Time Deficits and Poverty: The Levy Institute Measure of Time and
Consumption Poverty for Turkey
Ajit Zacharias and Thomas Masterson, Levy Economics Institute of Bard CollegeEmel Memiş, Ankara University and Levy
Economics Institute of Bard College
Prepared for the conference “New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement”
Ankara, February 20, 2014
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 2
Outline
• Motivation of Project• Theoretical Framework and Data• Results• Conclusions
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 3
Why a Time – Income Nexus I
• Poverty lines are supposed to reflect the command over a minimum quantity of goods and services that is necessary for survival
• A certain minimum quantity of time must be devoted to household production for the typical household to reproduce itself as a unit
• US thresholds implicitly assumed “that a household with income equal to the poverty standard must have a person working full time in the home to be nonpoor” (Clair Vickery 1977: 30)
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 4
Why a Time – Income Nexus II
• The time requirement for household production must be explicitly taken into account because some households may not be able to meet that requirement and may not have sufficient income to purchase the requisite market substitutes
• For such households, the standard poverty lines do not represent the command over a minimum quantity of goods and services
• Ignoring time deficits leads to inconsistency: thresholds presuppose the time requirement but the definition of resources ignores time availability
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 5
Time allocation
The subscript denotes individual in household .
= minimum substitutable household production required to subsist with the poverty-level of income.
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 6
Minimum required time for personal maintenance and nonsubstitutable household activities• Average weekly hours
by persons 18 to 70 years– Time for personal care
(time-use data)– Time for minimum
leisure and nonsubstitutable activities (assumptions)
Urban Rural
Personal maintenance 89 87
Personal care 79 77
Necessary minimum leisure 10 10
Nonsubstitutable household activities 7 7
Total 96 94
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 7
Poverty-level household production requirements I
• Households differentiated by the number of adults and children (12 groups); and rural/urban location
• Average weekly hours of household production for households that have – Consumption near the official poverty line, so as to
gauge poverty-level time requirements; – At least one nonemployed adult present, so as to
ensure that the requirements are derived from households that are not as likely to be suffering from time deficits.
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 8
Poverty-level household production requirements II (time-use data)
No child1 child
2 children3+ childrenNumber of children
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1 adult
2 adults
3+ adults
2034
43 47
4357 60 64
62
76 80
96
Urban
1 adult 2 adults 3+ adults
No child1 child
2 children3+ childrenNumber of children
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1 adult
2 adults
3+ adults
21
4253 54
4960 67 71
8088
95
123
Rural
1 adult 2 adults 3+ adults
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 9
Person’s share in the total hours of household production (percent), persons 18 to 70 years
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 10
Time deficit and consumption poverty
household time deficit
The subscript denotes individual in household .
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 11
Two-dimensional poverty measure
Household: Consumption-poor if household consumption is less than the consumption poverty threshold adjusted by the time deficit; time-poor if any of the members have a time deficit.
Individual: Consumption-poor if household consumption is less than the consumption poverty threshold adjusted by the time deficit; time-poor if she has a time deficit.
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 12
Empirical methodology I : statistical matching
Survey subject Name Sample size
Income and Expenditure
HANEHALKI BÜTÇE ANKETİ - MİKRO VERİ SETİ, 2006 (HBA)
34,939 persons in 8,556 households. There were 24,867 individuals aged 15 years or older.
Time-use
ZAMAN KULLANIM ANKETİ - MİKRO VERİ SETİ, 2006 (ZKA)
16,413 persons in 4,345 households. Completed time diaries were available for 10,893 individuals that were 15 years or older.
