SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Sosyal Siyasal ve Mali Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

Unemployment Duration and Gender-Based Determinants of the Potential Labor Force Outside the Labor Market in Türkiye

Türkiye’de Emek Piyasası Dışında Kalan Potansiyel İşgücünün İşsizlik Süresi Ve Cinsiyet Temelli Belirleyicileri

Ayşe Nur Çiftçi(ISTANBUL ESENYURT UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0928-644X
Pages
294–310
Publication Date
2026-10-24
🏛️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 main limitation of the study is that the 26 NUTS-2 observations cannot be reduced to the provincial level and the analysis is limited to cross-sectional regional data for a single period..

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of increasing unemployment duration on the potential labor force outside the labor market in Türkiye and whether this relationship differs by gender.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, simple linear regression models were estimated using data for 26 NUTS-2 regions obtained from TURKSTAT.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The main limitation of the study is that the 26 NUTS-2 observations cannot be reduced to the provincial level and the analysis is limited to cross-sectional regional data for a single period..
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal Politika · Çalışma Ekonomisi ve Endüstri İlişkileri · Çalışma Ekonomisi ve İktisadi Demografi

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of increasing unemployment duration on the potential labor force outside the labor market in Türkiye and whether this relationship differs by gender. The importance of the study comes from examining unemployment duration in relation to individuals’ withdrawal from the labor market. In this context, simple linear regression models were estimated using data for 26 NUTS-2 regions obtained from TURKSTAT. The findings show that an increase in unemployment duration is associated with withdrawal from the labor market for certain groups of the potential labor force. This relationship becomes more evident among women; long-term unemployment has a stronger relationship with losing hope of finding a job and being included in the potential labor force. The findings also indicate that unemployment duration may have different effects in the short and long term. The main limitation of the study is that the 26 NUTS-2 observations cannot be reduced to the provincial level and the analysis is limited to cross-sectional regional data for a single period..

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de işsizlik süresindeki artışın emek piyasası dışında kalan potansiyel işgücü üzerindeki etkisini ve bu ilişkinin cinsiyete göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını analiz etmektir. Çalışmanın önemi, işsiz kalma süresinin bireylerin emek piyasasından uzaklaşmasıyla ilişkisi üzerinden ele almasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda TÜİK’in NUTS-2 düzeyindeki 26 bölgeye ilişkin verileri kullanılarak basit doğrusal regresyon modelleri tahmin edilmiştir. Bulgular, işsizlik süresinin uzamasının belirli potansiyel işgücü gruplarında emek piyasasından uzaklaşma ile ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu ilişki özellikle kadınlarda daha belirgin hale gelmekte; uzun süreli işsizlik, iş bulma ümidinin kaybedilmesi ve potansiyel işgücü içerisinde yer alma ile daha güçlü bir ilişki sergilemektedir. Bulgular ayrıca işsizlik süresinin kısa ve uzun dönemlerde farklı yönlerde etkiler yaratabildiğine işaret etmektedir. Çalışmanın temel sınırlılığı, NUTS-2 düzeyindeki 26 gözlemin il düzeyine indirgenememesi ve analizlerin tek dönemli bölgesel kesit verisiyle sınırlı olmasıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çiftçi, A. N. (2026). Unemployment Duration and Gender-Based Determinants of the Potential Labor Force Outside the Labor Market in Türkiye. Uluslararası Sosyal Siyasal ve Mali Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 294–310. https://doi.org/10.70101/ussmad.2030126

