Table 3. Poverty Convergence was strong before the financial crisis

|**2006-2009**||$2.5/day PPP|||$5/day PPP||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|$2.5/day PPP|Headcount|Poverty<br>Gap|Poverty<br>Gap<br>Squared|Headcount|Poverty<br>Gap|Poverty<br>Gap<br>Squared|
|Mean convergence|-0.106|-6.143|-0.047|-0.028|-0.083|-0.155|
|Direct poverty effect|-0.031|-0.019|0.007|-0.035|-0.044|-0.040|
|Povertyelasticity|0.005|0.006|0.004|0.004|0.005|0.005|
|_Poverty Convergence Elasticity_|**_-0.132_**|**_-6.156_**|**_-0.036_**|**_-0.058_**|**_-0.122_**|**_-0.189_**|
|**2010-2013**||$2.5/day PPP|||$5/day PPP||
|$2.5/day PPP|Headcount|Poverty<br>Gap|Poverty<br>Gap<br>Squared|Headcount|Poverty<br>Gap|Poverty<br>Gap<br>Squared|
|Mean convergence|0.229|-0.416|-0.149|0.088|0.193|0.314|
|Direct poverty effect|0.044|0.011|0.023|0.070|0.071|0.054|
|Povertyelasticity|-0.019|-0.012|0.018|-0.021|-0.021|-0.020|
|_Poverty Convergence Elasticity_|**_0.254_**|**_-0.416_**|**_-0.109_**|**_0.138_**|**_0.244_**|**_0.348_**|

Notes: Income based poverty. Following the methodology in Ravallion (2012). No population weights _Source_ : SILC and LFS 2006-2013, authors’ calculations

# **<u>Where Is There Economic Mobility?</u>**

Economic mobility measures the portion of the population that moves either above or below a selected threshold of welfare. The paper’s analysis examines the population’s movement across the $5/day PPP poverty line between 2006 and 2013. The population is categorized in to four groups as follows: those who are above the poverty line in both periods - “Non-Poor”; those who are below the line in both periods - “Chronic Poverty”; those who are poor in the first period but move above the line in the second period - “Upward Mobility”, and finally those who start out as not poor but fall below the line - “Downward Mobility”. Measurements of economic mobility in and out of poverty are computed following the methodology of Dang et al (2014). This methodology allows for measures of mobility using a synthetic panel when actual panel data is unavailable. Thus, the population across Turkey and within each region is assumed to be constant between 2006 and 2013.

At the national level, the level of upward and downward mobility is similar between 2006 and 2013 (Figure 9). In other words, the percentage of people who fell under the poverty line of $5 PPP is at a parallel level to the proportion of people who escaped poverty. In total, around 25 percent of the population experienced a change in their moderate poverty status. Moreover, approximately 10 percent of the population was in chronic poverty meaning that one in ten people in Turkey were under the poverty line both in 2006 and 2013.

Economic mobility was heterogeneous across regions. Eastern and Southeastern regions experienced higher rates of churning as a greater proportion of people moved either above or below the poverty line in these areas. However, even among these regions with high mobility, there were significant differences. Regions in the roof, which are lagging in terms of poverty reduction, had significantly more people moving below the poverty line in comparison to the group that experienced upward mobility. The high level of churning in Eastern Turkey alongside the increase in poverty rates suggest that despite the existence of opportunities to help people escape poverty, there is a simultaneous high level of vulnerability among the people who are 16