multidimensional poverty measurement for eu-silc countries sabina alkire, mauricio apablaza, euijin...
TRANSCRIPT
Multidimensional poverty measurement for EU-SILC
countries
Sabina Alkire, Mauricio Apablaza, Euijin Jung
UNECE meeting, Geneva May 6, 2015
2
1. Background2. Methodology3. Three possible Measures4. Results
a. M0 , H , A
b. Dimensional breakdownc. Dynamic Analysesd. Decomposition
5. Recommendations for EU-SILC survey
1. Background
Long tradition of counting measures Severe Material Deprivation Indicator EU-2020 Whelan Nolan Maitre (2014)
This paper: seeks to illustrate the kinds of analyses that could be possible by implementing an AF methodology using limited variables across cross-sectional data 2006-2012.
Counting-based Identification
1. Select Dimensions, Indicators, Weights, and Cutoffs
2. Create deprivation profiles per person
3. Identify who is poor
e.g. if score > 34%
1
2
3
FGT-based Aggregation
Poverty measure is the product of two components:
1) Prevalence ~ the percentage of people who are poor, or the headcount ratio H.
2) Intensity of people’s deprivation ~ the average share of dimensions in which poore people are deprived A.
M0 = H × A
3. Experimental measures
3 measures constructed
Units of identification and of analysis: individual 16+
Four, Five, and Six Dimensions:1. Health2. Education3. Living Environment4. Living Standards (all EU-2020 indicators
not below)5. Material Deprivation6. Quasi Joblessness
Countries aggregated if data covers 6 waves 2006-12
3. Experimental measures Indicators: 12
Same in all measures Health: 4, Env: 4; Educ: 1, EU-2020: 3
Weights: Differ for each measure 1: EU-2020 as one dimension; equal
weights 2: EU-2020 = [AROP + QJ] and [Severe
Mat Dep] 3: EU-2020: one dimension each
Poverty Cutoffs: Strictly more than 1 (1,2) or 2 (3) Ds. 26% in measure 1, 21% in measure 2;
34% in M 3
Table 5: Dimensions, Indicators and Weights for Measures (M) 1, 2 and 3
8
Dimension Variable Respondent is not deprived if: M1 M2 M3EU 2020 AROP The respondent’s equivalized disposable income is
above 60 per cent of the national median 1/12 1/10 1/6
Quasi-Joblessness
The respondent lives in household where the ratio of the total number of months that all - household members aged 16-59 have worked during the income reference year and the total number of months the same household members theoretically could have worked in the same period is higher than 0.2
1/12 1/10 1/6
Severe material deprivation
The respondent has at least six of the following: the ability to make ends meet; to afford one week of holidays; a meal with meat, chicken, fish or vegi equivalent; to face unexpected expenses; and, to keep home adequately warm. Or the respondent has a car, a colour TV, a washing machine, and a telephone.
1/12 1/5 1/6
9
Dimension Variable Respondent is not deprived if: M1 M2 M3Education Education The respondent has completed primary
education 1/4 1/5 1/6
Environment Noise The respondent lives in a household with low noise from neighbourhood or from the street 1/16 1/20 1/24
Pollution The respondent lives in a household with low pollution, grime or other environmental problems
1/16 1/20 1/24
Crime The respondent lives in a household with low crime, violence or vandalism in the area 1/16 1/20 1/24
Housing The respondent lives in a household with no leaking roof, damp walls, rot in window frames or floor
1/16 1/20 1/24
Health Health The respondent considers her own health as fair or above
1/16 1/20 1/24
Chronic Illness
The respondent has no chronic illness or long-term condition
1/16 1/20 1/24
Morbidity The respondent has no limitations due to health problems
1/16 1/20 1/24
Unmet Med. Needs
The respondent does not report unmet medical needs
1/16 1/20 1/24
10
Measures 1-3: Weighting Structure
11
Measures 1-3: Weights & Poverty cutoff k
26% 21
%
34%
12
Table 3: Correlations (Cramers’ V) across uncensored deprivation
headcount ratios
13
q-joble
ss
s mat dep
education
noisepolluti
oncrim
ehousi
nghealth
chr. illness
morbidity
u.m. need
sAROP 0.44 0.45 0.23 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.25 0.23 0.36 0.21 0.23
q-jobless 1.00 0.30 0.19 0.26 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.45 0.20 0.15s mat dep 1.00 0.22 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.40 0.23 0.41 0.15 0.20
education 1.00 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.34 0.48 0.28 0.16
noise 1.00 0.61 0.46 0.32 0.25 0.36 0.25 0.30pollutio
n 1.00 0.38 0.24 0.19 0.37 0.19 0.23crime 1.00 0.24 0.17 0.37 0.18 0.20housin
g 1.00 0.24 0.37 0.21 0.28health 1.00 0.91 0.65 0.22
chr illness 1.00 0.93 0.50morbid
ity 1.00 0.16um
needs 1.00
Table 4: Redundancy values across uncensored deprivation headcount
ratios
14
q-jobles
s
sev. mat dep
education
noise
pollution
crime
housing
health
chr. illnes
s
morbidity
u.m. need
s
AROP 0.27 0.22 0.09 0.03 0.010.03 0.1 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.06
q-jobless 1 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.02
0.05 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.1 0.05
sev. mat dep 1 0.07 0.06 0.05
0.06 0.18 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.14
education 1
-0.01 -0.01
-0.01 0.06 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.02
noise 1 0.410.25 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05
pollution 1
0.25 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05
crime 1 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05housing 1 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.08health 1 0.42 0.55 0.11chr.
illness 1 0.39 0.1morbidi
ty 1 0.08u.m.
needs 1
Redundancy: ratio of percentage deprived in both indicators to lower of the two total
deprivation headcount ratios
Figure 2: Adjusted Headcount Ratio (M0) by poverty cut-off 2006-2009-2012
15
Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3M0 M0 M0
k k k
Poverty reduced 2006-12, but not necessarily significantly
Figure 1: Measure 1 Adjusted Headcount Ratio (M 0) by poverty cut-off
2006-2009-2012
16
2006 2009 2012M0 M0 M0
k k k
Southern Europe is always poorest k=1-40%.
