Sosyal Yardım ve İstihdam İlişkisi Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, sosyal yardımların yoksulluğu azaltma işlevi ile istihdama engel olma riski arasındaki ikilemi, Refah Bağımlılığı ve Yoksulluk Tuzağı kuramları ekseninde incelemek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Türkiye literatüründe sosyal yardım-istihdam ilişkisine dair ölçek bulunmaması, makro veriler yerine doğrudan yararlanıcıların algıları üzerinden ve kültürel bağlama özgü psikometrik araçların sınırlılığı, bu çalışmanın temel hareket noktasıdır. Sosyal Yardım-İstihdam İlişkisi Ölçeği (SY-İ), yardımların istihdam etkisini sistemli bir şekilde ölçmek üzere tasarlanmıştır. Nicel araştırma yöntemiyle yürütülen çalışmada, 20 maddelik taslak form ile başlanan süreçte, binişik yapı gösteren maddelerin elenmesiyle 9 maddelik nihai yapıya ulaşılmıştır. Diyarbakır ilinde 474 katılımcıdan elde edilen verilerle Açımlayıcı (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı (DFA) Faktör Analizleri yapılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, toplam varyansın %51,25’ini açıklayan, “İstihdama Katkı” ve “Koşullu Sosyal Yardım” alt boyutlarından oluşan iki faktörlü yapı doğrulanmıştır. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı, yeni geliştirilen ölçekler için kabul edilebilir düzey olan 0,712 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Geliştirilen ölçek, sosyal politika yapıcılarına yardımların bağımlılık yaratma riski ile istihdama teşvik edici yönünü izleme noktasında kanıta dayalı bir araç sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Yardımlar
• İstihdam Politikaları
• Refah Bağımlılığı
• Yoksulluk Tuzağı
• Ölçek Geliştirme.

Development of the Social Assistance and Employment Relationship Scale

Öz

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to examine the dilemma between the poverty alleviation function of social assistance and the risk of hindering employment, within the framework of Welfare Dependency and Poverty Trap theories. The main starting point of this study is the lack of a scale regarding the social assistance-employment relationship in the Turkish literature, and the scarcity of psychometric tools specific to the cultural context that rely on the perceptions of direct beneficiaries rather than macro data. The Social Assistance-Employment Relationship Scale (SY-I) is designed to systematically measure the employment effect of assistance. In the study conducted using quantitative research methods, the process began with a 20-item draft form and reached a final 9-item structure by eliminating items showing overlapping structures. Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory (CFA) Factor Analyses were performed using data obtained from 474 participants in Diyarbakır province. As a result of the analyses, a two-factor structure consisting of “Contribution to Employment” and “Conditional Social Assistance” sub-dimensions, explaining 51.25% of the total variance, was confirmed. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was determined to be 0.712, which is an acceptable level for newly developed scales. The developed scale provides an evidence-based tool for social policymakers to monitor the risk of dependency and the employment-incentivizing aspect of assistance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Assistance
• Employment Policies
• Welfare Dependency
• Poverty Trap
• Scale Development.

Kaynakça

1. KAYNAKÇA Açar, E., & Güneş, C. (2023). OECD Ülkelerinde Makroekonomik Faktörlerin Ne Eğitimde Ne İstihdamda Olan Gençlerin Oranına Etkisi. Gençlik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(31), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.52528/genclikarastirmalari.1314685
2. Akbulut, E., Altundemir, M. E., & Güven, M. (2022). Türkiye ve AB ülkelerinde sosyal koruma yardımlarının yoksulluk üzerine etkisi: Bir panel veri analizi. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(1), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.11616/asbi.1033102
3. Aranibar, M. F., Baez-Lopez, Y., Limon-Romero, J., Ramirez-Baron, M. C., García Rivera, B. R., Ortega-Pérez Tejada, M., & Hernández Bejarano, J. (2022). The impact of social benefits on work commitment and organizational socialization in the manufacturing industry. Sustainability, 14(17), 10807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710807
4. Arbogast, I., & Dupor, B. (2022). Increasing employment by halting pandemic unemployment benefits. Review (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis), 104(3), 166-177. https://doi.org/10.20955/r.104.166-77
5. Arendt, J. N., & Kolodziejczyk, C. (2019). The effects of an employment bonus for long-term social assistance recipients. Journal of Labor Research, 40(4), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-019-09290-3
6. Asik, G., Bossavie, L. L. Y., Kluve, J., Ozen, E. N., Nebiler, M., & Oviedo, A. M. (2022). The effects of subsidizing social security contributions: Job creation or informality reduction? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9904
7. Balvočiūtė, R. (2019). The impact of cash social benefits for reducing poverty in the European Union. Socialinė Teorija, Empirija, Politika Ir Praktika, 18, 23-45. https://doi.org/10.15388/STEPP.2019.2
8. Bargain, O., & Jonassen, A. B. (2022). New evidence on welfare’s disincentive for the youth using administrative panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01191

