Introduction

Social assistance is widely adopted in almost all developed/developing countries as a direct means of social policy to fight against poverty. The case also applies to Türkiye through both public administrations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Inherent in its nature, social assistance both provides financial support to those in need and alleviates their social exclusion to ensure efficient combatting many aspects of poverty. Social assistance also allows the redistribution of resources and secures employment-enhancing policies. Public social assistance can be granted to those in need in kind or cash, but mostly in cash assistance is preferred in Türkiye, where a substantial amount of cash resources is allocated to social assistance programs. Public social assistance in Turkey is carried out through SYDVs in 81 provinces and 1003 districts. A total of 1003 social assistance and solidarity foundations (SASFs) undertake the distribution of social assistance across the country using the budget of the Social Assistance and Solidarity Encouragement Fund (SASEF). The efficient distribution of this resource seems important for its outcomes regarding fighting against poverty, promoting social welfare, and contributing to indirect economic development (e.g., employment opportunities). The current system in Türkiye hosts 43 types of public social assistance granted to individuals, including family benefits, employment benefits, elderly and disability benefits, special-purpose benefits, education benefits, and health benefits (Sosyal Yardımlar Genel Müdürlüğü, 2023).

Regarding working poverty, Türkiye adopts social policy practices aimed at generating employment through anti-poverty social assistance and active labor policies (Erdoğdu & Kutlu, 2014: 64). Social assistance is widely adopted in almost all developed/developing countries as a means of social policy to fight against poverty. The case also applies to Türkiye through both public administrations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Yet, both developed and developing countries offer limited policies to combat in-work poverty; instead, policymakers in most countries seem to focus on regulating the labor market and designing protective policies (e.g., tax deductions and social benefits) (Frazer & Marlier, 2010: 12). On the other hand, Türkiye adopts social policy practices to generate employment through anti-poverty social assistance and active labor policies (Erdoğdu & Kutlu, 2014: 64). Although the debates on social assistance in Türkiye are always thought to be specific to the poorest and those deprived of employment opportunities, changes in production systems, inflation, labor market, and wages continue to complicate the structure of poverty (Adaman et al., 2019). In other words, poverty has become a problem for wage earners and registered employees as well.

In the literature, the term “working poor” is used to describe those remaining in relative poverty because of insufficient levels of income despite being employed in a regular job. In-work poverty is now a hot topic on the agenda of international organizations due to the increasing number of working poor individuals worldwide (Özdemir, 2015). However, the scholarly community in Türkiye seems to have shown little interest in in-work poverty. Kapar (2010: 65) previously reported that one out of every two poor is employed and that one out of every four employees is poor. For this reason, he rejected the argument that the poor remain poor in Türkiye since they are hesitant to be employed and proposed that employment conditions may need to be regulated to eliminate the employment gap for those willing to be employed. Yet, some cannot escape from poverty despite being employed. In another study on in-work poverty in Türkiye, the participants claimed that they could not benefit from any assistance despite applying to social assistance and solidarity foundations (SASFs) (Kahraman, 2015: 61).

Suğur et al. (2010) carried out their research on in-work poverty with day laborers, caregivers, taxi drivers, and janitors in Türkiye and addressed their income-increasing strategies within the frameworks of social relations network and social capital. The findings revealed that the participants tried to develop specific livelihood strategies and emphasized their exclusion from the middle class. Adaman et al., (2019: 4) found the rate of working poor in Türkiye to be 13.5% in 2016, about 1.5 times higher than the European Union (EU) average. Furthermore, this rate may differ by educational attainment, and those working in temporary jobs and with children have a higher tendency to become the working poor. What is more, the inability of such individuals to benefit from social assistance is likely to exacerbate their poverty.

It took a long time for the working and lower class to be included in the social assistance system in Türkiye. Today, the criteria for receiving social assistance in Türkiye are regulated by Law No. 3294 on Social Assistance and Solidarity Encouragement, but registered employees started to benefit from social assistance, thanks to an amendment to the mentioned law in 2012. With the mentioned amendment, the following statement was added to Article 2 of Law No. 3294 and Law No. 6353: “In addition, despite being registered in social security institutions by law or being granted a pension or income by these institutions, individuals deemed to be poor or in need with an income per person in the household less than 1/3 of the monthly net minimum wage determined for those over 16 years and according to the criteria to be set by the Fund Board shall also be covered with this Law.” This amendment, thus, has expanded the scope of social assistance for recipients and encourages incentives for registered employment. Therefore, the experiences of the working poor, particularly their late integration into the social assistance system in Türkiye, may be considered a noteworthy but underexplored subject in the literature. Despite their key role in the economy, their social assistance experience and its impact on their lives becomes a gap to be filled in the literature. This gap particularly needs to be explored as it relates to the links between poverty, employment, and welfare. Understanding how the working poor perceive social assistance can illuminate the flaws and challenges within the welfare system.

