• Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2016-2017: “İşsizlik Yok, İş Beğenmeme var!”: Farklı Aktörlerin Gözünden Genç İşsizliği Nedenlerini Anlamak
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2016-2017: İnsancıl Eylem (Humanitarian Action): Meseleler, Tartışmalar, Pratikler
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2016-2017: Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Türkiye’de Vergi ve Siyaset: Karşılaştırmalı Yaklaşımlar
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2016-2017: The button: elders and the caring city in Turkey
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2016-2017: Popülizm ve Sosyal Politika
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2015-2016: Türkiyenin İltica Sistemi
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2015-2016: Dünden Bugüne Türkiye'de Sendikacılık ve Toplu Pazarlık: Eğilimler-Sorunlar
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2015-2016: Rethinking Environment-Agriculture Nexus: The Politics of Agricultural Biodiversity Conservation in Turkey
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2015-2016: The Impact of Public Investment in Social Care Services on Employment, Gender Equality and Poverty: The Turkish Case
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2015-2016: The Political Payoffs of Allocating Conditional Cash Transfers in Turkey
  • Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2015-2016: UNDP and the Making of Human Development as the Global Development Paradigm from 1990
  • LGBT’lerin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Sorunlarına Kuramsal ve Karşılaştırmalı Bakışlar
  • The Ayotzinapa Killings: Mexico’s Crisis of Representation
  • Türkiye’de LGBTİ Bireylerin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Sorunları
  • Neoliberalleşmenin Yerel Dinamikleri: Ölçek Literatürü ile Gaziantep ve Diyarbakır’ı Anlamak
  • Toplumsal Ağların Almanya'daki Göçmen Öğrencilerin Eğitim Performansındaki Rolü
  • 2008 Krizi ve Yeniden Sanayileşen Amerika'da Sınıf
  • Constitutions and the Constitution-making Process
  • Global and regional struggles of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans) rights activists
  • All About Priorities: Is There School Choice in the Presence of Bad Schools?
  • LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans) Issues in the United States
  • Capital Accumulation and the Sources of Demographic Change
  • Constitutional Revolutions and Counter Revolutions
  • The Fiscal Crisis and Welfare Benefits in the UK:Big Cuts and Radical Reforms
  • Europeanization of Welfare: Paradigm Shifts and Social Policy Reforms
  • Work, Labor, and Social Power: Reflections on Political Economy
  • A Comparative Analysis of Welfare Regimes in the South: The social origins of social assistance outside of the established democracies
  • Etkinlikler/ Seminerler / Sosyal Politika Seminerleri 2015-2016: The Political Payoffs of Allocating Conditional Cash Transfers in Turkey

    Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Politika Yüksek Lisans Programı 'nın SPL 579 Seminer Dersi kapsamındaki etkinlik herkese açıktır.

    Program detayları:

    Boğaziçi University
    Master of Arts in Social Policy
    SPL 579 (Graduate Seminar)

     

    Dr. Gökçe Baykal

    (Research Associate, Development Analytics)

    “The Political Payoffs of Allocating Conditional Cash Transfers in Turkey”

     

    March 24 (Thursday), 2016

    15.00-17.00

     Social Policy Forum

    (Kuzey Campus, KPark Building Room 119)

     

    This paper analyzes the political consequences of a poverty alleviation program in Turkey called conditional cash transfers, with an emphasis both on macro and micro level. The purpose of the paper is two-fold: first, to investigate whether the allocation of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) between 2003-2008 in Turkey followed technocratic, objective “need” criteria or more political criteria, especially distortion towards Kurdish people; second, whether transferring benefits to poor people increase their social participation and empower the beneficiaries. Drawn by both quantitative and qualitative research methods, regression results suggest a preponderance of the technocratic criteria, which provides strong evidence that CCTs in Turkey were distributed in a programmatic way. On the political side, however, there was some evidence that the incumbent AKP also rewarded districts where support for the AKP had increased, but this relationship was not very strong. The strongest political determinant of CCT coverage was the past electoral success of Kurdish parties. In fact, the comparison between Kurdish populated and non-Kurdish populated districts with similar poverty levels shows that the vote share of the Kurdish party was still a significant predictor of CCT levels, which means that pro-Kurdish districts received more CCTs than districts of similar poverty levels. As it is mentioned above, this paper also looks how the Kurdish beneficiaries make responses towards getting CCT transfers. The fieldwork conducted in Diyarbakir with Kurdish beneficiaries show that due to the lack of CCT requirements for increased social participation and active engagement with society among beneficiaries, the CCT program does not have a transformative impact on the enhancement of citizenship and the empowerment of women for the Kurdish community. Rather, more politicized groups, as the Kurdish people, view the benefit as their social right due to state’s inefficiency in creating jobs in the eastern part of Turkey and their uneasy relations with the state. 

     

     

    About Gökçe Baykal:

     

     

    Gökçe Baykal is a social policy consultant affiliated with Development Analytics and adjunct professor at Bogazici University.  She holds a master’s degree in politics from New York University and a doctoral degree in Political Science Department at Rutgers University. Her dissertation focuses on the political and socioeconomic impacts of the poverty alleviation programs on poor people. Specifically, her work investigates whether transferring conditional cash with conditions to the poor empower their social citizenship or produce/reproduce linkages, their obligations to reciprocate in terms of supporting the political party allocating them.  Most recently, she has been working on a collaborated project funded by Global Development Network (GDN) investigating whether conditional transfers are politically acceptable form of redistribution, comparing Turkey, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay.