Post on 15-Mar-2016
description
transcript
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL POVERTY (MPI) METHODS APPLIED TO
THE SAINT LUCIA LABOUR FORCE SURVEY
SOME IDEAS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OECS MULTI-DIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX
BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES BY EDWIN ST CATHERINE
DIRECTOR OF STATISTICS, SAINT LUCIA
ST LUCIA LABOUR FORCE SURVEY (LFS)METADATA
CountryYear 2013Dataset Source Saint Lucia Labour Force Survey
(LFS)Population Sample 8,865 Persons
3,235 Households
To Guide and Evaluate Poverty Reduction Interventions
LFS 2013 - DIMENSIONS & INDICATORS
Dimension Indicator Deprivation Cut-offs Weight
Education Educational Attainment Level (Alt: Years of Schooling)
Persons in Households with All Persons at Primary School Level or Below who are 15 Years and over
1/8
Labour Household Employment Rate*
No Employed as a Percent of Total Number of Persons in Household (less than 1 out of every 5 adults in household employed)
1/8
Household with Any Person 15 – 29 Unemployed
Persons Living in Households with an unemployed youth age 15 - 29
1/8
Child Welfare
Children Living in Over- Crowded Housing (Child Mortality)
Person’s Under 15 years living in household with 3 or more persons per bedroom
1/8
Living Standards
Asset Ownership Ownership of less than Four Assets
1/8
Connectivity No Access to the Internet 1/8Type of Housing Persons Living in Plywood
Housing1/8
Income Persons living below 50% of Mean household income
1/8
1/4
1/2
SAINT LUCIA LFS 2013 INDICATORS HEADCOUNT AND
MISSING VALUES
Dimension Indicator
Raw Headco
unt
Censored*
Headcount
% Missing Values
Education Person in HH with only Primary 22.5% 14.8% -
Labour Household Employment Rate* 22.4% 20.8% -
Household with Any Person 15 – 29 Unemployed
22.5% 14.9%-
Child Welfare
Children Living in Over- Crowded Housing 17.6% 11.2% -
Living Standards
Asset Ownership 8.2% 6.4% -Connectivity to Internet 59.7% 32.2% -Type of Housing 16.0% 12.1% -Income 30.6% 25.9% -
Poverty Cut-off
(k)
Headcount Ratio
(H)
Intensity of Deprivation
(A)
Adjusted Headcount Ratio (M0)
20% 57% 40% .22630% 35% 49% .17340% 21% 57% .11860% 8% 67% .05480% 3% 88% .002100% 0% 100% 0
ST LUCIA: ANNUAL LFS 2013 MULTI-DIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX RESULTS
ST LUCIA: ANNUAL LFS 2013 MULTI-DIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX
RESULTS• H = 35% - THIS MEANS THAT 35% OF THE POPULATION IS POOR
(DEPRIVED IN 30% OR MORE DIMENSIONS/INDICATORS), A LIMIT CASE WOULD BE MAXIMUM POVERTY HEADCOUNT IF PERSONS WERE CONSIDERED POOR IF POOR IN ONE OR MORE DIMENSIONS….)
• A = 49% - ON AVERAGE THE POOR (THOSE DEPRIVED IN 30% OR MORE DIMENSIONS) ARE DEPRIVED IN APPROXIMATELY 49% OF THE INDICATORS.
• M0 = 0.173 - THE POOR IN THIS SOCIETY EXPERIENCE 17.3% OF THE TOTAL POSSIBLE DEPRIVATIONS THE SOCIETY COULD EXPERIENCE.
LFS 2013 - HEADCOUNT RATIO
UNDER DIFFERENT CUT-OFFS
Poverty Cut-off
Hea
dcou
nt R
atio
Person is poor if they experience deprivations in at least 3 of 10 indicators
ADJUSTED HEADCOUNT RATIO
UNDER DIFFERENT CUT-OFFS
Poverty Cut-off
Adj
uste
d H
eadc
ount
Rat
io
ADJUSTED HEADCOUNT RATIO UNDER DIFFERENT CUT-OFFS BY
DISTRICT
RAW HEADCOUNT RATIOS BY URBAN/RURAL
CENSORED HEADCOUNT: PERSONS POOR AND DEPRIVED IN SPECIFIC
INDICATORS
OUR MPI SHOULD BE LIKE A HIGH POWERED LENS
You can zoom in to see more
REGIONAL EXAMPLES OF MPI
THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY MEASUREMENT DEVELOPED BY CONEVAL (MEXICO) IS A BI-DIMENSIONAL MEASURE. THE MODEL’S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IS THE HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH AND THE DIMENSIONS INCLUDED IN THE MODEL ARE GUIDED BY THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LAW (2004).
COLUMBIA HAS ITS OWN VERSION OF THE MPI
INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES TO ENSURE DATA IS COLLECTED TO DELIVER
• DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS ( CDB, UN AGENCIES, OECS SEC., ETC.) HAVE AGREED TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN HARMONIZED MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY MEASUREMENT (MPM) FOR THE SUB-REGION AS A WAY OF REGULATING THE COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF CORE SOCIAL.
• THE MPM WILL INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUB-REGIONAL MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX USING:• A REVISED LFS AND A REVISED COUNTRY POVERTY ASSESSMENT (CPA) THE
DEPRIVATION IN KEY AREAS SUCH AS • I) HOUSING,• II) EMPLOYMENT, • III) SAFE DRINKING WATER, • IV) INFORMATION, • V) FOOD AND INCOME• VI) EDUCATION • VII) HEALTH BY GENDER, AGE, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, TO SUPPORT THE FORMULATION OF NEW
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT CAN ADDRESS AND EFFECTIVELY TARGET DISADVANTAGED GROUPS IN SOCIETY.
CONCLUSIONS• Political and policy framework for the indicators
and dimensions to be included in the MPI• OECS Authority• CDB Board• Ministerial Meeting on MPI – identify an
MPI Champion Minister• Questions to Supplement the LFS to make it a
more robust tool for constructing an MPI• Pool at least one year of this data to report on an
annual basis• Align the eventual indicators chosen to a
philosophical framework, example Human Rights or Post 2015 Sustainable Development Indicators
THANK YOU