Ultimately, the present study aimed to explore the perspectives of those earning minimum wage but living below the poverty threshold on the benefits granted by the social assistance system in Türkiye. Our findings may guide policies to improve the social assistance system for the working poor. In this context, we carried out the study with the working poor eligible to receive social assistance.

The Concept of “Working Poor”

Poverty was associated with unemployment, and there was a consensus that one could be poor only if they were lazy or disabled. The assumption that unemployment is the primary factor accounting for poverty was dominant in the past (Anderson, 1967: 72; Pena-Casas & Latta, 2004: 3). However, a plethora of research now demonstrate that working people also continue to be poor (Mc Guinnes, 2016; Stroe & Kajanu, 2017; Polizzi et al., 2022). Thus, the current view has fortunately diverged from the mentioned perception of poverty.

It is known that ideologies directly affect economic life and that neoliberal globalization has influenced the emergence of the concept of “in-work poverty.” The changing production relations and labor markets and the indifference of trade union movements to these changes in the neoliberal period have also triggered the re-establishment of the old link between employment and poverty, leading to a new era in social policy and governments to initiate welfare policies (Erdoğdu & Kutlu, 2014: 104).

The concept of the “working poor,” emerging with the Great Depression, gained ground particularly in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) in the early 1980s and became a rising phenomenon in Europe (Kalugina, 2013: 76). The changes in the understanding of the welfare state and the labor market brought along problems, such as unemployment, unregistered employment, and the economic crisis. In particular, the shift of labor to the service sector created an employment structure with lower wages for more working hours. During the same period, there was also a change in the understanding of the social state. In other words, the cuts in social protection expenditures, resource transfers in times of economic crisis, and the emergence of new types of employment (e.g., flexible working) reduced the chance of being employed in decent jobs. The consequences of such a process made in-work poverty a problem in both developed and developing countries (Kaya, 2020). On the other hand, debates on poverty have long ceased to be only income-oriented, but living conditions are now considered an essential factor in poverty. The emergence of the concept also demonstrates that poverty can now originate from the global economic system rather than from self-related factors, which implies that one cannot escape from poverty even if they are employed. Their income seems to be only enough to maintain their livelihood, but it is not the case sometimes. In general, some characteristics related to the following criteria may need to be considered to evaluate whether one is a working poor: professional characteristics, demographic characteristics, family structure, and institutional structure and home country characteristics (Table 1).

Table 1 Fundamental characteristics of the working poor
Full size table

Apart from considering the characteristics above, some international organizations and researchers seem to have different approaches while defining the concept of the working poor. For example, the ILO (2022) describes the working poor as “the employed who live in households that fall below an accepted poverty line.” For the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, they are “people who spend 27 weeks or more in a year in the labor force either working or looking for work but whose incomes fall below the poverty level” (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).

What is implied in the definitions above is that the concept of the working poor is statistically assessed by age, employment status, and income level. In addition, we may consider the concept at three levels to be able to address it within social policy. At the first level, various risk factors mediate the emergence of in-work poverty (e.g., age, educational attainment, race, extreme poverty, gender inequality, occupational characteristics). In the presence of these factors, we can then consider the second-order factors contributing to in-work poverty: poor quality of employment and immature understanding of the social state. The co-existence of the elements in these levels inevitably leads to the third level: in-work poverty (Fig. 1). In this study, we targeted the working poor and discussed their demographics.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Concept of the working poor, risk factors, and causes

Full size image

Methods

We carried out this qualitative study between March 25 and June 15, 2022, with the ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University (No.: 2021-521). The data were gathered with in-depth interviews through a semi-structured interview form prepared in line with the relevant research. In-depth interviews are conducted with the help of semi-structured or unstructured open-ended questions to explore the participants’ experiences with the research subject (Creswell, 2017: 190). In addition to inquiring about the participants’ demographic characteristics, the form consists of the following questions: “Can you explain your experiences with the social assistance system?”, “What are your strengths and weaknesses regarding social assistance?”, and “How can the social assistance system be made more efficient for you?” (Table 2). We reached through participants, thanks to announcements for the invitation to our research in an industrial zone in Ankara, and continued interviews until reaching a sufficient number of participants by the snowball method. An interview took between 40 and 75 min in the places determined by the participants, mostly in the workplaces of the participants and a few in public spaces. The interviews were noted down and immediately transferred to the digital environment. We then descriptively analyzed the data on the MAXQDA 2022 program.

