Vol. 8 No. 2 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

MODELLING OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE MATERIAL DEPRIVATION STATUS OF INDIVIDUALS IN TURKEY

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Şeyda ÜNVER,
  • Ömer ALKAN
Şeyda ÜNVER
Res. Asisst., Atatürk University
Ömer ALKAN
Assoc. Prof., Atatürk University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1457

Published 2020-06-25

Keywords

  • Material Deprivation Income and Living Conditions Survey Poverty Multivariate Probit Regression
  • Maddi Yoksunluk Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması Yoksulluk Çok Değişkenli Probit Regresyon

How to Cite

ÜNVER, Şeyda, & ALKAN, Ömer. (2020). MODELLING OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE MATERIAL DEPRIVATION STATUS OF INDIVIDUALS IN TURKEY. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(2), 1334–1370. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1457

Abstract

1. LITERATURE

1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT
Deprivation is defined as the state of being deprived of something. Deprivation can be defined as the situation in which an individual, family or group is visibly disadvantaged compared to the wider community or nation which they belong to. Material deprivation is a concept based on the affordability of a range of goods and services required or desired by people to have an acceptable standard of living, taking into account the conditions of the country in which they live.
1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
In this study, it is aimed to investigate the factors affecting the material deprivation status of individuals by using micro data sets of Income and Living Conditions Survey (SILC) conducted by Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) in 2017 and 2018. Since material deprivation is also associated with poverty, determining the factors affecting material deprivation and also their effect sizes will guide decision makers in poverty reduction policies.
1.3. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE
Although there are studies in the literature examining the material deprivation of households, there are very few studies examining the material deprivation of individuals. There may be different material deprivation situations even for individuals living in the same household. Studies on poverty were generally carried out at the macro level or household level. In this study, contribution will be made to the material deprivation literature by working with individual based data at micro level. In particular, the handling and examination of six different dependent variables that show the material deprivation of individuals with a single model makes this study different from other studies in the literature.
2. DESIGN AND METHOD

2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
It is a study using quantitative methods to investigate the factors affecting the material deprivation of individuals by using the micro data sets of SILCs conducted by TurkStat.
2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
While there are many studies on the determinants of income poverty, there are fewer studies on material deprivation. Although there are studies examining the material deprivation of households, there are very few studies examining the material deprivation of individuals. There may be different material deprivation situations even for individuals living in the same household.
2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
In this study, the micro data sets of SILCs which was conducted by Turkish Statistical Institute in 2017 and 2018 was used. SILC covers all the settlements located within the borders of the Republic of Turkey.
2.4. QUANTITATIVE / QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
SPSS 20 and Stata 14 programs were used in the analysis of the data. Firstly, the frequency and percentages of the individuals participating in the research were obtained according to their material deprivation status and independent variables. Then, by using multivariate probit regression analysis, factors affecting the material deprivation situation were determined.
2.5. RESEARCH MODEL
Multivariate probit model is a preferred model when dependent variables are related to each other. When there is a relationship between dependent variables affected by the same explanatory variables, the multivariate probit model gives more effective results than the respective binary logit or probit model estimates for each dependent variable.
2.6. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
There is a relationship between individuals' material deprivation status and the individuals' participation year in the study, educational status, marital status, health status, chronic disease status, occupation and income level.
3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. FINDINGS as a RESULT of ANALYSIS
12% of the individuals about “replacing old clothes”, 10.8% of the individuals about “having two pair of proper shoes that one of them is suitable for daily use”, and 20.1% of the individuals about “meeting friends, family / relatives to eat or drink something with them at home or outside (restaurants, patisseries, cafes etc.) at least once a month”, is suffering material deprivation. Similarly, 77.4% of the individuals about “regular participation in leisure activities such as sports, cinema, and concerts (by paying a fee)”, 16.9% about “spending a small amount of money for him/her to feel good (for his/her financial expenses) most weeks and 36.8% of the individuals about “having internet access for personal use at home” is experiencing material deprivation.
69% of the individuals participating in the study are married. 14% of individuals are not graduated from any schools, 32% are primary school graduates, 16% are secondary school graduates and while 18% are high school graduates, 19% are university graduates. It has been determined that 37% of the individuals participating in the study are not working in a job and also 15% of individuals are working in qualified agriculture, forestry and aquaculture jobs and in unqualified jobs.
HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS
It was determined that the individuals' participation year to the research, educational status, marital status, health status, chronic disease status, profession and income level affected individuals' material deprivation status.
3.2. DISCUSSING the FINDINGS with the LITERATURE
In this study, similar results were obtained with the studies in the literature. As the income level and education level increase, individuals' material deprivation decreases. Individuals who have never married experience less material deprivation.
4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS

4.1. RESULTS of the ARTICLE
1-) According to the analysis result, there is a positive relationship between the dependent variables and they can all be handled simultaneously in a single model.
2-) It was determined that the individuals participated in the survey in 2018 experienced less material deprivation than others.
3-) In general, it has been determined that married people experience more material deprivation than those whose spouse is dead / who is divorced and on the other hand individuals who have never married experience less material deprivation.
4-) It has been determined that as the education level of individuals increases their material deprivation decreases.
5-) As the health status of the individuals deteriorates, their material deprivation increases.
6-) It has been determined that as the income level of individuals increases, their material deprivation decreases.

