Transformation of the Social Security System and Re-constructing the Social in Turkey
The Justice and Development Party (JDP) won the July-2007 election by getting more than 46 percent of the votes in Turkey. This fascinating success was a surprise for its opponents as well as its supporters. Leftist opponents of the JDP for instance, had thought that the neo-liberal policies and reforms would cause a general discontent among the organized labour, farmers, and the poor, which would automatically lead to a loss of votes in the poles. Even though the reason behind the electoral victory of JDP is more complicated, the story of success of neo-liberalism is the same as the story of successful transformation of the social field in Turkey as in other Third World countries. In this sense, transformation of the social policies has played a key role. It is one of the most important aspects of reinventing the social so as to restructure society around neo-liberal ideals. In addition to the accelerating growth of informal sector and flexibilization of the labour market (which paves the ground for institutionalization of subcontracting, and part-time work and facilitates the ending of wage contracts), transformation of social policies in the Third World countries both eliminate the redistributive role of the state, and establish a new regime of prudentiality and calculation in which every individual is deemed responsible for calculating his/her own future risk and taking necessary measures against it (Dean, 1999). Therefore, besides changing the relation between state-market and state-society, social policy reforms also attempt to establish a new form of subjectivity. Recent developments in the social security system in Turkey should also be seen as a part of this process.
In terms of assessment criteria such as level of protection, covered population, risks and condition of benefiting, the existing welfare system in Turkey is ”minimal and indirect” (Arın, 2003: 72). Moreover, it is an informal security regime, in which informal networks play an important role in provision and redistribution of welfare. In addition to the state, other institutional mechanisms have been playing an important role in contributing to the well-being of individuals, families, communities and societies (Gough, 2004). Before the reform, this welfare regime was consisted of a social security system and a social assistance system to alleviate poverty, the latter including fund (Social Assistance and Solidarity Fund), foundation (Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundation), and the green card system. Aim of the green card is to provide a health service to poor. However, users should not be a member of social security system and their wage should be lower than the 1/3 of the minimum wage (minimum wage is currently 419 YTL-234€). In 1999, 8.6 million people had a green card. Meanwhile, benefiting from resources of the Fund depends on the appreciation of a local committee, which evaluates the request of the poor. Hence, the decision to determine who is the neediest and can benefit from the fund’s resources is left to these committees of local administrators. It is argued that this assistance system, which is so organized that favouritism can play decisive role, makes poor more and more dependable on personal political relations (Şenses, 1999).
New programs to alleviate poverty
Turkey has implemented new programs (Social Risk Mitigation Program) to alleviate poverty supported by the World Bank from September 2001 to December 2005. The Social Risk Mitigation Program put into practice certain institutional policies and programs such as the creation of employment facilities for the poor, empowerment of institutional structure, establishing a social security network to solve the health and education problems of poor families with children, and micro-credit projects. The JDP has also based its electoral strategy on gaining votes of the poor by using this kind of tools. The JDP attempts to combine a neo-liberal program (sound monetary policy, privatization, second generation reforms, which includes health, public personal and social security system reforms) with a populist discourse, which attempts to attract support of the poor. For this reason, pro-poor policies will continue to protect its significance in Turkish politics.
In addition to these developments, Turkey has implemented a comprehensive structural adjustment program, of which social security reform has been the most important element. Social Security system has been restructured in accordance with the criteria of the WB, the IMF and the European Union. Some parametric modifications like establishing the private pension system, privatization of the health system, and taking a fee from the users were realized by the previous governments. There is agreement between internal and external actors on the transformation of social security system. As it is known, the WB and the IMF are the key institutions that push further the process of transformation and privatization of the social security systems in the Third World. Reform of the system is among the condition of new credit agreement between the IMF and Turkey, and passing the relevant law in Parliament was the structural performance criteria in 2005. However, it should be noted that the reform has also been influentially backed by the capital groups, especially by TÜSİAD; which is the organization of the biggest capital groups in Turkey. In spite of the resistance of labour organizations, especially KESK (Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions) which is the biggest leftist confederation, reform was passed form the parliament. But its articles about public employees were cancelled by constitutional court and its implementation is postponed to 1 January-2008.
