Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Bakım Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Bakım Emeği

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2, 455 - 465, 27.12.2023
https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.1228210

Öz

Bu makalede bakım emeğini etkileyen toplumsal koşullar teorik çerçevede ele alınmaktadır. Bakım emeği insanın hayatta kalmak için ihtiyaç duyduğu temel desteği sağlar. Çocukluktan yetişkinliğe, hastalıktan yaşlılığa hayatın birçok noktasında hem bireyleri hem toplumları ayakta tutar ve bu şekilde iktisadi bir değer üretir. Toplumsal alanların özel alan ve kamusal alan olarak ayrılmasıyla birlikte bakım emeği de ücretli emek ve ücretsiz emek olarak ayrılmıştır. Her iki alanda da bakım emeği büyük ölçüde kadın emeğidir. Bu makalede bu durumun toplumsal arka planına odaklanılmaktadır. Bakım emeğinin nasıl tanımlandığı; hangi toplumsal anlamlar çerçevesinde anlamlandırıldığı; duygusal, fiziksel ve toplumsal sınırları; doğrudan ve dolaylı yönleri tartışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda ikinci olarak bakım emeğinde kritik rol oynayan refah rejimleri ile bakım rejimlerinin türleri incelenmiştir. Ardından Türkiye’deki bakım emeğinin durumu ele alınmaktadır. Esping-Andersen’in klasikleşmiş olan refah rejimleri sınıflaması, emeğin toplumsal cinsiyeti boyutuyla gözden geçirilmiştir. Böylelikle refah rejimleri temelinde farklı biçimlerde şekillenmiş bakım rejimleri sınıflamaları yapılmıştır. Bu rejimlerde sosyal politikaların, piyasa hizmetlerinin, sivil toplumun ve ailenin rollerinin nasıl bir sistem içerisinde eklemlendiği, belirleyicidir. Bu sınıflamalar çerçevesinde Türkiye’nin konumu ele alınmaktadır. Türkiye’nin refah rejimi İtalya, Yunanistan, Portekiz gibi Güney Avrupa ülkeleri ile benzerlik göstermektedir. Türkiye’deki mevcut bakım politikalarının aile içi bakım emeğinin yardımlarla desteklenmesi ilkesine dayandığı görülmektedir. Öte yandan bakım alanında bir başka hizmet sağlayıcı olan piyasa tarafından sunulan hizmetlerin kayıt dışılığı ve düzensizliği nitelik sorununu gündeme getirmektedir. Son olarak ailedeki geleneksel cinsiyet rolleri ve kadın istihdamının düşük olması bakım emeğinin aile içerisinde kalmasına yol açmaktadır. Bütün bunlar, Türkiye’de bakımın ücretsiz, hane içi, “doğal olarak duygusal” olan kadın rolü olarak sürmesinde, görünmez kalmasında etkili olan başlıca özelliklerdir.