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Aldrich, R. M., Rudman, D. L., Park, N. E., & Huot, S. (2020). Centering the complexity of long-term unemployment: Lessons learned from a critical occupational science inquiry. Societies, 10(3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10030065
  2. Benati, L. (2001). Some empirical evidence on the “discouraged worker” effect. Economics Letters, 70(3), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(00)00375-X
  3. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2016). Measuring and assessing long-term unemployment in the EU. Bertelsmann Stiftung.
  4. Blundell, R., Ham, J., & Meghir, C. (1998). Unemployment, discouraged workers and female labour supply. Research in Economics, 52(1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1006/reec.1997.0158
  5. Dagsvik, J. K., Kornstad, T., & Skjerpen, T. (2013). Labor force participation and the discouraged worker effect. Empirical Economics, 45(1), 401–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-012-0598-9
  6. de Graaf-Zijl, M., van der Klaauw, B., & van Ours, J. C. (2015). Long-term unemployment and the Great Recession in the Netherlands. De Economist, 163(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-015-9263-y
  7. Demirtaş, B. K., & Güney, G. (2026). The discouraged worker effect during the Covid-19 pandemic in Türkiye. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 37, 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/elr.2026.10058
  8. Evans, A. (2018). Evidence of the added-worker and discouraged-worker effects in Australia. International Review of Applied Economics, 32(4), 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2017.1351530
  9. Flaim, P. O. (1973). Discouraged workers and changes in unemployment. Monthly Labor Review, 96(3), 8–16.
  10. Fuchs, J., & Weber, E. (2017). Long-term unemployment and labour force participation: A decomposition of unemployment to test for the discouragement and added worker hypotheses. Applied Economics, 49(60), 5971–5982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1368991
  11. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. https://ucanapplym.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/RGU/notifications/E_learning/0nline_study/Basic-Econometrics-5th-Ed-Gujarati-and-P.pdf
  12. Krueger, A. B., Cramer, J., & Cho, D. (2014). Are the long-term unemployed on the margins of the labor market? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2014(Spring), 229–280. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2014.0004
  13. Kuch, P. J., & Sharir, S. (1976). Added- and discouraged-worker effects in Canada, 1953–1974 (Research Report 7605). University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics. https://doi.org/10.2307/134552
  14. Lee, G. H. Y., & Parasnis, J. (2014). Discouraged workers in developed countries and added workers in developing countries? Unemployment rate and labour force participation. Economic Modelling, 41, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.04.005
  15. Lim, J. (2016). Labor market distortion with discouraged worker effects in Korea. In E. Kim & B. H. S. Kim (Eds.), Quantitative regional economic and environmental analysis for sustainability in Korea (pp. 45–67). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0300-4_3
  16. Maridueña-Larrea, Á., & Martín-Román, Á. (2024). The unemployment invariance hypothesis and the implications of added and discouraged worker effects in Latin America. Latin American Economic Review, 33, Article 6. https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.econstor.eu%2Fbitstream%2F10419%2F268267%2F1%2FGLO-DP-1224.pdf;h=repec:zbw:glodps:1224
  17. Martín-Román, Á. L. (2022). Beyond the added-worker and the discouraged-worker effects: The entitled-worker effect. Economic Modelling, 110, 105812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105812
  18. Ondeck, C. M. (1978). Discouraged workers’ link to jobless rate reaffirmed. Monthly Labor Review, 101(10), 40–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41840629
  19. Österholm, P. (2010). Unemployment and labour-force participation in Sweden. Economics Letters, 106(3), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2009.12.002
  20. Schmitt, J., & Jones, J. (2012). Down and out: Measuring long-term hardship in the labor market. Challenge, 55(3), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.2753/CHA0577-5132550301
  21. Sorrentino, C. (1993). International comparisons of unemployment indicators. Monthly Labor Review, 116(3), 3–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41844091
  22. Tarı, R. (2018). Ekonometri. Umuttepe Yayınları.
  23. Topbaş, F., & Akarsu, Y. (2026). Discouraged labor force, unemployment and pandemic: An econometric perspective on the Turkish labor market for the 2018–2021 period on the gender axis. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.21180/iibfdkastamonu.1750818
  24. TÜİK (2026), İşgücü İstatistikleri Bölgesel Sonuçlar, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/
  25. Wisman, J. D., & Pacitti, A. (2014). The ongoing labor market depression. Challenge, 57(5), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.2753/05775132.570503