SECONDARY SOURCE CONTEXTUALIZATION OF SURVEY DATA

Andrey Ivanov, UNDP BRC

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This presentation is summarizing the results of the regional project on ‘Social Inclusion in CEE’ and thus benefits from the inputs and ideas of the entire team involved The additional computation of indicators was done by Mihail Peleah, UNDP BRCThe follow-up research in Serbia was conducted by Pavle Golicin and Branka Andjelkovic from Public Policy Research Centre, Belgrade

SUMMARY

The Social Exclusion Index The Social Exclusion Chain The local context – how to grasp it? Piloting the approach at regional and

country levels Broader opportunities for further

application

THE SOCIAL EXCLUSION INDEX

Application of the Multidimensional Poverty Approach

‘Dual cutoff’ method: within dimension: based on deprivation

with respect to given dimension across dimensions: overall threshold

(number of deprivations) beyond which a person is considered socially excluded

CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDEX

Three dimensions of social exclusion (with 8 indicators each):

Economic: Deprivation in incomes, basic needs, access to employment, financial services; material needs and lack of amenities; housing and ICT-related exclusion.

Social services: Access to and affordability of education and health services; other public services, such as public utilities.

Participation: Deprivation in political, cultural and social participation; political, cultural and social support networks.

Threshold: 9

DATA SOURCES

Social Exclusion Survey in 6 countries of the region conducted in November 2009 Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia,

Tajikistan, Ukraine Sample of 2700 households; In the case of Serbia

3,001 interviews in total (2,401 with members of the general population, plus two boosters with 300 Roma, and 300 internally displaced persons)

10 interviews per PSU (7 in Kazakhstan) Expert-level assessments of the socioeconomic

status of the individual PSUs in each country

Social exclusion headcount for three different thresholds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Deprivation cutoff value

Per

cent

age

of p

eopl

e co

nsid

ered

'soc

ially

exc

lude

d'

for

each

cut

off v

alue

threshold

Kazakhstan

Moldova

FYRMacedoniaSerbia

Tajikistan

Ukraine

SOCIAL EXCLUSION PROFILES

 Kazakhsta

n MoldovaFYR

Macedonia Serbia Tajikistan Ukraine

Magnitude of social exclusion at cut-off 9

(A) Social exclusion headcount 32% 40% 12% 19% 72% 20%(B) Average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded 10.5 11.0 10.8 10.8 11.1 10.4(C) Intensity - average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded as percentage of total (24) 44% 46% 45% 45% 46% 43%Multidimensional Exclusion Index (MEI) = (A) *(C) 14 18 5 8 33 9

THE EXCLUSION CHAIN Individual

characteristics gender, ethnicity,

health status

Inclusion

Exclusion

Institutions, policies and values

Negative feedback i.e. informality, unemp5loyment

Feedback to traits Positive: empowered,

educated, Negative – accident as consequence of informal labor

Local context:

rural, mono-town

Drivers of Exclusion

Positive reinforcing feedback i.e. vote, voice or action

ADDING THE LOCAL CONTEXT

Assumptions Individuals in each PSU share the same

conditions Conditions do not change overnight

Challenges Grouping and thresholds Reflecting intra-settlements diversity

LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Quality of local transportation infrastructure and social exclusion index

11

19

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Good and excellent Poor Bad

MONO-COMPANY TOWNS

Social exclusion index by employment opportunities and the way the current crisis affected local economy

27

11

20

7

16

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Single or two employers Multiple employers

Local economy declined No change Local economy grew

EXCLUSION AND CORRUPTIONSocial exclusion index by dominating values (tolerance to

corruption) and type of settlement

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Villages Small towns Capital

Low acceptance ofunofficial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done

High acceptance ofunofficial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done

ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

Impact of environmental disasters on social exclusion index

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Area affected by radiation, chemicalcontamination or environmental

degradation

Area that did not experience any majordisaster

Exclusion fromparticipation incivic and social lifeand networks

Exclusion fromsocial services

Economicexclusion

SERBIA: THE IMPACT OF THE CRISIS

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Decline - many industries closed No major changes Economy growing (new employment opportunities, increased production)

How the current crisis affected local economy?

Social exclusion index in areas differently affected by the crisis

M0 National average

Caveat: low number of observations in areas on decline

SERBIA: MONO-COMPANY TOWNS

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

single or two major enterprises

variety of small and medium businesses

single or two major enterprises

variety of small and medium businesses

Major employment provider before transition (before 1989)

Major employment provider in the last 5 years

Social exclusion index in areas with different employment opportunities

M0 National average

SERBIA: INFRASTRUCTURE AND MIGRATION

0.75

0.85

0.95

1.05

1.15

1.25

1.35

1.45

1.55

Excellent and Average Poor Inflow of people Outflow of people

Local transportation infrastructure What is the tendency of people in last 5 years?

Social exclusion index in areas with differentquality of infrastructure and migration trends

M0 National average

QUANTIFYING LOCAL CONDITIONS

In-depth assessment and data base of local level indicators for Serbia (from National statistics, local administrations)

A data base of local-level indicators on the status of individual PSUs Basic demographics Education (number of pupils by educational level,

establishments, teachers) Health, mortality, Employment by sectors and unemployment (registered) Local budgets (revenue and expenditure) Voters turnout Distances to social infrastructure (medical, school, restaurant)

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND HEALTH

71

119

109

96

116

85

1

21

41

61

81

101

121

141

Number of deaths per year per 1000 Number of doctors per capita per 1000 people

Value of social exclusion index in localities with different value of major health indicators (% of the national average)

Low Med High National

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND EDUCATION

119 118127

101

87

101

69

82

55

1

21

41

61

81

101

121

141

Number of pupils in primary schools per school

Number of children in preschool institutions per institution

Number of children in preschool institutions per 1000 children 5-9

Value of social exclusion index in localities with different value of some education indicators

(% of the national average)

Low Med High National

EMPLOYMENT AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY

106 110

85

67

109118

1

21

41

61

81

101

121

141

Activity rate Number of voters who casted their vote in last elections per 100 person adult population (share of

those who casted)

Value of social exclusion index in localities with different level of employment and political activity

(% of the national average)

Low Med High National

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND REMOTENESS

81

68

88

113

124

110

1

21

41

61

81

101

121

141

Distance to nearest hospital Distance from capital (by car)

Value of social exclusion index in localities with different distances from...(% of the national average)

Low Med High National

EMPLOYMENT AND ACTIVITY RATE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Activity rate Employed in enterprise, institutions, cooperatives and other organizations (total, %)

Value of social exclusion index in localities with different activity rate and secyre employment

Low Med High National

NOT ALL CRITERIA WORK…

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Yes No Yes No

Was the area scene of a violent conflict in the last 20 years?

Was the area affected by any major environmental disaster?

M0 National average

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

Not all indicators behave adequately Due to small number of observations? Due to imprecise data? Because they contradict initial

expectations? Additional qualitative research

necessary to establish causality links A lot of data still not openly available

but worth the effort acquiring

NEXT STEPS

Mainstream the SEI into existing national statistical instruments, namely HBS adding ‘social exclusion’ component

Test methods for addressing intra-settlements disparities (like GPS coordinates of surveyed households)

Investigate opportunities for local-level monitoring involving members of the respective communities – both collection of data and reporting through on-line application