Social Policy and Different Dimensions of Inequality in Turkey: A Historical Overview

Abstract

In Turkey, as in most other societies without mature welfare states, social policy has acquired a novel significance in the context of the late twentieth century economic globalization and the social policy environment has gone through a major transformation especially under the AKP government, which has been in power since 2002. This article presents a discussion of this transformation and explores the relationship between social policy and different dimensions of inequality in contemporary Turkey. It is argued that the emerging social policy regime, although in some ways more inclusive than the former one, is laden with significant inequalities of class and gender, which are shaped by the flexible employment patterns associated with a market-oriented economic strategy and the culturally conservative outlook of the AKP government.

Notes

1. See, for example, R. Surrender and R. Walker, Social Policy in a Developing World, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2013; UNRISD, New Directions in Social Policy: Alternatives from and for the Global South, UNRISD Project from 2013–2016 <http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BB128/(httpProjects)/2D903DC6376D3185C1257C16004B9CA8?OpenDocument> (accessed 12 February 2017).

2. See, for example, World Bank, Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty, The World Bank, Washington DC, 2009; J. Hanlon, A. Barrientos and D. Hulme, Just Give Money to the Poor: The Development Revolution from the South, Kumarian Press, Sterling, VA, 2010.

3. B. Geremek, Poverty: A History, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1994; F. Fox-Piven and R. A. Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, Vintage Books, New York, 1993.

4. K. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1954 (1867), pp. 252–286252-286.

5. A. Marshall, ‘The future of the working class’, in A. C. Pigou (ed.), The Memorials of Alfred Marshall, Augustus M. Kelly, New York, 1966, p. 102.

6. T. H. Marshall, ‘Citizenship and social class’, in Class, Citizenship and Social Development: Essays by T. H. Marshall, Anchor Books, New York, 1965, p. 92. As Margaret Somers mentions, Marshall’s was an extremely interesting methodological move, a move whereby the liberal concept of individual rights was carried to the level of society and sociological analysis. See M. R. Somers, Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 151–153.

7. G. Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990.

8. The Bismarckian social security system was introduced in the nineteenth century before the development of the welfare state and was very sophisticated in its corporatist institutional structure, which aimed to maintain rather than change the existing pattern of social inequality.

9. A. Orloff, ‘Gender and social rights of citizenship: the comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare regimes’, American Sociological Review, 58(3), 1993, pp. 303–328; C. Pateman, ‘The patriarchal welfare state’, in A. Guttman (ed.), Democracy and the Welfare State, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1988; N. Fraser, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1989. It might be unfair to suggest that Marshall was unaware of the gender dimension of the question of citizenship. He wrote, for example, that the early factory laws in nineteenth century England provided protection only to women and children, because they were not seen as citizens. Men, as full and responsible citizens, were not protected. ‘[C]hampions of women’s rights were quick to detect the implied insult’, he then added. See Marshall, ‘Citizenship and social class’, op. cit., p. 89.

10. R. Lister, Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, 2003, p. 98.

11. N. Fraser, ‘From redistribution to recognition: dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age’, New Left Review, 212, 1995, pp. 68–93.

12. TURKSTAT/World Bank, Joint Poverty Assessment Report, TURKSTAT and the World Bank Human Development Sector Unit of the Europe and Central Asia Region, 2005.

13. In fact, writers such as Gough and Wood have expressed doubts about the applicability of the concept of welfare regime to social policy analysis in the countries of the periphery, where the social structure displayed such characteristics. See G. Wood and I. Gough, ‘A comparative welfare regime approach to global social policy’, World Development, 34(4), 2006, pp. 1696–1712.

14. A. Saydam, ‘The incompatibility of the pension system and the labour market in Turkey’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 2017.

15. World Bank, Turkey: Economic Reforms, Living Standards and Social Welfare Study, World Bank Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Europe and the Central Asia Region, 2000. For a critical view on the World Bank approach, see S. S. Paul and J. A. Paul, The World Bank and the Attack on Pensions in the Global South, Research paper by Global Action on Aging and Global Policy Forum, 1994.

16. A study on the world of labour in Turkey in the mid-2000s has in fact shown that non-unionized workers had very little sympathy for the organized labour movement’s attempts to resist the restructuring of employment relations by labour-unfriendly policies. See F. Adaman, A. Buğra and A. Insel, ‘Societal context of labor union strategy: the case of Turkey’, Labor Studies Journal, 34(2), 2009, pp. 168–188.

17. On the direction and politics of health reform in Turkey, see T. Ağartan, ‘Marketization and universalism: crafting the right balance in the Turkish health care system’, Current Sociology, 60(4), 2012, pp. 456–471; V. Yılmaz, ‘Changing origins of inequalities in access to health care services in Turkey: from occupational status to income’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 48, 2013, pp. 55–77; C. Wendt, T. Ağartan and M. E. W. Kaminska, ‘Social insurance without corporate actors: changes in self-regulation in Germany, Poland and Turkey’, Social Science and Medicine, 86, 2013, pp. 88–95.

