|Trans||Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften||16. Nr.||Juni 2006|
1.3. Instabilität und Zerfallsformen gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhänge: Soziale Ungewissheit, Unsicherheit und Prekarisierung
Sibel Kalaycioğlu (1) (Middle East Technical University, Ankara)
Poverty is a persisting problem of the world, and its conceptualization and measuring remains problematic as the concept is multidimensional and political. It is a known fact that economic development does not necessarily eliminate poverty, while countries with different development levels and welfare state policies experience different levels of poverty. Hence, poverty has become a major problem for both the developed and the developing countries, and in Turkey in particular it has gained in importance since 1990. Various governments during the 1990-2004 period recognized the fact that poverty is no longer a transitory problem and that it has an increasing tendency. Since 1999, rethinking and restructuring of the existing welfare programs, especially focusing on poverty alleviation, has started.
This paper will discuss the reasons behind rising rural and urban poverty in Turkey and elaborate on the changing roles of the family and social networks vis-à-vis the role of the state, and inclusion policies in the alleviation of poverty in Turkey. For poverty alleviation programs to gain importance two aspects should be emphasised. Firstly, an awareness of poverty should begin to be disseminated among the public and in the state. Secondly, a consensus on the indicators of poverty, which may vary in time and space, should be reached by major political organizations and actors in the society. Since awareness has started very recently in this country, a consensus has not yet been reached about how poverty can be defined in the Turkish context, what is the extent of poverty, what are the appropriate indicators, and what are the major risk groups. So I will try to give some information about recent poverty schemes in Turkey and will discuss some indicators and dynamics of poverty mainly on the basis of qualitative research.
The arguments will be based on information gathered through various research activities of the author; these have been carried out since 1991 in major cities of Turkey with high rates of in-migration (Ankara, İstanbul, İzmir, Mersin, and also Urfa and Diyarbakır). The method used is mainly of in-depth interviews and collecting family, work, and migration histories of families, who most of the times are found to be living in the squatter housing settlements surrounding the metropolitan cities. Some research has also been conducted in a number of villages of Southeastern Anatolia to assess the impact of irrigation on human development. In all these research activities specific attention was given to children, youth, elderly and specifically to gender issues. This last point is especially significant given that, in the case of Turkey, women’s participation in the labour force is very low and consequently dependency by women on male income earners and the family is very high, all of which render women a specific risk group in many social issues related to poverty.
There is as yet no consensus on the definition of poverty in the literature and in Turkey. It is mostly understood as absolute poverty by policy makers and planners. Also as income differences between the well off and poor sections of the society. Some economists suggest that food/ calorie intake of the households should be calculated. Still some others propose that the duration of poverty, whether it has the tendency of becoming chronic or whether it has a transitory profile, should be taken as the major criteria (Mingione, 1996; Townsend,1979; Işık and Pınarcıoğlu, 2001; İnsel, 2001).
In Turkey, social and cultural dimensions of poverty are even more significant then the economic factors. However, they are not preferred because they are "not measurable". For example, if we try to understand poverty in Turkey in terms of equality of life chances and human rights, we can not use economic criteria only.
Another discussion about the conceptualization of poverty in Turkey is the argument of "culture of poverty thesis". This thesis put forward by Oscar Lewis in 1959, argues that poor households have a tendency to reproduce poverty from one generation to the other. In the parent generation certain values and norms of helplessness, lack of taking initatives and reluctance to strive for educational achivement develops. The children socialized within this family culture also reproduce such norms, hence they also become poor. In fact, poor households experience a poverty cycle.
All those discussions and arguments for conceptualization of poverty in Turkey can be understood better if we can analyse different dynamics of poverty and their effects separately. So poverty is a multidimensional process and can not be understood just with a single parameter. Below the major dynamics of poverty inTurkey will be analysed in two groups. Firstly, there will be a discussion of absolute figures in terms on employment, education and income distribution. Secondly, more qualitative dynamics like family and social networks, reciprocity, mutual help systems and the role of women in the labour force will be discussed. Also in this part poverty as a form of deprivation of cultural and political human rights will be discussed.
