and the less educated (Ceritoglu, Tunculer, Torun, and Tumen, 2015; Del Carpio and Wagner, 2015). The economic effects of SUTPs not only vary across different segments of the labor market, there are also strong regional differences in their economic effects. Using synthetic modelling methods, Ozturkler and Goksel (2015) estimate the impact of Syrian refugees on local prices, wages, inflation, and services in 10 cities with large refugee populations. Some of the salient negative effects have been increases in rental prices, increases in inflation at border cities, illegal hiring by small business, and decreases in wages. However, in some cities (Gaziantep, Adana, Kahramanmaras, and Mardin), the presence of refugees has improved the trade balance, and economic activity in these areas are projected to increase as economic integration with MENA deepens. Orhan and Gundogar (2015) also note both positive and negative aspects of SUTPs.

A primary contribution of this paper is the estimation of poverty at the sub-national level and among population groups of interest. Since migration, geographic, and welfare variables do not exist in a single data set, imputation techniques are required to overcome these limitations and to compute household level poverty. The imputation of income poverty is done using the Turkish Labor Force Survey (LFS), and with information and modeling parameters determined from the Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC). More details and validation of this methodology is discussed throughout this paper.

While explicit identification of Syrians in available surveys is not feasible, there is evidence of an increase in the amount of foreign-born individuals that is being captured in the LFS. The arrival year of foreign-born migrants is available in the data which allows for identification of “Settled Migrants” and “Recent Migrants”. The latter is used as a proxy for Syrian refugees for the purposes of this paper. National official surveys that are conducted under-report the refugee population. Yet, since about 10 percent of Syrian refugees are in camps and the remaining are residing throughout the country, it is not surprising that they are accessible to interviews by the LFS.

Despite data limitations, there are strong and significant trends in the poverty rates for the recent foreignborn, especially for those near the Syrian border. In 2013, recent migrants near the Syrian border were the poorest group<sup>4</sup> in Turkey. While this statistic in itself is not initially surprising, fluctuating welfare trends of recent migrants over time is noteworthy. In previous years, migrant households in Turkey tend to have much lower poverty on average than even the host community. Across comparison groups and time, the poverty rates of recent migrants is higher than among the host community in only one instance: in 2013 near the Syrian border. This sudden change in the historically stable pattern implies that the LFS is able to capture at least a part of the incoming SUTPs who have significantly different socioeconomic profiles in comparison the previous economic migrants.

Throughout history, immigration to Turkey has been relatively limited and consisted mostly of those of Turkish heritage. In the early 20<sup>th</sup> century, immigration was encouraged by the government as a method to increase the population. Since 1970, immigration has slowed down and has been even discouraged at times. Many immigrants to Turkey are of Muslim Turkish background, since the government prioritized preserving a national identity. This is likely why “migrants” had very similar or even lower poverty rates than the host community.

The sharp degradation of welfare among recent migrants in 2013 illustrates the severity of poverty that is arising very likely from a growing population of Syrian refugees. The Syrian refugee inflow to Turkey

> 4 Based on grouping by host community, established migrant, recent migrant.

3