Multidimensional poverty in developed countries: German experiences (Empirical Applications based on SOEP-Data)

Similar documents
Alternative Measures of Economic Activity. Jan J. J. Groen, Officer Research and Statistics Group

EXPLORING MOTIVATION AND TOURIST TYPOLOGY: THE CASE OF KOREAN GOLF TOURISTS TRAVELLING IN THE ASIA PACIFIC. Jae Hak Kim

the 54th Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate School of Planning (ACSP) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania November 2 nd, 2014

How commuting influences personal wellbeing over time

Domestic resource mobilization. Infrastructure

Bird Hunting along the Mediterranean Coast of Egypt Socioeconomic study. Nature Conservation Egypt Salwa Elhalawani

More relatively-poor people in a less absolutely-poor world

Peeling the Onion: Analyzing Aggregate, National and Sectoral Energy Intensity in the European Union

The Quality of Life of the People in Norway

Active Living and Community Design: The Twin Cities Walking Study

Measuring of Poverty in Limpopo: An analysis of different measures of poverty and the multiple deprivation index. PSEF Nov 2014

2017 Nebraska Profile

Impact of the Graduation Approach: Findings from the CGAP- Ford Graduation Pilots. Nathanael Goldberg Jeremy Shapiro April 2016

DOES A TOWBAR INCREASE THE RISK OF NECK INJURY IN REAR-END COLLISIONS?

BASIC INFRASTRUCTURES, GROWTH AND CONVERGENCE IN WAEMU

Neighborhood Influences on Use of Urban Trails

Country

Webinar: The Association Between Light Rail Transit, Streetcars and Bus Rapid Transit on Jobs, People and Rents

Transport attitudes, residential preferences, and urban form effects on cycling and car use.

Population & Demographics

Value of time, safety and environment in passenger transport Time

Rossana Merola ILO, Research Department

Valuing Beach Closures: An Application to the Texas Gulf Coast

Fixed Guideway Transit Outcomes on Rents, Jobs, and People and Housing

The Impact of Spending Cuts on Road Quality

HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE STATUS American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

Jordi Prat Principal Economist March, 2018

An Empirical Analysis of Hunting Lease Pricing and Value of G

Female Cyclist Survey 3

U.S. Overview. Gathering Steam? Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Active Travel and Exposure to Air Pollution: Implications for Transportation and Land Use Planning

Multifamily Market Survey

Roadway Bicycle Compatibility, Livability, and Environmental Justice Performance Measures

Kevin Manaugh Department of Geography McGill School of Environment

Examining Potential Travel Time Savings Benefits due to Toll Rates that Vary By Lane

Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States

US imports from emerging economies have grown rapidly

Federal Safety Net Big Dollars. FederalSafetyNet.com

Multidimensional Analysis

BBS Fall Conference, 16 September Use of modeling & simulation to support the design and analysis of a new dose and regimen finding study

Assessment of socio economic benefits of non-motorized transport (NMT) integration with public transit (PT)

Muhlenkamp & Company. Webinar December 1, Ron Muhlenkamp, Portfolio Manager Jeff Muhlenkamp, Portfolio Manager Tony Muhlenkamp, President

The Economic Status of Women in the U.S. What Has Changed in the Last Years

Houston and Tomball Economic and. Housing Outlook. recenter.tamu.edu. Dr. James P. Gaines Research Economist

Exposure-adjusted fatality rates for cycling and walking in European countries

Mobility Constraints of Children in Bangladesh: A Study on Travel to School in Dhaka City

Walkable Communities and Adolescent Weight

Comment on: Productivity Growth, Wage Growth and Unions by Kügler, Schönberg and Schreiner

Contributions of neighborhood street scale elements to physical activity in Mexican school children

Figure 1a. Top 1% income share: China vs USA vs France

Valuing Beach Closures in Damage Assessment: An Application to the Texas Gulf Coast

Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and

Bike Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods

Health Impact Analysis for Integrated Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan

College/high school median annual earnings gap,

Designing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program in Blacksburg, VA

Facing the Crisis in Southern Europe: Demographic, Political and Social Service Dilemmas

Appendix 13 Rowing and sculling in the sea

Bicycle Helmet Use Among Winnipeg Cyclists January 2012

What does it take to produce an Olympic champion? A nation naturally

Texas Housing Markets: Metropolitan vs. Border Communities. September 22, 2014

Export competitiveness factors in the Eurozone countries: the Italian case

A SURVEY OF 1997 COLORADO ANGLERS AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PAY INCREASED LICENSE FEES

The Impact of VLT Location on Problem Gamblers: Evidence from Individual Bankruptcy Filings

Economy-wide (general equilibrium) analysis of Philippines mitigation potential

Appendix 22 Sea angling from a private or chartered boat

The Past, Present, and Future of Microdata for Research on Social Inequality. Rob Warren, Director Minnesota Population Center

Outreach Membership 9/14/2016

Education for All? Measuring Pro-Poor Educational Outcomes in Developing Countries

The Wisconsin and Minnesota Economies: What can we learn from each other? Noah Williams