II.a. Employment and work
In Turkey,theunemployment rate is rather high. According to the study by the State Institute of Statistics (SIS) in 2002, Household Budget Research Results , poverty is related with casual employment as much as it is also related to unemployment. Hence, according to the report:
45,01 % of the casual and seasonal workers (2,60 % of the population) working for daily wages are reported as poor in the report. So they are the highest risk group as far as poverty ist concerned.
Among the unemployed (2,06 % officially, but it is much higher, up to even 10 - 12 %) the poverty rate is 32,44 % in general, but when urban- rural differences are considered, then among the unemployed in the urban areas the poverty rate is 22,99 %, while it is 62,56 % among the unemployed in the rural areas.
Among the economic sectors employment in agriculture, forestry and construction sectors are most vulnerable.
Employment in the informal sector - low wage, low status and insecure jobs - is also significant with relation to poverty. This group is usually called "the working poor" in the literature. Especially in predominantly patriarchal cultures the employment mainly of the male breadwinner is a major reason of poverty of the households.
Additionally, according to the SIS Household Labour Force Survey for 2004, the population 15 years of age and over is 50 million and the annual average of labour force participation rate in Turkey is 48.7 % (24.3 million). The labour force participation is 72.3% and 25.4% for men and women consecutively. The employment rate that was 43.2 % in 2003 increased to 43.7 % in 2004. The employment rates are 62.2% and 20.8% for men and women respectively. While the seasonal employment rate is not included in the survey, the informal sector and subsistence in agriculture are included.
The SIS Household Labour Force Survey for 2004 also reveals that unregistered employment is 53% of the total employment. When the unpaid family workers are excluded from the total employment, the unregistered employment rate decreases to 42.5 % because unpaid family workers are overwhelmingly unregistered with a rate of 96%.
In terms of sectoral breakdown of the total of 21.8 million employed, it is observed that 43 % of total employed work in services, 18.3 % in industry and 4.7 % in the construction sectors. As of December 2004, 13.6 % of the total employment is in the public sector whereas 86.4 % is in the private sector. 76.7 % of the total employed work in SMEs, which have an important share in private sector. When the unpaid family workers are excluded, the number of employed decreases to 17.5 million. In addition, when the number of employed in agriculture are excluded the number decreases to 14.4 million.
The unemployment rate decreased from 10.5 % in 2003 to 10.3 % in 2004. Together with the 4.1 % underemployment rate(2), the total idle labour force was 14.4 % in 2004.
Every year nearly 700-800 thousand people are added to the labour force but the employment capacity is not sufficient to absorb these new comers. In 2004, employment increased only by 644 thousand. The 2001 crisis caused the closure of many enterprises and especially the decline of the banking sector and inhibited new investments. So, besides the general unemployment problem, unemployment among qualified and long term unemployed are crucial problems of the labour market since the economic crisis in 2001. The positive effects of the current economic programme carried out for three years can not be seen on the labour market, in other words, Turkey is experiencing "jobless growth". Youth unemployment, estimated to be around 20 % for 2004, is especially important within the whole unemployment problem.
According to the SIS Household Labour Force Surveys, the rate of the informal employment increased from 51.7 % in 2003 to 53 % in 2004.(3) 36 % of total informal employment is in agricultural sector in the form of "unpaid family workers" mainly composed of women. Other sources of informal employment are self-employed with 30.5 %, wage and salary earners with 17 %, daily waged (temporary, seasonal) with 14.3 %.
All these statistics show that unemployment and underemployment in the informal sector are important dimensions of poverty in Turkey.
The educational system which is composed of "formal education" and "non-formal education" covers totally 17.4 million students, 14 million of which are in the formal education sector. Apart from formal education, non-formal education which covers all citizens ranges from teaching reading and writing and preparing for regular education, to facilitating employment, to scientific, technological, economic, social and cultural developments and obtaining skills needed to improve employability.