18. The share of public social spending has significantly increased from 3.1% of the GDP in 1985 to 9.7% in 1995 and is currently around 13%. While the final figure is still much lower that the OECD average of 21.6%, it could still be seen as an important aspect of a ‘social turn’ whereby social protection has acquired a novel significance. OECD, ‘Social expenditure statistics’ <https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG> (accessed 2 February 2016).

19. On this, see A. Buğra, ‘Bir Krize ve bir Ahlaki Ekonominin Çöküşüne Dair’ (On a Crisis and the Collapse of a Moral Economy), Birikim, 145, 2002, pp. 46–59.

20. See, for example, World Bank, Conditional Cash, op. cit.; Hanlon et al., Just Give Money to the Poor, op. cit.

21. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı (Ministry of Family and Social Policies), 2013 Faaliyet Raporu (2013 Annual Report), TC Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı, 2014, p. 112.

22. For a more extensive discussion on this subject, see A. Buğra, ‘Philanthropy and the politics of social policy’, in B. Morvaridi (ed.), New Philanthropy and Social Justice, Policy Press, Bristol, 2015.

23. TURKSTAT, ‘Sosyal Koruma İstatistikleri, 2014’ (Social Protection Statistics, 2014), News Bulletin No. 18856, 17 December 2015.

24. In 2014, while 2,274,182 households benefited from regular transfers, 1,892,656 households benefited from periodical, temporary transfers. See Ministry of Family and Social Policy, Annual Report 2014, T. C. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı, Ankara, 2015, p. 74.

25. Marshall, ‘Citizenship and social class’, op. cit., p. 95.

26. Buğra, ‘Philanthropy and the politics of social policy’, op. cit.

27. On the politics of social policy change in countries with mature welfare states, see P. Pierson, ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, World Politics, 48(2), 1996, pp. 143–179.

28. TURKSTAT, ‘Economic activity by years, NACE Rev’<http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1007> (accessed 20 December 2015).

29. <http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1011> (accessed 10 November 2015).

30. TURKSTAT, ‘Household labor force statistics’, 2014 <http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=2258> (accessed 8 November 2015).

31. The labour share is estimated by taking into account the share in GDP of income from self-employment as well as total compensation to employees. See ILO and OECD, The Labor Share in G20 Countries, Report prepared for the G20 Employment Working Group, Antalya, Turkey, February 2015, pp. 26–27.

32. OECD, ‘Labour force statistics’ <http://stats.oecd.org/> (accessed 8 December 2015).

33. OECD, ‘Is work the best antidote to poverty?’, OECD Employment Outlook 2009, p. 180.

34. OECD, ‘Average usual weekly hours worked on the main job’ <https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS> (accessed on 10 January 2016).

35. OECD, ‘Employees working very long hours’ <http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/how-s-life-2015_how_life-2015-en> (accessed on 10 January 2016).

36. TURKSTAT, Labor Cost Survey 2012, Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara, 2012.

37. Adaman et al., ‘Societal context of labor union strategy’, op. cit., p. 178.

38. OECD, Union density statistics <https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN#> (accessed 10 January 2016).

39. Adaman et al., ‘Societal context of labor union strategy’, op. cit.

40. OECD, ‘Labor force statistics’, http://stats.oecd.org/op. cit.

41. Official statistics for female employment might in fact be misleading since they include the beneficiaries of the transfers made for the care-at-home of the disabled as discussed later in the article.

42. ILOSTAT, Youth statistics <https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/help_home/data_by_subject?_adf.ctrl-state=okxzv3tfx_384&_afrLoop=10515452459768> (accessed 2 November 2016).

43. OECD, ‘Family database’ <http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=FAMILY> (accessed 18 January 2016).

44. World Bank, Supply and Demand for Child Care Services in Turkey: A Mixed Method Study, World Bank Group, Washington DC, 2015.

45. TURKSTAT, Women in Statistics 2012, Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara, 2012, p. 108.

46. World Bank, Supply and Demand for Child Care, op. cit. In a field study on the factors limiting female employment, the absence of daycare appeared as one of the most frequently mentioned factors. For a discussion, see A. Buğra, ‘Revisiting the Wollstonecraft dilemma in the context of conservative liberalism: the case of female employment in Turkey’, Social Politics, 21(1), 2014, pp. 148–166.

47. The total capacity of these institutions (27,913 according to the Directorate for the Services for the Disabled and the Elderly) is very limited compared the size of the population above 65 (6,192,962 according to TURKSTAT).

48. U. Gürses, ‘Eurostat: Sosyal Yardım Alanlar İstihdamda Sayılmaz’ (Eurostat: Beneficiaries of a social asistance pogram are not considered to be in employment), Radikal, 23 November 2015.

49. Particularly famous in this regard is a statement made by the then Prime Minister Erdoğan, which attracted widespread criticism from feminist activists: ‘I don’t believe that women and men are equal. Women cannot be equal because they are different’. For a theoretical discussion on the new politics of gender in the country, see D. Kandiyoti, ‘Gender and women’s studies in Turkey: a moment for reflection?’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 43, 2010, pp. 165–176.