KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 1

The Effects of Social Assistance on Poverty in Türkiye: Evidence from a Systematic Meta-Analysis of Empirical Studies (2000–2025)

Perihan Gözüm(CANKIRI KARATEKIN UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-1174-8500
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-03-30
🏛️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)

Strengthening these dimensions can support a transition from short-term poverty alleviation to more durable improvements in equality of opportunity.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study provides a systematic meta-analytic assessment of the effects of social assistance programmes on poverty in Türkiye over the period 2000–2025, encompassing interventions implemented by multiple institutional actors within the Turkish welfare system.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The results indicate statistically significant poverty-reducing effects of social assistance programmes.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Strengthening these dimensions can support a transition from short-term poverty alleviation to more durable improvements in equality of opportunity.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:2000–2025 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Social Assistance · Poverty · Cash Transfers

Abstract

This study provides a systematic meta-analytic assessment of the effects of social assistance programmes on poverty in Türkiye over the period 2000–2025, encompassing interventions implemented by multiple institutional actors within the Turkish welfare system. Eight quantitative studies meeting predefined inclusion criteria were identified across major academic databases, and their reported outcomes were standardised using Hedges’ g and log odds ratios. The findings were synthesised under a random-effects framework (REML) with Knapp–Hartung adjustment. The results indicate statistically significant poverty-reducing effects of social assistance programmes. In particular, targeted and conditional cash transfer programmes contribute to improvements in multidimensional welfare, especially through increased access to education and healthcare services among vulnerable groups. Cash assistance programmes directed at refugee populations also demonstrate strong effects in reducing extreme poverty and child labour. By contrast, the effects on income inequality appear more modest and context-dependent, largely shaped by transfer composition and the broader structure of the social protection system. The analysis further reveals substantial heterogeneity across studies, attributable to differences in programme design, targeting strategies, and contextual conditions. Given the relatively small number of included studies (k < 10), the findings should be interpreted with caution despite the application of multiple robustness checks. Overall, the results suggest that the long-term effectiveness of social assistance programmes depends on the adequacy of benefit levels, the alignment of conditionality with service provision capacity, and the strength of data-driven governance supported by continuous monitoring and evaluation. Strengthening these dimensions can support a transition from short-term poverty alleviation to more durable improvements in equality of opportunity.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Gözüm, P. (2026). The Effects of Social Assistance on Poverty in Türkiye: Evidence from a Systematic Meta-Analysis of Empirical Studies (2000–2025). Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Volume: 13 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1820319

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (49)

  1. Acar, A. (2014). The dynamics of multidimensional poverty in Turkey (Working Paper No. 14). Bahçeşehir University, Centre for Economic and Social Research (BETAM). https://betam.bahcesehir.edu.tr/2014/10/the-dynamics-of-multidimensional-poverty-in-turkey/
  2. Acet Dönmez, G., & Eriş Dereli, B. (2024). A study on multidimensional poverty in Türkiye from a regional perspective. Ekonomi-tek, 13(1), 49–83.
  3. Ahmed, A. U., Gilligan, D., Kudat, A., Colasan, R., Tatlidil, H., & Ozbilgin, B. (2006). Interim impact evaluation of the conditional cash transfer programme in Turkey: A quantitative assessment. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) & General Directorate of Social Assistance and Solidarity, Prime Ministry, Republic of Turkey. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/40985759/IFPRI_Final_Interim_Report_20_December_2006- libre.pdf
  4. Ministry of Family and Social Policies. (2012). Project for measuring the qualitative and quantitative impacts of the conditional cash transfer programme implemented in Türkiye on its beneficiaries: Final report. Ministry of Family and Social Policies. Project for measuring the qualitative and quantitative impacts of the conditional cash transfer programme implemented in Turkey on its beneficiaries: Final report. Ministry of Family and Social Policies. https://www.aile.gov.tr/uploads/sygm/uploads/pages/arastirma- raporlari/turkiye-de-uygulanan-sartli-nakit-transferi-programinin-fayda-sahipleri-uzerindeki-etkisinin- nitel-ve-nicel-olarak-olculmesi-projesi-final-raporu.pdf
  5. Akbulut, E., Altundemir, M. E., & Güven, M. (2022). Türkiye ve AB ülkelerinde sosyal koruma yardımlarının yoksulluk üzerine etkisi: Bir panel veri analizi. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(1), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.11616/asbi.1033102
  6. Alexander, L. A. (1985). Fair equality of opportunity: John Rawls’ (best) forgotten principle. Philosophy Research Archives, 11, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.5840/pra19851111
  7. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-011-9181-4
  8. Alkire, S., Foster, J., Seth, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M., & Ballón, P. (2015). Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis. Oxford University Press.
  9. Atkinson, A. B. (1987). On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica, 55(4), 749–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911028
  10. Aygün, A. H., Kırdar, M. G., Koyuncu, M., & Stoeffler, Q. (2024). Keeping refugee children in school and out of work: Evidence from the world’s largest humanitarian cash transfer program. Journal of Development Economics, 168, 103266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2024.103266
  11. Bahçe, S., & Köse, A. H. (2017). Social classes and the neo-liberal poverty regime in Turkey, 2002–2011. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 47(4), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2017.1325919
  12. Barrientos, A., & DeJong, J. (2006). Reducing child poverty with cash transfers: A sure thing? Development Policy Review, 24(5), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2006.00346.x
  13. Barrientos, A., & Malerba, D. (2020). Social assistance and inclusive growth. International Social Security Review, 73(3), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12244
  14. Bolukbasi, H. T., & Öktem, K. G. (2025). Measuring the Turkish welfare state: A multidimensional approach. Social Policy & Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.70010
  15. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
  16. Buğra, A., & Keyder, Ç. (2006). The Turkish welfare regime in transformation. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928706065593
  17. Canatan, B., & İpek, E. (2025). Investigating the impact of social assistance and borrowing behavior on reducing economic worry. Ege Academic Review, 25(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.20250203
  18. Çelikay, F., & Gümüş, E. (2014). Sosyal harcamaların yoksulluk üzerine etkileri: Ampirik bir inceleme. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(4), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.16935
  19. Daigneault, P.-M. (2014). Three paradigms of social assistance. SAGE Open, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014559020
  20. Dal, R., & Temiz, N. (2023). Türkiye’de yoksullukla mücadelede sosyal yardım kurumlarının etkinliği. Çalışma ve Toplum, 2(77), 1287–1322. https://doi.org/10.54752/ct.1280837
  21. Dama, N. (2022). Türkiye’de sosyal yardımların sosyal refah üzerindeki etkisi. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
  22. Eder, M. (2010). Retreating state? Political economy of welfare regime change in Turkey. Middle East Law and Governance, 2(2), 152–184. https://doi.org/10.1163/187633710X536597
  23. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
  24. European Commission. (2013). Social investment package: Towards social investment for growth and cohesion. Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet? docId=9762&langId=en
  25. European Commission. (2024, November). Social protection statistics — social benefits. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Social_protection_statistics_- _social_benefits
  26. Fiszbein, A., & Schady, N. (2009). Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present and future poverty. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7352-1
  27. Göçmen, İ. (2018). Non-public welfare in Turkey: New and old forms of religiously motivated associations. Research and Policy on Turkey, 3(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/23760818.2018.1517451
  28. Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., & Ebert, D. D. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide (1st ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003107347
  29. Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
  30. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
  31. Kutlu, D. (2018). Birikim, emek gücünün yeniden üretiminin ücretdışılaştırılması ve sosyal yardım: Kuramsal bir model denemesi. Mülkiye Dergisi, 42(1), 47–78.https://izlik.org/JA94FA93MR
  32. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class, and other essays. Cambridge University Press.
  33. Marshall, T. H., & Bottomore, T. (1992). Citizenship and social class. Pluto Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18mvns1
  34. Mathur, M. B., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2020). Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta‐analyses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 69(5), 1091–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12440
  35. Mkandawire, T. (2005). Maladjusted African economies and globalisation. Africa Development, 30(1), 1–33. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38875/
  36. Öktem, K. G. (2018). Turkey’s social assistance regime in comparative perspective: History, administrative structure, programmes and institutional characteristics (Working Paper No. 1). Bielefeld University, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Turkey (Blickwechsel Programme). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331089026_Turkey's_Social_Assistance_Regime_in_Comparativ e_Perspective_History_Administrative_Structure_Programmes_and_Institutional_Characteristics
  37. Öztornacı, B., & Şengül, H. (2023). Impact of social expenditures on multidimensional poverty in Turkey. New Medit: Mediterranean Journal of Economics, Agriculture and Environment, 22(3), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2303h
  38. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  39. Pustejovsky, J. E., & Tipton, E. (2022). Meta-analysis with robust variance estimation: Expanding the range of working models. Prevention Science, 23(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01246-3
  40. Rawlings, L. B., & Rubio, G. M. (2005). Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs. The World Bank Research Observer, 20(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lki001
  41. Sen, A. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44(2), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912718
  42. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
  43. Şenses, F. (2003). New poverty and the changing welfare regime of Turkey (Yeni yoksulluk ve Türkiye’nin değişen refah rejimi). METU Studies in Development, 30(1), 121–128.
  44. Taşçı, F. (2010).Sosyal politikalarda can simidi: Sosyal yardım. Nobel Yayıncılık.
  45. Tekgüç, H. (2018). Declining poverty and inequality in Turkey: The effect of social assistance and home ownership. South European Society and Politics, 23(4), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2018.1548120
  46. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2025, December 30). Poverty and Living Conditions Statistics, 2025 (Press Release No. 53994). TurkStat Data Portal. https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/en/press/53994
  47. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
  48. United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human development report 2010: The real wealth of nations —Pathways to human development. Palgrave Macmillan. https://files.acquia.undp.org/public/migration/np/UNDP_NP_HDR_2010.pdf
  49. Wasserman, S. (1988). Review of the book Statistical methods for meta-analysis, by L. V. Hedges & I. Olkin. Journal of Educational Statistics, 13(1), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164953