According to the 2000 Census of Population, while the population at the age of 6 and above is about 60 million, the percentage of illiterate population is 12.6%; 25 % of whom are men and 75 % of whom are women. The rate of school leavers after primary school is 14 % in general (10.5 % for boys and 19 % for girls).(4)
The figures of 1999 Child Labour Force Survey state that, in Turkey, a lack of interest in education, educational costs, difficulties in access to schools in rural areas, helping families in house work and a need of making an economic contribution to families, families not allowing their children to attend school and a lack of belief in the importance of education are the reasons for children aged at 6-17 not attending a school and having left school.
The population of 25 years and above is approximately 34 million; 48 % of whim have primary school education (50.29 % men and 45.27 % women), 8 % secondary school (11.19 % men and 5.31 % women), 13 % high school (16.01 % men and 9.12 % women) and 8 % are university graduates (10.23 % men and 5.39 % women).(5)
Vocational and technical education in Turkey is organised as formal and non-formal education. In the 2004-2005 educational year, more than 3 million students were in secondary education, 36 % of them were in vocational education and 64 % of them were in general secondary education.
In the context of information and communication technologies (ICT), while there are 57 students per computer on average, this figure is 77 students per computer in primary schools and 28 students per computer in secondary schools. The ratio of schools having internet connection is 21 %. The reasons of low rates in usage of ICT in education are low level of computer literacy and insufficient budgets.
Average education expenses for every student are 390 USD per year. The DIE 2002 Survey on Educational Expenditures shows that the total expenditures on education are 7.31 % of GDP; 4.65 % of which is contributed by the public sectore and 2.66 % of which is contributed by the private sector.
All these figures show that the educational attainment above secondary school is low and vocational education is also not well developed. This is a major parameter of poverty in Turkey.
II.c. Income Distribution:
Turkey is one of the countries where inequalities in income distribution is quite high. As is well known from the literature, the income level for the country as a whole may be increasing, but the crucial dimension for poverty is how equally income is distributed among the various population groups.
According to SIS Household Budget Survey 2003, the gini coefficient, which was 0.49 in 1994, was 0.42 for 2003. Though this is a positive development, the unequal distribution of income continues to be one of the most important social problems.
The results of the same survey indicates that 20 % of the population consisting of the people at the lowest income level received only 6 %, and 20 % of the population consisting of the people at the highest income level received 48.3 % of total income. Compared with the same study for 2002, it is observed that the income shares of top 20 % of the population increased whereas the share of income of the lowest 20 % of population decreased. While the highest 20 % got an income 9.4 times higher than the lowest 20 % in 2002, this rate was 8.1 in 2003.
High rates of inflation for a long period of time can be seen as the primary reason for the unequal distribution of income since high rates of inflation can be considered as an income transfer from the fixed income groups to the lenders.
The Poverty Study conducted by SIS in 2002, figures out that 1.3 % of the population of Turkey, 2.0 % of the rural population and 0.9 % of the urban population is below the food poverty threshold. The same structure can also be observed in food andnon-food poverty rates, that is, 26.9 % of the population of Turkey, 34.5 % of the rural population and 21.9 % of the urban population is below the food and non-food poverty threshold. The UNDP Human Development Report 2003 states that the rate of malnourished children under 5 years of age is 8 %.
When the definition of poverty including food and non-food expenses according to the purchasing power parity is accepted as 1 USD per capita per day, the poverty rate for Turkey is 0.2 %, when it is taken as 2.15 USD per capita per day, the rate of poverty is 3 .0 % and when it is accepted as 4.3 USD per capita per day, the rate of poverty is 30.3 %. Furthermore, poverty is higher in rural areas regardless the definition of poverty. According to the UNDP Human Development Report 2003, 2 % of the population earns below 1 USD per capita per day and 10.3 % of the population earns below 2 USD per capita per day.
When relative poverty is defined as 50 % of the median value of equivalent consumption expenditure per capita, it is estimated that the rate of relative poverty is 14.7 % in Turkey, 19.8 % in rural areas and 11.3 % in urban areas. The poverty risk is 25.1 % for Turkey, 44.9 % for households with one parent and minimum one child, 36.2 % for households with two parents and three or more children. The poverty increases with the size of the households in Turkey. Where the poverty rate is 16.4 % for the households with 1-2 persons, it increases to 47.3 % for the households with 7 or more persons. In general, the poverty risk among men is 24.9 % and 25.3 % among women.
