Multidimensional poverty and social isolation in Poland Methods of analysis and basic results

Multidimensional poverty and social isolation in PolandMethods of analysis and basic results

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPECONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN STATISTICIANS

Seminar “The way forward in poverty measurement”Geneva, 2-4 December 2013

Anna BieńkuńskaCentral Statistical Office of PolandE-mail: [email protected]

A source of data for analysis of multidimensional poverty and social

exclusion in Poland - Social Cohesion Survey

First of all, it is comprehensive and thus makes it possible to study a wide range of information at the level of an individual surveyed, the information being both subjective and objective, covering both material and non-material aspects of the quality of life.

Multidimensional social cohesion survey is ‘a combination of a number of various surveys’.

SOCIAL COHESION SURVEY

General characteristics of the survey

• The information about the household’s condition was recorded in a household questionnaire, while that about respondents at the age of 16 years and over – in the individual questionnaire. At the stage of data processing the data from both questionnaires was combined.

• First edition of the survey has been conducted by CSO of Poland in 2011, 2nd edition is planned for 2015. Cyclic form of the survey enables comparability of the results over the years.

• Effective sample size (2011): Surveyed households – 14873Surveyed individuals - 13246

5

In contrast to a classic mono-dimensional approach, in which poverty range is exclusively drawn on the basis of household income or expenditure, the present analysis features three complementary approaches to poverty, namely income poverty, living conditions poverty and poverty in terms of lack of budget balance.

Poverty is analysed with reference to households. Persons who are members of the households considered poor are also viewed as affected by poverty.

Applied approach to poverty measurement

6

Multidimensional poverty

Income poverty

Living conditions poverty

Poverty in terms of

the lack of budget balance

7

INCOME POVERTY

Criteria and poverty thresholds:

• Households’ equivalised monetary income

• Poverty threshold – household’s income is equal or below 60% median equivalised households’ income in Poland

• Poverty rate: 15,1 % of households

8

DETERMINANTS OF POVERTYMODEL. INCOME POVERTY

Assessment of the contributory significance of various factors

Factor Wald statistics

Principal source of household’s income 520.5 ***

Household size 143.2 ***

Age of the household head 136.0 ***

Educational level of the household head 151.9 ***

Occupation of the household head 155.2 ***

A disabled person in the household 8.2 ***

An unemployed person in the household 360.9 ***

Type of locality 39.9 ***

Voivodship 55.5 ***

9

LIVING CONDITIONS POVERTY


• Aggregate indicator of poor living conditions considering dwelling conditions, durables, material and non-material deprivation

• Maximum value of the indicator – 30

• Poverty threshold – indicator’s value equal or below 10

• Poverty rate: 13,5% of households

10

Components of the indicator of poor living conditions (intermediate variables)

% of households representing a given

symptom (the intermediate

variable value=1)

1. Poor condition or no electrical system available 8.1%

2. No central heating or a fuel-fired (coal, wood, sawdust) furnace 15.7%3. Poor sanitary conditions (no running water, including hot water, no bathroom or toilet) 23.4%

4. Dark and damp dwelling 17.1%

5. Dwelling located in a noisy neighbourhood or in a region with contaminated natural environment (dust, smoke, other contaminants) 18.0%

6. Too small dwelling (as for the household needs) or not every adult person has a separate room or a separate space in a dwelling to rest, study and work 26.2%

7. Inability to maintain an adequate temperature in a dwelling (not warm enough in the winter, and not cool enough in the summer) 35.8%

8. Poor dwelling conditions — general (subjective) assessment 5.1%

9. No washing machine 9.3%

10. No fridge or freezer 1.0%

11. No microwave or multifunction robot 20.1%

12. No vacuum cleaner 2.1%

13. No radio or TV set 3.1%

14. No CD, DVD or MP3 player, no cable or satellite TV 5.7%

15. No (landline or mobile) phone 1.6%

11

Components of the indicator of poor living conditions (intermediate variables) (cont.)


symptom (the intermediate

variable value=1)

16. No computer 9.3%

17. No access to the Internet for financial reasons 11.4%

18. Poor provision of durable goods in the household — general (subjective) assessment 4.9%

19. No car for financial reasons 12.4%

20. No money for entertainment (tickets to cinema, theatre, concerts, visits in restaurants, etc.) 37.1%

21. No money for at least one week of holiday once a year 42.9%

22. Household cannot afford to invite their family or friends to dinner, supper or other meal once a year 14.4%

23. Household cannot afford to buy presents for their nuclear family (parents, siblings or adult children) once a year 11.7%

24. No money to buy books or press items 17.9%

25. No money to buy pharmaceuticals 14.5%

26. No money to visit specialist doctors or dentists 26.2%

27. No money to buy footwear, clothing and bedclothes 13.4%

28. No money to replace worn-off furniture 30.3%

29. No money to buy food (resigning from meat, fresh fruit and vegetables) 9.3%

30. The need to resign from any of the basic meals (breakfast, dinner or supper) for financial reasons 2.1%

12

Distribution of values of the aggregate indicator of poor living conditions – in % of households

