Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
CHANGES IN HOUSEHOLD LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION:
DOES RELATIVE INCOME-POVERTY STATUS MATTER?
[VERY PRELIMINARY DRAFT – PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE, CITE OR CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION]
Serkan Değirmenci*
April 2017
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to analyze empirically whether households increase their labor force
participation against relative income-poverty in Turkey. The analyses use the cross-sectional
microdata from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) conducted by Turkish
Statistical Institute (TurkStat) in 2011. We estimate the treatment effects by using propensity
score matching (PSM) technique to isolate the impact of household relative income-poverty
status on households’ labor force participation and to control for household characteristics. The
key question here is whether poor households’ short-term changes in labor force participation
differ from non-poor households. Preliminary findings show that households living under
relative income-poverty do significantly increase their labor force participation as compared to
the matched comparison group. These findings implicate that households in Turkey respond to
the relative income-poverty risk by increasing participation into the labor market.
JEL Codes: I32, J22
Keywords: household labor force participation, relative income-poverty, Turkey

This paper is prepared as a conference proceeding for the EconAnadolu 2017.
Assist. Prof. Dr., Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,
Department of Economics, 48000, Kötekli, Muğla, Turkey; [email protected]
*
1
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
1. INTRODUCTION
Many empirical studies in the literature show that some well-known variables such as gender
roles, age, education level, as well as other demographic, social and financial characteristics of
the households are the major determinants of labor supply. However, researchers usually do not
consider that these determinants may work differently for households with different levels of
income (Eberharter, 2001; Dessing, 2002; El-Hamidi, 2004). In other words, they neglect the
significance of varying household income levels on the labor supply behavior. This gap in the
literature constitutes the main source of motivation for that paper.
Since we know that personal income (labor and/or non-labor) level plays an important role for
the individual labor supply (at the extensive or intensive margin) decisions, so the household
income level should probably have an impact on the labor supply decisions of household
members. Even, intra-household distribution of income may alter the labor supply composition
of the household. Therefore, on the one hand, we need to consider the household income level
in our estimations for the labor supply.
On the other hand, household income level enables us to detect the income–based poverty status
of a given household. By using the household income level, we can determine the relative
income-poverty status of a household. The position of the household income level with respect
to the poverty line identifies the relative income-poverty status of a household. If the household
income level is under that threshold, it means that the relevant household is living at-risk of
poverty. That also gives us a sense of understanding about the inter-household economic
inequality.
Therefore, household income level play a crucial role both on labor supply decisions of
household members and on the determination of households’ relative income-poverty statuses.
Thus, it is a common explanatory variable for each estimation.
Of course, many variables other than household income level may simultaneously affect the
labor supply of household members and the household poverty status. The vital point here is
that there is also a close relationship between household labor supply and household poverty
status. Because they interact with each other.
Outcomes of the household labor supply on the household poverty status is more
comprehensible. Except jobs with extremely low wages (e.g. subsistence wages), more the
number of household members in the labor market, less the probability of being under the
poverty line for this household (Devicienti, 2002; Andriopoulou and Tsakloglou, 2011).
However, novel question here is about the role of household poverty status on the decisions for
labor supply of household members. Whether members of a household that is living at-risk of
poverty supplies more labor to the market compared to a household living without that risk is
the major question that motivates this study.
This question may seem trivial. However, there is a common belief that poor people are poor
because they do not work enough or even the argument is that they do not want to work at all.
This paper argues that this belief about the poor people’s strong preferences for leisure is a
result of misleading reasoning due to conception of leisure as a “normal” good for all.
According to the conventional economic theory, there is a positive relationship between income
2
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
and the marginal utility of leisure. For people with high and increasing income, this may seem
plausible. However, for people with low-income levels in the first place, the additional hours
of leisure are not desirable (Prasch, 2000). Therefore, initial economic and financial conditions
of a household (endowments) should matter for labor supply (Sharif, 2000). Put it differently,
our argument is that the decision-making process of a household for participation in the labor
market depends on the initial level of the household income. Therefore, this study seeks to
analyze empirically whether households increase their labor force participation against the
relative income-poverty status.