Poverty risks according to age are 32.0 % for 0-15 age group, 22.0 % for 16-64 age group, 22.7 % for 65 and over age. The child poverty is clearly higher than all the other groups. Besides, the poverty risk is 25.1 % for Turkey, 28.7 % for rural areas and 22.7 % for urban areas..
The SIS statistics prepared in line with Laeken Monetary Indicators in 2002 reveal that the education level is the most useful explanatory factor for poverty. The higher the level of education the lower the level of poverty both in rural and urban areas. Thus, the poverty rate for the illiterate population, which constitutes the 11.2 % of the total population is 41.0 % whereas it is 1.5 % for the university graduates which constitutes 3.7 % of the total population. The poverty rates for the same groups in rural areas are 46.4 % and 4.3 % respectively. The poverty rate for the literate population which did not complete their schooling is 34.6 % in general and 41.1 % in rural areas.
Considering the forms of employment, daily waged (temporary or seasonal) employees face the highest poverty risk. The poverty rate for this group is 45.0 % where it is 8.9 % for employers, the group with the lowest poverty rate. Unpaid family workers, which have the highest rate in rural areas, are the second group facing a high poverty risk. The poverty risk among the unemployed is 32.4 % in general, 22.9 % in urban areas and 62.6 % in rural areas.
In terms of the branch of economic activity, it can be observed that the poverty risk exists in the same sectors in both rural and urban areas. However, the ranking of sectors in terms of poverty risk differs. In general, the poverty risk is the highest among the employees in agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing sectors as 36.1 %. In rural areas, the poverty risk among the employees of the same sectors is 36.6 % whereas in urban areas construction and building sector employees face with the highest poverty risk with 37.6 %. Employees in the mining sector have the lowest poverty risk in general (Annex 10). Considering the informal employment with the Poverty Study of DİE, it can be observed that informal employees are at the same time the poorest group of the society. According to DİE figures, poverty is widespread among unpaid family workers, self employed and daily waged (temporary, seasonal) persons, who compose most of the informal employment. In addition, it is observed that the poverty risk increases while the education level decreases.
Poverty risk in terms of types of housing indicates that people living in "gecekondu" (squatter houses) have the highest risk with 39.3 % (Frederich Ebert Foundation Pub., 1996).
The results of all poverty figures indicate that the poverty risk is the highest among children aged between 0-15 years, the unemployed and those living in gecekondu.
Hence, according to all the above indicators, which are mainly dependent on income level, the conceptualization of dynamics of poverty needs to consider the nature and the level of employment, educational attainment, household size, number of children, and the type of housing more than anything else. In fact, so far the dynamics of poverty were rather related to absolute conditions, where p overty is defined as the incapability of getting access to basic human needs.
III.a. Social Networks
T he level of public social spending and the extent and nature of poverty alleviation programs in a country have a significant impact on the rate of poverty. In Turkey, such programs are still very inadequate. So the family/kin solidarities have been a major factor of resisting poverty and keeping its members alive for many years. Hence they constitute complementary systems to the public welfare programs (Esping-Andersen, 1996; 1990).
The type of family/kin strategies are very diversified themselves and are also supported by other social networks which surround the family. Although such family strategies are widely found and discussed in the context of many Third World countries, the specificity of them in Turkey is the social safety nets surrounding the family, which increase their strength. To avoid misunderstanding, it should be stressed that the existence of such safety nets does not make the problem of poverty less important, as governments often claim. Rather it makes the poor much more vulnerable, as I will try to explain below. Besides, although they create a buffer mechanism for the individual members of families not to fall into poverty, it also creates greater inequalities and the possible risk of a lack of collective solidarities in the society. The major argument of this paper is that, in the Turkish experience, existence of such family/kin and other social networks may be effective in preventing their members from falling into absolute poverty, but relative poverty will persist, for dependence on such networks is itself an indicator of relative poverty. Besides, from a gender perspective, this model of family/kin support systems forces both women and men to feel dependent to the family/kin in all aspects of life.