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 13
Empirical methodology II : Valuing time deficits, poverty line and consumption
• Valuing time deficit– No data on domestic workers– Average hourly wage of workers "similar" to domestic workers
(HBA)– 3.48 liras nationally; 4.14 liras for urban and 2.54 for rural areas
• Poverty line – Average caloric norm for adults (2450 kcal)– Official equivalence scale– Average values: 404 for 1-person HH, 611 for 2-person HH, 911 for
4-person HH etc.• Consumption expenditures
– Official definition (excludes durables)
Time and Consumption Poverty in Turkey: Key Findings
Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 15
Consumption poverty rate of households: Official and LIMTCP (percent)
Urban Rural All
17(1,875)
39 (2,359)
24 (4,234)26 (2,869)
51 (3,117)
35 (5,986)
Official LIMTCP
16Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş
Poverty of individuals: Official versus LIMTCP
Rate (percent) Number (thousands)
Official LIMTCP Hidden poor Official LIMTCP Hidden poor
TURKEY 30 40 11 21,406 29,035 7,629
Men 24 35 11 5,342 7,670 2,328
Women 26 36 10 6,243 8,722 2,480
Children 38 49 11 9,822 12,643 2,822
URBAN 20 30 10 9,225 13,546 4,320
Men 16 26 9 2,295 3,582 1,287
Women 17 26 9 2,667 4,030 1,363
Children 27 38 11 4,263 5,934 1,670
RURAL 45 58 12 12,181 15,490 3,309
Men 38 51 13 3,047 4,088 1,041
Women 40 53 13 3,576 4,692 1,116
Children 56 67 12 5,558 6,710 1,152
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 18
Ratio of LIMTCP to official consumption deficit
Official Income Poor, Time Poor Official Income Poor0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Urban Rural All Households
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 20
Type of time poverty by sex and location (percent distribution and the number of time-poor
persons in millions)
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Men
Wom
en
5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95%Men Urban Men Rural Women Urban Women Rural
Employ-ment time-bind
3.5714276143 1.72535321599999
1.42280398 1.78215276200001
House-work time-bind
0.0104375089 0.016916992 0.376084480000003
0.5153469376
Double time-bind
0.0172758768 0.057409792 0.0376451750000003
0.364416300400002
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 21
Time poverty rates of individuals in time-poor households by sex and consumption poverty status
All Employed
TurkeyNonpoor
Men 21 29Women 12 48
PoorMen 34 42
Women 32 68
UrbanNonpoor
Men 21 29Women 11 48
PoorMen 33 42
Women 21 68
RuralNonpoor
Men 19 24Women 18 42
PoorMen 29 34
Women 44 67
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 22
Incidence of time poverty by weekly hours of employment and sex (percent)
Less than 20 21 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 60 61+0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Urban MenRural MenUrban WomenRural Women
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 23
Weekly hours of required household production, by weekly hours of employment and sex
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men WomenLess than 20 21 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 60 61+
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
UrbanRuralTurkey
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 25
Ratio of monetized value of time deficit to earnings, by sex and earnings quintile
(median value of ratio x 100)
Bottom Second Middle Fourth Top0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Urban Men Urban Women Rural Men Rural Women
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 27
Wage/salary earner
Casual Self-employed Unpaid family worker
All persons0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
OfficialLIMTCP
Poverty rate of employed persons by status in employment (percent): Official vs. LIMTCP
Employment Simulations for the LIMTCP 2006 for Turkey
Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 29
Outline• Methodology• Results for individuals • Results for households• Conclusions
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 30
Probable-hours work simulation• What will be the picture of consumption and time poverty if every
employable adult who is currently non-employed in consumption-poor households were to work under the existing pattern of employment and earnings?
• Household income and thus consumption would increase in households with employable adults
• The time allocation of individuals in households with employable adults would change
• Some of the newly employed adults and their household members may face increased time deficits
• The increase in household consumption due to increased earnings would be offset to some extent by increases in time deficits
Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University)
31
• A = Available time; Lf = Full-time work; Y0 = Standard consumption poverty line;• y0CD = LIMTIP poverty line• Z = Observed position of the household (consumption-poor, time-nonpoor)
Effects of employment
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 32
Probable-hours work simulation
• Outline of method1. Assign most likely jobs (earnings and usual
weekly hours) to eligible non-working adults in consumption-poor households
2. Re-assign household production hours to all adult members of households with job recipients
3. Adjust household consumption expenditures for households with job recipients
4. Re-calculate LIMTCP for all recipient households
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 33
Actual and simulated time-adjustedpoverty rates for all adults (percent)
Argentina Chile Korea Mexico Turkey0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
11.1
17.8
8.2
50.0
35.9
6.510.9
6.4
39.4
25.8
Actual Simulation
Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University)
34
Actual and simulated time and consumption poverty rates for all individuals (percent)
Urban Rural Total0
10
20
30
40
50
60
25.6
51.1
34.6
16.8
40.8
25.2
Actual Simulation
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 35
Sex and time poverty status of consumption poor adults
Distribution according to time and consumption poverty after simulation
Time and consumption-poor
Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor
Time-poor and consumption-
nonpoor
Time-nonpoor and consumption-
nonpoorTotal
Male
Time-poor 74.01 6.02 15.93 4.05 80.7 4.28 61.1 6.47 31.15
Time-nonpoor 8 60.9 4.59 26.51 19.3 95.72 38.9 93.53 68.85
All consumption-poor 28.56 43.81 8.12 19.51
Female
Time-poor 82.38 5.99 7.49 4.14 56.14 6.32 17.12 7.76 29.53
Time-nonpoor 26.97 37.22 15.19 20.62 43.86 93.68 82.88 92.24 70.47
