Impact of Higher Education on Employment of Disadvantaged Groups: A Comparative Study between Türkiye and the EU

Abstract

Within the scope of harmonization processes with the European Union (EU) legislation, increasing employment, improving working and living conditions, developing human resources for a sustainable employment structure, and social exclusion are among the fundamental issues covered by Chapter 19 on Social Policy and Employment. This study examines the employment policies and practices toward disadvantaged groups in Türkiye and the EU, and also highlights the impact of the variations in the definition of the concept of disadvantage across countries on the design and implementation of these policies. The study recognizes that the common definition of disadvantaged groups refers to individuals with disabilities, ex-convicts, women, and immigrants, and proposes to expand this definition to include those who are disadvantaged or become disadvantaged over time due to barriers to labour market access.

Keywords

• Disadvantaged Groups
• employment
• social inclusion
• active labor market policies
• European Union

Yükseköğretimin Dezavantajlı Grupların İstihdamına Etkisi: Türkiye ve AB Arasında Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Öz

Avrupa Birliği (AB) mevzuatına uyum süreçleri kapsamında istihdamın artırılması, çalışma ve yaşam koşullarının iyileştirilmesi, sürdürülebilir bir istihdam yapısı için insan kaynaklarının geliştirilmesi ve sosyal dışlanma, 19 No'lu Sosyal Politika ve İstihdam Faslı'nın kapsadığı temel konular arasında yer almaktadır. Çalışma, Türkiye ve AB'de dezavantajlı gruplara yönelik istihdam politikalarını ve uygulamalarını incelemekte, ayrıca dezavantaj kavramının tanımında ülkeler arasında görülen farklılıkların bu politikaların tasarımı ve uygulanması üzerindeki etkisini vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, dezavantajlı grupların ortak tanımının engelli bireyler, eski hükümlüler, kadınlar ve göçmenler olduğunu kabul etmekte ve bu tanımın işgücü piyasasına erişimin önündeki engeller nedeniyle dezavantajlı olan veya zaman içinde dezavantajlı hale gelen kişileri de kapsayacak şekilde genişletilmesini önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dezavantajlı Gruplar
• İstihdam
• Sosyal İçerme
• Aktif İşgücü Piyasası Politikaları
• Avrupa Birliği

Kaynakça

1. Abrahamson, P. (2005). New forms of inequality in contemporary societies. Danish Congress of Sociology, Roskilde University. Retrieved from http://www.sociologkongres.dk/papers/socialulighed/socialulighed_Peter_Abrahamson_pap.pdf
2. ASHB. (2023). Engelli ve yaşlı istatistik bülteni, Nisan 2023. Retrieved from https://aile.gov.tr/media/135432/eyhgm_istatistik_bulteni_nisan_23.pdf
3. Atkinson, A. B. (1998). Social exclusion, poverty and unemployment. In A. B. Atkinson & J. Hills (Eds.), Exclusion, employment and opportunity (CASEpaper 4). London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.
4. Atkinson, R. (2000). Combating social exclusion in Europe: The new urban policy challenge. Urban Studies, 37(5-6), 1037–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980050011226
5. Barrett, R. (2010). Disadvantaged groups in the labour market. Economic & Labour Market Review, 4(6), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/elmr.2010.85
6. Berghman, J. (1995). Social exclusion in Europe: Policy context and analytical framework. In G. Room (Ed.), Beyond the threshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion (pp. 10-28). Bristol: Policy Press.
7. Boone, J., & van Ours, J. (2004). Effective active labour market policies (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1135). Germany: Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved from https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/1135/effective-active-labor-market-policies
8. Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (1999). Social exclusion in Britain 1991-1995. Social Policy and Administration, 33(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00147