The new social security system
Before the reform, Turkey social security system was highly complicated and composed of different social security institutions, which covered state employees, wage labour, self-employed, agricultural workers, and voluntarily insured. Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu covered the workers and voluntarily insured, Emekli Sandığı covered the state employees, and Bağ-Kur covered the self-employed. After the reform, all three were collected under one institution: Social Security Institution.
In ”Social Security Reform: Problems and Proposals for Solutions”, which is called the ”white book, to legitimize the reform, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security referred to the aging of population, the inadequacy of the current system in covering and taking all population under protection, hence, to inadequacy of protecting the population against poverty and finally to the financial deficits of the system.”. It is asserted that the current system is inefficient and the aim of the reform is to decrease the deficit of the system to the 1 percent of the GNP with ensuring the norm unity of the system. It could be said that reform is successful in furnishing the unity of norms in social security system. However, this unity is achieved on behalf of the elimination of the rights of the members of the social security system. When the regulation of the three systems is standardized in terms of the minimum age for gaining a right for salary, required premium day, pension rate, etc., minimum common denominator (the worst regulation) among them is always taken as a norm to standardize the system (Erdoğdu, 2006).
Reforming the pension system will open the way for structural transformation of all social security system in Turkey. For this reason, the previous non-structural reform of the system, that aimed ”to improve social security…system by strengthening its finances or/and tightening its entitlement conditions”, is complemented by a comprehensive structural reforms, which ”radically transform a public system by replacing, creating an alternative to or supplementing it with a ”private” system.” (Mesa-Lago, 2002: 1310). This transformation can be seen in the structure of new pension system. New social security system will have three components: (i) continuation of the public system without a fund, which guarantees the minimum wage and depends on the defined-benefit; (ii) development of the privately administered pension system with a fund, which depends on the defined-contribution and ensures a salary that in proportion to payments; (iii) establishment of a private pension system, which also depends on defined-contribution and personal participation (Erdoğdu, 2006: 222). Turkey’s social security system will be a mixed system, which includes both public and private pension institutions and implemented in Argentina, Uruguay and Mexico.
Even though the proponents of the structural pension reforms refer to financial deficits of the system, the reality is totally different. The problem of financing the social security system is a consequence of the low level of state contribution, low participation into the labour force, widespread informal sector, and transfer of the system’s resources to other activities (Erdoğdu, 2006). Additionally, new social security system does not cover the women working in the housework services, landless poor peasants, daily worker or small artisans. For instance, in the previous system, the daughter of the insured could continue to benefit from the salary of his father/mother when the insured passed away and if she was not married or divorced from her husband, or if she was a widow, but new reform ended this implementation and gave just a 25% of salary of insured as a monthly. This is only one example of the negative results of the reform for women. More importantly, reform also designates the paradigmatic shift in the mentality of social policy, from a citizen-and security based to a customer and protection based one (Özuğurlu, 2003). When we take into the consideration the reality that Turkey do not have a systematic program to prevent or alleviate poverty with a minimal and temporary character of existing programs, it can be said that this ”real subsumption” of social security networks will lead to the increase of the poverty in the long-term and strengthening of informal sector in Turkey. As it is emphasized, this de-governmentalization of state in Turkey also will result with the emergence of new the networks of insecurity in society.
References:
Arın, T., (2004), ”Refah Devleti, Sosyal Güvenliğin Yoksulluğu”, in S. Savran, N.C. Balkan (eds.)., Neo-liberalizmin Tahribatı, Türkiye’de Ekonomi, Toplum ve Cinsiyet, İstanbul: Metis.
Erdoğdu, S., (2006), ”Sosyal Politikada Değişim ve Sosyal Güvenlik Reformu”, Mülkiye, Güz/2006, Cilt 30
Dean, M., (2001), Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society, London: Sage Publications.
Gough, Ian, (2004) ”Social policy regimes in the developing world, in P. Kennett, (eds.) (2004) A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Mesa-Lago, C. (2002), ”Myth and Reality of Pension Reform: The Latin American Evidence”, World Development, Vol. 30, No: 8, pp. 1309-1321.
Özuğurlu, M. (2003) ”Sosyal Politikanın Dönüşümü ya da Sıfatın Suretten Kopuşu”, Mülkiye, 239
Şenses, Fikret. ”Yoksullukla Mücadele ve Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışmayı Teşvik Fonu.” ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, Vol. 26, No. 3-4 (1999), p.. 427-451.
