu ve toplumsal cinsiyet temelli yoksulluk
yaklaşımları bağlamında yoksulluk ve toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkisini tartışacak, sonra çeşitli kaynakları kullanarak ülkemizdeki
toplumsal cinsiyet temelli yoksulluğa dair genel bir resim oluşturmaya çalışacaktır. Makale ülkemizde uygulanan programının
toplumsal cinsiyet temelli yoksulluğun neden olduğu sorunlara etki bir çare olup olamayacağını tartışan bir bölümle sona
erecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Şartlı Nakit Transferi Programı, Yoksulluğun Feminizasyonu, Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyet Temelli Yoksulluk

Kaynakça

1. Akin, A. (2003), Gender Issues in Health. In F. Acar, Bridging the Gap in Turkey: A Milestone To- wards Faster Socio-Economic Development and Poverty Reduction (pp.54-72). Was- hington: The World Bank.
2. Bellamy, K., Rake, K. (2005), Money Money Money Is it still a richman’s world? An audit of women’s economic welfare in Britain today, London: Fawcett Society.
3. Bellamy, K., Bennet, F., Millat, J. (2005), Who benefits? A gender analysis of the UK benefits and tax credit system, London: Fawcett Society.
4. BRIDGE. (1997), Gender Inequality and Poverty: Trends, Linkages, Analysis and Policy Impli- cations (Report No 30), Brighton: Bridge Institute of Development Studies University of Sussex.
5. BRIDGE. (2001), Briefing paper on the ‘feminisation of poverty’ (No Reference Number), Brighton: Bridge Institute of Development Studies University of Sussex.
6. Bugra, A., Keyder, C. (2005), Poverty and Social Inclusion in Contemporary Turkey, Istanbul: Boga- zici University Social Policy Forum.
7. Bugra, A., Keyder, C. (2006), Social Assistance in Turkey: For a Policy of Minimum Income Support Conditional on Socially Beneficial Activity, Ankara: UNDP.
8. Bugra, A., Keyder, C. (2008), Kent Nufusunun En Yoksul Kesiminin ˙Istihdam Yapısı ve Gecinme Yontemleri (‘Employment Structure and Subsistence Strategies of the Urban Poor in Turkey’), Istanbul: Bogazici University Social Policy Forum.

9. Bugra, A., Yakut, C. B. (2010), Structural Change, the Social Policy Environment and Female Emp- loyment in Turkey, Development and Change, 41(3), pp. 517-538.
10. Candas, A., Bugra, A. (Eds). (2010), Turkiye’de Esitsizlikler: Kalici Esitsizliklere Genel Bir Bakis (Inequalities in Turkey: An Overview to Permanent Inequalities), Istanbul: Bogazici University Social Policy Forum.
11. Chant, S. H. (2006), Re-thinking the “feminization of poverty” in relation to aggregate gender indices. Journal of Human Development, 7 (2), pp. 201-220.
12. De la Brière, B., Rawlings, L. B. (2006), Examining Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: A Role for Increased Social Inclusion, The Word Bank Social Protection Series, 0603, pp. 4-27.
13. Elveren, A. Y., Hsu, S. (2007), Gender Gaps in the Individual Pension System in Turkey, South Lake City: University of Utah Department of Economics.
14. Esenyel, C., Torun, G. (2010, October), Conditional Cash Transfer Programme in Turkey, Paper pre- sented at the International Symposium on Poverty Alleviation Strategies, Prime Ministry of Turkey General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity, Istanbul.
15. GDSAS. (2011a), 2011 Yılı Performans Programı (2011 Performance Programme), (2011-Ankara). Ankara: General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity.
16. GDSAS. (2011b), Saglik Yardimlari (Health Benefits), Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www. sydgm.gov.tr/tr/html/240
17. TURKSTAT. (2010a), Labour force by household population, Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http:// www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=1137
18. General Directorate on the Status of Women. (2008a), National Action Plan Gender Equality 2008- 2013 (2008-Ankara), Ankara: General Directorate on the Status of Women.
19. General Directorate on the Status of Women. (2008b), Policy Document: Women and Poverty (2008-Ankara), Ankara: General Directorate on the Status of Women.
20. General Directorate on the Status of Women. (2011), Türkiye’de Kadının Durumu (Women in Turkey) (2011-Ankara), Ankara: General Directorate on the Status of Women.
21. Fernald, L. C. H., Gertler, P. J., Neufeld, L. M. (2008), Role of cash in conditional cash transfer prog- rammes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico’s Oportuni- dades, The Lancet, Vol. 371, 828-837.
22. International Food Policy Research Institute. (2006a), Evaluating the Conditional Cash Transfer Prog- ram in Turkey: A Qualitative Assessment, Washington: IFPRI.
23. International Food Policy Research Institute. (2006b), Interim Impact Evaluation of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Turkey: A Quantitative Assessment, Washington: IFPRI.
24. International Food Policy Research Institute. (2007a), An Evaluation of Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Turkey: Second Qualitative Assessment Report, Washington: IFPRI.
25. International Food Policy Research Institute. (2007b), Impact Evaluation of Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Turkey: Final Report, Washington: IFPRI.
26. International Poverty Centre. (2008), Poverty in Focus: Cash Transfers Lessons from Africa and Latin America (Number 15), Brasilia: International Poverty Centre.
27. Jackson, C., Palmer, J, R. (1999), Rethinking Gendered Poverty and Work. Development and Chan- ge, 30 (3), 557–583.
28. KSGM (2008), Kadinin Statusu ve Sagligiyla İlgili Gercekler (Facts on Women Status and Health), (No Reference Number). Ankara: KSGM.
29. Rawlings, L. B., Rubio, G.M. (2005), Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs, The World Bank Research Observer, 20 (1), 29-55.
30. Ricco, J. A. (2010), Early findings from New York City’s conditional cash transfer program, Insti- tute for Research on Poverty University of Wisconsin–Madison Fast Focus, No.5-2010, 1-5.
31. Sener, U. (2009), Kadin Yoksullugu (Women in Poverty), Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfi.
32. The World Bank. (2008), Implementation Completion and Results Report for Social Risk Mitiga- tion Project (ICR0000306), Washinghton: Human Development Unit Country Depart- ment VI.
33. TURKSTAT. (2008), Formal education completed and sex ratio, Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=1128
34. TURKSTAT. (2010a), Labour force by household population, Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http:// www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=1137
35. TURKSTAT. (2010b), Poverty rates according to gender and educational status of the household members, Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo. do?istab_id=472
36. TURKSTAT. (2010c). Unemployment Rate and Gender. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www. turkstat.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=1146
37. UNDP. (2010). Human Development Report 2010 The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Hu- man Development (No Reference Number). New York: UNDP.
38. UNDP. (2011a). Measuring inequality: Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://hdr.undp.org/en/ statistics/indices/gdi_gem/
39. UNDP. (2011b). The Gender Inequality Index (GII). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://hdr.undp. org/en/statistics/gii/
40. UN Women. (2011a). The United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/poverty.htm#object4
41. UN Women. (2011b). Beijing Decleration. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.un.org/wo- menwatch/daw/beijing/beijingdeclaration.html
42. World Economic Forum. (2010). The Global Gender Gap Report 2010. (No Reference Number). Ge- neva: World Economic Forum.