9. Buz, S., & Karabulut, A. (2015). Ortopedik engelli kadınlar: Toplumsal cinsiyet çerçevesinde bir çalışma. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7, 57-82.
10. Council of the EU. (2004). Joint report by the Commission and the Council on social inclusion. Brussels.
11. Daly, M. (2006). Social exclusion as concept and policy template in the European Union. Belfast: Queen’s University, School of Sociology and Social Policy, Centre for European Studies, Working Paper Series #135.
12. De Haan, A. (2000). Social exclusion: Enriching the understanding of deprivation. In G. Rodgers, C. Gore, & J. B. Figueiredo (Eds.), Social exclusion: Rhetoric, reality, responses (pp. 22–40). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
13. De Haan, A. (2015). Social inclusion and structural transformation: Concepts, measurements and trade-offs. Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development Working Paper Series, WP 17. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
14. Dean, H. (2016). Poverty and social exclusion. LSE Research Online. Retrieved from https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65340/
15. Dean, H. (2016). Poverty and social exclusion: The new European agenda for policy and research. In L. Platt & H. Dean (Eds.), Social advantage and disadvantage (pp. 23-42). Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
16. Dedeoğlu, S. (2012). Equality, protection or discrimination: Gender equality policies in Turkey. Social Politics, 19(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxs006
17. DSÖ. (2022). Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063600
18. EIGE. (2016). Glossary and thesaurus. Retrieved 2021, from European Institute for Gender Equality: https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1083
19. European Commission. (2004). Joint report on social inclusion. Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs. Brussels.
20. European Commission. (2017). European semester thematic factsheet - Active labour market policies. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/european-semester_thematic-factsheet_active-labour-market-policies_en_0.pdf
21. European Commission. (2021). Commission staff working document - Turkey 2021. Strasbourg.
22. European Commission. (2021). Commission staff working document, Analysis of the recovery and resilience plan of Spain, SWD(2021)147 final.
23. European Parliament. (2010). The Lisbon strategy 2000-2010: An analysis and evaluation of the methods used and results achieved. Brussels.
24. European Parliament. (n.d.). Treaty of Lisbon. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/5/the-treaty-of-lisbon
25. European Parliament. (2020). Parliament calls for a new ambitious EU disability strategy, June. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20200604STO80506/a-new-ambitious-eu-disability-strategy-for-2021-2030
26. EUROSTAT. (2021, April). Employment rates - Annual statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment_rates_%E2%80%93_annual_statistics
27. Floro, M., & Meurs, M. (2009). Global trends in women’s access to “decent work”. Geneva: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
28. Genç, Y., & Çat, G. (2014). Engellilerin istihdamı ve sosyal içerişim ilişkisi. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 8(1), 363-394.
29. Government of Spain. (2021). Recovery, transformation and resilience plan. Madrid.
30. Haar, B. (2009). The growing potential integration capacity of the acquis of the European social model. European Integration Online Papers, 13(26). https://doi.org/10.16995/eiop.2009.26
31. ILO. (2011). Skills for employment. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_167168.pdf
32. Keskiner, H. (2022). Yükseköğretim ve kadınlar. In A. Koca & Y. Karagöl (Eds.), Kadın ve sosyal politika güncel tartışmaları (pp. 343-381). Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.
33. Leslie, L., Manchester, C., Flathery, C., & Dahm, P. (2016). What and when does the gender gap reverse? Diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0263
34. Lisbon Treaty. (2009). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:FULL:EN:PDF
35. MoLSS. (2014). Ulusal istihdam stratejisi. Ankara: Çalışma Genel Müdürlüğü.
36. OECD. (2021). Supporting people and companies to deal with the COVID-19 virus: Options for an immediate employment and social-policy response. Paris: OECD Publishing.
37. OECD. (2021). Why do more young women than men go to tertiary education? Education Indicators in Focus, 79(March). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/fr/education/why-do-more-young-women-than-men-go-on-to-tertiary-education-6f7209d1-en.htm
38. Pagan, R. (2007). Is part-time work a good or bad opportunity for people with disabilities? A European analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(24), 1910-1919. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701618815
39. Room, G. (2001). Poverty and social exclusion: The new European agenda for policy and research. In J. Hills (Ed.), Understanding social exclusion (pp. 3-21). Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
40. Seskir, Z. C. (2017). Türkiye’de yükseköğretimde nicel cinsiyet açığındaki değişimin olası nedenleri ve etkileri. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2(2), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2017.tb00240.x
41. Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133(5-6), 531–578.
42. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK). (2020). Engelsiz erişim engelsiz eğitim. Retrieved from https://engelsiz.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/engelsiz-erisim-engelsiz-egitim.aspx
43. Tören, Z. (2014). Kamuda çalışan engelli kadınların problemleri (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.