4.2. SUGGESTIONS BASED on RESULTS
Especially for low-income individuals, new clothing / shoes can be provided instead of cash money through district governorships / governorates. A check may be issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism to students or individuals with low financial status for use only in cultural activities such as cinema, theater, and museum visits. Individuals can be socialized with friends, family / relatives through social activities that will be held on certain days in other months such as activities in Ramadan. Free wifi connection can be provided by determining the common areas of use in the villages, towns and city centers so that individuals do not experience deprivation about internet access.
4.3. LIMITATIONS of the ARTICLE
This study has several limitations. First, the data in the study are secondary data. The variables required for statistical analysis consist of the variables in the dataset. Second, the data obtained in the study are the individuals' own answers. Therefore, the data obtained in this data collection method may be biased.

 

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Abay, M. Ç. ve Sezgin, S. (2018), “Türkiye ve Bazı AB Ülkelerinde Yoksulluk ve Gelir Dağılımı”, Journal of Life Economics, 5(4), 97-110
  2. Acar, A., Anil, B. ve Gursel, S. (2017), “Mismatch between Material Deprivation and Income Poverty: The Case of Turkey”, Journal of Economic Issues, 51(3), 828-842
  3. Achia, T. N., Wangombe, A. and Khadioli, N. (2010), “A logistic regression model to identify key determinants of poverty using demographic and health survey data”, European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 38-45
  4. Agwu, G. A., Agbanike, T., Uwajumogu, N. and Ogbuagu, R. A. (2020), “How do firms combine different types of innovation? A multivariate probit approach”, African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 12(2), 173-185
  5. Aktan, C. C. ve Vural, İ. Y. (2002). Yoksullukla Mücadele Stratejileri, Ankara: Hak-İş Konfederasyonu Yayınları.
  6. Alkan, Ö. (2017), “Türkiye’de Gençlerin Tütün Kullanımında Cinsiyet Farklılıklarının Araştırılması”, Bağımlılık Dergisi – Journal of Dependence, 18(2), 35-45
  7. Alkan, Ö. ve Abar, H. (2020), “Determination of factors influencing tobacco consumption in Turkey using categorical data analyses1”, Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 75(1), 27-35
  8. Alkan, Ö. ve Kaya, V. (2015), “Main Determinants of Difficulty in Understanding and Learning Macroeconomics Course”, Journal of Education & Social Policy, 2(4), 152-160
  9. Alkire, S., Foster, J. E., Seth, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M. and Ballon, P. (2015). Multidimensional Poverty Measurement and Analysis:Chapter 2 – The Framework. Birleşik Krallık: Oxford University Press.
  10. Alkire, S. and Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for Developing Countries. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report Office Background, 2010/11: Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI).
  11. Allender, J.A. ve Spradley, B.W. (2001). Community Health Nursing: Concepts and Practice, First Ed, Lippincott Williams&Wilkins.
  12. Almeida-Filho, N., Lessa, I., Magalhães, L., Araújo, M. J., Aquino, E., James, S. A. and Kawachi, I. (2004), “Social inequality and depressive disorders in Bahia, Brazil: interactions of gender, ethnicity, and social class”, Social Science & Medicine, 59(7), 1339-1353
  13. Amjad, R. and Kemal, A. R. (1997), “Macroeconomic Policies and their Impact”, The Pakistan Development Review, 36(1), 39-68
  14. Awan, M. S., Malik, N., Sarwar, H. and Waqas, M. (2011), “Impact of Education on Poverty Reduction”, International Journal of Academic Research, 3(1), 659-664
  15. Ayllón, S. and Gábos, A. (2017), “The interrelationships between the Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion indicators”, Social Indicators Research, 130(3), 1025-1049
  16. Bayram, N., Neslihan, S., Aytaç, S. ve Aytaç, M. (2010), “Yaşam tatmini ve sosyal dışlanma”, ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 12(4), 79-92
  17. Biyase, M. and Zwane, T. (2017). An Empirical Analysis of the Determinants of poverty and household welfare in South Africa. South Africa: University of Johannesburg.
  18. Bárcena‐Martín, E., Lacomba, B., Moro‐Egido, A. I. and Pérez‐Moreno, S. (2014), “Country Differences in Material Deprivation in Europe”, Review of Income and Wealth, 60(4), 802-820
  19. Boarini, R. and d’Ercole, M. M. (2006). Measures of Material Deprivation in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 37.