If so, this change may not only aim to smooth decreased consumption expenditures, but also it
may aim to fix the inter-household inequality. People care about their economic statuses within
societies in which they live. They struggle not only just to survive, but also not to lag behind.
Fig. 1. Relative Income Poverty Rates (%) (Turkey) (2006-2015)
(SILC)
26,0
25,4
25,0
24,3
24,1
24,0
23,8
23,4
23,0
22,7
22,9
22,4
22,0
21,9
21,8
21,0
20,0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fig. 2. Labor Force Participation and Non-Agricultural
Unemployment Rates (%) (Turkey) (2006-2015) (HLFS)
52,0
18,0
16,0
16,0
50,0
13,7
48,0
11,3
12,3
11,1
10,3
10,9
11,2
12,0
14,0
12,4
12,0
10,0
46,0
8,0
44,0
6,0
4,0
42,0
2,0
40,0
0,0
2006
2007
2008
2009
LFPR
2010
2011
2012
2013
Non-agricultural unemployment rate
3
2014
2015
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
After 2008-09 economic crisis, relative income poverty rate dramatically decreased to 22,9
percent by 2011. Compared with the previous year (2010), relative poverty rate decreased by
almost 1% point. If we consider that a similar decline in relative income poverty rate takes five
years between 2011 and 2015, it is an astonishing recovery, (see Fig. 1).
On the other side, aggregate measures show that labor force participation rate (LFPR) increased
to 47,4 percent by 2011. In addition to that, non-agricultural unemployment rate returned its
pre-crisis levels by 2011 (see Fig. 2). Rapid increase of LFPR starting from 2008 stimulate us
to argue about the “added worker effect” (AWE) because of simultaneous increase in
unemployment rates due to crisis. Even if we can account the AWE for the increase of LFPR,
unemployment rate starts to decline in the aftermath of economic crisis but the momentum of
LFPR extends over 2011. Therefore, within the context of our paper, there are two simple
questions. First one, who are the added workers? Poor or non-poor people? Second one, who is
responsible with the increase of LFRP after the crisis?
To answer these questions, we decompose the aggregate LFPR by relative income poverty
status of households and calculate the LFPR separately for people living in poor and non-poor
households (see Fig. 3).1 We observe that LFPR of poor people increase tremendously during
the crisis period. On the contrary, in the post-crisis years LFPR of poor people drastically
decreases. Therefore, roughly, we can say that added workers should be mostly from poorhouseholds. However, in this post-crisis period (2010-2011), the reason behind increasing
aggregate LFRP should be another factor instead of the AWE. According to Fig. 3, non-poor
people’s LFPR surpasses both the poor’s LFPR and total LFPR. If the non-poor households
also have added workers, this implicates that the persistency of AWE is stronger for those
people. This observation is worth analyzing in a further empirical study.
In this study, we primarily argue that this non-AWE factor may be deteriorated relative incomepoverty statuses of households during economic crisis period and this may be one of the reasons
behind increasing aggregate LFPR between 2010 and 2011. In other words, relatively poor
households would try to smooth out the inter-household inequality by participating into the
labor market. Moreover, high economic growth rates after the crisis signal for a strong labor
demand in this period. Households would also seek to take advantage of that expansion by
participating.
This may seem to contradict with the observation above. However, this plot (Fig. 3) with raw
data may be misleading or the effect, which we propose, may not be so strong, even it may be
insignificant. Therefore, this necessitates an empirical analysis to figure out whether relative
poverty is a significant factor behind increasing labor force participation or not.
The setup for the rest of this paper is as follows: Section 2 describes the dataset used throughout
the empirical part. Section 3 first briefly covers the identification of groups (poor vs. non-poor)
used in the analysis, and then presents the preliminary empirical findings. Section 4 concludes
the discussion with some directions for further studies.
1
See appendices for the tables (Tables A1) with related statistics of each year.
