SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 29

Gender Equality from an Inclusive Social Work Perspective: An Analysis of OECD Countries

Kapsayıcı Sosyal Hizmet Perspektifinden Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği: OECD Ülkeleri Üzerinden Bir Analiz

Merve Nur Oktar(BURDUR MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, SOSYAL HİZMET BÖLÜMÜ, BİREY VE TOPLUM SORUNLARI ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-8149-2809
Pages
857–878
Publication Date
2026-10-03
🏛️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)

The findings reveal that cross-country disparities predominantly stem from the political empowerment dimension.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study determines the objective discriminative weights of gender equality indicators using the Entropy method, ranks 38 OECD countries via TOPSIS, and evaluates Türkiye’s position from an inclusive social work perspective.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The dataset comprises four subindices from the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) 2025 Global Gender Gap Report.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that cross-country disparities predominantly stem from the political empowerment dimension.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği · kapsayıcı sosyal hizmet · OECD

Abstract

This study determines the objective discriminative weights of gender equality indicators using the Entropy method, ranks 38 OECD countries via TOPSIS, and evaluates Türkiye’s position from an inclusive social work perspective. The dataset comprises four subindices from the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) 2025 Global Gender Gap Report. Ranking consistency was tested using the Range of Value (ROV) method and Spearman’s rank correlation. Entropy results revealed that Political Empowerment held the highest information weight in distinguishing OECD countries (0.9693), followed by Economic Participation and Opportunity (0.0304), Health and Survival (0.0002), and Educational Attainment (0.0001). In the TOPSIS ranking, Iceland achieved the highest performance (0.999574), whereas Türkiye ranked last (0.000002). Türkiye’s ranking was primarily determined by its low raw score (0.059) in Political Empowerment, which accounted for 96.93% of the total criterion weight. The findings reveal that cross-country disparities predominantly stem from the political empowerment dimension. From an inclusive social work perspective, to enhance gender equality and improve Türkiye’s performance, this study recommends implementing gender quotas to support women’s participation in political decision-making mechanisms and investing in childcare to alleviate the care burden and motherhood wage penalty barriers in the labour market.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Entropi yöntemiyle toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği göstergelerinin nesnel ayırt edicilik düzeylerini belirlemek, TOPSIS yöntemiyle 38 Ekonomik İşbirliği ve Kalkınma Örgütü (OECD) ülkesinin performans sıralamasını elde etmek ve Türkiye’nin konumunu kapsayıcı sosyal hizmet perspektifinden değerlendirmektir. Veri setini, Dünya Ekonomik Forumu’nun (WEF) 2025 Küresel Cinsiyet Uçurumu Raporu’ndaki dört kriter oluşturmuştur. Sıralama tutarlılığı, Değer Aralığı (ROV) yöntemi ve Spearman korelasyonuyla test edilmiştir. Entropi sonuçlarına göre, OECD ülkelerini ayırt etmede en yüksek bilgi ağırlığına sahip gösterge Siyasi Temsil/Güçlenme (0,9693) olmuştur. Bunu Ekonomik Katılım ve Fırsat Eşitliği (0,0304), Sağlık ve Hayatta Kalma (0,0002) ve Eğitim Düzeyi (0,0001) izlemiştir. TOPSIS performans sıralamasında en yüksek cinsiyet eşitliği düzeyine İzlanda (0,999574) ulaşırken, Türkiye (0,000002) son sırada yer almıştır. Türkiye’nin bu konumunu belirleyen temel etken, modelde %96,93’lük ağırlığa sahip Siyasi Temsil/Güçlenme boyutundaki düşük performans (0,059 ham skoru) olmuştur. Bulgular, ülkeler arası ayrışmanın büyük ölçüde siyasi temsil/güçlenme boyutundan kaynaklandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Kapsayıcı sosyal hizmet perspektifiyle, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğinin ve Türkiye’nin performansının artırılması için kadınların siyasal karar alma mekanizmalarına katılımını destekleyecek cinsiyet kotalarının uygulanması, bakım yükünü ve iş gücü piyasasındaki “annelik ücret cezası” engellerini hafifletecek çocuk bakım yatırımlarının hayata geçirilmesi önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Oktar, M. N. (2026). Gender Equality from an Inclusive Social Work Perspective: An Analysis of OECD Countries. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Sayı: 29, 857–878. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1960265