All comsumption-poor 43.33 28 12.92 15.75
Post-simulation time and consumption poverty status of consumption-poor adults (aged 15 to 70) by sex
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 36
Turkey Rural Urban0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
17
26
11
59 6157
Official LIMTCP
Post-simulation poverty rates of recipient households Official versus LIMTCP
Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University)
37
Time and consumption poverty status of rural households from actual to simulation (percent)
Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty
Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation
Time and consumption-poor
Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor
Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor
Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor
Total
Time and consumption-poor 31.6% 0.2% 3.7% 0.5% 35.9%
Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor 5.9% 3.1% 4.6% 1.6% 15.2%
Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor 19.7% 19.7%
Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor 29.2% 29.2%
Total 37.5% 3.3% 28.0% 31.2% 100.0%
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 38
Time and consumption poverty status of urban households from actual to simulation (percent)
Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty
Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation
Time and consumption-poor
Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor
Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor
Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor
Total
Time and consumption-poor 11.1% 0.0% 3.9% 0.3% 15.2%
Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor 4.7% 1.0% 3.3% 1.5% 10.4%
Time-poor and consumption-nonpoor 26.4% 26.4%
Time-nonpoor and consumption-nonpoor 47.9% 47.9%
Total 15.8% 1.0% 33.6% 49.7% 100.0%
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 39
Time and consumption poverty status of recipient households from actual to simulation (percent)
Distribution of households according to time and consumption poverty
Distribution of recipient households according to time and consumption poverty, after simulation
Time and consumption-poor
Time-nonpoor and
consumption-poor
Time-poor and consumption-
nonpoor
Time-nonpoor and
consumption-nonpoor
Total
Time and consumption-poor 33.6% 0.3% 16.7% 1.5% 52.0%
Time-nonpoor and consumption-poor 22.6% 2.4% 16.4% 6.7% 48.0%
Total 56.2% 2.7% 33.0% 8.1% 100.0%
Zacharias and Masterson (Levy Institute), Emel Memiş (Ankara University)
40
Understanding the hard-core poor
• Households with no additional employable adults (18 to 70 years old)– 72.5 percent of hard-core poor households (89.7 percent in urban
areas and 58.8 percent in rural areas)– Why do they have no additional employable adults?
• Disabled, retired, in school, or in the military (minor factor)• Already employed (94.4 percent of all adults in hard-core poor households)
• Households with additional employable adults– Additional earnings are insufficient to close the income poverty gap– Why?– Existing patterns of pay are heavily biased against people with
characteristics of the additional employable adults in hard-core poor households
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 41
Job Recipients in hard-core poor households, by sex, education and area
Male Female Male FemaleUrban Rural
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
Less than primary Primary school Middle schoolHigh school College
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 42
Summary
• Employment does offer a way out of consumption poverty for some households
• Many households already have all adults employed
• Most of the non-employed adults in consumption-poor households are unlikely to get a good-paying job
Cross-Country Comparisons
Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 44
Comparisons I: Official vs. adjusted poverty rate of households
Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Turkey0
10
20
30
40
50
60
611
41
3
24
11
18
50
8
35
OfficialAdjusted
Perc
ent
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 45
Comparisons II: Factors behind hidden poverty rate
Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Turkey
LIMTIP minus official poverty rate (percentage points) 5 7 9 5 10
Time-poor and offically nonpoor/All (percent) 49 55 40 56 34
Hidden poor/Time-poor and officially nonpoor (percent) 10 13 22 9 30
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 46
Comparisons III: Understatement of poverty gap (Official estimate as a percentage of adjusted estimate)
Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Turkey0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
68 66
77
56 58
Offi
cial
/Adj
uste
d (p
erce
nt)
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 47
Comparisons IV: Time poverty rates of households by poverty status (percent)
Argentina Chile Mexico Korea Turkey0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
PoorNonpoorAll
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 48
Comparisons V: Employment rates of women and men by poverty status (percent)
Argentina
Chile
Mexico
Korea
Turkey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Women
NonpoorPoor
Argentina
Chile
Mexico
Korea
Turkey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Men
NonpoorPoor
Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş 49
Comparisons VI: Time poverty rates of employed men and women by poverty status (percent)
Argentina
Chile
Mexico
Korea
Turkey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Women
NonpoorPoor
Argentina
Chile
Mexico
Korea
Turkey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Men
NonpoorPoor
Policy Considerations
Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
51Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş
Policy considerations I
– Interlocking of time and consumption poverty requires an integrated approach• providing employment opportunities, • achieving decent work conditions, • widespread public provisioning of social care services • social policies to achieve poverty reduction
52Zacharias, Masterson and Memiş
Policy considerations II
– Expanding employment opportunities for women• Structural issues• Legislations..
– Lower hours of employment and higher earnings
– Public provisioning of social care services as a support for employment
– Active social assistance
Concluding Remarks
Prepared for the New Perspectives on Poverty Measurement Conference at Ankara University, Ankara, 20 February, 2014
Top Related