HUMAN CAPITAL, PERCEPTION OF EQUALITY, EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY RELATION ANALYSIS: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Öz

Education, as in all other areas, is a key factor in the employment and empowerment of women throughout the world. However, the power of this education varies culturally and perceptually from country to country. In this study, the human capital theory explaining the education-employment connection and the equality theory explaining the perception of equality-employment are utilized. Using the sixth wave (2010-2014) data of the World Values Survey, it is aimed to reveal how education, gender, perception of equality and marital status affect the labor market and explain how education is related to the national economy. For this sample of 1,284 out of 1,605 survey questionnaires collected from Turkey it was to analyze in terms of fitness for work. In this study, logistic regression and decision tree analyzes are used and it is concluded that there is a positive effect on employment in case of equality perception and education. At the same time, it is found that investments in education move in parallel with the economy and create proportional gender differences in employment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Equality
• Gender
• Human Capital
• Employment
• Logistic Regression

BEŞERÎ SERMAYE, EŞİTLİK ALGISI, İSTİHDAM VE ÜLKE EKONOMİSİ İLİŞKİ ANALİZİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Eğitim, her alanda olduğu üzere tüm dünyada kadınların istihdamına katılımlarında ve güçlendirilmesinde temel faktördür. Ancak bu eğitimin gücü kültürel ve algısal olarak ülkeden ülkeye değişmektedir. Çalışmada, eğitim-istihdam bağlantısını açıklayan beşerî sermaye teorisi ve eşitlik algısı-istihdam bağlantısını açıklayan eşitlik teorisinden yararlanılmaktadır. Dünya Değerleri Araştırması altıncı dalgası (2010-2014) verileri kullanılarak Türkiye’nin istihdam piyasası yapısına eğitimin, cinsiyetin, eşitlik algısının, medeni durumunun nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymak ve eğitimin ülke ekonomisiyle ne şekilde ilişkisi olduğunu açıklamak amaçlanmaktadır. Bunun için Türkiye örnekleminden toplanan 1.605 anket üzerinden çalışmaya uygunluğu açısından 1.284 anket analizlere alınmıştır. Çalışmada lojistik regresyon ve karar ağacı analizlerinden yararlanılarak eşitlik algısı ve eğitimin artması durumunda istihdama pozitif etkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Aynı zamanda eğitime yapılan yatırımların, ekonomiyle paralel hareket ettiği ve istihdamda oransal cinsiyet farklılığı yarattığı bulunan diğer sonuçlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eşitlik
• Cinsiyet
• Beşerî Sermaye
• İstihdam
• Lojistik Regresyon

Kaynakça

1. Abdelhadi, E. ve England, P. (2019). Do Values Explain the Low Employment Levels of Muslim Women Around the World? A Within- and Between-Country Analysis. British Journal of Sociology, 70(4), 1510–1538.
2. Becker, G. S. (1964). Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70, 9–49.
3. Becker, G. S. (1993). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education (3rd baskı). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C. ve Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191–228.
5. Blossfeld, H., Skopek, J., Triventi, M. ve Buchholz, S. (2015). Gender, Education and Employment: An International Comparison of School-to-Work Transitions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
6. Bussemakers, C., van Oosterhout, K., Kraaykamp, G. ve Spierings, N. (2017). Women’s Worldwide Education–Employment Connection: A Multilevel Analysis of the Moderating Impact of Economic, Political, and Cultural Contexts. World Development, 99, 28–41.
7. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
8. Dell, A. M. (2005). Widening the Border: The Impact of NAFTA on Female Labor Force Participation in Mexico. Boston: Harvard University.

