SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1

The Impact of Economic Complexity on Gender Inequality in the Context of Sustainable Development: Panel Data Analyses for Countries in Different Income Levels

Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Bağlamında Ekonomik Karmaşıklığın Cinsiyet Eşitsizliğine Etkisi: Farklı Gelir Grubundaki Ülkeler İçin Panel Veri Analizleri

Burcu Türkcan(EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7494-5897
Çağla Bucak(EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3169-110X
Gül Şerife Huyugüzel Kışla(EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0901-2038
Begüm Yurteri Kösedağlı(EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3828-2598
Tarık Kışla(EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9007-7455
Pages
23–64
Publication Date
2024-05-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this context, the main contribution of this study is fill-ing the significant gap in the related literature and providing empirical results for policymakers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Abstract Purpose - The main purpose of this study is analys-ing the relationships between gender equality and economic complexity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Also, they provide an insight to reorganize economic complexity level in order to increase gender equali-ty in labor markets.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, the main contribution of this study is fill-ing the significant gap in the related literature and providing empirical results for policymakers.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cinsiyet eşitsizliği · Kadının işgücüne katılımı · ekonomik karmaşıklık

Abstract

Abstract Purpose - The main purpose of this study is analys-ing the relationships between gender equality and economic complexity. Following this purpose, global examinations as to different income groups of countries have been conducted. Methodology/Approach/Design- Generalized Methods of Moments (GMM) Technique has been adopted to estimate the model for different panel sets. Before estimations, stationarity checks have been conducted by panel unit root tests. Then mod-el selection has been made through Hausman Test and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimations have been conducted for pre-evaluations. Lastly, empiri-cal results have been handled by GMM estimations. Findings- As expected, empirical results have proved that results vary as to different country groups. Results underline the importance of policy formation as to income levels of countries. Also, they provide an insight to reorganize economic complexity level in order to increase gender equali-ty in labor markets. Originality/Value- The analyses conducted to de-tect gender discriminations in labor markets have a critical importance to observe the impacts of eco-nomic complexity on female laborforce and to de-velop efficient policy recommendations. In this context, the main contribution of this study is fill-ing the significant gap in the related literature and providing empirical results for policymakers.

Özet

Özet Amaç - Bu çalışmada temel amaç, ekonomik karmaşıklık düzeyi ile cinsiyet eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişkileri analiz etmektir. Küresel perspektiften uygulanan bu analizlerde ülkeler gelir gruplarına göre ayrıştırılarak gelişmişlik farklılıklarına göre etkilerin değişip değişmediği analiz edilmesi hedeflenmektedir. Yöntem/Metodoloji/Dizayn- Yöntem olarak panel veri analizinde Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodu (GMM) uygulamaları yapılmıştır. Model tahminlemesi öncesinde panel veride serilerin durağanlık araştırmaları birim kök testleri ile yapılmış, ardından Hausman Testi ile uygun model seçimi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ön bulgular için En Küçük Kareler (EKK) ile tahminlemenin ardından GMM metodu ile analiz sonuçları elde edilmiştir. Sonuçlar- Sonuçlar, beklendiği üzere gelir gruplarına göre etkilerin değiştiğini göstermektedir. Söz konusu etkilerin analizi, ekonomilerde gelir düzeylerine göre uygun politikaların neler olması gerektiği ve ekonomik karmaşıklık düzeyinin işgücü piyasalarında cinsiyet eşitsizliğini azaltmak üzere nasıl organize edilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Katkı/Farklılıklar- Kadınların işgücü piyasalarında istihdam konusunda maruz kaldıkları ayrımcılığı tespit etmeye yönelik yapılan analizler, ekonomik karmaşıklık düzeyinin işgücü piyasalarında kadınlara yönelik etkilerinin tespit edilmesi ve uygun politika çıkarımlarının geliştirilmesi açısından önem arz etmektedir. Bu noktada çalışmanın ilgili alana katkısı, literatürdeki boşluğu doldurması ve uygun politika önerilerinin geliştirilmesi için gerekli ampirik bulguları sunması açılarından olmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Türkcan, B., Bucak, Ç., Kışla, G. Ş. H., Kösedağlı, B. Y., Kışla, T. (2024). The Impact of Economic Complexity on Gender Inequality in the Context of Sustainable Development: Panel Data Analyses for Countries in Different Income Levels. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1, 23–64. https://doi.org/10.54838/bilgisosyal.1401773