Figure 4: Dimensional Breakdown SILC selected countries 2006-2009-2012
17
Headcount ratio: 4-43% M1 5-39% M2 1-18% M3
Figure 5: Dimensional Decomposition Measure 1 k=26% by country (2009)
ranked from poorest
18
Figure 6: Dimensional Decomposition Measure 2 k=21% by country (2009),
ranked from poorest
19
Figure 7: Dimensional Decomposition Measure 3 k=34% by country (2009),
ranked from poorest
20
Figure 8: Raw and Censored Headcount Ratios Measure 3 k=34% for Norway,
Hungary and Portugal (2009)
21
Figure 10: Adjusted Headcount Ratio for all Measures by country (2006-
2012)
22
Measure 1 k=26%
Measure 2 k=21%
Measure 3 k=34%
Figure 11: Poverty contributions by country, population-weighted Measure
1
23
Figure 12: Bubble graph of changes Measure 1 by H and A 2006-2009-2012
24
Figure 13: Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by Measure, Gender and Year
25
Figure 14b: Contributions to National Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by Gender
2012 (Measure 1)
26
Figure 16a: Aggregate Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by
Gender and Year Measure 2
27Women have higher deprivations overall in education and health
Figure 16b: Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by Gender and country Measure 1
(A)
28Women always have higher deprivations in education and health
Figure 16b: Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by Gender and country Measure 1
(B)
29Here there are exceptions. For ed: DE, SE, IS, and NO.
Figure 17a: Percentage contributions to Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by age and
year Measure 1 (A)
30Youth contribution highest in UK; NO 2012; Elder
high
Figure 17a: Percentage contributions to Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by age and
year Measure 1 (B)
31France has distinctively high elder poverty 65+
Figure 17b: Percentage contributions to Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by Age,
Dimension and Year Measure 1
32
Recommendations for EU-SILC survey questions Highest ISCED level of schooling
attained : levels do not have the same number of years across countries or; or, at times, across age cohorts or subnational regions. Recommendation: supplement with the number of years of schooling completed, to facilitate comparisons.Education LEVEL (Adult and Child
above 5) Circle the appropriate ISCED code
What is the highest level of school (NAME) has attended? Pre-school 1 SKIP YEARSPrimary ETC
Education YEARS (Adult and child above 5)
What is the highest grade (NAME) completed at this level?
Recommendations for EU-SILC survey
Self-Assessed Health: cutoff points may be differently defined according to age, gender, culture, language, health knowledge or aspirations, making comparisons difficult. Recommendation: replace with objective indicators, or with more focused self-report on health functionings (mppn.org) – or health states.
Recommendations for EU-SILC survey
Perception of Crime: responses have been documented to be inversely related to objective incidents of violence. Recommendation: replace with reported violence against person or property in last 12 months and the severity of that violence (mppn.org)
PROPERTY•In the last 12 months, did someone steal or try to steal something you or a member of your household owns, whether it was in your dwelling, or was outside (like vehicles), or whether it damaged your home or property?• How many times in the last year did this happen?• What is the value of the property that was stolen or damaged?PERSON•In the past year, were you or a member of your household attacked or forcibly assaulted whether without any weapon, or whether by someone with a gun, knife, bomb or another instrument? This may have occurred inside or outside your home.• How many times in the last year did this happen?• Did anyone die in any of these incidents?• In the worst incident were you or anyone else seriously injured and could
not continue their normal activities for a period of time?
In Summary
Constructs 3 Multidimensional Poverty measures
Report poverty, headcount and intensity Compares these on aggregate 2006-2012 Decomposes by regions, countries – across
time. Analyses decomposition by dimension Analyses changes over time by H and A Decomposes results by gender Decomposes results by age category Recommends gathering comparable social
indicators Purpose: illustrates a measurement
methodology and the analyses it can generate.
1. Background
Changes from previous draft
Three new measuresChanged indicator definitionsStandard errorsRegistry data countries includedProposals for EU-SILC survey design
Comparable questions on Education, Health, and Living Environment.
New: dimensional breakdownThe poverty measure is also the sum of the weighted
‘censored headcounts’ of each indicator
Censored Headcount for dimension j: The percentage of the population that is identified as poor, and is deprived in indicator j.
2. Methodology1. Select Dimensions, Indicators and Values
2. Apply Deprivation cutoffs for each indicator
3. Create weighted deprivation score per person
4. Apply a poverty cutoff to identify who is poor
5. Aggregate information about poverty in a measure
We use Alkire Foster M0 measure
Reflects prevalence (H), intensity (A)
Key Properties for analysis: subgroup decomposability, dimensional monotonicity, dimensional breakdown (post-identification), ordinality.
Alkire, Sabina and James Foster J. of Public Economics 2011
Figure 3: Headcount ratio and intensity SILC selected countries 2006-2009-
2012
40
Measure 1 k=26%
Measure 2 k=21%
Measure 3 k=34%
Figure 9: Changes in the adjusted headcount ratio M0 by region over time
41
Measure 1 k=26%
Measure 2 k=21%
Measure 3 k=34%M0 M0 M0
k k k
Figure 14a: Contributions to National Multidimensional Poverty (M0) by Gender
2006 (Measure 1)
42
Figure 15: Gender Decomposition of M0 by Country 2006 and 2012 (Measure 3)
43