Date post: | 30-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | undp-in-europe-and-cis |
View: | 2,092 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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