4
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Fig. 3. LFPR by Relative Income Poverty (%) (2006-2011)
(SILC)
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
2006
2007
Total-LFPR
2008
2009
Poor-LFPR
2010
2011
Non-Poor LFPR
2. DATA
In order to analyze the effect of household relative income-poverty status on labor supply
decisions of household members in Turkey, we use cross-sectional micro data from the Survey
on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) conducted by TurkStat in 2011. Since SILC provides
multi-purpose data focusing heavily on income, we obtain detailed data both for the labor
market statuses of individuals and household income levels in which they live. Therefore, we
can detect the relative income-poverty status of a household considering the household income
level and identify the household members who supply labor in the market, simultaneously.
SILC covers major issues of individuals and households related with their economic status,
social exclusion, asset ownerships, education, demographic characteristics, health status, labor
market status and income status.
Sample size of the 2011 SILC is 16,565 households, 11,043 of which are living in urban and
5,522 are living in rural areas.
The reference period for income levels in the survey is the previous calendar year, so income
data of SILC 2011 belongs to the year 2010.
In the survey, household net annual disposable income is calculated as the sum of individual
disposable incomes of all household members (sum of the income in cash or in kind such as
salary-wage, daily wage, enterprises income, pension, widowed-orphan salary, old-age salary,
unpaid grants, etc.), adding the sum of annual household income from other sources (such as
real property income, unreturned benefits, incomes gained by household members aged below
15, etc.), and subtracting the taxes and regular transfer payments of other household members.
Equivalent household disposable income is calculated by dividing household disposable
income with equivalent household size. In order to find the equivalent household size, we use
“modified OECD” equivalence scale which gives a weight 1.0 to the household reference
person, 0.5 to each other household members aged 14 and over and 0.3 to each household
members aged less than 14 years old.
5
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Along the whole study, we set the poverty line as the 60 percent of median equivalent household
disposable income. Therefore, we define people/households as poor with a median equivalent
household disposable income below this line. Non-poor people/households are above that
threshold.
3. IDENTIFICATION AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
To analyze whether household labor supply decision is significantly affected by household
relative income poverty status, we estimate the average treatment effects by using propensity
score matching (PSM) technique applying the change in household labor force participation as
a dependent variable. It is 1, if the labor force participants in a household increased from 2010
to 2011, otherwise it is 0.
Independent variables are a set of individual and household-specific variables reflecting
household size, average household age, and demographic, marital, educational or health status
of the household head.
Before presenting the results of the empirical analysis, we first identify the characteristics of
poor and non-poor households in terms of labor market as well as demographic statuses of their
members. If we decompose the total population of Turkey (for 2011) with respect to the number
of employed people in the household, we readily notice that the 45,3% of all people lives in the
households with only one worker, 26,4% lives in the households with two workers, 14,3% lives
in the households with zero worker and 14,1% lives in the households with three or more
workers (see Table 1a). Moreover, average household size in Turkey is 4,6 and the average
household age is 31.
Table 1a. Number of Employed People in the Household (Total)
Total
Average
Average
Household
Household
Size
Age
3,5
45,0
Number of Employed
People in the
Household (2011)
# (000)
%
0
4.190
21,3
1
8.819
44,9
4,3
2
4.867
24,8
3
4
5+
1.205
406
172
6,1
2,1
0,9
Total
Households
19.659 100,0
Population
# (000)
%
10.320
14,3
27,3
32.762
45,3
4,6
30,0
19.121
26,4
6,1
6,9
9,8
31,2
30,3
27,2
6.194
2.508
1.473
8,6
3,5
2,0
4,6
31,0
72.378 100,0
If we focus on the distinction in terms of relative income poverty, distribution of poor people
differs than non-poor people especially for the households in which there are two workers.
Comparing Table 1b. and 1c., we may say that being a dual-earner household in Turkey
decreases the probability of being relatively poor (see Fig A1.a-A1.d). Another apparent
difference is that poor households are aged older and more crowded than non-poor households.