Figure 1. A Model For Copıng Wıth Poverty In Turkey And Becomıng Promoted Into The Ranks Of The Mıddle Class
The ‘family pool’ is the centre of such a network system. But before we go any further, I must define the way I use the term ‘family/kin group’. A family is an extended family/kin group which does not live under one roof, but has three sub-groups. One sub-group of households lives in the village of origin, another consists of migrant households in the metropolitan cities, and the third sub-group lives in the developed countries abroad, as workers. The relationship is based on a well-defined division of labour among these three groups. The group living in the village are the poorest compared to the others, but they still support the system with the production of some food products. Also they symbolize the cultural identity and the roots of the whole family/kin group, which is important especially for the socialisation of the young members. They represent the family values and norms from the origin. The second group, in the metropolitan cities, are the managers, accountants of the kin group. In other words, having migrated to the city, they have learned the city way of life, and understand the profitable investments in the city, especially in speculation with urban land. So, they are the ones to whom the management of the "pool" is assigned. The third group is composed of the immigrant workers abroad in many European countries. They earn the money and turn it to the pool to be invested by the kin living in the metropolitan centres who have the know-how. The norms and values supported by the kin in the village of origin become especially significant when the young boys of the families abroad are to get married. The village kin are asked their opinions about the suitable partners for marriage. So there are strong links between three groups of kin in terms of economic as well as cultural transfers. In figure 1, one can see a close and well-knit mechanism of social networks, which all support each other for the welfare of individuals who choose to stay within those networks or who have access to those networks. Around a well established, three dimensional family pool system, we can talk about a network of townsmen and kinsmen, another one about neighbours and paternalistic employer- employee supports (Gökçe, et.al.1993). Around this, the ethnic and religious networks as well as the political affiliations network, are quite influential and effective in finding jobs, being able to send children to good quality high schools, getting access to health care, being able to get permission for illegal house construction, and so on. In other words, we can easily see a patriarchal, paternalist as well as a clientalist structure which constitutes the basis of coping strategies with poverty of many households in Turkey, where the family solidarity and intergenerational transfers have a significant impact for individuals’ social and economic upward mobility and overcoming absolute poverty (Kandiyoti,1988; Kalaycıoğlu,et.al., 1998).
On the other hand, this kind of information results mainly from qualitative research results which are not taken into consideration by State Institute of Statistics. So it is difficult to generalise the findings. However, there is strong evidence that such kin networks are dominant for the majority of middle class families/kin in Turkey (Buğra and Keyder, 2003; World Bank, 2000; Kalaycıoğlu and Rittersberger- Tılıç, 2002; Kalaycıoğlu,2006). The ones who stay out of such safety nets are either a minority of the upper class families, who have well-paying jobs or businesses and do not need such networks, or, most of all, those poorest sections of the society, who do not have the assets to form such safety nets. In fact, if we were to make a rough estimate of those who are excluded from such opportunity of safety nets, we can say that the 1.35 % of people mentioned above in SIS 2002 Poverty Study, as those on food poverty or ‘hunger line’, are most likely to be in this category.
In this sense, if I can draw a sociological profile of the poor in Turkey, it can be said that poor families have the following characteristics: they are more likely to be from rural origins; their members are mostly unemployed, or employed in casual jobs (e.g., as unskilled labourers in the construction sector, selling petty goods on the streets), or are small landholders in the villages; do not own property in the urban areas (home, land, or animals such as cow, sheep, or a horse); do not have a regular cash income; (and for peasants) do not have enough income to live from their small plot of land; there is no male breadwinner in the household or he is disabled; the household is female-headed; have no social security or insurance; are uneducated and without any industrial skills; have large number of dependent family members, and are crowded households; are only dependent on one person working in the house who is employed in the informal sector as casual worker or working as seasonal labour in the construction sector (in the case of the small land holders or the landless); have no car or durable goods in the house, except a refrigerator and a TV; have no outdoor entertainment (only visits to close relatives); have no possibility of educating the children (especially girls); and most importantly, have no material support from the larger kin group (providing the house, furnishings, education and care of children). This last factor is very significant since in the absence of welfare state provisions, the families without any strategies or who lack safety nets or reciprocal mutual solidarity ties are bound to fall into poverty.
