Poverty Dynamics in Turkey: A Multinomial Logit Model

Abstract

The availability of longitudinal data allows researchers to analyse the dynamics of poverty. By using the Turkish Statistical Institute’s (TurkStat) Income and Living Conditions Survey micro dataset, we analyse the households’ long-term monetary poverty conditions. We categorise poverty as transitory and chronic and employ the multinomial logit method to analyse determinants of each types of poverty. Results indicate that education and household size are the most effective factors for reducing transitory poverty, and for chronic poverty, the most effective factors are having a regular job and having a skilled occupation; insurance, home ownership, and number of children are important determinants for both types of poverty.

Examining entry and exit rates of poverty in Turkey: A dynamic probit regression analysis

“…To achieve this objective, we used the random effects dynamic probit model as proposed by Heckman (1981) and Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal (2013). Our results show a highly significant and positive coefficient of state dependence, which is consistent with the previous studies by Şahin and Kılıç (2021), Şeker and Dayioğlu (2015), and Yildirim et al (2018). These findings suggest that poverty has a persistent nature in Turkey.…”

“…However, married people have a greater likelihood of escaping poverty. Our findings reveal a pronounced and positive coefficient of state dependence, aligning with prior research such as those by Şahin and Kılıç (2021), Şeker and Dayioğlu (2015), and Yildirim et al (2018). This indicates a consistent trend of persistent poverty in Turkey.…”

“…Even though substantial progress has been made in reducing poverty over the past 20 years, the issue persists, especially in rural areas and among certain demographic groups. The persistence of poverty in Turkey has been studied using a variety of econometric methods, including static and dynamic models (Şahin & Kılıç, 2021;Şeker & Dayioğlu, 2015;Yildirim et al, 2018).…”

“…Literature on poverty dynamics within Turkey is abundant (BaşakDalgıç AytekinGüven, 2015; Şahin & Kılıç, 2021;Şeker & Dayioğlu, 2015;Şeker & Jenkins, 2015;Yildirim et al, 2018). It outlines the significance of labor market characteristics, socio-economic factors, and demographic factors in determining poverty entries and exits.…”

An Analysis on the Determinants of Chronic Poverty in Turkey

“…Kızılgöl (2009), hanehalklarının yoksulluk risklerini belirleyebilmek ve yaşam standartlarını ortaya koyabilmek için 2002-2006 yılları Hanehalkı Bütçe Anketi panel verilerini kullanmıştır. Zaman içerisinde yoksulluk dinamikleri, bireylerin ve hanelerin yoksulluk geçişleri, kronik ve geçici yoksulluk ayrımlarını yapmak amacıyla birçok farklı çalışma literatüre kazandırılmıştır (Kızılgöl & Demir, 2010;Şeker, 2011;Acar & Başlevent, 2014;Dalgıç vd., 2015;Uğur, 2016;Acar vd., 2017;Abay & Sezgin, 2018;Yıldırım vd., 2018;Sigeze & Şengül, 2018Sigeze & Şengül, , 2019Değirmenci, 2020;Evcim vd., 2020;Şahin & Kılıç, 2021;Narinç, 2022;Van, 2022). Bu çalışmalarda genellikle hanehalkının geliri, bireylerin eğitim seviyesi, hanede yaşayan bireylerin cinsiyetleri, sosyal güvencelerinin olup olmaması, varlık gelirleri gibi farklı değişkenler, zamana dayalı yoksulluğun belirleyici unsurları olarak kullanılmıştır.…”