9. Dollar, D. ve Gatti, R. (1999). Gender Inequality, Income, and Growth: Are Good Times Good for Women? Policy Research Report on Gender and Development Working Paper Series No:1. The World Bank.
10. Dücan, E. ve Polat, M. A. (2017). Kadın İstihdamının Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkisi: OECD Ülkeleri İçin Panel Veri Analizi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(1), 155–170.
11. European Union. (2019). Report on Equality between Women and Men in the European Union. European Parliament.
12. Fatima, S. T. ve Khan, A. Q. (2019). Globalization and Female Labor Force Participation: The role of Trading Partners. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(3), 365–390.
13. Fitz-enz, J. (2000). The ROI Human Capital: Measuring the Economic Value of Employee Performance. New York, NY: American Management Association.
14. Gaddis, I. ve Klasen, S. (2014). Economic Development, Structural Change, and Women’s Labor Force Participation: A Reexamination of the Feminization U Hypothesis. Journal of Population Economics, 27(3), 639–681.
15. Goldin, C. (1995). The U-Shaped Female Labor Force Function in Economic Development and Economic History. Içinde T. P. Schultz (Ed.), Investment in Women’s Human Capital (ss. 61–90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Hatfield, E., Utne, M. K. ve Traupmann, J. (1979). Equity Theory and Intimate Relationships. Içinde R. L. Burgess, T. L. Huston, ve G. C. Hornaus (Ed.), Socıal Exchange in Developıng Relatıonshıps (ss. 99–133). New York: Academic Press.
17. Hill, A. M. ve King, E. M. (1995). Women’s Education and Economic Well-Being. Feminist Economics, 1(2), 21–46.
18. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
19. ILO. (2016). Women at Work: Trends 2016. International Labour Office (C. 42).
20. ILO. (2019). World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2019. Geneva.
21. ILOSTAT data tools to find and download labour statistics. (2019). Tarihinde 12 Aralık 2019, adresinden erişildi https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/
22. 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.
23. Klasen, S. (2019). What Explains Uneven Female Labor Force Participation Levels and Trends in Developing Countries? World Bank Research Observer, 34(2), 161–197.
24. Klasen, S. ve 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.
25. Kotu, V. ve Deshpande, B. (2015). Predictive Analytics and Data Mining: Concepts and Practice with RapidMiner. Waltham: Elsevier.
26. Kutluay, F. T. ve Şahin, H. (2017). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne Uyum Sürecinde Kadın İstihdamının Analizi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 40–57.
27. Lahoti, R. ve Swaminathan, H. (2016). Economic Development and Women’s Labor Force Participation in India. Feminist Economics, 22(2), 168–195.
28. Lechman, E. ve Kaur, H. (2015). Economic Growth And Female Labor Force Participation –Verifying The U-Feminization Hypothesis. New Evidence For 162 Countries Over The Period 1990-2012. Economics and Sociology, 8(1), 246–257.
29. Lucas, R. E. (1990). Why Doesn’t Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries? American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 80, 92–96.
30. Majbouri, M. (2016). Against the Wind: Labor Force Participation of Women and Economic Instability in Iran. Feminist Economics, 22(4), 31–53.
31. Mincer, J. (1962). On-The-Job Training: Costs, Returns And Some İmplications. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 50–79.
32. Nordenmark, M. (2004). Does Gender Ideology Explain Differences Between Countries Regarding the İnvolvement of Women and of Men in Paid and Unpaid Work? International Journal of Social Welfare, 13(3), 233–243.
33. Ozler, S. (2000). Export Orientation and Female Share of Employment: Evidence from Turkey. World Development, 28(7), 1239–1248.
34. Paxton, P. ve Kunovich, S. (2003). Women’s Political Representation: The Importance of Ideology. Social Forces, 82(1), 87–113.
35. Pradhan, J. P. (2006). How Do Trade, Foreign Investment and Technology Affect Employment Patterns in Organized Indian Manufacturing? Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 49(2), 249–272.
36. Reynolds, A. (1999). Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World: Knocking at the Highest Glass. World Politics, 51(4), 547–572.
37. Samarakoon, S. ve Parinduri, R. A. (2015). Does Education Empower Women? Evidence from Indonesia. World Development, 66, 428–442.
38. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Education and Economic Growth. Içinde N. B. Henry (Ed.), Social Forces Influencing American Education (ss. 46–88). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Schwab, K. (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. Geneva.
40. Serel, H., ve Özdemir, B. S. (2017). Türkiye’de Kadın İstihdamı ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 134–150.
41. Sookram, S. ve Strobl, E. (2009). The Role of Educational Choice in Occupational Gender Segregation: Evidence from Trinidad and
42. Tobago. Economics of Education Review, 28(1), 1–10.
43. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th baskı). Harlow: Pearson Education.
44. Tam, H. (2011). U-Shaped Female Labor Participation with Economic Development: Some Panel Data Evidence. Economics Letters, 110(2), 140–142.
45. The World Bank. (2011). World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development. Washington.
46. UIS (Institute for Statistics). (2019). UNESCO Tarihinde 08 Aralık 2019, adresinden erişildi http://data.uis.unesco.org/
47. UNDP, U. N. D. P. (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators. New York, NY.
48. van der Lippe, T. ve van Dijk, L. (2002). Comparative Research on Women’s Employment. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 221–241.
49. Walster, E., Walster, G. W. ve Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.