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Adedoyin, F.F., Agboola, P.O., Ozturk, I., Bekun, F.V., Agboola, M.O. (2021). Environmental Consequences of Economic Complexities in the EU Amidst A Booming Tourism Industry: Accounting for the Role of Brexit Aad Other Crisis Events. Journal of Cleaner Production. 305(127117).
  2. Afşar, B. ve Öğrekçi S. (2014). Tarihsel Süreçte Kadının Gelişimi ve Ekonomideki Rolü: Toplayıcı Kadından Günümüz Kadınına Dönü-şüm. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi. 17(1), 65–86.
  3. Avrupa Komisyonu. European Green Deal. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.
  4. Birleşmiş Milletler. Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
  5. Birleşmiş Milletler. World Economic Situation Prospects-2022. https://www.un.org/., R. M. ve Jarman, J. (2006). Gendered Occupations: Exploring the Relationship Between Gender Segregation and Inequality. International Sociology. 21(2), 289–315.
  6. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., Fink, G., Finlay, J. E. (2009). Fertility, Female Labor Force Participation, and the Demographic Dividend. Journal of Economic Growth. 14, 79 – 101.
  7. Boleti, E., Garas, A., Kyriakou, A., Lapatinas, A. (2021). Economic Complexity and Environmental Performance: Evidence from a World Sample. Environmental Modelling & Assessment. 26, 251-270.
  8. Breusch, T.S ve Pagan, A.R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification Tests in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies. 47, 239-53.
  9. Chavatzia, T. (2017) Cracking the code: girls’ and women’s education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), UNESCO, Paris.
  10. Cristelli, M., Gabrielli, A., Tacchella, A., Caldarelli, G., Pietronero, L. (2013). Measuring the Intangibles: A Metrics for the Economic Complexity of Countries and Products, PLoS ONE. 8(8), 70726.
  11. Çelebioğlu, F. (2017). Women employment in terms of gender inequality across the provinces of Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics. 10(19), 61 – 80. doi: 10.17015/ejbe.2017.019.04
  12. Çeştepe, H. ve Çağlar, O. (2017). Ürün Sofistikasyonu ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Panel Veri Analizi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi. ICMEB17 Özel Sayısı, 992–1000.
  13. Durlauf, S. N. (1998). What Should Policymakers Know About Eco-nomic Complexity?. The Washington Quarterly. 21(1), 155–165.
  14. Dünya Kalkınma Göstergeleri Online Veritabanı. https://databank.worldbank.org
  15. Evans, M. D.R. ve Kelley, J. (2008). Trends in Women’s Labor Force Participation in Australia: 1984 – 2002. Social Science Research. 37, 287 – 310. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.01.009
  16. Felipe, J., Kumar, U., Abdon, A., Bacate, M. (2012) Product Complexity and Economic Development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 23, 36–68
  17. Frondel, M. ve Vance, C. (2010). Fixed, Random or Something in Between? A Variant of Hausman’s Specification Test for Panel Data Estimators. Economics Letters. 107, 327–29.
  18. Fulu, E., Warner, X., Miedema, S., Jewkes, R., Roselli, T., Lang, J. (2013). Why Do Some Men Use Violence Against Women and How Can We Prevent It? Quantitative Findings from the United Nations Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women, UNV. https://dspace.ceid.org.tr/xmlui/handle/1/974
  19. Gaddis, I. ve Klasen, S. (2014). Economic Development, Structural Change, and Women’s Labor Force Participation. Journal of Population Economics. 27, 639 – 681.
  20. Gaddis, I. ve Pieters, J. (2017). The Gendered Labor Market Impacts of Trade Liberalization–Evidence from Brazil. The Journal of Human Resources. 52, 457–490.
  21. Göçer, İ. (2013). Seçilmiş OECD Ülkelerinde Bütçe Açıklarının Sürdürülebilirliği: Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı Altında Panel Eş-Bütünleşme Analizi. Journal of Yasar University. 8(30), 5086–5104.
  22. Göksel, I. (2013). Female Labor Force Participation in Turkey: the Role of Conservatism. Women’s Studies International Forum. 41, 45 – 54. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2013.04.006