6
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Table 1b. Number of Employed People in the Household (Poor Households)
Number of Employed
Households
People in the
Household (2011)
# (000)
%
763
1.491
645
243
114
66
3.322
0
1
2
3
4
5+
Total
23,0
44,9
19,4
7,3
3,4
2,0
100,0
Poor Households*
Average
Average
Household
Household
Size
Age
5,5
31,5
5,7
22,8
6,1
26,0
7,8
26,9
7,9
27,9
11,3
24,9
6,3
25,7
Population
# (000)
%
2.846
7.377
3.313
1.572
777
682
16.567
17,2
44,5
20,0
9,5
4,7
4,1
100,0
Table 1c. Number of Employed People in the Household (Non-Poor Households)
Number of Employed
Households
People in the
Household (2011)
# (000)
%
3.427
7.328
4.222
962
292
106
16.337
0
1
2
3
4
5+
Total
21,0
44,9
25,8
5,9
1,8
0,6
100,0
Non-Poor Households
Average
Average
Household
Household
Size
Age
2,7
50,1
4,0
28,6
4,3
30,8
5,4
32,6
6,5
31,4
8,5
29,2
4,1
32,5
Population
# (000)
%
7.475
25.384
15.809
4.623
1.731
791
55.813
13,4
45,5
28,3
8,3
3,1
1,4
100,0
Primary poverty statistics of poor households by the number of employed people in the
households are given in Table 2. Accordingly, poverty rate of dual-earner households is the
lowest among other households. However, poverty gap is the lowest in households with four
workers.
Table 2. Poverty Rate and Poverty Gap by Number of Employed People in Poor
Households
Poor Households
Number of
Employed
People in the
Household
(2011)
0
1
2
3
4
5+
Total
Households
#
(000)
%
763
23,0
1.491 44,9
645
19,4
243
7,3
114
3,4
66
2,0
3.322 100,0
Population
#
(000)
%
2.846
7.377
3.313
1.572
777
682
16.567
17,2
44,5
20,0
9,5
4,7
4,1
100,0
Equivalised
Poverty Poverty
Household Disposable
Rate
Gap
Income (Median)
(%)
(%)
(000 TL)
27,6
22,5
17,3
25,4
31,0
46,3
22,9
7
38,0
26,5
27,4
30,6
24,7
33,1
29,2
3025,4
3589,7
3544,7
3389,6
3675,7
3266,3
3457,4
Poverty
Line
(000 TL)
4883
4883
4883
4883
4883
4883
4883
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Table 3a. Household Types by Number of Employed People in the Household (Total)
# of employed people in the household (2011)
0
1
466
367
414
0
0
0
0
782
65 years or over
711
51
0
0
0
0
762
Male
249
286
0
0
0
0
534
Female
829
180
0
0
0
0
1009
Households without dependent children
4224
Two adults, both adults younger than 65 years
1272
1855
1420
0
0
0
4548
Two adults, at least one adult aged 65 years or over
1833
461
229
0
0
0
2524
Other households without dependent children
1119
2393
2520
1518
465
165
8180
Households with dependent children
5011
Single person with at least one dependent child
595
526
40
5
0
0
1166
Two adults with one dependent child
1007
5104
2438
65
0
0
8613
Two adults with two dependent children
805
8978
3287
147
3
0
13222
Two adults with three or more dependent children
1125
6933
2578
294
106
12
11048
Other households with dependent children
1479
6042
6596
4165
1933
1295
21510
48,6
0,1
0
4710
14,4
27583
84,2
3
0,0
8
4169
14939
13
0,0
0
21,8
78,1
0,1
1518
4676
0
100,0
0,0
0
%
24,5
75,5
0,0
465
2043
0
100,0
#
(000)
1473
100,0
0,0
0
0,0
Total
#
%
(000)
72378 100,0
Less than 65 years
40,9
1,4
100,0
%
#
(000)
2508
5+
1078
7
10,4
100,0
%
#
(000)
6194
4
One person household
%
#
(000)
19121
3
Total
Unknown
100,0
#
(000)
32762
2
#
(000)
10320
%
18,5
81,5
0,0
165
1307
0
%
11,2
88,7
0,0
1544
15251
55560
23
2,1
21,1
76,8
0,0
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Table 3b. Household Types by Number of Employed People in the Household (Poor Households)
# of employed people in the household (2011)
0
1
25
18
0
0
0
0
49
65 years or over
106
7
0
0
0
0
113
Male
35
11
0
0
0
0
46
Female
102
13
0
0
0
0
116
Households without dependent children
455
Two adults, both adults younger than 65 years
92
90
69
0
0
0
252
Two adults, at least one adult aged 65 years or over
202
47
15
0
0