GOOD

SITUATION

POVERTY

Indicator value (n - number of symptoms) % of households

Accumulated % of households which corresponds to households with a given indicator valuea and

households:

poverty threshold

in worse situation (n symptoms or more)

in better situation (no more than n symptoms)

0 14.8 100.0 14.8

1 16.8 85.2 31.6

2 13.4 68.4 45.0

3 10.1 55.0 55.1

4 7.7 44.9 62.8

5 7.3 37.2 70.1

6 5.0 29.9 75.1

7 4.5 24.8 79.7

8 3.8 20.3 83.5

9 3.0 16.5 86.5

10 2.7 13.5 89.2

11 2.1 10.8 91.3

12 1.7 8.8 92.9

13 1.3 7.1 94.2

14 1.2 5.8 95.4

15 0.9 4.5 96.4

16 0.7 3.6 97.1

17 0.7 2.9 97.8

18 0.7 2.2 98.5

19 0.4 1.6 98.8

20 0.3 1.2 99.1

21 0.2 0.9 99.3

22 0.2 0.6 99.6

23 0.2 0.5 99.7

24 0.1 0.3 99.8

25 0.1 0.2 99.9

26-30 0.1 0.1 100.0

13

DETERMINANTS OF POVERTYMODEL. LIVING CONDITIONS POVERTY




Equivalent income (decile) 1022.4 ***

Age of the household head 13.4 **






Voivodship 73.4 ***

14

POVERTY IN TERMS OF THE LACK OF BUDGET BALANCE


• Aggregate indicator considering subjective households’ opinions about their material status and budgetary difficulties (including arrears)

• Maximum value of the indicator – 7• Poverty threshold – indicator’s value equal

or above 4

• Poverty rate: 15,9% of households

15

Components of the indicator of the lack of budget balance (intermediate variables)


symptom (the intermediate variable

value=1)

1. Arrears in rent, electricity or gas payments (at least two months in arrears), and in mortgage repayment (at least one month in arrears) 4.2%

2. Subjective household’s opinion on the inability to “make ends meet” (it is difficult or extremely difficult for the household to “make ends meet”) 30.7%

3. The household has to save money on a daily basis, or there is not enough money in the household to satisfy even the most basic needs (self-assessment) 36.8%

4. Declared household’s income is lower than the necessary (minimum) level of income that would allow to “make ends meet” 26.8%

5. Loan or credit was contracted to cover the current consumer expenses (on food, clothing, footwear, regular payments) 7.2%

6. Household’s perception of considerable difficulties in making current expenses, due to loan/credit repayment 11.8%

7. Household’s declaration indicating the lack of any financial leeway (inability to cover an unexpected expense of PLN 400-500) 42.0%

16

Distribution of values of the aggregate indicator of the lack of budget balance – in % of households

Indicator value (n – number of symptoms) % of households

Accumulated % of households which corresponds to households with a given

indicator valuea and households:

poverty threshold

in worse situation (n symptoms or more)

in better situation (no more than n symptoms)

0 38.2 100.0 38.2

1 20.0 61.8 58.2

2 13.2 41.8 71.4

3 12.8 28.7 84.1

4 9.9 15.9 94.0

5 3.8 5.9 97.9

6 1.6 2.1 99.5

7 0.5 0.5 100.0

GOOD

SITUATION

POVERTY

17

DETERMINANTS OF POVERTYMODEL. POVERTY IN TERMS OF THE LACK OF BUDGET BALANCE




Equivalent income (decile) 1311.7 ***

Age of the household head 106.4 ***






Voivodship 107.1 ***

18

Multidimensional poverty

Co-occurence of three forms of poverty

Poverty rate: 4,6% of households

Income povertyLiving

conditions poverty

Poverty in terms of lack of

budget balance

MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY

19

OVERLAP OF VARIOUS POVERTY FORMS

Living conditions poverty (only)

Poverty of the lack of budget balance (only)

Living conditions, budget balance and income poverty

Income poverty (only)

Income and budget balance poverty

Living conditions and budget balance poverty

Living conditions and income poverty

5.6%

1.9%

4.6%

3.9%

6.0%

2.6%

13.5%

15.9%

15.1%

Living conditions poverty

Poverty in terms of the lack of budget balance

Income poverty

3.1%

% of households

20

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VERIOUS POVERTY FORMS PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

SPECIFICATION (indicators pair) PEARSON'S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

Assessment of the correlation between base indicators

Aggregate indicator of poor living conditions - level of household income -0,41

Aggregate indicator of poverty in terms of the lack of budget balance – level of household income -0,45

Aggregate indicator of poor living conditions – aggregate indicator of the lack of budget balance 0,67

Assesment of the correlation between poverty indicators

Living conditions – Income 0,37

Living conditions - the lack of budget balance 0,45

Income - the lack of budget balance 0,36

21

DETERMINANTS OF POVERTYMODEL. MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY


Factor Wald statisticsPrincipal source of household’s income 261.5 ***Household size 45.5 ***Age of the household head 65.9 ***Educational level of the household head 93.8 ***Occupation of the household head 60.6 ***A disabled person in the household 29.9 ***An unemployed person in the household 165.1 ***Type of locality 5.7 n.s.Voivodship 25.1 **

22

FROM POVERTY TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION – IS POVERTY RELATED TO SOCIAL ISOLATION?