Table 2 Participants’ demographic characteristics
Full size table

Using the typical-case sampling technique, we selected 30 voluntary employees living in Ankara and working for minimum wage. In the interviews, taking between 40 and 75 min, we noted down the participants’ responses to the questions above and terminated the interviews upon attaining data saturation. To keep the participants’ identities confidential, we share their excerpts in the interviews with fabricated pseudonyms. Moreover, the findings frequently referred to the participants’ views to offer different perspectives on the themes and codes (Creswell, 2016: 65) (Table 2).

As presented in Table 2, the participants, 22 males and 8 females, have at least one or more children. Besides, most of them have primary school education. Aged between 25 and 51 years, all the participants were found to be married.

Findings

The views of the participating social assistance beneficiaries about the current social assistance system were evaluated through 14 different codes clustered under three themes: perception of social assistance, social assistance-employment relationship, and expectations of social assistance.

Perception of Social Assistance

The present theme covers the participants’ views on why they need social assistance despite being employed, what social assistance means for them, their perceptions of SASFs, the application process for social assistance, the social assistance types they receive, and their perceptions of the institutions and organizations providing them with social assistance, and the COVID-19 pandemic-specific social assistance.

Being in Need of Social Assistance

Social aids appear within a discourse embodying being in need, demanding and qualifying for social assistance, and dependency on aid (Dilik, 1980; Howell, 2001; Kesgin, 2014). In Türkiye, one needs to satisfy the criterion of being in need to qualify for social assistance, which has been set through the income-oriented targeting method (Karagöl et al., 2013). The participants often preferred to express how much help they need first when asked to share their experiences with the social assistance system.

In the interviews, the participants attributed their need for social assistance to two factors: the deterioration of living conditions due to increasing food and energy prices following the pandemic and the convenience of asking for help from relevant institutions instead of relatives in financially difficult situations. Furthermore, among the reasons for applying for social assistance, the participants mainly emphasized their inability to meet their children’s needs. Below is the view of a participant on the issue:

We applied for assistance because we could not meet our children’s needs. We could not afford the school bus service and had to go anywhere by bus, and every trip costs us TRY 7 per person. Their school is not within walking distance, so they could not attend classes in freezing times. Anyway, I applied for social assistance for their needs. I did not want them to be left behind in their education. (P7)

Unbearable inflation due to the pandemic-related closures disrupted production processes, and increased costs of food and energy have profoundly affected the poor (Özkan, 2021). Even in-work poverty has been exacerbated by the pandemic, as in times of economic crisis. Most of the participants claimed not to have needed social assistance since they were able to make a living somehow till the pandemic.

It is the first time I applied for social assistance and was invited for an interview in this organization. We cannot afford the needs of three children. We experience financial difficulties due to the payments to our mortgage. The primary expense item is food. We have applied for assistance with the costs of food, travel, electricity, and tap water. (P10)

I have had no business with the social assistance foundation so far. I feel ashamed of applying for a single food box, costing only TRY 300. In regular times, I would never do it, but I have had to do it now. I have been in a cold sweat while coming here to apply for social assistance. I am embarrassed to be granted only TRY 200-300, but I must do it. I have health problems. (P26)

Other situations when the participants need social assistance can be listed as follows: inability to buy new clothes for themselves and their children (P2, P5, P15, and P25), inability (P6 and P20) or borrowing from someone (P1, P10, P11, and P20) to afford to have it repaired or buy a new one when an essential utensil breaks down, inability to engage in social life (P18 and P20) and afford unexpected health expenses (P1, P2, P4, and P29). In addition, some participants perceived receiving social assistance as embarrassing (P3, P26, and P30). The majority stated that the situations above exacerbate their living conditions, cause them to fall into a debt cycle, and make them feel helpless.

Lifebuoy

It seemed that all the participants could not make their living without social assistance. In this sense, we asked them about what social assistance types they receive from which organizations. The findings showed that the majority of the participants have applied to every institution they have heard from their close circles for social assistance. However, they do not even know from which organization they receive what assistance. For example, one of the participants, invited to the interviews since receiving assistance from a SASF, responded to our question as follows: “We do not receive any help from this SASF. We are only paid every 40 days for food. We are not paid by this SASF. We go shopping with this debit card given within social assistance practices” (P3).

Most of the participants did not report any unpleasant experiences with the social assistance system. Even some participants seemed to perceive social assistance as a “lifebuoy.” In parallel, we concluded from their views that the participants have only two methods to receive the financial support they need: asking for a loan from their banks and applying for social assistance.

