World Bank Document
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Report No. 24185-TR Report No. 24185-TR Turkey Poverty and Coping After Crises (In Two Volumes) Volume I: Main Report Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized July 28, 2003 Human Development Unit Europe and Central Asia Region Turkey and Coping Poverty Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized After Crises I Volume Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Document of the World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Turkey: Poverty and Coping After Crises Currency Equivalents Exchange Rate Effective = September 1,2001 Currency Unit = Turkish Lira (TL) US$ 1 = TL 1,500,000 Government Fiscal Year January 1- December 3 1 Weights and Measures Metric System Abbreviations and Acronyms BK Bag-Kur CPI Consumer Price Index DIE State Institute of Statistics ES Emekli Sandigi FA0 (UN) Food and Agncultural Organization HCIS Household Consumption and Income Survey HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey LSA Living Standards Assessment PPP Purchasing Power Parity SRMP Social Risk Mitigation Project SSK Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu SHCEK Social Services and Child Protection Organization SYDTF Social Solidarity Fund SYDV(s) Social Solidarity Foundation(s) Vice President: Johannes Linn (ECAVP) Country Director: Ajay Chhibber (ECCU6) Sector Director: Annette Dixon (ECSHD) Sector Manager: Michal Rutkowski (ECSHD) Team Members: Jeanine Braithwaite (Team Leader), John Innes, Jennifer Manghinang (ECSHD); Mathew Verghis (ECSPE); Diane Steele (DECRG); Ayge Ayata, Sencer Ayata, Tahire Erman, Kivilcim Ozcan, Y. Ziya Ozcan (Consultants). Preface and Acknowledgements The team is gratehl for comments received from Laura Rawlings, Emil Tesliuc, Sally Zeijlon, State Institute of Statistics, State Planning Organization, Social Solidarity Fund, and Undersecretariat ofthe Treasury. The research on which this report is based was not undertaken by any Turkish Government agency, and thus the Government does not confirm the findings ofthis report, although the Government has agreed to the publication ofthe report. Government agencies have commented on this report, expressing concerns about the validity ofthe findings, particularly for rural areas, and concerns about the sample and especially the method used to reduce the sample (see Annex 1 to the main report). The World Bank will publish the questionnaire, data document including description of created variables, and the data on its webpage: http://www.worldbank.org/lsms/lsmshome.html Table of contents Abbreviations and Accronyms Preface and Acknowledgements Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i 1. Data and Methodology ................................................................................................... 1 2 . Macroeconomic analysis ................................................................................................ 5 3 . Extreme poverty............................................................................................................ 11 4 . Urban food poverty ....................................................................................................... 13 5 . Vulnerability ................................................................................................................. 23 6 . Inequality ...................................................................................................................... 25 7 . Risk mitigation, risk coping, and risk reduction among the poor ................................. 26 8 . Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 45 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 49 Annex 1. On the HCIS sample ......................................................................................... 50 Annex 2 . Text Tables ....................................................................................................... 52 Executive Summary Turkey experienced severe losses of life and infrastructure in 1999 caused by the August earthquake. The earthquake was followed by a period of economic and financial crisis, culminating in a major currency devaluation in February 2001. What has been the social impact of these crises? In order to answer that question, the World Bank and the Government ofJapan co-financed a household survey during the summer of2001, which consisted of surveying 4200 households on their consumption and income, and interviewing 120 respondents in depth for case studies. There are more than the usual problems ofcomparing data taken from two very different surveys in 1994 and 2001. This study seeks to answer three main questions: how many are poor in Turkey in 2001; who are the poor and why are they poor?; and how do the poor cope with risk and poverty?. The main findings are: Extreme poverty ($1 per person per day) is basically unchanged since 1994 and remains quite low by international standards. Urban poverty (food consumption standard) increased since 1994. Inequality was unchanged, remaining at high levels by international standards. Coping mechanisms ofthe poor, especially relying on relatives and neighbors for in-kind and cash assistance, came under stress and the poor reported a decrease in assistance from these traditional channels. Informal employment, an important mainstay of the poor, was reduced as a consequence ofthe crises. In spite of their reluctance, some of the poor were forced to either pull their children from school or have them attend less, for lack ofresources to cover out- of-pocket expenditures and informal earnings from child labor. Idiosyncratic shocks such as major illnesses, were the least prepared for and most difficult for the poor to handle, after the daily task offeeding the family was met. People in general felt that they were worse offin 2001. The major effect of the crises has been an increase in poverty in urban areas of Turkey from 1994 to 2001. Extreme poverty in all of Turkey has not changed, and remains at low levels, but inequality is also unchanged at quite high levels. A relatively large share (nearly one-fifth) of the urban population has consumption below a food standard, and qualitative evidence indicates that poverty has worsened in rural areas as well. There are two main definitions of poverty used in this report. Extreme poverty is defined for the portion of the population with per capita consumption underneath the World Bank’s extreme purchasing power parity poverty line ofUS$ 1 per person per day. Urban food poverty is defined as those in urban areas with equivalent consumption below the cost of a food basket. The poor have been particularly impacted by a reduction in seasonal and informal employment opportunities in the urbanized areas, and some men are returning to their rural villages because they can not earn enough in the cities to cover their costs. The i primary coping strategy of the poor has been to reduce consumption, particularly consumption offood and quality of food consumed, but there are also indications that the poor may have to cut back on education expenses and withdraw children from school. The poor rely strongly on networks of extended family, friends, neighbors, and hemjeri (people of same place of origin), but these networks are strained to the limit by the covariate macroeconomic shocks experienced in 1999 (earthquake) and 2000-2001 (financial crisis). Other important coping strategies of the poor have also come under stress as a result of the crises. Multiple job holding has been curtailed by the reduction in seasonal and informal employment. The poor have been much less able to invest in physical assets or in their own human capital. Social capital, which is an extremely important aspect o f t raditional T urkish s ociety, h as c ome under s train a s t he p oor c an n o 1onger afford to attend traditional reciprocity events such as weddings. The poor are not positioned to sell their assets--nor is there much demand for them. Borrowing from neighbors is a strategy used across the income spectrum-50 percent ofurban households and nearly 60 percent ofrural households reported that they had borrowed in the previous nine months. Religious charity helps some of the poor, but it is episodic and does not cover needs sufficiently. As a last resort, the poor have sent their children out to work. Although the Government does finance ad hoc social assistance for the poor, this assistance is too partial to meet the needs and is not that well-targeted to the poorest. In recognition of the impact of the crises, in August 2001, the Turkish government transferred substantial resources to the Social Solidarity Fund (SYDTF) to finance back- to-school packs for 1.05 million poor children (TL 50 million per child). Additionally, the SYDTF expanded its food and fuel assistance for the winter. These measures, while important, were limited to a single payment. Recognizing that the poor needed more systematic assistance, the Government decided to adopt a new social assistance benefit- conditional cash transfers (CCT) which would be paid on a regular basis. The Government is also seeking to expand the traditional activities ofthe SYDTF in terms ofmicro-projects and adult literacy efforts as it recognizes that demand for these activities exceeded supply. Finally, the Government intends to monitor poverty with more frequently household surveys,