23

Social isolation• Unit of analysis: persons aged 16 and more

• It was assumed that a person is socially isolated if he/she does not maintain (frequent enough) contacts with the surrounding social environment outside his/her own household. The lack, or sporadic character, of certain types of relations, for whatever reason, was treated as a symptom of isolation.

• The social isolation threat was assessed on the basis of a aggregate indicator of social contacts whose values ranged from 0 (a ‘strongly isolated’ person), to 10 (a person “strongly integrated with the society”). The social isolation threshold was adopted at 3

24

Distribution of intermediate variables (partial indicators) included in the aggregate indicator of social contacts – in % of persons aged

16 years or more

Type of relation/contact (intermediate value)

Share of persons maintaining a given type of relations (the variable

equals “1”)

Contacts with parents and children living outside the respondent’s household 65.8

Contacts with brothers and sisters living outside the respondent’s household 67.8

Contacts with parents-in-law (great-) grandparents (great-) granddaughters and (great-) grandsons 73.3

Contacts with other relatives 82.7Contacts with friends and colleagues 75.6Having friends 77.7Relations with neighbours 57.1Relations arising from religious life 50.1

Active involvement in associations, parties, clubs and social organisations:

intensive – the variable equals to “2” 14.7

less intensive – the variable equals to “1” 14.2

25

Distribution of values of the aggregate indicator of social contacts – in % of persons aged 16 years or more

Indicator value

(n – number of relations)

% of persons

Accumulated % of persons which corresponds to persons with a given

indicator valuea and persons:

with weaker social contacts

(n relations or less)

with stronger social contacts (n relations or

more)

0 0.2 0.2 100.0

1 0.7 0.9 99.8

2 2.4 3.3 99.1

3 5.6 8.9 96.7 ISOLATION THRESHOLD

4 11.1 20.0 91.1

5 19.0 39.0 80.0

6 22.4 61.4 61.0

7 20.0 81.4 38.6

8 11.7 93.1 18.6

9 5.2 98.3 6.9

10 1.7 100.0 1.7

SOCIAL ISOLATION

SOCIAL

INTEGRATION

26

DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL ISOLATIONMODEL. SOCIAL ISOLATION



Sex 14.4 ***Age 98.8 ***Being in a relationship 38.6 ***Educational level 15.5 ***Occupation 12.0 n.s.Disability 34.0 ***Unemployment 2.8 *Household type 91.1 ***Equivalent income (decile) 83.2 ***Type of locality 62.2 ***Voivodship 50.7 ***

27

POVERTY

SOCIAL ISOLATION

SOCIAL EXCLUSION

28

in % of persons aged 16 years or more

COEXISTENCE OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL ISOLATION

a This item concerns the occurrence of one poverty form, so it does not refer to households in which two or three forms occurred at once. b This item concerns the occurrence of two poverty forms, so it does not refer to households in which three forms occurred at once.

% OF PERSONS

a

b

- No symptoms of either poverty or social isolation

- Simultaneous occurrence of poverty (at least one form) and social isolation –> social exclusion:

social isolation and three poverty forms

- Only social isolation (without poverty)

- Poverty (at least one form) without social isolation

social isolation and one poverty form

social isolation and two poverty forms

67.8

4.0

1.0

4.9

23.3

1.8

1.2

29

DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION MODEL. TOTAL EXCLUSION

(3 FORMS OF POVERTY + SOCIAL ISOLATION)Assessment of the contributory significance of various factors


Sex 0.1 n.s.Age 33.6 ***Being in a relationship 2.6 n.s.Educational level 24.5 ***Occupation 14.4 n.s.Disability 41.9 ***Unemployment 38.7 ***Household type 40.6 ***Equivalent income (decile) 14.3 ***Type of locality 18.6 n.s.

30

• Extending the poverty analysis so as to cover income-unrelated aspects allowed us to draw a more complete picture of this phenomenon in Poland. Our analysis has shown that there is a group of households whose current income considerably exceeds the income poverty threshold, but which nevertheless face a number of difficulties with balancing their budget, or which live in poor conditions. In Poland, it concerns i.e. the households of older persons.

• For use of the social policy, very important issue is the information regarding values of aggregate rates as well as particular symptoms of poverty.

CONCLUSIONS

31

• The survey results indicate the lack of strong correlations between poverty and social isolation. Therefore, we feel that with respect to decision-makers and social security systems, attention should be directed towards persons affected jointly by poverty and the lack (or a very limited level) of social relations.

• Social isolation in Poland concerned mainly older and disabled persons.

• The underlying determinants of social exclusion are the lack of education, unemployment and disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Date post:	25-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	basil
View:	33 times
Download:	0 times

Multidimensional poverty and social isolation in Poland Methods of analysis and basic results

Documents