Indicating rent and food to be their primary expense items, the participants frequently associated social assistance with the term “lifesaver” as follows: “Social assistance saved our lives this year. For example, my child could go to school this month thanks to the cash transfer. I pay TRY 500 for transportation per month” (P4). Another participant compared social assistance to “medicine” for them:

Social assistance is like “medicine.” I live in a rented house and have to afford the bills and other expenses. I sometimes cannot pay TRY 100-150 for the electricity bill and have to spend some days without tap water. I do not know what to say about my financial situation. What will I do without electricity? We will be finished without social assistance. (P14)

In addition, the participants frequently used the adjective “inevitable” for social assistance in the interviews. Appreciating the natural gas aid from the metropolitan municipality, the participants think it may be impossible to support themselves in winter without that aid:

I sometimes have no money for food. TRY 200-300 sounds like a lot of money for me. Social assistance is a great contribution to the budget of people like us. It seems like money comes from somewhere when I am totally broke. We might be a toast without social assistance. (P17)

Social Assistance and Solidarity Foundations (SASFs)

The participants also appreciate that SASF staff never refuses them in their financially difficult times and that the SASF administrators do their best to grant extra assistance to them (P11, P13, P14, P16, P27, and P28). Therefore, it seems the attitudes of SASF staff contribute to the participants’ feeling themselves okay and safe.

Similarly, the majority of the participants uttered that these foundations can quickly meet their unexpected financial needs, that it is much better to apply for social assistance rather than asking for help from relatives and friends, and that such an opportunity makes them feel less embarrassed when compared to borrowing from others:

I have only credit card debts but no debts to my relatives. I am not sure who can support me. Even one’s parents cannot do it. For example, my mother-in-law did not support us when our natural gas service was cut. Yet, the SASF granted us social assistance, and the company restarted the service. (P9)

Besides, some participants stated that food support from their hometowns is no longer available and, thus, SASFs are now their only chance to get financial support:

This institution does its best indiscriminately to help people. Even they provide scholarships to children. We certainly have not experienced anything negative with this foundation. They serve people in 55 villages. In the pandemic, only this foundation has aided us. I cannot even ask someone for some flour or sugar since everyone suffers from the same situation. (P23)

Launched in 2016, the Social Cohesion Assistance Program (SCAP) aims to meet the fundamental needs of asylum seekers in Türkiye. The assistance within the program is funded by the EU (Türk Kızılay, 2016) and granted to those in need through SASFs. In this sense, the participants have an overall idea that SASFs are solely responsible organizations for granting the mentioned assistance. Even some participants stated that SASFs grant more social assistance to foreigners, particularly Syrian migrants under temporary protection (P9 and P20).

Application Process for Social Assistance

While the foundations used to directly receive the applications for social assistance before the pandemic, the quarantine conditions mandated people to apply for assistance via the “e-devlet” application (a website/application offering access to all public services from a single point) during the pandemic. Yet, we discovered that participants adopt different ways of applying for social assistance. For example, some participants make their applications via e-devlet since they think the application and application tracking via this system are far much easier: “I applied for social assistance once via e-devlet. It was easy peasy! I did not know it before. During the pandemic, I made an application by phone as well and had no problem” (P4). “My home is far from the foundation, so the application via e-devlet is better, and it is now easy to track my applications” (P17).

Yet, we discovered that participants adopt different ways of applying for social assistance. Although some participants find the online application for social assistance via e-devlet easier, some prefer to apply to SAFSs in person because they can express themselves better in this way. Some others prefer face-to-face applications due to having a phone too old to make an online application, not knowing how to access the Internet, and having no mobile internet package. In addition, we discovered that the participants find it easier to be able to communicate with the SASF staff, explain themselves better, and ask face-to-face about the additional assistance they can receive. Moreover, they still want to follow the status of their applications personally in the foundations, even if making an online application via e-devlet. All the participants making an application for social assistance in both ways agreed on the convenience of the application process.

COVID-19 Pandemic

The pandemic brought even more challenging conditions for the poor than the 2008 global economic crisis (Shehzad et al., 2020). The decline in economic activities during the pandemic raised two significant consequences for the poor: decreased purchasing power and an increased number of working poor. Accordingly, it was previously predicted that the number of working poor worldwide would be 8.8 million more following the pandemic (ILO, 2020: 5). In Türkiye, those working for minimum wage fell into a difficult situation during the pandemic due to not being able to make money in daily and extra jobs and being deprived of financial savings (Aydın & Öztürk, 2021: 156).