Destekleyen Kurum

Destekleyen kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Kaynakça

  • Addati, L., Cattaneo, U., Esquivel, V., & Valarino, I. (2018). Care work and care jobs for the future of decent work. International Labor Organization.
  • Akalın, A. (2007). Hired as a caregiver, demanded as a housewife: Becoming a migrant domestic worker in Turkey. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 14(3), 209-225.
  • Akkan, B. (2018). The politics of care in Turkey: Sacred familialism in a changing political context. Social Politics, 25(1), 72-91.
  • Anttonen, A., & Sipilä, J. (1996). European social care services: Is it possible to identify models? Journal of European Social Policy, 6(2), 87-100.
  • Antonopoulos, R. (2008). The unpaid care workpaid work connection, Working Paper, No. 541, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson.
  • Atasü-Topcuoğlu, R. (2022). Gender inequality, the welfare state, disability, and distorted commodification of care in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 66, 61-87.
  • Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural approaches to work-family conflict. K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Yay. haz.), Handbook of work-family integration içinde (ss. 353-370). Academic Press.
  • Buğra, A. & Keyder, Ç. (2013). Yeni yoksulluk ve Türkiye’nin değişen refah rejimi. Ankara: Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı (UNDP). Alıntılama: 22.11.2022 https://www.undp.org/tr/turkiye/publications/yeni-yoksulluk-ve-turkiyenin-degisen-refah-rejimi
  • Bettio, F., & Plantenga, J. (2004). Comparing care regimes in Europe. Feminist Economics, 10(1), 85-113.
  • Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2007). Care work in Europe: Current understandings and future directions. Routledge.
  • Cindoğlu, D., Çemrek, M., Toktaş, Ş., & Zencirci, G. (2008). The family in Turkey: The battleground of the modern and the traditional. C. B. Hennon, & S. M. Wilson (Yay. haz.), Families in a global context içinde (ss. 235-263). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Dedeoğlu, S. (2013). Veiled Europeanisation of welfare state in Turkey: Gender and social policy in the 2000s. Women’s Studies International Forum, 41(1), 7-13.
  • Duffy, M. (2007). Doing the dirty work: Gender, race, and reproductive labor in historical perspective. Gender and Society, 21(3), 313-336.
  • England, P. (2005). Emerging theories of care work. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 381-399. England, P., Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2002). Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems, 49(4), 455-473.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press.
  • Ferrant, G., Pesando, L. M., & Nowacka, K. (2014). Unpaid Care Work: The missing link in the analysis of gender gaps in labour outcomes. Boulogne Billancourt: OECD Development Center.
  • Floro, M. S., Tornqvist, A., Tas, E. O. (2009). The impact of the economic crisis on women’s economic empowerment. Swedish International Development Agency Working Paper Series, 2009-26.
  • Frericks, P., Jensen, P. H., Pfau-Effinger, B. (2014). Social rights and employment rights related to family care: Family care regimes in Europe. Journal of Aging Studies, 29, 66-77.
  • Gissi, A. (2018). The Home as A Factory: Rethinking the debate on housewives’s wages in Italy, 1929-1980. R. Sarti, A. Bellavitis, & M. Martini (Yay. haz.), What is work: Gender at the crossroads of home, family, and business from the early modern era to the present içinde (ss. 139-160). Berghahn Books.
  • Gromada, A., Richardson, D., & Rees, G. (2020). Childcare in a global crisis: The impact of COVID-19 on work and family life. Innocenti Research Briefs no. 2020-18.
  • Günindi Ersöz, A. (2018). Özel alan/kamusal alan dikotomisi: Kadınlığın doğası ve kamusal alandan dışlanmışlığı. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(1), 80-102.
  • Harman, S. (2016). Ebola, gender and conspicuously invisible women in global health governance. Third World Quarterly, 37(3), 524-541.
  • İlkkaracan, İ. (2012). Feminist politik iktisat ve kurumsal iktisat çerçevesinde Türkiye’de kadın istihdam sorununa farklı bir yaklaşım. A. Makal & G. Toksöz (Yay. haz.), Geçmişten Günümüze Türkiye’de Kadın Emeği içinde (ss. 201-219). Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
  • Jarrett, K. (2020). Laundering women’s history: A feminist critique of the social factory. First Monday, 23(3), 1-13.
  • Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(3), 317-337.
  • Kilkey, M., Lutz, H., & Palenga-Möllenbeck, E. (2010). Introduction: Domestic and care work at the intersection of welfare, gender and migration regimes: Some European experiences. Social Policy and Society, 9(3), 379-384.
  • Lewis, J. (1997). Gender and welfare regimes: Further thoughts. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 4(2), 160–177.
  • Marçal, C. (2015). Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner? Portobello Books.
  • Meyer, M. H. (2002). Care work: Gender, labor, and the welfare state. Routledge.
  • McCarthy, L. (2018). “There is no time for rest”: Gendered CSR, sustainable development and the unpaid care work governance gap. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(4), 337-349.
  • Meriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  • OECD (2018). Social protection: Key indicators. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. https://Stats.Oecd.Org/Index.Aspx?Queryid=54741
  • OECD (2016). Work-life balance, Turkey. How is life, A better life index. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/turkey/
  • OECD (2007) Working hours. Women and men in OECD countries. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/37964450.pdf
  • Orhangazi, Ö.; Yeldan, E. A. (2021). The re-making of the Turkish crisis. Development and Change, 52(3): 460–503
  • Pekkurnaz, D., Aran, M. A. & Aktakke, N. (2021). Does quality matter in determining child care prices? Evidence from private child care provision in Turkey. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 15.
  • Samman, E., Presler-Marshall, E., Jones, N., Bhatkal, T., Melamed, C., Stavropoulou, M., & Wallace, J. (2016). Women’s work: Mothers, children and the global childcare crisis. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/10333.pdf
  • Sarti, R. (2014). Historians, social scientists, servants, and domestic workers: Fifty years of research on domestic and care work. International Review of Social History, 59(2), 279-314.
  • Schmitt, S., Mutz, G., & Erbe, B. (2018). Care economies—feminist contributions and debates in economic theory. Österreich Z Soziol, 43, 7-18.
  • Simonazzi, A. (2009). Care regimes and national employment models. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(2), 211-232.
  • Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu (2020). İstatistik Yıllıkları, Yıl 2020. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/sgk/tr/kurumsal/istatistik/sgk_istatistik_yilliklari
  • Türkiye İstatistik Enstitüsü (2020). Yıllara göre işgücüne dâhil olmama nedenleri. İşgücü istatistikleri, 2020. Alıntılama: 20.12.2022 https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Labour-Force-Statistics-2020-37484
  • Yaman, M. (2021). Yeniden üretim emeği. Feminist Bellek. Alıntılama: 21.12.2022. https://feministbellek.org/toplumsal-yeniden-uretim/
  • Zilfi, M. C. (2004). Servants, slaves, and the domestic order in the Ottoman Middle East. Hawwa: Journal of the Middle East and Islamic World, 2(1), 1-33.