0
264
Other households without dependent children
161
182
152
148
95
7
746
Households with dependent children
2253
Single person with at least one dependent child
224
154
20
0
0
0
398
Two adults with one dependent child
161
411
233
10
0
0
815
Two adults with two dependent children
245
1354
367
32
3
0
2001
Two adults with three or more dependent children
809
3130
1027
200
72
12
5251
Other households with dependent children
815
1981
1428
1182
606
663
6674
79,2
0,0
0
320
4,3
7030
95,3
3
0,0
9
237
3076
0
0,0
0
7,2
92,8
0,0
148
1423
0
100,0
0,0
0
%
9,4
90,5
0,0
95
682
0
100,0
#
(000)
682
100,0
0,0
0
0,0
Total
#
%
(000)
16566 100,0
31
16,0
0,3
100,0
%
#
(000)
777
5+
Less than 65 years
0
4,8
100,0
%
#
(000)
1572
4
137
Unknown
100,0
%
#
(000)
3313
3
One person household
Total
#
(000)
7377
2
#
(000)
2846
%
12,2
87,8
0,0
7
675
0
%
1,0
99,0
0,0
162
1262
15139
3
1,0
7,6
91,4
0,0
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Table 3c. Household Types by Number of Employed People in the Household (Non-Poor Households)
# of employed people in the household (2011)
Total
0
#
(000)
7475
1
2
#
#
%
%
%
(000)
(000)
100,0 25384 100,1 15809 100,0
0
5+
100,0
100,0
#
(000)
791
0,0
0
0,0
0
%
%
Total
#
%
%
(000)
100,0 55812 100,0
941
Less than 65 years
336
397
0
0
0
0
733
65 years or over
605
44
0
0
0
0
649
Male
214
274
0
0
0
0
488
Female
727
167
0
0
0
0
894
Households without dependent children
3769
Two adults, both adults younger than 65 years
1180
1765
1350
0
0
0
4295
Two adults, at least one adult aged 65 years or over
1631
414
214
0
0
0
2259
Other households without dependent children
957
2210
2368
1369
370
159
7434
Households with dependent children
2757
Single person with at least one dependent child
371
372
20
5
0
0
768
Two adults with one dependent child
846
4693
2204
55
0
0
7798
Two adults with two dependent children
560
7624
2920
116
0
0
11220
Two adults with three or more dependent children
316
3803
1551
94
33
0
5797
Other households with dependent children
665
4060
5169
2983
1327
632
14836
Unknown
7
50,4
36,9
0,1
4390
20553
13
1,7
17,3
81,0
0,1
10
0
4
#
(000)
1731
One person household
12,6
441
3
#
(000)
4623
3932
11863
0
0,0
24,9
75,0
0,0
1369
3253
0
29,6
70,4
0,0
370
1361
0
21,4
78,6
0,0
159
632
0
0,0
20,1
79,9
0,0
1382
13989
40420
20
2,5
25,1
72,4
0,0
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Table 3 gives the distribution of household types (structures) by number of employed people in
the household. 76,8% of all population lives in the households with dependent children.
Majority of these households with children include two adults with two or more dependent
children. On the other hand, almost half of the households with children have only one worker
in the household. If we decompose the households in terms of relative income poverty status,
we may precisely describe the primary characteristics of poor households. Compared with the
non-poor households, poor households are heavily concentrated within the type of households
with dependent children (91,4%). This implies that having children increases the possibility of
being at risk of poverty for a given household. Again, households with only one worker
constitutes almost half of that type. Particularly, one-worker households with two adults and
three or more dependent children dominates the distribution of poor households. 18,9% of poor
people lives in this kind of households. This implies that having increasing number of children
(especially three or more) increases further the possibility of living in household with high risk
of relative poverty. In non-poor households, similarly the dominant household type is the
household with dependent children. However, its share is much lower than poor households.
