department of social policies and gender equality isfol

Paris, 6-8 July 2011

A Multidimensional Approach to the Analysis of Individual Deprivation: the Model and the Results of an Empirical

Investigation

byMatteo D’Emilione, Giovanna Giuliano, Paolo Raciti, Simona Tenaglia

Department of Social Policies and Gender Equality ISFOL

Aim and results of the work

• Objective: to measure the level of deprivation of the population living in a given territory (multidimensional perspective)

• Theoretical framework: Capability Approach (Sen, Nussbaum), multidimensional indicators theory (Bossert, Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio (2009))

• Results: representation of individual level of deprivation, ex-ante evaluation tool, instrument for policy makers accountability and democratic debate



What is ‘functioning’?

Functioning is a "state of being and doing“ and can be defined in greater detail as:

• A physical, cognitive and mental state of individuals;• placing individuals in a position to perceive a problem or to

set objectives and desires;• to attribute a value to the problem or objective;• to express the aim to act, to choose to act and to act

consistently in view of the management of the problem or achieving the objective.

What is ‘capability’?

• A capability is defined as the real power of choice that a person has with respect to a fixed system of states of being and doing (functionings) actually available and alternative among them. Capabilities reflect the real degree of freedom that is internal to personal choice of living one kind of life rather than another.

• Agency is the ability to act on behalf of what you value and have reason to value



Material goodsConversion factors

Functionings

Capabilities

Choice


List of individual dimensions

1. Living in a house in our approach means to be able to manage the house (to be able to sustain expenditures, to clean it and keep it in order);

2. Generating income means to be able to manage and improve income source (to find a new job, to increase professional skills, investing savings etc.);

3. Living in the community (Community environment) means to be able to live in the environment (to maintain relationships with friends, neighbors, to attend churches, cinema, sporting clubs, etc.);

4. Developing skills, improving education means to be able to improve educational level, to attend courses etc;

5. Being healthy means to be able to improve health conditions (to be able to take care of oneself and of the other members of the family and not having dangerous or risk behaviors);

6. Thinking about the future means to be able to plan for the future, (to have a clear idea of how would you like the life to be);

7. Expressing emotions and talents means to be able to express feelings of love, anger, gratitude in all the dimensions of life, to be able to use imagination, rationality and creativity, to be able to use skills and talents in the workplace.


The multidimensional indicator

The indicator presented here is intended precisely to highlight the several dimensions of poverty. It is based on the counting approach" (Atkinson 2003), developed among others by Alkire and Foster (2007) and Bossert, Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio (2009).



Defined “n” as the population size and “r” as the parameter that makes the indicator sensitive to the distribution of poverty (Bossert, Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio 2009), the index is represented as follows

rn

i

rir P

nP

1

1

1



k-dimensional vector;

P (x) individual function

α weights calculated on the basis of the question posed to respondents and policy makers.

0

00

1:,.....,1

xx

ifif

xPjxKj j

i

jkkjk

ififj

k \,....,101

1


The indicator is a symmetric mean of order “r” and changes according to the level of inequality. For values of “r” approaching unity the index becomes the arithmetic mean of the individual levels of poverty.

The indicator takes into account binary variables ( if ‘1’ deprivation; if ‘0’ no deprivation’) which belong to two different categories:

Material deprivation and conversion factors variables: describe the individual material deprivation at present

Functioning variables: explain how, when and why a functioning is active or not.

The general indicator is composed by 47 status variables and 37 functionings variables

The interactions/interplays between these two kinds of variables can be viewed in a cartesian space representing four possible situations…..


Material deprivation variable (example)….

Problems you can find in your neighbourhood/community (if ‘yes’ 1 ; if ‘no’ 0):

• Pollution and/or dirtiness;• Noise caused by traffic, industrial activities etc• Crime• Lack of services (ex: postal services, sanitation,

banking etc)• Lack of transport facilities• Uneven roads• Low lighting


Functioning variable (example)….

There are different ways to solve such problems or to prevent such things from going wrong. During the last 12 months, have you (or a member of your family) done any of the following actions ?

• Contacted a politician or local government official (0)• Worked in a political party or ‘action group’/neighborhood

committee (0)• Self-organization with friends or neighbors (0)• I haven't done anything because they are not problems that can be

solved (1)• I haven't done anything because there are no organizations/action

groups where I/we live (0)• I haven't done anything because I'm not interested in such

problems (1)


The space of capabilities

A

D

B

C

• On Y axis we measure achieved functionings, not achieved functionings and PARTIALLY achieved functionings

• Empowerment is a subset of Agency (Alkire ….), and following this definition we are not measuring empowerment



The empirical analysis (some details)

• (Unrepresentative) sample of 523 individuals;• Two groups: users of social services / non users • Ad hoc structured questionnaire (divided into seven

sections, one for each dimension selected by the research team)

• 6 Social Planning Districts/Area;• 6 focus groups with social workers and policy

makers.


