KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyoekonomi / 2016 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 28

Defining and Measuring Informality: The Case of Turkish Labor Market

Elif ACAR
Aysıt TANSEL
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2016-04-14
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

We find that social security registration criterion is a better measure of informality in the Turkish labor market given its ability to capture key relationships between several individual and employment characteristics and the likelihood of informality.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In this study, we consider how informality can be defined and measured in the Turkish labor market.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The empirical analysis consists of developing three alternative definitions of labor informality, and exploring the relevance and implications of each for the Turkish labor market using descriptive statistics and multivariate probit analysis of the likelihood of informality under each definition.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:We find that social security registration criterion is a better measure of informality in the Turkish labor market given its ability to capture key relationships between several individual and employment characteristics and the likelihood of informality.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

In this study, we consider how informality can be defined and measured in the Turkish labor market. The empirical analysis consists of developing three alternative definitions of labor informality, and exploring the relevance and implications of each for the Turkish labor market using descriptive statistics and multivariate probit analysis of the likelihood of informality under each definition. We find that social security registration criterion is a better measure of informality in the Turkish labor market given its ability to capture key relationships between several individual and employment characteristics and the likelihood of informality.

Abstract

In this study, we consider how informality can be defined and measured in the Turkish labor market. The empirical analysis consists of developing three alternative definitions of labor informality, and exploring the relevance and implications of each for the Turkish labor market using descriptive statistics and multivariate probit analysis of the likelihood of informality under each definition. We find that social security registration criterion is a better measure of informality in the Turkish labor market given its ability to capture key relationships between several individual and employment characteristics and the likelihood of informality.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ACAR, E., TANSEL, A. (2016). Defining and Measuring Informality: The Case of Turkish Labor Market. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 28. https://ajindex.com/articles/139673

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Aydın, E. & M. Hisarciklilar & İ. İlkkaracan (2010), “Formal versus Informal Labor Market Segmentation in Turkey in the course of Market Liberalization”, Topics in Middle Eastern and North African Economies, 12, 1-43.
  2. Bromley, R. (1978), “The urban informal sector: why is it worth discussing?”, World Development, 6 (9-10), 1033-1039.
  3. Bulutay, T. (2000), The Unrecorded Economy As Related to the Labour Market, Ankara: State Institute of Statistics. Bulutay, T. & E. Taştı (2004), “Informal Sector in the Turkish Labour Market”, TEA Working Papers, No. 2004/22, Turkish Economic Association, Ankara.
  4. Chen, M.A. (2007), “Rethinking the Informal Economy: Linkages with the Formal Economy and the Formal Regulatory Environment”, DESA Working Papers, No. 46, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. De Soto, H. (1990), The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World, New York: Harper Trade. Ercan, H. (2010), “The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Employment in Turkey”, In: Crisis and Turkey: Impact Analysis of Crisis Response Measures, Ankara: International Labour Organization Office For Turkey. Ercan, H. (2011),
  5. Occupational Outlook in Turkey, Ankara: International Labour Organization Office for Turkey. Harris, J.R. & M.P. Todaro (1970), “Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector Analysis”, The American Economic Review, 60 (1), 126-142.
  6. Hart, K. (1973), “Informal Income Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana”, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 11 (1), 61-89.
  7. Henley, A. & G.R. Arabsheibani & F.G. Carneiro (2009), “On defining and measuring the informal sector: Evidence from Brazil”, World Development, 37 (5), 992-1003.
  8. Hussmanns, R. (2004), Defining and measuring informal employment, Geneva: International Labour Office. Hussmanns, R. (2005), “Measuring the informal economy: From employment in the informal sector to informal employment”, ILO Working paper, No. 53, International Labour Organization. Jütting, J. & J. Parlevliet & T. Xenogiani (2008), “Informal employment re-loaded”, OECD Development Centre Working Papers 266, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Kanbur, R. (2009), “Conceptualizing Informality: Regulation and Enforcement”, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 4186, Institute for the Study of Labor. Karaarslan, E. (2014),
  9. Türkiye de Kayıt Dışı İstiham, Antalya: BEKAD Yayınları.
  10. Kenar, N. (2009), “Informality: Regulations, Institutions and Enforcement”, Background paper for the World B