Straddling two continents and beyond three worlds? The case of Turkey’s welfare regime

Abstract

This article aims to consider how Turkey has been classified in the welfare regime literature, and on what basis it has been classified. This will then form the basis for exploring whether there appears to be any variation between approaches and methods and/or between the “position” (e.g., location or language) of the authors. Studies of Turkey’s welfare regime exhibit a significant degree of variation in terms of both approaches and conclusions, resulting in little in the way of consensus. Among Turkish-language studies (and some, but not all, Turkish scholars writing in English), there does seem to be a broad consensus that Turkey may be classified as part of the Southern European welfare model, which squares with the modal conclusion of the English-language studies on the topic. However, some “regional” studies conclude that Turkey is part of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, while many of the cluster analyses suggest a wide variety of clusters that are not geographically contiguous.

The Re‐making of the Turkish Crisis

“…A variety of irregular in-kind and cash benefits emerged in addition to the regular transfers. Both these irregular benefits and the expansion of social spending were highlighted by the AKP, and were extensively used in electoral politics (Bugra, 2020;Eder, 2010;Powell and Yörük, 2017;Yentürk, 2018aYentürk, , 2018b. All in all, the social inclusion policies were not designed as collective rights but as 'non-labour market interfering forms' that relied on political discretion (Güven, 2016(Güven, : 1015 in an environment of de-radicalization of organized labour (Dogan, 2014), and helped the formation of a successful convergence between neoliberal macroeconomic policies and populist and authoritarian politics (Akça et al, 2014).…”

The puzzle of Japans welfare capitalism: a review of the welfare regimes approach

“…Put another way, it raises significant case selection issues (Kim, 2014) over the inclusion of Japan as the only non-Western case in Esping-Andersen's (1990) original 18 nations. It is far from clear that being an OECD nation is a sufficient inclusion factor (cf Powell & Kim, 2014;Powell & Yoruk, 2017). In short, is it appropriate to use a Western lens of analysis (cf Estevez-Abe, 2008;Miyamoto, 2003;Takegawa, 2005aTakegawa, , 2007Walker & Wong, 1996)?…”

No home for poor men: a comparative study of household debt and homeownership in Denmark and Turkey

“…Turkey has a rudimentary welfare system that does not have full employment traditions and has informal-security because of high shares of rural and informal economic activities (l’emploi & Iguarán, 2011 ; Powell & Yörük, 2017 ). The welfare system of Turkey is based on fragile institutional relationships impacted by political and economic interventions; and a low share of social spending to be used for funding unemployed low-income groups because the system primarily provides welfare benefits for employed populations (Bugra & Candas, 2011 ; l’emploi & Iguarán, 2011 ; Powell & Yörük, 2017 ). As shown in Fig.…”

“…Private rental housing had a large 28% share of the national housing stock in 2018 (Eurostat, 2021a ; Malpass, 2008 ; Özdemir, 2011 ). Informal housing units in addition to formal housing shape dual housing systems of countries that have rudimentary welfare systems (Ajzenstadt & Gal, 2010 ; l’emploi & Iguarán, 2011 ; Powell & Yörük, 2017 ). Housing is claimed as an asset in the form of rental income or capital gain by transfer of homeownership in dual housing markets (Bengtsson, 2007 ; Doling & Ronald, 2010 ).…”