In addition to the low levels of income or lack of job opportunities, poverty indicators of the rural-to-urban migrants should include lack of access to health care and medicine; lack of social insurance and security; lack of opportunities of education for women; lack of access to infrastructural facilities and bad housing conditions, where the migrants mostly live in squatter areas. Also, the lack of information in terms of health, hygiene, empowerment, political participation, and existing state services increases the deprivation and social exclusion of the migrants. In relation to rural poverty, similar disadvantages continue, but they tend to have a deeper impact on people. Recently, agricultural producers suffered many problems of decreasing productivity, loss of state support, and lack of investments, in addition to previous disadvantages and distance from the state welfare benefits.
In relation to gender as a factor, though this is a broad and multidimensional issue in itself, migrant and rural women’s poverty is reflected in terms of lack of labour market participation, disadvantages of working at home and piece-working, lack of empowerment, initiative, and representation in the public sphere, inevitable dependent situation of women, and comparatively higher levels of deprivation in the case of female headed households (Erman, 2001). Another aspect of gender, as shown in Figure 1, is that women themselves are the major resources of the family pool. They either work outside and earn money to "contribute to the family budget"; or do homeworking/piecework for very low returns and no security of any kind; or are the ones who are sent to local governors or to neighbours to ask for money or for food, since men’s pride should not be diminished. Also, women have a major role in connecting the social networks to the family/kin network through their relations with other women in the neighbourhood; they carry information about cheap food, or news about a possible job, or about the help distributed by the municipalities. Nonetheless, even if women are employed and earn money, they do not have the right to keep their money, and are more severely afflicted by poverty. This gendered poverty is invisible if we take the family as the unit of analysis (Ecevit, et.al.1999).
So to clarify the point, the model of coping strategies is a display of the conditions of the groups who have moved into middle-class ranks after the successful use of safety nets. The poor on the other hand are those who do not have the advantage of such an opportunity.
There are three implications of family/kin transfers that are revealed in this study. First, unity and solidarity are a principle defence against deteriorating wages or the worsening of the economic situation of migrant families. Here, the savings and income of the older family members generally play a greater role in the accumulation of income and property within a family pool, compared with members of younger generations: adult children also contribute to the family pools, but to a lesser degree. Thus, the offspring and the grandchildren benefit more in terms of their immediate welfare and education. It might be argued that the older generation in families are investing for their future care and affection, ensuring that they will be neither lonely nor neglected in their old age. All the family members, however, old and young, have a tendency to share and benefit jointly from family savings. Most choose to spend their savings during their lifetime rather than accumulate personal wealth to be left as an inheritance after death. Often this mechanism is needed for survival, a kind of built-in insurance to provide social security and care for the dependent and sick.
Secondly, this kind of informal private insurance provided by reciprocal survival strategies, substantially relieves the pressure on the public welfare institutions. White (1994) claims that it is a system of insurance which enables employers to avoid contributing to formal social security schemes. Some might consider this as an obstacle to the development of welfare provisions by the state. On occasions, however dependent people who are lacking mutual family aid are in urgent need of support if their well-being is not to suffer. Hence, relative poverty may easily arise when the support system is broken at some point for whatever reasons.
Thirdly, the solidarity that characterises most families leaves only a little space for individuals to gain self-reliance and to make independent personal decisions on economic, social, and cultural issues. Thus, young adults and women will feel oppressed by their dependence upon their families. Nevertheless, mutual aid greatly strengthens relations based on obligation and reciprocity, binding members of the family to each other as a close-knit group and excluding others (non-kin, members of different ethnic groups, and often their neighbours). Rather than creating inter-generational cleavages in society, this generates a strong family identity that is influenced and defined in large part by the authority of the older members.
On this point we can refer to a rising human rights issue connected to the family support systems in Turkey. The changes in the preferences and priorities of the young people, together with the effects of global economy and culture, are creating a crisis in the system which has basically used to rely on close family relations and solidarities.
