The recent OECD report, “Doing Better for Children,” compares results across 30 member countries, focusing on six main areas -- material well-being, housing and environment, education, health, risk behaviors and quality of school life -- in order to paint as broad a picture as possible.None of the countries surveyed fared well on all fronts, but available statistics showed that Turkey and Mexico lagged behind other member countries in most areas.
Poverty is clearly a factor weighing heavily on the evolution of a child. The average disposable income of children's families in Turkey is seven times less than in Luxembourg, and child poverty is nine times higher than in Denmark. Mexico and Poland also display poor results on that front and, shockingly, so does the US, which is among the richest countries in the OECD.
For children to perform well in school, they should have certain key necessities, according to the OECD: a desk to study, a quiet place to work, a computer for schoolwork, educational software, a calculator, a dictionary and school textbooks. Whereas in Iceland or Germany, the vast majority of children have access to these basics, the number of children considered “educationally deprived” is much higher in Turkey and in Mexico, as well as in richer countries such as the US and Japan.
When it comes to quality of life at school, however, Turkish children reported going to school happily, especially at the primary level. Enjoyment decreased somewhat in higher grades, perhaps partly because of the bullying and fighting. A quarter of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds in Turkey reported having been bullied at least twice in the previous two months.
Unfortunately, the pupils' enjoyment of school is not entirely reflected in the results. In the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) score, used to assess the reading, math and science literacy of 15-year-olds, Turkey remains well below the OECD average. The OECD report, however, reported the small but measurable impact, particularly on girls, of the conditional cash transfers introduced in 2001 by the Turkish Social Solidarity Fund. The program targets the poorest 6 percent of children and ensures they get immunized, enroll in school and attend regularly thanks to bi-monthly support payments.
A figure that should alarm Turkish officials, who often boast that the youth of Turkey's population is the country's main asset, is the ratio of teenagers between the age of 15 and 19 who are not in employment, education or training (NEET). Turkey holds the OECD record in this area with 12 times more idle young people than the Netherlands. On average, 37.7 percent of teenagers stay at home, with the ratio reaching 50 percent for girls.
No data was available for young Turks' alcohol and drug consumption, which are significant problems in countries like the United Kingdom for example. I would hazard the guess that the ratio remains low here. But Turkey still ranks among the countries where children display “risky behavior” due to the high rate of teenage pregnancies. Unlike in the US and the UK, most teenage girls are married when they give birth, but while the social risk may be lower, the negative physical impact of early motherhood remains. Turkey, perhaps not coincidentally, still has a relatively high rate of low birth weight babies.
When it comes to child welfare, each country needs to set its own targets and devise its own programs to reach them. Overall the OECD recommends that countries focus more on the early part of the children's life cycle, “from conception until entry into compulsory schooling when outcomes are more malleable and foundations for future success are laid.” Well-designed interventions at this stage maximize social efficiency of public policies and help promote social equality.