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Altıntaş, F. F. (2024). G7 grubu ülkelerinin cinsiyet eşitliği performanslarının analizi: SECA yöntemi ile bir uygulama. Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(2), 722-742. https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.1291466
  2. Ayabakan, B. Ç. (2022). OECD ülkelerinin küresel cinsiyet uçurumu endeksi verilerinin kümeleme analizi ile değerlendirilmesi. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Social Sciences, 6(2), 40-58. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiasos.2022.458.1
  3. Ayçin, E., Çerçi, M., & Sonugelen, E. (2024). An evaluation of women’s human development level using multi criteria decision-making methods: A case study of OECD countries. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 58(4), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/58.4.24.07
  4. Azzollini, L., Breen, R., & Nolan, B. (2023). From gender equality to household earnings equality: The role of women’s labour market outcomes across OECD countries. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 86, Article 100823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2023.100823
  5. Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789-865. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20160995
  6. Bolzendahl, C., & Brooks, C. (2007). Women’s political representation and welfare state spending in 12 capitalist democracies. Social Forces, 85(4), 1509-1534. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0061
  7. Buğra, A. (2014). Revisiting the Wollstonecraft dilemma in the context of conservative liberalism: The case of female employment in Turkey. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 21(1), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxt001
  8. Cascella, C., Williams, J., & Pampaka, M. (2022). An extended regional gender gaps index (eRGGI): Comparative measurement of gender equality at different levels of regionality. Social Indicators Research, 159(2), 757-800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02764-x
  9. Caul, M. (1999). Women’s representation in parliament: The role of political parties. Party Politics, 5(1), 79-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068899005001005
  10. Cedeño, D. (2023). Social exclusion and inclusion: A social work perspective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 104(3), 332-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894221147576
  11. Chao, F., Gerland, P., Cook, A. R., Guilmoto, C. Z., & Alkema, L. (2021). Projecting sex imbalances at birth at global, regional and national levels from 2021 to 2100: Scenario-based Bayesian probabilistic projections of the sex ratio at birth and missing female births based on 3.26 billion birth records. BMJ Global Health, 6(8), Article e005516. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005516
  12. Chattopadhyay, R., & Duflo, E. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409-1443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00539.x
  13. Çınaroğlu, S. (2024). Trends in out-of-pocket health expenditure inequality in Turkey under comprehensive health reforms. World Development Perspectives, 34, Makale 100583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100583
  14. Dalagan, E. (2024). Türkiye’de eğitim ve toplumsal cinsiyet perspektifi. Siirt Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(1), 75-88. https://izlik.org/JA22CE76XD
  15. Dedeoğlu, S., & Elveren, A. Y. (Der.). (2012). Türkiye’de refah devleti ve kadın. İletişim Yayınları.
  16. Demir, Ö. (2021). Gender inequality in the labour market: Comparison of Turkey and OECD countries by multidimensional scaling method. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 28(2), 377-397. https://izlik.org/JA34CC52EP
  17. Elson, D. (2009). Gender equality and economic growth in the World Bank World Development Report 2006. Feminist Economics, 15(3), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700902964303
  18. European Institute for Gender Equality. (2025). Gender equality index 2025: Sharper data for a changing world. https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/gender-equality-index-2025-sharper-data-changing-world
  19. Fakkel, M., Ustenko, V., Witt, S., Veenstra, J. & Bhavani, R. R. (2026). Gender disparities in healthcare access persist even in more equitable societies: A multilevel assessment across 29 countries. Health Policy, 166, Makale 105579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2026.105579
  20. Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2011). Gendered perceptions and political candidacies: A central barrier to women's equality in electoral politics. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00484.x
  21. Geboloğlu, D., & Türkekul, B. (2025). Gender inequality and economic growth: An analysis of OECD countries. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 31(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.1679612
  22. Geske Dijkstra, A. (2006). Towards a fresh start in measuring gender equality: A contribution to the debate. Journal of Human Development, 7(2), 275-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880600768660
  23. Goldin, C. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104(4), 1091-1119. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.4.1091
  24. Güldalı, O., & Çamur, G. (2024). Sosyal hizmet araştırması üzerine yeniden düşünmek: Eleştirel bir değerlendirme. Sosyal Politika ve Sosyal Hizmet Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.61861/spshcd.1548098