© Sibel Kalaycioğlu (Middle East Technical University, Ankara)
(1) Sibel Kalaycıoğlu, Assoc.Prof.Dr., Department of Sociology, Middle East Technical University,Ankara,06531, TURKEY. Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, tel: +90 312 210 5992 ; fax: +90 312 210 7972.
(2) In the LFS of SIS ; u nderemployment is measured with reference to two distinct groups. Firstly, the persons who work less than 40 hours because of economic reasons during the reference period and are able to work more either at their present job or at another job. Secondly, the persons who want to change his/her present job or are seeking for an additional job because of an insufficient income or because of not working in his/her usual occupation. SIS uses ILO definitions in LFS.
(3) Informal employment is calculated on the basis of persons who are not registered or covered by any social security organisations in Turkey.
(4) MEB, 2004-2005 Statistics
(5) DİE (SIS) , 2000 Census of Population.
Buğra, Ayşe (2001) "Ekonomik Kriz Karşısında Türkiye’nin Geleneksel Refah Rejimi", Toplum ve Bilim , no.89, pp. 22-30.
Buğra, Ayşe & Çağlar Keyder (2003) New Poverty and the Changing Welfare Regime of Turkey (UNDP report).
Ecevit, Yıldız/Erman, Tahire/Kalaycıoğlu, Sibel/Rittersberger-Tılıç, Helga (1999) Migrant Women’s Participation in the Labor Force in Urban Turkey, Report for (World Bank pub.on Turkey, Economic Reforms, Living Standards and Social Welfare Study).
Erman, Tahire (2001b) "The Politics of Squatter (Gecekondu) Studies in Turkey: The Changing Representations of Rural Migrants in the Academic Discourse" Urban Studies vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 983-1002.
Esping-Anderson,G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996) "After the Golden Age? Welfare State Dilemmas in a Global Economy" in G. Esping-Andersen (Ed.) Welfare State in Transition (London: Sage).
Friedrich Ebert Foundation (1996) Türkiye’de Gecekondunun 50 Yılı ( 50 Years of Gecekondus in Turkey) (İstanbul: Ozan).
Gökçe, Birsen/ Acar, Feride/ Ayata, Ayşe/ Kasapoğlu, Aytül/ Özer İnan/ Uygun Hamza (1993) Gecekondularda Ailelerarası Geleneksel Dayanışmanın Çağdaş Organizasyonlara Dönüşümü (The Transformation of the Inter Familial Traditional Solidarity in Squatter Settlements to Modern Organizations) (Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Kadın ve Sosyal Hizmetler Müsteşarlığı Yayınları-Department for Women’s Social Status and Problems pub.).
Insel, Ahmet (2001) "İki Yoksulluk Tanımı ve Bir Öneri" (Two Definitions of Poverty and a Suggestion) Toplum ve Bilim (Society and Science) (Ankara: İletişim).
Işık, Oğuz/ M.Melih Pınarcıoğlu (2001) Nöbetleşe Yoksulluk, Sultanbeyli Örneği Experiencing of Poverty by Turn- The Case of Sultanbeyli - A squattter housing eighbourhood) (İstanbul: İletişim).
Kandiyoti, Deniz (1988) "Bargaining With Patriarchy" Gender and Society no. 2, p.274-290.
Kalaycıoğlu, Sibel (1996) Göçmenlerde Sosyal Hareketlilik İle İlgili Beklentilerin Din Görüşü ve Cinsiyete Göre Farklılaşması: Ankara’dan Bir Örneklem, (Differentiation Among The Migrants On the Basis of Gender, Religious Views and Places of Origin), Toplum ve Göç (Society and Migration) II. Ulusal Sosyoloji Kongresi (II. National Congress of Sociologists) (Mersin : Sosyoloji Derneği Yayını) (Pub. of National Sociological Association) Pub. No 5: 264-270.
Kalaycıoğlu, Sibel/Kardam, Filiz/ Tüzün, Sezgin/Ulusoy, Mahir (1998), "Türkiye İçin Bir Sosyoekonomik Statü Ölçütü Geliştirme Yonünde Yaklaşım Ve Denemeler" (A Study on Developing a Socio-economic Status Index for Turkey) Toplum ve Hekim (Community and Physician) 13/2: 126-137.