  20. Cheng, T.-C. and Wen, W.-J. (2011), “Determinants of performing arts attendance in Taiwan: a multivariate probit analysis”, Applied Economics Letters, 18(15), 1437-1442
  21. Coşkun, M. N. (2012), Türkiye'de Yoksulluk: Bölgesel Farklılıklar ve Yoksulluğun Profili. Ankara: Turkish Economic Association Discussion Paper, No. 2012/59.
  22. Çağlayan-Akay, E. ve Sedefoğlu, G. (2016), “Determinants of Poverty on Household Characteristics in Turkey: A Heteroskedastic Probit Model”, The Empirical Economics Letter, 15(6), 563-571
  23. Dudek, H. (2019), “Country-level drivers of severe material deprivation rates in the EU”, Ekonomický Časopis, 67(1), 33-51
  24. Eurostat (2017). Statistics Explained. Available at:<http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/>., Erişim Tarihi: 26.04.2020
  25. Evcim, N., Güneş, S. ve Karaalp-Orhan, H. (2019), “Yoksulluk Ve Ekonomik Göstergeler Arasındaki İlişki: Mena Bölgesi Analizi”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 36, 291-310
  26. Evcim, N., Güneş, S. ve Karaalp-Orhan, H. (2020), “Türkiye’de Hanehalkı Göreli Yoksulluğunu Etkileyen Faktörler: Lojistik Regresyon Analizi”, Sosyoekonomi, 28(43), 11-32
  27. Fazlıoğlu, B., Dalgıç, B. ve Yereli, A. B. (2019), “The effect of innovation on productivity: evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms”, Industry and Innovation, 26(4), 439-460
  28. Geda, A. (2005), Determinants of Poverty in Kenya: A Household Level Analysis. Storrs. CT: University of Connecticut,: Department of Economics Working Paper Series.
  29. Graaf-Zijl, M. d. and Nolan, B. (2011), “Household Joblessness and Its Impact on Poverty and Deprıvatıon in Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, 21(5), 413-431
  30. Greene, W. H. (2012), Econometric analysis. Boston:Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  31. Güriş, S., Çağlayan-Akay, E., Ün, T. ve Kızılarslan, Ş. (2017), “Multivariate Probit Modeli ile Finansal Başarısızlığın Yeniden İncelenmesi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği”, Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 6(3), 199-210
  32. Harmon, C., Oosterbeek, H. and Walker, I. (2003), “The returns to education: Microeconomics”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 17(2), 115-156
  33. Hashmi, A. A., Sial, M. H. and Hashmi, M. H. (2008), “Trends and Determinants of Rural Poverty:A Logistic Regression Analysis of Selected Districts of Punjab”, The Pakistan Development Review, 47(4), 909-923
  34. Hyder, A. and Sadiq, M. (2010), “Determinants of Poverty in Pakistan. Hamburg Review of Social Sciences”, 4(3), 193-213
  35. İzgi, B. B. ve Alyu, E. (2018), “Yoksulluk ve Gelir Dağılımı Eşitsizliği: OECD ve AB Ülkeleri Panel Veri Analizi”, Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(3), 9887-996
  36. İzgi, B. B. ve Dineri, E. (2018). Avrupa ülkelerinde yoksulluk ve eğitim: dinamik panel veri analizi. Uluslararası Ekonomi Konferansı, Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu.
  37. James, H., Lochner, L. and Todd, P. E. (2006). Earnings Functions, Rates of Return and Treatment Effects: The Mincer Equation and Beyond. In Handbook of the Economics of Education, 307-458
  38. Julkunen, I. (2002), “Social and Material Deprivation among Unemployed Youth in Northern Europe”, Social Policy & Administration, 36(3), 235-253
  39. Karaalp-Orhan, H.S. (2016), “Türkiye İşgücü Piyasasının Yapısal Özellikleri: İstihdam, İşsizlik ve İşgücüne Katılma Oranı”, içinde: S. Güneş ve H.S. Karaalp-Orhan (ed.), Türkiye Ekonomisi ve Güncel Makroekonomik Konular, 1-44.
  40. Karcı, Z. ve Arlı, N. B. (2018), “Maddi Yoksunluğu Etkileyen Değişkenlerin Lojistik Regresyon Analizi İle Belirlenmesi”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 1039-1048
  41. Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O. and Walters, E. E. (2005), “Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry”, 62(6), 617-627
  42. Kis, A. B. and Gabos, A. (2016), “Consistent poverty across the EU”, Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Polic, 7(2), 3-27
  43. Lugo, M. A. and Maasoumi, E. (2009). Multidimensional Poverty Measures from an Information Theory Perspective. University of Oxford.: OPHI Working Paper 10.
  44. Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985). Poor Britain. London: Poverty and Social Exclusion.
  45. Makame, I. H. and Mzee, S. S. (2014), “Determinants of Poverty on Household Characteristics in Zanzibar: A logistic Regression Model”, Developing Country Studies, 4(20), 188-195