Consistent with the previous findings, our results showed that the pandemic had a significant impact on the working poor in two ways. While the first was related to their children’s retention in education (Aca & Özkan, 2021; Çiçek et al., 2020), the second was linked with unemployment (Nurgün, 2022). In other words, the working poor had significant difficulties accessing education and employment during the pandemic. Particularly, the participants working in the food-beverage and construction sectors became unemployed during the pandemic and had to leave their families to be able to work in other cities.

The pandemic significantly affected us. My husband could not find a job and had to relocate to Izmir. We had debts for our shop. He stayed for 1.5 years in Izmir. We had to receive TRY 1000 twice from the foundation and a food box from the headman’s office during Ramadan. It (social assistance) remedied me because I was in great trouble. I could not feed my children without social assistance during the pandemic. (P9)

On the other hand, employed women reassign the responsibility of the care of younger children to older siblings at home, and, therefore, those siblings completely dropped out of education: “Indeed, the pandemic was advantageous for me. My little 6-year-old boy stayed at home with his older sisters since schools were shut down, so I was able to earn from day labor” (P16).

Thank God we received the social assistance of TRY 1000. The pandemic was a rather difficult period for us. He could not make money from extra jobs. He was the only employee at home. Then, he got COVID-19 and could not work for a while, so they cut his wage. We had a lot of difficulties in terms of food. We managed throughout the winter with the food that we prepared in the summer. (P29)

Regarding education, the participants complained that their children could not attend online classes since not having a sufficient number of electronic devices at home. Thus, we may assert that the participants appreciated cash transfers (TRY 1000) granted twice during the pandemic.

The pandemic brought severe consequences to us. We got the virus, and he became unemployed for three months. We made a living somehow but had hard times. We received social assistance of TRY 1000 and paid off our debts with it. The children were at home and could not continue school. The government granted tablets for distance education, but they broke down quickly. Yet, they were promoted to the next grade. (P5)

Social Assistance-Employment Relationship

Feeling Disadvantaged for Being Employed

The practice where registered minimum wage earners feel most disadvantaged within the social assistance system may be the discontinuation of conditional cash transfers for their children. In this regard, for example, some participants stated that they prefer not to send their children to school on days when special events are organized because they cannot afford extra school expenses. Most of the parents with three or more children reported poor financial conditions to be able to have all of their children educated at the same time. Again, they stated that they do not send their children to school on project assignment days or for school trips because they have no budget for such extra expenses. Finally, constant monetary demands from schools may be considered another burden on families.

My two children were qualified for conditional cash transfer, but it was withdrawn when I was employed. I applied for it again, but they rejected my application. I have four boys and two girls. For me, registered employment becomes an obstacle to being granted social assistance. What should we do? Should we leave our children in an orphanage? (P1)

Another type of social assistance that registered employees cannot receive is electricity bill support. The participants, whose electricity bill support was withdrawn after they started working, stated that their bills are a significant expense item and that the discontinuation of the electricity bill support makes them financially suffer.

I can buy something for my children or pay the bills thanks to social assistance. It was rather helpful in hard times when we could not get food or pay the bills. Nevertheless, the electricity bill support was withdrawn when my husband was employed. (P21)

In general, we may assert that the majority of the participants, who feel disadvantaged in not qualifying for social assistance due to being employed, often apply for social assistance to support their children’s education. While 25 participants feel disadvantaged due to being employed, it is the case for 10 participants when applying for social assistance since they became in need of financial support due to economic conditions exacerbated by the pandemic.

The participants were found to feel disadvantaged since they believe that some receive social assistance even if they do not deserve it or have a much better socioeconomic status. Some participants claimed that they could benefit more from social assistance if they were not employed at all.

We think those in need of social assistance are restricted. It would be better if social assistance were only granted to those in need. Interestingly, people who own everything to make a living pride themselves on receiving social assistance. For example, my neighbor has applied for social assistance even if they have a car and eat out every day. We think that some beneficiaries are not needy. (P13)

I do not know, but the government should investigate and supervise citizens’ wealth in our country. Somebody is granted social assistance even if they have a higher income than the majority. When it comes to people like me, the government rejects our applications because we are registered in the social security system. However, social security does not relieve my distress or does not feed me at home. Thus, the government should not consider social security or registered employment as a criterion in granting social assistance. Instead, it should supervise my assets. The current practice is just unfair. I think I benefit from social assistance less than others with sufficient socioeconomic status. Besides, the number of children should be considered a criterion for granting social assistance. One may compensate for their expenses if living alone, but the government should not cut the benefits of those with children living in a rental house. (P21)

Household Care Responsibilities

In Türkiye, disadvantaged women are covered with family social assistance (Sosyal Yardım lar Genel Müdürlüğü, 2023) since it is known that women in Türkiye are more likely to work in dangerous, non-decent jobs with low wages than men. Many problems (e.g., low income, restricted job opportunities mediated by old-fashioned social roles, inability to organize, and prolonged working hours) seem to mandate poor women engaging in only daily domestic services (Yıldırımalp & İslamoğlu, 2014).

