SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İşletme ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Relative Deprivation and Inter-regional Migration: The Turkish Case

Göreli Yoksunluk ve Bölgeler Arası Göçler: Türkiye Örneği

Pınar Narin EMİRHAN
Pages
79–89
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

The findings of this study reveal that, inter-regional migration flows are not affected by regional inequalities in Turkey, but absolute income level is important

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Relative deprivation hypothesis asserts that the individuals' migration decisions are affected not from their absolute income levels, but from their relative position to the reference group living in the same region.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study, the determinants of inter-regional migration flows are analyzed for the regions defined at the İBBS 1st level.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings of this study reveal that, inter-regional migration flows are not affected by regional inequalities in Turkey, but absolute income level is important
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008-2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Relative deprivation hypothesis asserts that the individuals' migration decisions are affected not from their absolute income levels, but from their relative position to the reference group living in the same region. The aim of this study is to test the validity of the relative deprivation hypothesis for Turkey. In other words, the study aims to analyze the effects of regional inequalities on inter-regional migration flows. In the study, the determinants of inter-regional migration flows are analyzed for the regions defined at the İBBS 1st level. Inter-regional migration flows are calculated by Turkish Statististical Institute and are only available for the 2008-2012 period, so the study covers this period. The findings of this study reveal that, inter-regional migration flows are not affected by regional inequalities in Turkey, but absolute income level is important

Özet

Göreli yoksunluk hipotezi bireylerin göç kararlarının kendi mutlak gelirlerinden çok, yaşadıkları bölgedeki referans gruba göre göreli gelirlerinden etkilendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, göreli yoksunluk hipotezinin Türkiye örneğinde geçerliliğini sınamaktır. Diğer bir değişle, bu çalışmanın amacı bölgeler arasındaki göç hareketlerinin, bölgelerdeki gelir eşitsizliğinden etkilenip etkilenmediğinin araştırılmasıdır. Çalışmada İBBS 1. düzeyde tanımlanan bölgeler için, TÜİK tarafından hesaplanan veriler kullananılarak, bölgelerarası göçlerin belirleyenleri test edilmiştir. Bölgeler arası göç istatistikleri TÜİK tarafından sadece 2008-2012 yılları için hesaplandığı için çalışma bu dönemi kapsamaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, teorik beklentilerin aksine Türkiye'de bölgesel göçlerin göreli yoksunluk düzeyinden değil, mutlak gelir düzeyinden etkilendiğini göstermektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

EMİRHAN, P. N. (2022). Relative Deprivation and Inter-regional Migration: The Turkish Case. İşletme ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 79–89. https://ajindex.com/articles/556563

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Berrebi, Z.B., & Silber, J. (1985). Income inequality indices and deprivation: A generalization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100(3), 807-810.
  2. Bhandari, P. (2004). Relative deprivation and migration in an agricultural setting of Nepal. Population and Environment, 25(5), 475-499.
  3. Bossert, W., & D'Ambrosio, C. (2006). Reference groups and individual deprivation. Economics Letters, 90, 421-426.
  4. Doh, R. (1984). Inter-provincial migration in Turkey and its socio-economic background: A correlation analysis. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 6(31), 49-61.
  5. Ercilasun, M., Gencer, E.A.H., & Ersin, Ö.Ö. (2011). Türkiye'deki iç göçleri belirleyen faktörlerin modellenmesi. International Conference on Eurasian Economies, 12-14 October 2011,
  6. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Evcil, A.N., Dökmeci, V., & Kıroğlu, G.B. (2006). Regional migration in Turkey: It's directions and determinants. 46th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, August 30th -September 3rd 2006,
  7. Volos-Greece. Filiztekin, A., & Gökhan, A. (2008). The determinants of internal migration in Turkey. International Conference on Policy Modelling (EcoMod 2008),
  8. Berlin, Germany. Ghatak, S., Levive, P., & Price, S.W. (1996). Migration theories and evidence: An assessment. Journal of Economic Surveys, 10(2), 159-198.
  9. Harris, J.R. & Todaro, M.P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: A two-sector analysis. American Economic Review, 60(1), 126-142.
  10. Hey, J.D., & Lambert, P.J. (1980). Relative deprivation and the gini coefficient: Comment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(3), 567-573.
  11. Persky, J., & Tam, M. (1990). Local status and national social welfare. Journal of Regional Science, 30(2), 229-238.
  12. Runciman, W.G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice. London: Routledge. Silber, J., & Verme, P. (2012). Relative deprivation, reference groups and the assessment of standard of living. Economic Systems, 36, 31-45.
  13. Stark, O. (1984). Rural-to-urban migration in LDCs: A relative deprivation approach. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 32(3), 475-486.
  14. Stark, O., & Bloom, D.E. (1985). The new economics of labor migration. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 173-178.
  15. Stark, O., & Taylor, J.E. (1989). Relative deprivation and international migration. Demography, 26(1), 1-14.
  16. Stark, O., & Yitzhaki, S. (1988). Labor migration as a response to relative deprivation. Journal of Population Economics, 1(1), 57-70.
  17. Stark, O., Micevska, M., & Mycielski, M. (2009). Relative poverty as a determinant of migratio