Empowering Women as Mothers? Conditional Cash Transfers and Gender Approach to AKP's Social Policy


  • Meltem Yılmaz-Şener




social policy, AKP, poverty, women, mother, neoliberal, conservative, conditional cash transfer


This paper looks at the gender aspect of social policy provision in Turkey during the AKP government period—through an emphasis on the ways in which women are positioned within the anti-poverty programs. It focuses on conditional cash transfers (CCTs), as the leading and most emphasized poverty alleviation program of the AKP government. The paper subjects the CCTs—in general and the Turkish CCT program in particular—to a gender perspective. It demonstrates how CCTs are representative of the AKP’s social conservative and neoliberal approach to social policy especially with regard to the roles that are assigned to women. It further argues that the double-sidedness in AKP’s policies in terms of gender equality is observed in the case of the CCTs. Although at the discursive level, there is an emphasis on empowerment of women by this program, the ways in which the program is structured leads to the reinforcement of women’s domestic roles. Especially the transfer of money to mothers is presented as an aspect of the program that empowers women. However, receiving the cash transfer in their capacity as mothers, in fact, strengthens essentialist thinking about the traditional responsibilities of women (and men). CCTs, as programs that depend on the neoliberal social risk management approach to poverty, target poor family as the main institution that is responsible for dealing with the future risks that the individuals will encounter. Not only the responsibility for social protection is shifted to the family, but by determining the mother as the recipient of the transfer, woman in her capacity as the mother is defined as the main party that has responsibility for getting out of poverty and managing social risks. Hence this paper argues that for AKP, with its neoliberal and conservative orientations, CCT has been a perfectly-fitting social assistance program. 