Again, half of these households with dependent children have only one worker. In sum, we can
describe a typical household in Turkey with two adults (breadwinner male and homemaker
female) and two or more dependent children. Prominent solution to get rid of poverty seems to
have less children and/or to increase the number of workers in the household.2 More children
leads to burden by doing more housework for women and impedes the participation of women
into the labor market in a setting with traditional gender roles.
Considering these characteristics of the households in Turkey, we estimate the average
treatment effect in population (ate) by propensity score matching (PSM). By using teffects
psmatch, we estimate the average treatment effect of being poor on increased LFP. We use
logistic model here to predict each subject’s propensity score, using variables hhsize,
hh_average_age,
pref_per_less_primary,
pref_per_secondary,
pref_per_highsch,
pref_per_uni, rural, hh_head_marital, nchildren_below12, hh_head_healthy. These variables
are for household size, household average age, presence of a reference person with different
education levels (less than primary school, primary school, secondary school, high school,
university), dummy for a rural or urban settlement, marital status of the household head, number
of children aged below 12 and the health status of the household head, respectively.
Table 4 presents the estimation outcomes. According to the results, for an individual, living in
a poor household (under relative income poverty line) significantly increases the possibility of
increasing labor force participation by an average of 5%. This finding implicates that people
living in poor households in Turkey respond to the relative income-poverty risk by increasing
participation into the labor market.
Table 4. Treatment-effects Estimation (using PSM)
Treatment-effects estimation
Estimator
: propensity-score matching
Outcome model
: matching
Treatment model: logit
increased_~P
Coef.
AI Robust
Std. Err.
Number of obs
Matches: requested
min
max
z
P>|z|
=
=
=
=
56438
1
1
60
[95% Conf. Interval]
ATE
poor
(1 vs 0)
.0499171
.0116416
4.29
2
0.000
.0271
.0727342
Some studies like Cappellari and Jenkins (2002) argues that the number of workers in the household is so closely
related with the initial poverty status of the household, rather than poverty persistence.
11
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
4. CONCLUSION
This paper is an attempt to search for an alternative explanation to the behavior of individuals
who cope with economic hardships by increasing their labor force participations. We argue that
labor supply decisions of individuals are not independent from the economic status of the
households in which they live.
Starting from this argument, we identify poor and non-poor households in terms of relative
income-poverty differentiating their labor supply structures. Although, many individual and
household characteristics may play a crucial role on the labor supply decisions of households,
we show that the position of household income level also matter.
Especially, during and after the economic crisis periods, young and poor households use their
unique resource (labor) as an insurance mechanism against the shocks. Therefore, this paper
aims to analyze empirically whether households increase their labor force participation against
relative income-poverty in Turkey.
According to the preliminary empirical findings of this paper, living in a poor household (under
relative income poverty line) significantly increases the possibility of an individual to increase
his/her labor force participation by an average of 5%.
There is an ample room in the literature to investigate the household labor supply models
specifically within the context of poverty and inequality. This study hopes to stimulate new
discussions into further studies within this context.
REFERENCES
Andriopoulou, E., Tsakloglou P. (2011). The Determinants of Poverty Transitions in Europe
and the Role of Duration Dependence. IZA DP No. 5692.
Cappellari, L., Jenkins, S.P. (2002). Who stays poor? Who becomes poor? Evidence from the
British Household Panel Survey. The Economic Journal, 112, C60-C67.
Dessing, M. (2002). Labor Supply, the Family and Poverty: the S-shaped Labor Supply Curve.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49(4), 433-458.
Devicienti, F. (2002). Poverty Persistence in Britain: A Multivariate Analysis Using the BHPS,
1991-1997. Journal of Economics. 77 (Supplement 1), 307-340.