Most of the participants considered the employment of both parents to be the only way to overcome poverty and financial difficulties. However, women’s household care responsibilities greatly hinder their employment (Özçatal, 2011). For this reason, such duties appear as a major reason for applying for social assistance. One participant said, “We would be financially relieved if I could be employed, but we have no relative or friend to take care of our children” (P5). Another participant stated, “I tried to persist in working life but realized our children had difficulties without me. Then, I had to quit my job. Yet, we are having great financial difficulties because I am not employed now” (P7).

We discovered that not only mothers but also older daughters undertake household care responsibilities:

I am a day laborer and provide cleaning services. In the past, I could not risk leaving my 9-year-old child in our stove-heated house when I was out for work. Then, we hardly bought a natural gas installation so that I could work a little more instead of taking that risk. Now, I leave the children with their sister and rush to work. When it is for breastfeeding, I run back home. (P22)

Unregistered Employment

Alcan (2016) investigated how social assistance programs in Türkiye shape people’s attitudes toward employment. Accordingly, they found that social assistance beneficiaries are largely unemployed or unregistered. In this study, we discovered that the participants have nothing to utter about engaging in working life but only have to make a choice between registered and unregistered employment. Another significant finding of this study is that unemployed beneficiaries of social assistance are less likely to not work than those not receiving social assistance.

We may claim that a significant reason for the preference for unregistered employment is being able to have a side income. While the overall unregistered employment was 28.7% in Türkiye in 2021, it was 35.4% among women (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, TÜİK, 2021, 2022). All the participants complained that minimum wage and the social assistance they receive remain insufficient to meet their livelihoods and, therefore, they need a side income. For example, while some participants engage in porterage (P14, P23, and P3), one works in construction (P24) to generate a side income. The majority, on the other hand, has generated a side income through the unregistered employment of other family members. The remaining stated that they can barely make a living by borrowing but cannot escape the debt cycle.

We become happy when we have money. I work in a cold environment. We have nothing else to do. Freelancing sounds better to me. I would have to participate in registered employment if my husband were not employed. (P2)

It should also be noted that even unregistered employment yields significant gender inequality (Karabıyık, 2015). Our findings showed that most of the women provide unregistered cleaning services to houses in their neighborhoods:

We have great difficulties. I am both unemployed and suffer from an unbearable cost of living. How can I buy olive oil? What will we do if we cannot bring bread to the table? I am definitely sure that my children feel embarrassed at school. I care for my older neighbor for money and can meet my children’s needs. That is how we make a living. I am also the janitor in this building. (P9)

Expectations of Social Assistance

The participants also expressed their expectations of social assistance throughout the interviews. It is, of course, among the working poor’s expectations to make a living and ascertain a bright future for their children. In this sense, our findings showed that the focus of the participants’ expectations of the social assistance system is on the support for food and their children’s education. Other expectations are associated with rental assistance, an opportunity for remote work, and the duration of social assistance.

Food Assistance

The global food crisis and the associated price increases have also affected the working poor (Varlık, 2021: 1123). We found that while some participants receive food assistance, some do not. Even some stated that they did not know whether they could receive food assistance. They often apply for any assistance they have heard from their close circles but cannot always receive food assistance.

The expectation of those receiving food assistance is the provision of their grocery needs but not just a food box full of legumes. Another expectation among them is that the assistance should be granted in proportion to the number of people in the household. As a ground for such an expectation, these participants point out food as their primary expense item (P2, P25, and P30).

Participants with babies stated that they have difficulty purchasing food and diapers due to increasing prices and that assistance oriented to these items would relieve the household budget. In this regard, one participant voiced, “It would be better if I could receive food assistance. I sometimes have no money for food after paying the bills. Everything is getting a raise nowadays, but I am worried about food prices the most” (P24).

Rental Assistance

Housing often emerges as a significant problem for the poor (Ergun & Kocancı, 2017: 221). In the same way, our findings revealed that housing occupies a large share of the participants’ expenditures. In the interviews, most participants indicated housing as a significant burden on their budget. It seems that the rental cost is their major expense item and that they suffer from increased rents due to recent economic challenges. They also noted that they become helpless because the cost of moving to a house with a lower rent may not be an alternative to their condition since there are no rental houses to compensate for their higher rental and moving costs, which may be the most apparent reason why the participants emphasize the necessity of rental assistance.