  25. Güneş Ayata, A., & Tütüncü, F. (2008). Critical acts without a critical mass: The substantive representation of women in the Turkish parliament. Parliamentary Affairs, 61(3), 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsn012
  26. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. A state-of-the-art survey (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 186). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
  27. International Labour Organization. (2026). Employment and social trends 2026: World of Work Series. https://doi.org/10.54394/AHRT2681
  28. Inter-Parliamentary Union & UN Women. (2025). Women in politics: 2025. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2025/03/women-in-politics-map-2025
  29. Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women’s empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal. Gender & Development, 13(1), 13-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20053132
  30. Karaduman, A. (2021). Toplumsal cinsiyet açısından sağlık hizmetlerine erişim. Euroasia Journal of Mathematics, Engineering, Natural & Medical Sciences, 8(14), 165-173. https://euroasiajournal.org/index.php/ejas/article/view/146
  31. Kartal, B. (2025). Zaman serisi kümeleme yöntemi ile küresel cinsiyet uçurumu endeksinin analizi. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 9(1), 420-437. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1633127
  32. Mezzadri, A. (2016). Gender, development and globalization: Economics as if all people mattered (second edition). Gender & Development, 24(2), 329-330. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1194028
  33. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2jbt31
  34. Olivetti, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2017). The economic consequences of family policies: Lessons from a century of legislation in high-income countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 205-230. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.205
  35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2023). Health at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en
  36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2025a). Gender equality in a changing world: Taking stock and moving forward. https://doi.org/10.1787/e808086f-en
  37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2025b). Health at a Glance 2025: OECD indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/8f9e3f98-en
  38. Özaydınlık, K. (2014). Toplumsal cinsiyet temelinde Türkiye’de kadın ve eğitim. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, 14(33), 93-112. https://izlik.org/JA87LT63TM
  39. Özel Doğan, H., & Piyal, B. (2017). Gender related issues. Turkish Journal of Public Health, 15(2), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.20518/tjph.341173
  40. Pennington, A., Maudsley, G., & Whitehead, M. (2023). The impacts of profound gender discrimination on the survival of girls and women in son-preference countries: A systematic review. Health & Place, 79, Article 102942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102942
  41. Permanyer, I. (2013). A critical assessment of the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index. Feminist Economics, 19(2), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.769687
  42. Selim, S., & Ok, B. N. (2023). Türkiye’de eğitimde toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği ve mekânsal etkileşim: İl düzeyinde bir analiz. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 54, 367-389. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116990
  43. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
  44. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719
  45. Şaşman Kaylı, D. (2016). Türkiye’de sosyal hizmetin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği ile ilişkisi. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 45, 135-142. https://doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3426
  46. Tafuro, S., & Guilmoto, C. Z. (2020). Skewed sex ratios at birth: A review of global trends. Early Human Development, 141, Article 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.104868
  47. Tunalı, H., & Dublen Göksu, Y. (2018). Türkiye’de kadınların işgücüne katılımının belirleyicileri üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Uluslararası Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 29-45. https://izlik.org/JA69RZ28WL
  48. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2025). İstatistiklerle kadın, 2024. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/press/58272
  49. Walby, S. (2005). Introduction: Comparative gender mainstreaming in a global era. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740500284383
  50. World Economic Forum. (2025). Global gender gap report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/series/global-gender-gap-report/
  51. Yakowitz, D. S., Lane, L. J., & Szidarovszky, F. (1993). Multi-attribute decision making: Dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 54(2-3), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0096-3003(93)90057-L
  52. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2023). Yükseköğretim Kurulundan 34 yaş üstü kadınlara devlet üniversitelerinde özel kontenjan. https://www.yok.edu.tr/tr/news/yuksekogretim-kurulundan-34-yas-ustu-kadinlara-devlet-universitelerinde-ozel-kontenjan-eibsF
  53. Zhang, X., Wang, C., Li, E., & Xu, C. (2014). Assessment model of ecoenvironmental vulnerability based on improved entropy weight method. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/797814