  23. Gujarati, D. N. ve Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic Econometrics. 5. Baskı. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  24. Harris, D. ve Matyas, L. (1999). Introduction to the Generalized Method of Moments Estimation. L. Matyas (Ed.),. Generalized Method of Moments Estimation. 1. Baskı. ABD: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Hartmann, D., Guevara, M. R., Jara–Figueroa, C., Aristaran, M., Hidalgo, C. A. (2017). Linking Economic Complexity, Institutions and Income Inequality. World Development. 93, 75–93. Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Chung, S., Jimenez, J., Simoes, A., Yildirim, M. A. (2011). The Atlas of Eco-nomic Complexity–Mapping Paths to Prosperity. USA: MIT Press. Hidalgo, C. A. ve Hausmann, R. (2009). The Building Blocks of Eco-nomic Complexity. PNAS. 106(26), 10570–10575. Hausmann, R. ve Klinger, B. (2006). Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space. CID Working Paper No 128. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
  26. Hsiao, C. (2002). Analysis of Panel Data. ABD. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U., Rafique, M.Z. (2021). Exploring the Nexus Between Economic Complexity, Economic Growth and Ecological Footprint: Contextual Evidences From Japan. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 47(101460).
  28. Inglehart, R. ve Norris, P. (2003). Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. ISBN: 9780521822039 Cambridge University Press.
  29. Jarman, J., Blackburn, R. M., Racko, G. (2012). The Dimensions of Occupational Gender Segregation in Industrial Countries. Sociology. 46(6), 1003–1019.
  30. Jarreau, J. ve Poncet, S. (2012). Export Sophistication and Economic Growth: Evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics. 97, 281–292.
  31. Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women's Empowerment. Development and Change. 30(3), 435-464.
  32. Kasnakoğlu, Z. ve Dayıoğlu, M. (1997). Female Labor Force Participation and Earnings Differentials Between Genders in Turkey. Economic Dimensions of Gender Inequality: A Global Perspective. Edi-tör:
  33. Janet M. Rives, Mahmood Yousefi ve Yousefi Mahmood, 95 – 117, Praeger, Londra, Connecticut.
  34. Kephart, P. ve Schumacher, L. (2005). Has the ‘Glass Ceiling’ Crac-ked? An Exploration of Women Entrepreneurship. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 12(1), 2-15. doi: 10.1177/107179190501200102
  35. Lahoti, R. ve Swaminathan, H. (2016). Economic Development and Women’s Labor Force Participation. Feminist Economics. 22(2), 168 – 195. doi: 10.1080/13545701.2015.1066022
  36. Leira, A. (2002). Updating the Gender Contract? Childcare Reforms in the Nordic Countries in the 1990s. NORA: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies. 10(2), 81 – 89. doi: 10.1080/080387402760262177
  37. Lovell, P. A. (2000). Race, Gender and Regional Labor Market Inequalities in Brazil. Review of Social Economy, 58(3), 277 – 293. doi: 10.1080/00346760050132337
  38. Macunovich, D. J. (1996). Relative Income and Price of Time: Explo-ring Their Effects on US Fertility and Female Labor Force Participation. Population and Development Review. 22, 223 – 257. doi: 10.2307/2808013
  39. Maltby, L. E., Hall, M. E. L., Anderson, T. L. ve Edwards, K. (2010). Religion and Sexism: The Moderating Role of Participant Gender. Sex Roles. 62(9-10), 615 – 622. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9754-x
  40. Neumark, D. (2004). Employers’ Discriminatory Behavior and the Estimation of Wage Discrimination. Sex Differences in Labor Market. Editör: David Neumark. 1. Baskı. Routledge. Londra.
  41. Ng, Y. C. (2007). Gender Earnings Differentials and Regional Economic Development in Urban China, 1988 – 97. Review of Income and Wealth. 53(1), 148-165. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2007.00221.x
  42. Nguyen, C. P. (2021). Gender Equality and Economic Complexity. Economic Systems. 45(4), 1–16. Nobel Ekonomi Ödülü. (2023). https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2023/press-release
  43. Nwaka, I. D., Güven-Lisaniler, F. ve Tuna, G. (2016). Gender Wage Differences in Nigerian Self and Paid Employment: Do Marriage and Children Matter? The Economic and Labour Relations Review. 27(4), 490 - 510. doi: 10.1177/1035304616677655