Eberharter, V. V. (2001). Gender Roles, Labour Market Participation and Household Income
Position. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,12, 235-246.
El Hamidi, F. (2004). Does Wealth Influence Women’s Labor Participation Decision?:
Evidence from Egypt. Economic Research Forum (ERF) Workshop on Gender, Work and
Family in MENA, Mahdia City, Tunisia, June 8-10, 2004.
Prasch, R. E. (2000). Reassessing the Labor Supply Curve. Journal of Economics Issues, 34(3),
679-692.
Sharif, M. (2000). Inverted "S" - The Complete Neoclassical Labour-Supply Function.
International Labour Review, 139(4), 409-435.
12
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
APPENDICES
Table A1. Labor Market Statistics by Relative Poverty Status (2006-2011)
Population
15+ Population
Not in the labor force
Labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Labor force
participation rate
67.631
48.239
24.930
23.308
21.308
2.000
People Living in Poor
Households*
17.058
10.280
5.343
4.937
4.202
735
48,3
48,0
48,4
Unemployment rate
8,6
14,9
6,9
Employment rate
44,2
40,9
45,1
People Living in NonPoor Households
52.493
40.189
20.600
19.589
18.360
1.229
2006
Total
People Living in NonPoor Households
50.573
37.959
19.588
18.371
17.106
1.266
2007
Total
Population
15+ Population
Not in the labor force
Labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Labor force
participation rate
68.477
50.051
25.666
24.385
22.468
1.917
People Living in Poor
Households*
15.984
9.862
5.066
4.796
4.108
688
48,7
48,6
48,7
Unemployment rate
Employment rate
7,9
44,9
14,3
41,7
6,3
45,7
People Living in NonPoor Households
52.472
40.325
20.453
19.872
18.471
1.401
2008
Total
Population
15+ Population
Not in the labor force
Labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Labor force
participation rate
Unemployment rate
Employment rate
69.232
50.690
25.539
25.151
23.041
2.110
People Living in Poor
Households*
16.760
10.365
5.086
5.279
4.571
708
49,6
50,9
49,3
8,4
45,5
13,4
44,1
7,1
45,8
13
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
70.542
52.682
People Living in Poor
Households*
17.050
10.953
People Living in NonPoor Households
53.492
41.729
26.227
5.299
20.928
26.455
23.473
2.982
5.654
4.774
880
20.801
18.699
2.102
50,2
51,6
49,8
11,3
44,6
15,6
43,6
10,1
44,8
71.343
52.543
People Living in Poor
Households*
16.857
10.546
People Living in NonPoor Households
54.486
41.997
25.996
5.153
20.843
26.547
24.173
2.374
5.393
4.655
738
21.154
19.518
1.636
50,5
51,1
50,4
8,9
46,0
13,7
44,1
7,7
46,5
72.377
53.424
People Living in Poor
Households*
16.565
10.422
People Living in NonPoor Households
55.812
43.002
26.472
5.357
21.115
26.952
24.758
2.194
5.065
4.321
743
21.887
20.437
1.451
50,4
48,6
50,9
8,1
46,3
14,7
41,5
6,6
47,5
2009
Total
Population
15+ Population
Not in the labor
force
Labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Labor force
participation rate
Unemployment rate
Employment rate
2010
Total
Population
15+ Population
Not in the labor
force
Labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Labor force
participation rate
Unemployment rate
Employment rate
2011
Total
Population
15+ Population
Not in the labor
force
Labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Labor force
participation rate
Unemployment rate
Employment rate
14
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Fig. A1.a Distribution of Households by Relative Poverty
(2011)
17%
83%
poor households
non-poor households
Fig. A1.b Distribution of People by Relative Poverty (2011)
23%
77%
poor people
non-poor people
Fig. A1.c Poor People by Number of Workers in the Household (2011)
17%
38%
45%
no workers
one worker
15
two or more workers
Anadolu International Conference in Economics V,
May 11-13, 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Fig. A1.d Non-Poor People by Number of Workers in the Household
(2011)
13%
41%
46%
no workers
one worker
16
two or more workers