9. Bryan, G., Chowdhury, S., Mobarak, A. M., Morten, M., & Smits, J. (2023). Encouragement and distortionary effects of conditional cash transfers. Journal of Public Economics, 228, Article 105004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.105004
10. Busilacchi, G., & Fabbri, A. (2023). Does the unemployment trap still exist? The case of the Italian minimum income scheme. Social Policy & Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12987
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133–151.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (24. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
13. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642
14. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
15. Coomes, O. T., Takasaki, Y., & Rhemtulla, J. M. (2011). Land-use poverty traps identified in shifting cultivation systems shape long-term tropical forest cover. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13925-13930. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012973108
16. Dustmann, C., Landersø, R., & Andersen, L. H. (2024). Refugee benefit cuts. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 16(2), 406–441. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20220062
17. Esenyel, C. (2015). Türkiye’de ve dünyada şartlı nakit transferi uygulamaları [Uzmanlık tezi, Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı]. https://www.aile.gov.tr/uploads/sygm/uploads/pages/uzmanlik-tezleri/15-turkiye-de-ve-dunyada-sartli-nakit-transferi-uygulamalari-caner-esenyel.pdf
18. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/52063_00_Field_4e_SPSS_Prelims.pdf
19. Fietz, K., Morgandi, M., Oliveira, G. L. D., & Superti, L. H. (2024). Exit patterns from Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and the role of the local labor market. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 10676. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10676
20. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2024). IBM SPSS Statistics 29 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference (18th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032622156
21. Gromadzki, J., Sałach, K., & Brzeziński, M. (2023). When populists deliver on their promises: the electoral effects of a large cash transfer programme in Poland. Economica, 91(361), 320-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12505
22. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
23. Handa, S., & Davis, B. (2006). The experience of conditional cash transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO ESA Working Paper, 06-04. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/289060/files/a-ag429t.pdf
24. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90050-0
25. Holzmann, R. (2003). Social risk management: The World Bank approach to social protection in a globalizing world. World Bank Publications. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/494981468762925392/pdf/302560SRMWB0ApproachtoSP01public1.pdf
26. Hoynes, H., & Rothstein, J. (2019). Universal basic income in the United States and advanced countries. Annual Review of Economics, 11(1), 929-958. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030237
27. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
28. Karagöz, Y. (2019). Uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
29. Karakoç, F. Y., & Dönmez, L. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 40, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.228738
30. Kozłowski, A., & Komorowska, O. (2024). Impact of the increase in social benefits on paid employment of mothers of children with disabilities: Evidence from Poland. Economics & Sociology, 17(4), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2024/17-4/7
31. Kraay, A., & McKenzie, D. (2014). Do poverty traps exist? Assessing the evidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 127-148. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.127
32. Kutlu, D. (2016). Türkiye’de sosyal yardım ve istihdam ilişkisinin güncel boyutları. Mülkiye Dergisi, 40(2), 101–141. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/487438
33. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
34. Lehwess-Litzmann, R., & Nicaise, I. (2020). Surprisingly small: Effects of 'generous' social benefits on re-employment of (quasi-) jobless households. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 36(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/ICS.2020.1
35. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
36. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
37. ODI. (2011). A conceptual framework for understanding the role of cash transfers. Overseas Development Institute.
38. Ortakaya, Ü. İ. (2023). Social assistance as a livelihood strategy among the working poor: A case study from Türkiye. Global Social Welfare. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-023-00312-8
39. Scrabis-Fletcher, K., & Silverman, S. (2010). Perception of competence in middle school physical education: Instrument development and validation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2010.10599627
40. Sipahi, B. (2022). İşsizlik yardımlarının bireylerin sağlık üzerine etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 12(2), 856-874. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1141045
41. Social Protection & Human Rights. (2016). Conditional cash transfers: Learning from the literature. https://socialprotection-humanrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/16020912CCTLearning-from-the-LiteratureLR.pdf
42. Şeker, H., & Gençdoğan, B. (2014). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme. Nobel Yayıncılık.
43. Taskin, T., Wiseman, W., Alcan, D., & Mokretar-Karroubi, R. (2016). Impact of social assistance on labor market mobility: The case of Turkey. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7801
44. Tezbaşaran, A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
45. UNICEF & Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. (2014). Türkiye'de şartlı nakit transferi programının iyileştirilmesine yönelik politika belgesi. https://www.unicef.org/turkiye/raporlar/t%C3%BCrkiyede-%C5%9Fartl%C4%B1-nakit-transferi-program%C4%B1n%C4%B1n-iyile%C5%9Ftirilmesine-y%C3%B6nelik-politika-belgesi
46. Venkatraman, N., & Grant, J. H. (1986). Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: A critique and proposal. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 71–87.
47. Verho, J., Hämäläinen, K., & Kanninen, O. (2022). Removing welfare traps: Employment responses in the Finnish basic income experiment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(1), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20200143
48. World Bank. (2018). Turkey’s integrated social assistance system. World Bank.
49. Yuniarti, D., Budimansyah, S., & Purnawan, E. (2025). Employment and welfare: A review of the literature on socioeconomic implications. Southeast Asia Journal of Graduate of Islamic Business and Economics, 3(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.37567/sajgibe.v3i1.3568
50. Zwane, T., Biyase, M., & Rooderick, S. (2022). Assessing the impact of social grants on household welfare using propensity score matching approach. International Journal of Development Issues, 24(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijdi-01-2022-0024