SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2013 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 19

Subjective poverty profile in Turkey: 2003 2008

Türkiye'de sübjektif yoksulluk profili: 2003 2008

Murat ÇETİNKAYA
Alparslan A. BAŞARAN
Pages
243–262
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)

It is observed that subjective poverty ratios are higher than those of the official figures when the household sizes and the variables of rural-urban area are considered.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper investigates the subjective poverty profile in Turkey between the years 2003 and 2008, using the method called Minimum Income Question .
📊
Key Findings & Data:It utilizes the Household Budget Survey conducted by Turkish Statistical Institute and the other variables representing the household sizes and rural-urban area.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is observed that subjective poverty ratios are higher than those of the official figures when the household sizes and the variables of rural-urban area are considered.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper investigates the subjective poverty profile in Turkey between the years 2003 and 2008, using the method called Minimum Income Question . It utilizes the Household Budget Survey conducted by Turkish Statistical Institute and the other variables representing the household sizes and rural-urban area. The results are compared with the officially disseminated figures. Weighted regression results, subjective poverty trash holds and poverty ratios are obtained based on the sample survey. It is observed that subjective poverty ratios are higher than those of the official figures when the household sizes and the variables of rural-urban area are considered.

Özet

Bu çalışma Minimum Gelir Sorusu yaklaşımını kullanarak Türkiye için 20032008 yılları arasında sübjektif yoksulluk profilini, hanehalkı büyüklüğü ve kır kent değişkenleri ile Türkiye İstatistik Kurumunun Hanehalkı Bütçe Anketleri ni temel alarak analiz etmekte ve elde edilen sonuçları resmi yoksulluk rakamlarıyla kıyaslamaktadır. Bu amaçla anket örneklemi kullanılarak elde edilen ağırlıklandırılmış regresyon sonuçları ile sübjektif yoksulluk eşiklerine ve oranlarına ulaşılmıştır. Hanehalkı büyüklüğü ve kır-kent değişkenleri dikkate alındığında sübjektif yoksulluk oranlarının resmi yoksulluk oranlarından daha yüksek düzeyde olduğu gözlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇETİNKAYA, M., BAŞARAN, A. A. (2022). Subjective poverty profile in Turkey: 2003 2008. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 19, 243–262. https://ajindex.com/articles/592506

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Bağdadioğlu, N. ve A.A. Başaran (2010), “Poverty Perception and Government’s Transfer Policy in Turkey”, The Empirical Economics Letters, 10(4), 317-325.
  2. Colasanto, D., A. Kapteyn ve J. Van der Gaag (1984), “Two Subjective Definitions of Poverty: Results from the Wisconsin Basic Needs Study”, The Journal of Human Resources, 19(1), 127-138.
  3. Danziger, S., J. Van der Gaag, M.K. Taussig ve E. Smolensky (1984), “The Direct Measurement of Welfare Levels: How Much Does it Cost to Make Ends Meet?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), 500-505.
  4. De Vos, K. ve T.I. Garner (1991), “An Evaluation of Subjective Poverty Definitions: Comparing Results from the U.S. and the Netherlands” Review of Income and Wealth 37(3), 267- 285. DPT (2007), “Gelir Dağılımı ve Yoksullukla Mücadele Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu 2007-2013”, Yayın No: DPT: 2742- ÖİK: 691. Flik, R.J. ve B.M.S. Van Prag (1991), “Subjective Poverty Line Definitions”, De Economist, 139(3), 311-330.
  5. Garner, I.T. ve K. de Vos (1995), “Income Sufficiency V. Poverty: Results from the United States and the Netherlands”, Journal of Population Economics, 8(2), 117-134.
  6. Garner, I.T. ve K.S. Short (2005), “Personal Assessments of Minimum Income and Expenses: What Do They Tell Us about ‘Minimum Living’ Thresholds and Equivalence Scales?”, BLS Paper No. 379, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Goedhart, T., V. Halberstadt, A. Kapteyn ve B. Van Prag (1977), “The Poverty Line: Concept and Measurement”, The Journal of Human Resources, 12(4), 503-520.
  7. Gustafsson, B., L. Shi ve H. Sato (2004), “Can a Subjective Poverty Line be Applied to China? Assessing Poverty among Urban Residents in 1999”, Journal of International Development, 16(8), 1089-1107.
  8. Hagenaars, A. ve K. De Vos (1988), “The Definition and Measurement of Poverty”, The Journal of Human Resources, 23(2), 211-221.
  9. Herrera, J., M. Razafindrakoto ve F. Roubaud (2006), “The Determinants of Subjective Poverty: A Comparative Analysis between Madagascar and Peru”, Institut de Recherche Pour le Developpement, DT/2006-01.
  10. Kapteyn, A., P. Kooreman ve R. Willemse (1988), “Some Methodological Issues in the Implementation of Subjective Poverty Definitions”, Journal Of Human Resources 23(2), 222-242
  11. Lanjouw, P. ve M. Ravallion (1995), “Poverty and Household Size”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 105(433), 1415-1434. Milanovic B, ve B. Jovanovic (1999), “Changes in the Perception of the Poverty Line during Times of Depression: Russia 1993-96”, Policy Research