Care Regimes and Care Work in Türkiye

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2, 455 - 465, 27.12.2023
https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.1228210

Öz

In this article, social conditions that affect care labor is approached within a theoretical framework. Care labor provides the essential support for well being. From childhood to adulthood, from illness to old age, in many point of life it both supports individuals and society; by doing so, it creates economic value. By the separation of private and public spheres care labor divided into paid labor and unpaid labor as well. In both parts however, care is substantially women’s labor. This study focuses on the social background of this situation. How care labor is defined; by which social meanings it is surrounded; its emotional, physical and societal dimensions; direct and indirect aspects are discussed. Within this context, secondly the types of welfare regimes and care regimes and their impacts on care labor are reviewed. Then, the social conditions of care labor are approached. The classical work of Esping-Andersen on welfare regimes has been taken into many gendered critical perspectives. In this way there are care regimes classifications based on different welfare regimes. In these classifications in what kind of a system market’s, civil society’s and family’s roles are articulated is determinative. In the study, the problematic of care work characteristics in Türkiye is discussed within this scope. The welfare regime of Türkiye is similar to those of South European countries like Italy, Greece and Portugal. Current care policies in Türkiye are based on the principle of providing public support for home-based familial care. This is problematic with regards to care work burden of women. Moreover, market services as another source of care brings forward the grey economy of care and informality of these services. Lastly, traditional domestic gender roles and low female employment rates confines care work in family. All these factors are the main reasons that care remains invisible as unpaid, domestic, naturally affectionate “role” of women.