  46. Mayer, S. and Jencks, C. (1989), “Poverty and the Distribution of Material Hardship”, Journal of Human Resources, 1(24), 88-114
  47. Mok, T., Gan, C. and Sanyal, A. (2007), “The Determinants of Urban Household Poverty in Malaysia. Journal of Social Sciences”, 3(4), 190-196
  48. Nelson, K. (2012), “Counteracting material deprivation: The role of social assistance in Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, 22(2), 148-163
  49. Nolan, B. and Whelan, C. T. (1996). Resources, Deprivation, and Poverty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  50. Notten, G. and Roelen, K. (2012), “A new tool for monitoring (child) poverty: Measures of cumulative deprivation”, Child Indicators Research, 5(2), 335-355
  51. Özcan, K. M. (2003), “Türkiye'de Yoksulluğun Ölçülmesi: 2001. Ekonomik Yaklaşım”, 14(49-Proceedings), 84-98
  52. Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H. A. (2004), “Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update”, Education Economics”, 12(2), 111-134
  53. Ranathunga, S. P. (2010). The determinants of household poverty in Sri Lanka: 2006/2007. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Department of Economics, University of Waikato.
  54. Roche, J. M. (2013). Monitoring Progress in Child Poverty Reduction: Methodological Insights and Illustration to the Case Study of Bangladesh. University of Oxford.: OPHI Working Papers 57.
  55. Rodríguez, J. G. (2016), “The determinants of poverty in the Mexican states of the US-Mexico border”, Estudios Fronterizos, 17(33), 141-167
  56. Saltkjel, T. (2018), “Welfare resources and social risks in times of social and economic change: A multilevel study of material deprivation in European countries”, Journal European Journal of Social Work, 21(5), 639-652
  57. Sarı, R. (2003), “Gelir Dağılımında Eğitim Faktörü: Kentsel Bazda Bir Örnek. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi”, 58(2), 177-189
  58. Sekhampu, J. T. (2012), “Poverty in a South African township:The case of Kwakwatsi. African Journal of Business Management”, 6(33), 9504-9509
  59. Sigeze, Ç. ve Şengül, S. (2018), “Türkiye’de Yoksulluğun Rassal Etkiler Multinomial Logit Model ile İncelenmesi”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(4), 503-521
  60. Sigeze, Ç. ve Uğur, M. S. (2019), “Analyzing Financial Insufficiency of Households in Turkey with Multivariate Probit Model. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi”, 19(4), 401-410
  61. Soltes, E. and Ulman, P. (2015), “Material Deprivation in Poland and Slovakia – a Comparative Analysis”, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, 11(947), 19-36
  62. Stankovičová, I. V. (2013), “Trend Analysisi of Monetary Poverty Measures in the Slovak and Czech Republic. In the 7 th International days of Statistic and Economics”, Czech.
  63. Şenses, F. (2013). Küreselleşmenin Öteki Yüzü Yoksulluk. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  64. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty In The United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources And Standards of Living,. Univ of California Press.
  65. Townsend, P. (1987), “Deprivation”, Journal of Social Policy, 16(2), 125-146
  66. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2017). Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması Mikro Veri Seti (Kesit). Web: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/MicroVeri/GYKA_2017/turkce/index.html adresinden 25.04.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  67. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2018). Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması Mikro Veri Seti (Kesit). Web: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/MicroVeri/GYKA_2018/turkce/index.html adresinden 25.04.2020 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  68. Walelign, S. Z., Charlery, L., Smith-Hall, C., Chhetri, B. B. and Larsen, H. O. (2016), "Environmental income improves household-level poverty assessments and dynamics", Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 23-35
  69. World Bank (2000). World Development Report 2000/2001:Attacking Poverty. Washington: Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
  70. World Bank (2005), Turkey Joint Poverty Assesment Report (Report No: 29619-TU), Human Development Sector Unit Europe and Central Asia Region, Document of the World Bank and the State Institute of Statistics Turkey 2005.
  71. Yıldırım, J., Bakır, M. A. ve Savaş, A. (2018), “State Dependence in Poverty: The Case of Turkey”, Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 54(9), 196