  44. OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/f8d7880d-en
  45. Orloff, A. S. (2009). Gendering the Comparative Analysis of Welfare States: An Unfinished Agenda. Sociological Theory. 27(3), 317 – 343. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01350.x
  46. Özcan, Y. Z., Üçdoğruk, S. ve Özcan, K. M. (2003). Wage Differences by Gender, Wage and Self Employment in Urban Turkey. Journal of Economic Cooperation. 24(1), 1 – 24.
  47. Özgüzer, G.E. ve Oğuz-Binatli, A. (2016). Economic Convergence in the EU: A Complexity Approach. Eastern European Economics. 54, 93–108.
  48. Pampel, F. C. ve Tanaka, K. (1986). Economic Development and Fe-male Labor Force Participation: A Reconsideration. Social Forces. 64(3), 599 – 619. doi: 10.1093/sf/64.3.599
  49. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics. 435.
  50. Poncet, S., ve De Waldemar, F. S. (2013). Export Upgrading and Growth: The Prerequisite of Domestic Embeddedness. World Development. 51, 104–118.
  51. Puga, I. ve Soto, D. (2018). Social Capital and Women’s Labor Force Participation in Chile. Feminist Economics. 24(4), 131 – 158. doi: 10.1080/13545701.2018.1481990
  52. Rafique, M. Z., Nadeem, A. M., Xia, W., Ikram, M., Shoaib, H. M., Shahzad, U. (2022). Does Economic Complexity Matter for Envi-ronmental Sustainability? Using Ecological Footprint as an Indicator. Environment Development and Sustainability. 24, 4623–4640.
  53. Ramanathan, R. (1998). Introductory Econometrics – With Applications. 4. Baskı. ABD: Dreyden.
  54. Reddy, D. N. (1975). Female Work Participation: A Study of Interstate Differences, a Comment. Economic and Political Weekly. 10(23), 902-05.
  55. Saȃd, M. B. ve Assoumou-Ella, G. (2019). Economic Complexity and Gender Inequality in Education: An Empirical Study. Economics Bulletin. 39(1), 321–334.
  56. Sevüktekin, M. ve Nargeleçekenler, M. (2005). Zaman Serileri Ana-lizi. Nobel Yayıncılık, 1. Baskı, Ankara.
  57. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F., Shahzad, K. (2021). Investiga-ting the Nexus Between Economic Complexity, Energy Consump-tion and Ecological Footprint for the United States: New Insights from Quantile Methods. Journal of Cleaner Production. 279.
  58. Simoes, A. J. G. ve Hidalgo, C. A. (2011). The Economic Complexity Observatory: An Analytical Tool for Understanding the Dynamics of Economic Development. AAAI Publications: Workshops at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. The Atlas of Economic Complexity. Country & Product Complexity Rankings”. https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/rankings
  59. Tuncer, İ., Lopcu, K., Coşkun, N., Arıcıoğlu, E. (2017). Türkiye Böl-gelerinde Yapısal Değişim: Kümelenme ve Ekonomik Karmaşıklık Analizleri Bağlamında Önerile. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi. 9(2), 59–74.
  60. Türkcan, B. (2018). Karmaşıklık Ekonomisi–Diğer Her şey Sabit Değilken. 1. Baskı. Ankara: İmaj Yayınevi.
  61. Türkcan, B. (2021). Kadının Ekonomideki Yeri ve İşgücü Piyasaların-da Kadın Faktörü. Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Kadın Araştırmaları. Editör: A. Altay, E. A. Özdemir. Ankara: Efil yayınevi
  62. Türkcan, B. (2022). Empirical Investigations for the Links Between Economic Complexity and Gender Segregation in Labor Markets: The Case of OECD Countries. World Women Conference IV Proceedings Book. Editör: H., Harpreet Kaur, U. Nadeem. Yeni Delhi – Hindistan. UNESCO. (2021). Global Education Monitoring Report 2021. ISBN: 978-92-3-100506-0. Paris: UNESCO.
  63. Yapraklı, S. ve Özden, E. (2021). The Effect of Sustainable Develop-ment on Economics Complexity in OECD Countries. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences. 10(2), 51-80.
  64. Yıldız, B. ve Yıldız, G. (2019). Ekonomik Karmaşıklık ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Bootstrap Granger Nedensellik Analizi. International Journal of Management Economics and Business. 15(2), 329–340.
  65. Zhu, S., ve Li, R. (2017). Economic Complexity, Human Capital and Economic Growth: Empirical Research Based on Cross–Country Panel Data. Applied Economics. 49(38), 3815–3828.