Kaynakça

  • Addati, L., Cattaneo, U., Esquivel, V., & Valarino, I. (2018). Care work and care jobs for the future of decent work. International Labor Organization.
  • Akalın, A. (2007). Hired as a caregiver, demanded as a housewife: Becoming a migrant domestic worker in Turkey. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 14(3), 209-225.
  • Akkan, B. (2018). The politics of care in Turkey: Sacred familialism in a changing political context. Social Politics, 25(1), 72-91.
  • Anttonen, A., & Sipilä, J. (1996). European social care services: Is it possible to identify models? Journal of European Social Policy, 6(2), 87-100.
  • Antonopoulos, R. (2008). The unpaid care workpaid work connection, Working Paper, No. 541, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson.
  • Atasü-Topcuoğlu, R. (2022). Gender inequality, the welfare state, disability, and distorted commodification of care in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 66, 61-87.
  • Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural approaches to work-family conflict. K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Yay. haz.), Handbook of work-family integration içinde (ss. 353-370). Academic Press.
  • Buğra, A. & Keyder, Ç. (2013). Yeni yoksulluk ve Türkiye’nin değişen refah rejimi. Ankara: Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı (UNDP). Alıntılama: 22.11.2022 https://www.undp.org/tr/turkiye/publications/yeni-yoksulluk-ve-turkiyenin-degisen-refah-rejimi
  • Bettio, F., & Plantenga, J. (2004). Comparing care regimes in Europe. Feminist Economics, 10(1), 85-113.
  • Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2007). Care work in Europe: Current understandings and future directions. Routledge.
  • Cindoğlu, D., Çemrek, M., Toktaş, Ş., & Zencirci, G. (2008). The family in Turkey: The battleground of the modern and the traditional. C. B. Hennon, & S. M. Wilson (Yay. haz.), Families in a global context içinde (ss. 235-263). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Dedeoğlu, S. (2013). Veiled Europeanisation of welfare state in Turkey: Gender and social policy in the 2000s. Women’s Studies International Forum, 41(1), 7-13.
  • Duffy, M. (2007). Doing the dirty work: Gender, race, and reproductive labor in historical perspective. Gender and Society, 21(3), 313-336.
  • England, P. (2005). Emerging theories of care work. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 381-399. England, P., Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2002). Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems, 49(4), 455-473.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press.
  • Ferrant, G., Pesando, L. M., & Nowacka, K. (2014). Unpaid Care Work: The missing link in the analysis of gender gaps in labour outcomes. Boulogne Billancourt: OECD Development Center.
  • Floro, M. S., Tornqvist, A., Tas, E. O. (2009). The impact of the economic crisis on women’s economic empowerment. Swedish International Development Agency Working Paper Series, 2009-26.
  • Frericks, P., Jensen, P. H., Pfau-Effinger, B. (2014). Social rights and employment rights related to family care: Family care regimes in Europe. Journal of Aging Studies, 29, 66-77.
  • Gissi, A. (2018). The Home as A Factory: Rethinking the debate on housewives’s wages in Italy, 1929-1980. R. Sarti, A. Bellavitis, & M. Martini (Yay. haz.), What is work: Gender at the crossroads of home, family, and business from the early modern era to the present içinde (ss. 139-160). Berghahn Books.
  • Gromada, A., Richardson, D., & Rees, G. (2020). Childcare in a global crisis: The impact of COVID-19 on work and family life. Innocenti Research Briefs no. 2020-18.
  • Günindi Ersöz, A. (2018). Özel alan/kamusal alan dikotomisi: Kadınlığın doğası ve kamusal alandan dışlanmışlığı. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(1), 80-102.
  • Harman, S. (2016). Ebola, gender and conspicuously invisible women in global health governance. Third World Quarterly, 37(3), 524-541.
  • İlkkaracan, İ. (2012). Feminist politik iktisat ve kurumsal iktisat çerçevesinde Türkiye’de kadın istihdam sorununa farklı bir yaklaşım. A. Makal & G. Toksöz (Yay. haz.), Geçmişten Günümüze Türkiye’de Kadın Emeği içinde (ss. 201-219). Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
  • Jarrett, K. (2020). Laundering women’s history: A feminist critique of the social factory. First Monday, 23(3), 1-13.
  • Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(3), 317-337.
  • Kilkey, M., Lutz, H., & Palenga-Möllenbeck, E. (2010). Introduction: Domestic and care work at the intersection of welfare, gender and migration regimes: Some European experiences. Social Policy and Society, 9(3), 379-384.
  • Lewis, J. (1997). Gender and welfare regimes: Further thoughts. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 4(2), 160–177.
  • Marçal, C. (2015). Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner? Portobello Books.
  • Meyer, M. H. (2002). Care work: Gender, labor, and the welfare state. Routledge.
  • McCarthy, L. (2018). “There is no time for rest”: Gendered CSR, sustainable development and the unpaid care work governance gap. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(4), 337-349.
  • Meriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  • OECD (2018). Social protection: Key indicators. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. https://Stats.Oecd.Org/Index.Aspx?Queryid=54741
  • OECD (2016). Work-life balance, Turkey. How is life, A better life index. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/turkey/
  • OECD (2007) Working hours. Women and men in OECD countries. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/37964450.pdf
  • Orhangazi, Ö.; Yeldan, E. A. (2021). The re-making of the Turkish crisis. Development and Change, 52(3): 460–503
  • Pekkurnaz, D., Aran, M. A. & Aktakke, N. (2021). Does quality matter in determining child care prices? Evidence from private child care provision in Turkey. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 15.
  • Samman, E., Presler-Marshall, E., Jones, N., Bhatkal, T., Melamed, C., Stavropoulou, M., & Wallace, J. (2016). Women’s work: Mothers, children and the global childcare crisis. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/10333.pdf
  • Sarti, R. (2014). Historians, social scientists, servants, and domestic workers: Fifty years of research on domestic and care work. International Review of Social History, 59(2), 279-314.
  • Schmitt, S., Mutz, G., & Erbe, B. (2018). Care economies—feminist contributions and debates in economic theory. Österreich Z Soziol, 43, 7-18.
  • Simonazzi, A. (2009). Care regimes and national employment models. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(2), 211-232.
  • Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu (2020). İstatistik Yıllıkları, Yıl 2020. Alıntılama: 13.11.2022. http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/sgk/tr/kurumsal/istatistik/sgk_istatistik_yilliklari
  • Türkiye İstatistik Enstitüsü (2020). Yıllara göre işgücüne dâhil olmama nedenleri. İşgücü istatistikleri, 2020. Alıntılama: 20.12.2022 https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Labour-Force-Statistics-2020-37484
  • Yaman, M. (2021). Yeniden üretim emeği. Feminist Bellek. Alıntılama: 21.12.2022. https://feministbellek.org/toplumsal-yeniden-uretim/
  • Zilfi, M. C. (2004). Servants, slaves, and the domestic order in the Ottoman Middle East. Hawwa: Journal of the Middle East and Islamic World, 2(1), 1-33.
Toplam 44 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Sosyoloji
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Sevgi Çoban 0000-0003-4524-6285

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 27 Aralık 2023
Yayımlanma Tarihi 27 Aralık 2023
Gönderilme Tarihi 2 Ocak 2023
Kabul Tarihi 7 Mart 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023 Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Çoban, S. (2023). Bakım Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Bakım Emeği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(2), 455-465. https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.1228210


Creative Commons License
Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.