Social Sources of Failure in Education: The Case in East and Southeast Turkey

The efficiency of education in East and Southeast Turkey (E&SE) has long been a subject of debate. Both regions are similar to each other and different from the other regions in terms of economy, culture, ethnic origin, and languages spoken. Sahin (1997) studied the efficiency of education in the E&SE and proposed that illiteracy is significantly the highest in both regions, the female student population is significantly lower, and students are significantly less successful in nationwide general proficiency examinations (OSS and OYS) compared to all the other regions. Social sources of failure were studied in terms of the distinguishing characteristics of both regions, from both practical and theoretical standpoints. The findings indicated inequality of educational opportunity rooted in geographical, economical, social (cultural, linguistic), and political factors.     

Demographic Differentials and Demographic Integration of Turkish and Kurdish Populations in Turkey

The objectives of the study are threefold: (1) to provide estimates of the total populations and spatial distributions of different language groups in Turkey, (2) to test whether the commonly held belief that Turkish-speaking and Kurdish-speaking populations are “actors” of different demographic regimes is true, and (3) to assess whether a process of integration, in the form of intermarriage of Turks and Kurds is under way in Turkey. Data come mainly from the 2003 Turkish Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS-2003). Based on the assumption that the mother tongue composition of women is also representative of that of the whole population, the results of the TDHS-2003 imply that of the population of Turkey, 83% are Turkish-speaking, 14% are Kurdish-speaking, 2% are Arabic-speaking and the remaining 1% belong to other language groups. Results show that despite intensive internal migration movements in the last 50 years, strong demographic differentials exist between Turkish and Kurdish-speaking populations, and that the convergence of the two groups does not appear to be a process under way. Turks and Kurds do indeed appear to be actors of different demographic regimes, at different stages of demographic and health transition processes.     

International Migrants' Remittances and Welfare Status of the Left‐Behind Families in Turkey

In this study, micro implications of remittances are examined based on the data from the 1996 Turkish International Migration Survey (TIMS‐96), part of a comprehensive study of Eurostat and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI). Results of the study imply that migrant savings are generally used for satisfying basic consumption needs. Patterns of expenditures suggest that for 12 percent of all the households receiving remittances, about 80 percent used remittances to improve their standard of living. Considering the variation by regions, it is observed that households in less‐developed regions spent more on daily expenses than those in developed regions. This suggests that daily expenses of households in less developed regions depend significantly on remittances received by households. Moreover, remittances have a positive impact on household welfare; households receiving remittances are found to be better off than nonremitting households. This suggests that migration and remittances have positive indirect effects on incomes of emigrant households. A considerable part of the relevant literature argues that remittances are mostly spent on consumption, housing and land and are not used for productive investment that would contribute to long‐run development. This conclusion often rests on arbitrary definitions of “productive investments.” Access to better nutrition and allocation of more resources to education are, without question, forms of productive investment. Although emigration does not serve as a solution to the problems of national development, it is evident that remittances generate considerable welfare effects, at least for the remittance‐receiving population.