Rent is our greatest issue. I do not know where to move if the owner evicts us. Other expenses are important too. For example, the company will immediately stop the electricity service when the bills are unpaid. Moving is also a significant expense. I cannot find a cheaper house. The owner now complains about the rent I pay. We need an affordable house to be able to meet other expenses (P28).

Being a tenant is really challenging. The owner has requested us to evict the house by the end of this month. You know, there is an unprecedented increase in rents. While damp and old flats are rented for TRY 500, owners rent regular ones for about TRY 1000. The building managers also request money for thermal insulation. You know, rents have skyrocketed. (P12)

One participant stated that a fixed and low-rate loan would not solve their housing problem because he does not want to own a house with a loan due to his religious belief but complained that he can no longer afford excessive rent rates.

There has to be a form of mortgage system for people like us. I do not know how it should be, but it is becoming rather difficult to afford current rents. It may be a fixed-pay rent. I do not want to buy a house with a mortgage loan because of my religious belief that forbids us from acquiring money with a fixed-rate interest. (P21)

Opportunity for Remote Work

I wish all women were employed in remote jobs. For example, I applied to online advertisements for side income and was deceived twice. Only one employee in the household cannot afford all expenses. All remote jobs need to be allocated to women, which is what I want the most. (P30)

As implied in the excerpt above, the opportunity for remote work may be among their expectations of social support that differs by gender the most. While half of the female participants uttered such an expectation, only one male participant (P24) expressed it due to his sexist perspective: “I cannot allow my wife to be employed because of the culture in my hometown, Agri.” Our findings showed unregistered employment to be another domain where gender roles become prominent. For example, while most of the female participants take part in unregistered employment, it is the case for only one male participant.Footnote 1

Support for Children’s Education

In Türkiye, those employed in the scope of Law No. 3294 cannot benefit from conditional cash transfers. In this sense, the participants mostly pointed out their expectations of social assistance in terms of support for their children’s education. Overall, we implied that the participants do not want their children to be in need of social assistance and consider education the primary means of upward mobility. “I would be very happy if such assistance (support for their children’s education) is granted. Let me apply for any help I need” (P10, P12, P14, P15, P17, P22, and P27).

It is not the case for my elder child. I could not afford her school expenses, so she is now enrolled in open education. For example, my children cannot enjoy school trips at the same time. When one attends such activities, the other becomes deprived of them. Both are enrolled in a primary school, and their daily needs are already hard to meet financially. Besides, their school always demands extra money for paper, board pens, and toner. (P9)

All the participants have negative expectations of the future due to their current socioeconomic inadequacies. However, they believe that their children can overcome poverty if they receive a proper education. In parallel, they reported that they exert all their efforts to be able to make their children educated.

My child insists on not being enrolled in an Anatolian high school. Now, he goes to school on foot because we cannot afford his transportation costs. He wants to be enrolled in an open high school. I wish he would receive a formal high school education, but I have not insisted on it. On the other hand, he cannot do an apprenticeship because it becomes 8 p.m. when he comes home from school, which tires him. Then, I am convinced that he should attend open education. (P21)

Discussion and Conclusion

The relevant literature offers different definitions for in-work poverty. In brief, we can define it as a situation where people and their family members are not self-sufficient and remain relatively poor despite being involved in regular employment. Although employment does not always guarantee a promising quality of life, employed people are expected to have a better quality of life in the medium and long term when compared to unemployment. Like employment, social assistance aims to eliminate one’s disadvantages and contribute to their welfare. Thus, it may be important to investigate how social assistance helps the poor. Yet, based on the concepts of “employment,” “poverty,” and “social assistance,” it seems more remarkable to explore social assistance from the perspectives of those both employed and poor.

This study is not free of a few limitations. Conducted in only one province of Türkiye and involving 30 minimum wage earners, this study may not provide a comprehensive or representative understanding of the experiences of the working poor across the country. Perspectives and experiences of the working poor in this province may differ significantly from those in other areas due to regional differences in economic conditions, job markets, and level of social development. In addition, the small sample size may also restrict the generalizability of our findings. While the narratives of the participants provide indispensable first-hand data on the interaction between the working poor and social assistance, they represent a small fraction of such individuals in Türkiye. Therefore, our findings may need to be delicately addressed since they can potentially inform future studies with larger and more diverse samples.