Kalaycıoğlu, Sibel/Rittersberger-Tılıç, Helga (1998) "İş İlişkilerine Bir Bakış: Ev Hizmetinde Çalışan Kadınlar" (A women’s Look to Employer-Employee Relations: The Women Working as Domestic Cleaners) Baydar, Oya (ed) Bilanço 98, 75 Yılda Kadınlar ve Erkekler (Women And Men in 75 Years) (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı pub.) pp. 225-235.
Kalaycıoğlu, Sibel/Rittersberger-Tılıç, Helga (2000) "Intergenerational Solidarity Networks of Instrumental and Cultural Transfers in a Sample of Migrant Families in Turkey" Ageing and Society 20, pp: 532-542.
Kalaycıoğlu, Sibel/Rittersberger-Tılıç, Helga (2001) Cömert "Ablaların" Sadık "Hanımları": Evlerimizdeki Gündelikçi Kadınlar (Generous "Sisters" and Loyal "Ladies": The Domestic Cleaner Women in Our Houses) (Ankara: Su).
Kalaycıoğlu, S./ Rittersberger-Tılıç, Helga. (2002) "Yapısal Uyum Programlarıyla Ortaya Çıkan Yoksullukla Başetme Stratejileri" (Coping Strategies with Poverty after Structural Adjustment Programs) Kentleşme, Göç ve Yoksulluk (Urbanization, Migration and Poverty) ed. Ahmet Alpay Dikmen (Ankara :İmaj Yayıncılık ve Türk Sosyal Bilimler Derneği) pp: 197-247.
Kalaycıoğlu, S. (2006) " Dynamics of poverty in Turkey: gender, rural/urban poverty, social networks and reciprocal survival strategies" in Petmesidou M. & Papatheodorou C, eds Poverty and Social Deprivation in the Mediterranean Area: Trends, Policies and Welfare Prospects in the New Millennium . London: Zed Books / CROP Series.pp. 218-247.
Lewis, Oscar (1959) Five Families; Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty (New York: Basic Books).
Mingione, Enzo (ed.) 1996 Urban Poverty and the Underclass (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
Rittersberger-Tılıç, Helga / Kalaycıoğlu, Sibel (1998) "National State and the Individual: Alternative Strategies of Consent ‘From Below’", Asian and African Studies, Slovak Academy of Sciences, vol.7, no.1, pp. 69-79.
State Institute of Statistics SIS (2003) 2002 Household Budget Research Results, November (Ankara: The News Bulletin).
State Institute of Statistics SIS (2004) 2002 Poverty Research Results , April (Ankara: The News Bulletin).
State Planning Organization SPO (2001) Gelir Dağılımının İyileştirilmesi ve Yoksullukla Mücadele (Improvement of Income Distribution and Struggle with Poverty) Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu (Special Commission Report) (Ankara: SPO pub.).
State Planning Organization SPO (1992) Türk Aile Yapısı Araştırması(Research on Turkish Family Structure) Atalay, Beşir/ Kontaş, Y. Mehmet/ Beyazit, Sema/ Madenoğlu, Kemal (coordinators) (Ankara : SPO pub.) 2323 - SPGM 421.
Townsend, Peter (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living (London: Penguin).
UNDP (2001) Human Development Report 2001, Making New Technologies Work for Human Development (Oxford University Press, Geneva:UNDP).
UNDP (2003) Human Development Report 2003, Human Development for Thousand Years :An International Agreement for Ending Poverty (Geneva:UNDP).
White, Jenny, B. (1994) Money Makes Us Relatives (Austin:Univ. of Texas Press). World Bank (2000) Turkey, Economic Reforms, Living Standards and Social Welfare Study May 17 (World Bank Pub.).
1.3. Instabilität und Zerfallsformen gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhänge: Soziale Ungewissheit, Unsicherheit und Prekarisierung
Sektionsgruppen | Section Groups | Groupes de sections
Inhalt | Table of Contents | Contenu 16 Nr.