Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2016 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 29

Political Economy of Poverty in Turkey

Pages
205–224
Publication Date
2016-10-29
DOI
—
🏛️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 study, using 81 provincial level data, we find that funds, as social expenditures could be vital tools for politicians to maximize their political interests.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While the fight against poverty is continuing in the world, secondary income distribution has been regarded as an effective way in fighting against poverty in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For that purpose, the special fund called as “Social Aid and Solidarity Promotion Fund” was established in 1986.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, using 81 provincial level data, we find that funds, as social expenditures could be vital tools for politicians to maximize their political interests.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

While the fight against poverty is continuing in the world, secondary income distribution has been regarded as an effective way in fighting against poverty in Turkey. For that purpose, the special fund called as “Social Aid and Solidarity Promotion Fund” was established in 1986. Primarily this fund is a kind of social transfer expenditure and it aims at helping poor people directly. Although special funds as social direct expenditures are utilized as the most effective instrument to combat poverty, allocation of the funds could be at the government’s discretion. Because of the unclear and subjective criteria in the fund allocation, it is possible that politicians to maximize their interests in the political arena can use the fund. Therefore, the government in Turkey might incline to manipulate the (social) public expenditures to maximize their interests and enhance the re-election chances in terms of political economy. This paper assesses empirically the relationship between “Social Aid and Solidarity Promotion Fund” (SASPF) and political economic factors within political-economy context. In this study, using 81 provincial level data, we find that funds, as social expenditures could be vital tools for politicians to maximize their political interests.

🔖

Cite This Article

ILIMAN, T., TEKELİ, R. (2016). Political Economy of Poverty in Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 29, 205–224. https://ajindex.com/articles/139538

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ahmad, E. & N. Chalk (1993), “On Improving Public Expenditure Policies for the Poor: Major Informational Requirements”, IMF Working Paper (WP/93/43), IMF Fiscal Affairs Department. Arpacıoğlu, Ö. & M. Yıldırım (2011), “The Analyze of Poverty in Turkey and in World”, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences’s Journal of Niğde University, 4(2), 60-76.
  2. Barreira, A. & N. Baleiras (2004), Elections and the Public Expenditure Mix,, 30.10.2015.
  3. Baulch, B. (2006), “The New Agenda: A Disputed Concensus”, IDS Bulletin, 37(4), 82-90.
  4. Beker, V.A. (2016), Growth, inequality and poverty: what do we know?, February 3,, 25.09.2015.
  5. Besley, T. & M. Ghatak (2004), “Public Goods and Economic Development”, Reprinted in Understanding Poverty, by A.V. Banerjee, R. Benabou, D. Mookherjee (eds.), Oxford University Press; Oxford,, 12.06.2015.
  6. Besley, T. (1996), “Political Economy of Alleviating Poverty Theory and Institutions”, Annual World Bank Conference Development Economics, Edited by Michael Bruno and Boris Pleskovic, the World Bank Washington, D.C. Bhagwati, J.N. (1988),”Poverty and Public Policy”, World Development, 16(5), 539-555.
  7. Bruhn, K. (1996), “Social Spending and Political Support: The “Lessons” of the National Solidarity Program in Mexico”, Comparative Politics, 28(2), 151–177.
  8. Bruno, M. & S. Lyn & M. Ravallion (1995), “Equity and Growth in Developing Countries: Old and New Perspectives”, Policy Research Working Paper 1563, World Bank, Washington D.C. Caminada, K. & K. Goudswaard & F. Koster (2012), “Social income transfers and poverty: A cross-country analysis for OECD countries”, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(2), 115–126.
  9. Coudouel, A. & H. Jesko & W. Quentin (2002), “Poverty Measurement and Analysis”, Handbook on Poverty and Inequality, ed. J. Haughton & S.R. Khandker, The World Bank, Washington, 27-74.
  10. Cox, G.W. & M.D. McCubbins (1986), “Electoral politics as a redistributive game”, Journal of Politics, 48, 370-389.
  11. Danziger, S.H. & D.H. Weinberg (1994), “The Historical Record: Trends in Family Income, Inequality, and Poverty”, in: Confronting Poverty Prescriptions for Change, H.H. Danziger & G.D. Sandefur & D.H. Weinberg (eds), Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. Dash, B. & R. Bhusana & V. Angara (2012), “Political Determinants of the Allocation of Public Expenditures: A Study of the Indian States”, Working Paper No. 2012-101,
  12. March, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi,, 13.02.2