AKP (2006). 3. Şartli Nakit Transferleri Konferansı. Başbakan Erdoğan: Dün Krizlerin Pençesinde Ağır Sıkıntılar Yaşıyorken, Bugün Çok Daha Rahatız, Çok Daha Mutluyuz. İnternet adresi: http://www.akparti.org.tr/site/haberler/3-sartli-nakit-transferleri-konferansi-basbakan-erdogan-dun-krizlerin-pence/47 64#1. Erişim tarihi: 16 Nisan 2015.
Barrera-Osorio F.; Bertrand M.; Linden L.L; & Perez-Calle F. (2011). Conditional Cash Transfers in Education Design Features, Peer and Sibling Effects: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Colombia. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 13890.
Behrman J.; Sengupta P. & Todd P. (2000). The Impact of Progresa on Achievement Test Scores in the First Year. Final Report, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Brown W. (2003). Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy. Theory and Event, 7(1): 1-19.
Buğra A. (2013). Revisiting the Wollstonecraft Dilemma in the Context of Conservative Liberalism: The Case of Female Employment in Turkey. Social Politics, 21(1): 148-166.
Buğra A. & Candaş A. (2011). Change and Continuity under an Eclectic Social Security Regime: The Case of Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 47(3): 515-528.
Buğra A. & Keyder Ç. (2006). The Turkish Welfare Regime in Transformation. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3): 211-228.
Chant S. (2007). Gender, Generation, and Poverty: Exploring the ‘Feminization of Poverty’ in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Chaudhury N. & Parajuli D. (2006). Conditional Cash Transfers and Female Schooling: The Impact of the Female School Stipend Program on Public School Enrollments in Pubjab, Pakistan. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no 4102.
Clarke J. (2004). Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of New Liberalism. Journal of Social Policy, 33(1): 27-48.
Coşar S. & Özman A. (2004). Center-right Politics in Turkey after the November 2002 General Election: Neoliberalism with a Muslim Face. Contemporary Politics, 10(1): 57-74.
Dedeoğlu S. (2013). Veiled Europeanization of Welfare State in Turkey: Gender and Social Policy in the 2000s. Women’s Studies International Forum, 41(1): 7-13.
Dedeoğlu S. (2012). Equality, Protection or Discrimination: Gender Eqaulity Policies in Turkey. Social Politics, 19(2): 269-290.
Dünya Bankası (DB) (2015a). Conditional Cash Transfers. İnternet adresi: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALPROTECTION/EXTSAFETYNETSANDTRANSFERS/0,,contentMDK:20615138~menuPK:282766~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282761,00.html. Erişim tarihi: 21. 10. 2014.
Dünya Bankası (DB) (2015b). CCT Programs: Now on Every Continent. İnternet adresi:http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:22063209~noSURL:Y~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382~isCURL:Y~isCURL:Y~isCURL:Y,00.html. Erişim tarihi: 23.10.2014.
Fizsbein A. & Shady N. (2009). Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty. Washington DC: World Bank.
Fraser N. (2003). From Discipline to Flexibilization?- Reading Foucault in the Shadow of Globalization. Constellations, 10(2): 160-171.
Freeland N. (2007). Superfluous, Pernicious, Atrocious, and Abominable? The Case against Conditional Cash Transfers. IDS Bulletin, 38(3): 75-78.
Gitter S. & Barham B. (2008). Women’s Power, Conditional Cash Transfers, and Schooling in Nicaragua. World Bank Economic Review, 22(2): 271-290.
Glewwe P. & Olinto P. (2004). Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Schooling: An Experimental Analysis of Honduras. PRAF Program. Final Report for USAID.
Grütjen D. (2008). The Turkish Welfare Regime: An Example of the Southern European Model? The Role of the State, Market, and Family in Welfare Provision. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 7(1): 111-129.
Holzmann R. & Kozel V. (2007). The Role of Social Risk Management in Development: A World Bank View. IDS Bulletin, 38(3): 8-13.
Lagarde M.; Haines A. & Palmer N. (2009). The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Health Outcomes and Use of Health Services in Low and Middle Income Countries. The Cochrane Collaboration, 4: 1-53.
Lomel E.V. (2008). Conditional Cash Transfers as Social Policy in Latin America: An Assessment of Their Contributions and Limitations. Annual Review of Sociology, 34: 475-499.
Marshall T.H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Ministry of Family and Social Policy (MFSP) (2012). Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Program in Turkey Project Report. MFSP: Ankara.
Molyneux M. (2009). Conditional Cash Transfers: A ‘Pathway to Women’s Empowerment’? Pathways to Women’s Empowerment Working Paper 5. Institute of Development Studies: Brighton.
Molyneux M. (2007). Two Cheers for CCTs. IDS Bulletin, 38(3): 69-74.
Molyneux M. (2006). Mothers at the Service of the New Poverty Agenda: Progresa/Oportunidades, Mexico’s Conditional Cash Program. Social Policy and Administration, 40(4): 425-449.
Molyneux M. (1985). Mobilization without Emancipation? Women’s Interests, State, and Revolution in Nicaragua. Feminist Studies, 11(2): 227-54.
Patton M. (2006). The Economic Policies of Turkey’s AKP Government: Rabbits from a Hat? Middle East Journal, 60(3): 513-536.
Robertson L.; Mushati P. & Eaton J. (2013). Effects of Unconditional and Conditional Cash Transfers on Child Health Development in Zimbabwe: A Cluster Randomized Trial. The Lancet, 381(9874): 1283-1292.
Rose N. (1996). Governing ‘Advanced’ Liberal Democracies. In Osborne B. & Rose N. (Eds.), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Rationalities of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 37-64.
Standing G. (2014). Conditionality and Human Rights. UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development): 1-6. İnternet adresi: http://ww w.unrisd.org/sp-hr-standing.
Standing G. (2011). Behavioral Conditionality: Why the Nudges Must Be Stopped-An Opinion Piece. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 19(1): 27-38.
Standing G. (2010). Social Protection. In Cornwall A. & Eade D. (Eds.), Deconstructing Development Discourse: Buzzwords and Fuzzwords. Oxford: Oxfam GB: 53-67.
Standing G. (2007). Conditional Cash Transfers: Why Targeting and Conditionalities Could Fail. IPC One Pager, 47: 1-1
Kadını Anne Olarak Güçlendirmek? 49
Standing G. (2005). Why Basic Income is Needed for a Right to Work. Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy, 2(1): 91-102.
UNICEF (2014). Türkiye’de Şartlı Nakit Transferi Programının İyileştirilmesine Yönelik Politika Belgesi.
World Bank (WB) (2008). Implementation Completion and Results Report for the Social Risk Mitigation Project. Report No: ICR0000306.
World Bank (WB) (2001). Turkey-Social Risk Mitigation Project. Project Information Document. Report Number PID10515.
Yılmaz B. (2012). Şartlı Nakit Transferi Kadını Güçlendirmede Nerede Duruyor? Mersin, Adana, Antep, Mardin ve Diyarbakır’dan Bir Saha Çalışmasının İlk Bulguları. Türkiye Sosyal Politikalarını Tartışıyor Konferansı
Yörük E. (2012). Welfare Provision as Political Containment: The Politics of Social Assistance and the Kurdish Conflict in Turkey. Politics and Society, 40(4): 517-547.



How to Cite

Yılmaz-Şener, M. (2019). Empowering Women as Mothers? Conditional Cash Transfers and Gender Approach to AKP’s Social Policy. Kadın/Woman 2000, Journal for Women’s Studies, 17(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.33831/jws.v17i1.68