Application of the indicator

• Figure1: General index (r=1)

3633302724211815129630

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

21

1

1

1

2 2

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

22

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

11

11

1

12

1

1

2

1

3

21

1

1

11

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

6

2

1

1

12

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

2

1

2

2

3

1

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

4

1

3

1

3

1

1

2

2

2

2

22

1

1

2

1

12

2

3

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

4

1

3

1

11

2

33

4

3

1

2

1

2

1

4

2

31

3

2

3

1

1

2

2

3

4

52

2

1 8

12

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

5

4

3

11

2

1

1

2

1

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

4

3

1

3

3

5

1

5

1

12

5

1

1

1

1

23

3

5

44

6

7

3

7

1 2

12345678

Scala

B (12%)

C (35,4%) D (18%)

A (34,6 %)


It is possible to weight each dimension through a value which is the mean of weights assigned by two groups of people:

• individuals of the sample • policy makers and social workers.


Terms of allocation of weights from respondents

Imagine you have 100 points. Shared them among the following dimensions, according to the relevance you attach to each dimensions in generating deprivation and poverty:

to be able to mange the house( to be able to sustain expenditures, to clean the house) to be able to manage and improve income source (to find a new job etc.) to be able to live in the environment (to maintain relationships etc.) to be able to improve educational level to be able to improve health conditions to be able to project the future to be able to express emotions and talents


Weights for single dimension (%)

Dimensions Individuals Policy makers and social workers

Living a house 16,4 24,3

Generating income 22,1 23,4

Living in the community 10,5 10,6

Developing skills / Improving education 13 13,6

Expressing emotions and talents 10,3 7,4

Being healthy 18 10,3

Thinking about the future 9,8 10,4

Total 100 100



Figure 2: Index with interviewed individuals weights (r=1)

86420

4

3

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

11

1

2

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

4

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

3

2

2

4

1

1

11

31

11

5

1

42

3 33

3 3

31

4

2

2

1

3

6

21

3

4

1

2

4

1

3

2

1

2

6

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

13

1

1

5

1

3

2

1

1

4

2

2

2

8

5

25

2

4

9

6

6

4

4

44

1

1

5

2

12

2

6

10

6

4

9

72

4

9

2

7

1

2

2

6

5

7

5

5

6

7

42

8

024681012

Scala

A(44,8%)

B(12,4%)

D(20,6%)

C(22,2%)



6543210

4

3

2

1

0

11

1

1

1

11

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

12

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

21

12

2

1

11

3

3

1

12

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

11

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1 21

5

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

22

2

12

1

3

2

2

1

3

3

1

3

1

1

4

1

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

11

52

2

3

3

1

4

11

1

1

1

1

3

2

11

1

2

3

1

33

1

2

1

4

2

2

12

1

1

221

2

2

3

1

3

1

3

5

1

2

2

2

3

1

2

2

2

1

2

12

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

4

3

1

2

3

1

2

1

2

1

12

1

51

1

2

3

3

1

2

2

5

3

3

2

1

5

2

1

2

1

12

2

1

1

12

3

3

46

4

2

5

3

2

13

123456

Scala

Figure 3: Index with policy makers and social workers weights (r=1)


Strengths of our model

• The ability to display the results of the survey (positioning individuals in a cartesian space) reinforces the potential of the model in at least two ways:

1. it allows to share the results with policy makers (improves the accountability of the administration) and, eventually, with the population directly affected by the survey (increasing empowerment of the population;

2. through repetition over time of the survey involving a cohort of individuals, it will be possible to study any transitions between quadrants.

• In the latter case, the multidimensionality of the phenomenon and the large number of variables considered do not allow us to associate these transitions to the effect of specific policy interventions. However these movements provide a basis for evaluating policies aimed at fighting poverty and social exclusion


What we wanted to do/have but we could not …

• More funds Panel

• Representative sample (at national / regional level) • Assure a follow up of the survey.


……and what we are going to do…

A survey in a specific metropolitan area (2000 individuals)


Thank you for your attention!


The literature …Full operationalisation of CA…..is it possible? See : • ‘A note on functionings-poverty in affluent societies’ – A. Balestrino (1996);• ‘A multi-dimensional assessment of well being in the functioning space’ , Chiappero –

Martinetti (2003)• ‘ Children well-being and family characteristics in Italy’, T. Addabbo, M. Di

Tommaso (2007);• ‘Measuring the interaction between parents and children in Italian families: a

structural equation approach’ – A. Maccagnan (2011);• ‘Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty reduction’ – S. Alkire

(2002) • ‘Applying Sens Capabilities Framework to Work Family Balance whitin a European

context. Theoretical and Empirical Challenges’ - Hobson and Faheln (2009)

CA (Sen, Nussbaum) Multidimensional indicators (Atkinson (2003), Alkire and Foster (2007) and Bossert,

Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio (2009)).

department of social policies and gender equality isfol

Documents

multidimensional approach

healthy means

capability approach

dimensions of life

educational level

professional skills

counting approach atkinson

kind of life