Structural Transformation, Income Inequality, and Employment Linkages in Turkey’s Regions
Emine Tahsin, Furkan BörüDuring the post-2001 period of Turkey, the services, industry and agricultural sectors’ employment and value added share have undergone significant changes. The main purpose of this study is to investigate structuralist transformation at a regional level for Turkey and set up links between structural transformation and income inequality for the years between 2006 and 2018. In this context, primarily, sectoral shifts in employment share has been analysed by using shift share analysis at NUTS-1 level. Secondly, a fixed effects panel data model has been implemented for the analysis of linkages between income inequality and sectoral employment shares. The first conclusion is that, Turkey’s region has undergone structural transformation meanwhile deindustrialization is accompanied by tertiarisation. The greatest increase has been realised in the service employment share and the industry has become of secondary importance. The second main conclusion is related with the linkages between income inequality and sectoral employment shares. At NUTS-1 level, the relation between the industrial employment share and income inequality is found to be weak. Additionally, the share of service employment is found to be significant in determining income inequality data. Briefly the service employment share has consequences that have a negative impact on income equality.
Türkiye Bölgelerinde Yapısal Dönüşüm, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve İstihdam Bağlantıları
Emine Tahsin, Furkan BörüGelişmekte olan ülkeler grubu içinde yer alan Türkiye’de, hizmetler, sanayi ve tarım sektörlerinin yarattığı istihdam ve katma değerde, 2001 yılı sonrası dönemde önemli değişimler meydana gelmiştir. Meydana gelen bu değişimler, gelir dağılımı üzerinde de önemli etkiler yaratmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2006 ve 2018 arasındaki dönemde, Türkiye’de gerçekleşen bu yapısal dönüşüm sürecini bölgesel düzeyde analiz etmek ve bu yapısal dönüşüm süreci ile gelir eşitsizliği arasında bulunan ilişkileri incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, ilk olarak, 2006 ile 2018 yılları arasındaki dönemde, Türkiye’de gerçekleşen istihdam değişiminin NUTS-1 düzeyinde sektörel bazlı analizi, shifts share (pay değişim analizi) yöntemi kullanılarak yapılmıştır. İkinci aşamada ise, panel veri yöntemi yardımıyla, gelir eşitsizliği ile sanayi ve hizmet istihdamı arasındaki ilişkiler araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın ulaştığı ilk önemli sonuç, 2006 ile 2018 döneminde, Türkiye bölgelerinin sanayisizleşme sürecine eşlik eden hizmetleşme sürecine doğru bir yapısal dönüşüm geçirdiğidir. En fazla istihdam artışının hizmetler sektöründe yaşandığı bu dönemde, sanayi sektörü ikinci planda kalmıştır. Çalışmanın ulaştığı ikinci önemli sonuç, Türkiye’nin ilgili dönemde geçirdiği bu yapısal dönüşüm süreci ile gelir eşitsizliği arasında bulunan ilişki ile ilgilidir. 2006 ile 2018 yılları arasında, sanayi istihdamının gelir eşitsizliği verilerini belirleme gücünün zayıflamış, hizmet istihdamının ise kuvvetlenmiştir. Hizmet istihdamı, gelir eşitsizliğini artıran sonuçlara neden olmaktadır.
During the post-2001 period of Turkey, it is observed that the services industry and agricultural sectors’ employment and value added share have undergone significant changes. As a matter of fact, these changes have had a detrimental effect on income inequality data. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the structural transformation process at a regional level for Turkey and set up links between structural transformation and income inequality for the years between 2006 and 2018. In doing so, recent empirical evidence that investigate the relation between sectoral shifts and income inequality will be considered. Especially after the 1990s, it is observed that patterns of structural transformation for the developing countries have consequences that are different from Kuznets’ hypothesis. Given that it would be suggested that shifts in sectoral employment share determine the path of structural transformation and income inequality dynamics differ from the traditional Kuznets’ inverse -Urelation. It is observed that in structurally developing countries’ shifts from agricultural employment to service employment is more common, whereas shifts from agricultural employment to manufacturing employment have stagnated. As a consequence of these, it is expected that deindustrialization and tertiarisation affect income inequality dynamics differently. It is clear that the manufacturing employment share has a positive effect on income inequality and Kuznets’ hypothesis is more likely found to be valid for the service sector’s employment share. Turkey is among the specific countries that has also gone structural transformation meanwhile deindustrialisation accompanies this structural transformation phase. As structural transformation and income inequality dynamics have been investigated for the post-2001 period, it is found that non-tradable sectors are more likely to affect the inequality and poverty rate. However, the relation between the sectoral employment share and income inequality at regional level need to be investigated in detail. In regard to these, it is suggested that at regional level structural transformation might have different dynamics. In this context, primarily, sectoral shifts in employment has been analysed by using shift share analysis at NUTS-1 level. The main evidence of the shift share analysis lead us to classify the structural transformation path of the regions and sectoral shifts related to the employment share. Secondly, a fixed effects panel data model was implemented for the empirical analysis of linkages between income inequality and sectoral employment shares. In doing so, the Gini coefficient, the share of the bottom 40 percent (D1-D4) and the ratio of non-poor have been estimated as income inequality data. The Gini coefficient and the D1-D4 income share data have been defined as dependent variables whereas sectoral employment share and household mean income and non-poor ratio have been utilised as dependent variables. It is assumed that the economy has either industry or service led growth and given that linkages between sectoral employment shares and income inequality have been estimated. The first conclusion is that, for the given period, Turkey’s region has gone structural transformation meanwhile deindustrialization is accompanied by tertiarisation. The greatest increase has been realised in the service employment share and the industry has become of secondary importance. Besides these, it could be suggested that the pattern of structural transformation is not homogenous at a regional level. Significantly shifts from the agricultural employment to the service employment could even become more important. Rather than there being an increase in the share of industry’s employment, stagnation in employment creation is suggested to be more critical. The second main conclusion of the analysis is related to the linkages between income inequality and the sectoral employment share. At NUTS-1 level during this period the relation between the industrial employment share and income inequality is found to be weak. Additionally, the share of service employment is found to be significant in determining income inequality data. The Gini coefficient has -U- relation with the service employment share and an opposite trend could be estimated for the D1-D4 income deciles. Briefly, the service sector’s employment share has consequences that have a negative impact on income equality. As a whole, the structural transformation of Turkey’s regions at NUTS-1 level indicate opposite trends from the traditional Kuznets’ inverse -U- hypothesis.