Overall, our findings showed that such people (i.e., working poor) cannot become self-sufficient both by working or receiving social assistance and, therefore, continue to live in poverty. The experiences of the working poor can provide policymakers with the empirical evidence needed to design more inclusive, efficient, and responsive social assistance programs. Hence, the contribution of the experiences of the working poor in Türkiye regarding social assistance to the literature and potential policy changes in line with the recommendations below is of great importance. In this sense, our findings have the potential to advance our knowledge of social assistance systems, contribute to poverty reduction strategies, and ultimately promote social justice and equality.

According to our results, family members often prefer unregistered employment as long as one family member participates in registered employment. Particularly women try to contribute to the family budget in this way since undertaking household care responsibilities and believing that they cannot keep up with the working hours of a registered job. Unfortunately, the social assistance system does not encourage registered employment in Türkiye, which, in turn, promotes unregistered employment. Overlapping with our findings, a study by the Ministry of Family and Social Policies on social assistance and poverty culture revealed that those receiving social assistance often engage in unregistered labor, such as cleaning services and porterage (T.C. Başbakanlık Aile ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Genel Müdürlüğü, 2010: 84). Therefore, it can be concluded that social assistance can be utilized to prevent unregistered employment and contribute to the formal economy with the help of the full integration of the working poor in Türkiye into the social assistance system. Besides, even low amounts of social assistance can be granted as an incentive in favor of registered employees, particularly for women, to hinder unregistered employment. Such a system is also thought to contribute to the economy and strengthen the social assistance-employment relationship by reducing unregistered employment.

Household care responsibilities may be shown as the most prominent barrier for women to participate in employment. For example, the discrepancy between school and working hours may be among the factors pushing women to stay at home or to be employed in unregistered part-time jobs. Therefore, care responsibilities and gender roles have significant impacts on women’s employment. For this reason, considering remote work within the employment projects carried out within the SASFs is thought to contribute to the family budget, a sustainable social assistance system, and women’s sense of self-sufficiency.

Despite free and accessible public education in Türkiye, our findings implied that financial difficulties may drive people away from formal education. On the other hand, financial support to families with school-going children seems essential. The previous research yielded that the lack of support for children’s education has the potential to elevate in-work poverty (Frazer & Marlier, 2010: 31). Such assistance should also apply to families with children enrolled in higher education.

The usual suspect of the rising prices, the pandemic, continues exacerbating poverty. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to deploy relevant means through SASFs to alleviate the adverse impacts of the post-pandemic processes and fight against poverty. Our findings also highlighted the significance of the SASF staff’s familiarization with and positive attitudes toward the needy within the social assistance system.

It is often the case that social assistance does not greatly contribute to the socioeconomic status of the working poor (Scholtens, 2002: 3; Kahraman, 2015: 68). Conditional cash transfers and social assistance are quite common among policies of the EU member states to support the working poor but not an ultimate remedy to in-work poverty (Marchal et al., 2018: 218). Similarly, we discovered that people cannot escape poverty in Türkiye even if more than one person in the same household is employed. For this reason, in line with the literature, we can reasonably assert that social assistance is not adopted as an effective policy instrument in the fight against working poverty.

Although it was predicted that the working poor’s purchasing power would decrease further during the pandemic without a reasonable wage raise (Yorğun, 2020: 103), it can confidently be claimed that Turkish citizens’ purchasing power has decreased despite multiple raises in the minimum wage since the pandemic. Therefore, increases in the minimum wage may be considered a tool in the fight against working poverty, but such raises will not contribute to one’s socioeconomic status in Türkiye, according to the empirical evidence (Acs et al., 2000: 33). Rising prices, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to deepen poverty even more. However, our findings imply that SASFs may need to employ the necessary means for an effective fight against poverty with a robust underlying structure in the field. It can be asserted that SASF officials’ close acquaintance with and attitudes toward people in need greatly benefit them.

Despite a wide variety of social assistance types, we realized that the participants are not sufficiently aware of what assistance they receive and why. On the other hand, some participants refrain from receiving social assistance. However, the inability of the working poor to benefit from some types of social assistance makes them disadvantaged compared to those unemployed or participating in unregistered employment. Overlapping with this implication, a previous study concluded that the participating SASF staff considered the working poor to be more disadvantaged compared to those unemployed (Ortakaya, 2021: 74-75; Saygı Doğru, 2020: 939). Therefore, the beneficiaries’ inability to distinguish the social assistance types both complicates the system for them and causes them to feel disadvantaged since they believe not to be able to benefit from the social assistance system fully. Besides, despite the inefficiency of social assistance in improving one’s social life, it is deemed indispensable for maintaining their livelihood. To eliminate the said undesirable situations, some niche practices, such as cash transfers within the scope of income support based on neediness, are thought to bring significant contributions to the fight against working poverty in terms of making the working poor feel better and encouraging unregistered employees in the household to registered employment.