Welcome Pre-conference Workshop Walk21, Vienna, 20 October 2015

Supplementary Analyses: Member Turnover and Dwell Time

Volume 37, Issue 3. Are Forfeitures of Olympic Medals Predictable? A Test of the Efficiency of the International Anti-Doping System

By making use of SAFRIM (South African Inter-Industry Macro-Economic Model) By Jeaunes Viljoen, Conningarth Economists, 1

Understanding the interest-rate growth differential: its importance in long-term debt projections and for policy

Partnerships with Purpose: Housing for Texans

State Health Assessment: Findings from the Ohio Medicaid Assessment Survey

ROAD SAFETY DEVELOPMENT INDEX (RSDI)

The Eurozone integration, des-integration and possible future developments

Appendix to final report WP3. Francesco Bogliacino, Virginia Maestri INTERMEDIATE WORK PACKAGE 3 APPENDIX JULY 2012 GROWING INEQUALITIES IMPACTS

Understanding the. Dr. Christopher Waller. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Temporal and Spatial Variation in Non-motorized Traffic in Minneapolis: Some Preliminary Analyses

The International Coach Federation (ICF) Global Consumer Awareness Study

FINAL REPORT December 2015

Golfers in Colorado: The Role of Golf in Recreational and Tourism Lifestyles and Expenditures

2016 Texas Prosperity Conference The Barnhill Center Brenham, Texas August 26, Dr. James P. Gaines Chief Economist. recenter.tamu.

Appendix 21 Sea angling from the shore

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

Labor Markets. Chris Edmond NYU Stern. Spring 2007

a) List and define all assumptions for multiple OLS regression. These are all listed in section 6.5

New Data for Vermont and our Communities: A Focus on Programs of the U.S. Census Bureau Town Officer Education Seminars uvm.

Bank Profitability and Macroeconomic Factors

Economic Impact of Mountain Biking in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests

Resource use in the World Economy A preliminary assessment

Domantas Jasilionis Sustainability of life expectancy improvements in Europe. Demographic Research Centre

Key Humanitarian and Development Trends

PHILADELPHIA HOUSE PRICE INDICES

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX C TRANSIT STATION ACCESS PLANNING TOOL INSTRUCTIONS

Growth Factors of the Life Insurance Business in Japan

Poisoned to Death. Christopher J. Ruhm. University of Virginia and NBER

Transcription:

Multidimensional poverty in developed countries: German experiences (Empirical Applications based on SOEP-Data) Peter Krause / Christoph Jindra Workshop on Measuring Human Development June 14, 2013, GIZ, Eschborn, Germany

Content I Motivation Why using multiple poverty measures? Advantages to conventional income based poverty analyses? II Database & Methods Database: German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) Methods: Multiple Poverty Index (MPI), Alkire/Foster (2011) Multiple Dimensions (n-items) [level of aggregation]: HH-Income (2-5/6) [H] Health (1) [Ind] Education (1) [Ind] Work-Intensity (1) [H] Housing (1) [H] SWB (1) [Ind] 2

Content III IV Results I Review on income based poverty analyses [total population, 1984(1995) 2011] One-dimensional vs. multi-dimensional approaches Longterm development, Age profiles (for periods) Robustness (n-of items/dimensions) Cardinal Approaches (Multiple FGT-Measures) Results II Review on income based poverty analyses [respondents population, 1994/5 2011] Six Dimensions: Developments and Age profiles Weighting (Reducing impact of income on patterns of deprivation) 3

Content V Discussion Advantages and shortcomings of multidimensional poverty measures Tasks for further developments: Identification: 1st Cutoffs / 2nd cutoffs (absolute/relativ lines; time) Weighting of dimensions Aggregation: Correlation based poverty measures Final Remarks References Many thanks to OPHI Jose Manuel Roche.., Sabina Alkire, a.o. for sending us a new version of their MPI-Stata-programs!!! 4

I Motivation Motivation Why using multiple poverty measures? Advantages to conventional income based poverty analyses? How can we handle multiple deprivation measured at different aggregation levels on different scaling? Outline Empirical application Review of conventional income poverty measures Lonterm development & age profiles Applications of multi-dimenional poverty measures 5

II Database & Methods Database: German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) Database Infrastructure for the German Socio-Economic Panel SOEP(core) Representative annual longitudinal household survey since 1984 Regular Inclusion of new subsamples in 2010: 10.840 households, with 28.436 persons SOEP-IS (SOEP Innovation Sample) Established in 2011 (based on subsamples of SOEPcore) Inclusion of innovative survey modules, experiments and tests [SOEP-Pretests] [SOEP-RS (related studies)] 6

II Database & Methods Methods: Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 7

II Database & Methods Methods: Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 8

II Database & Methods Methods: Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 9

II Database & Methods Methods: Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 10

II Database & Methods Methods: Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 11

III Results I Income Poverty Measures for Income related poverty items [Total population] Household-Net-Income, equivalized (rev. OECD-Scale); price levels of 2010 (sep. adjustments for prices between East and West till 1998); Type of Incomes Monthly Income (Screener) Annual Income (previous year) Imputed Rent Annual Income (previous year) Type of Poverty Definitions Cutoff: 60%-median of equiv. HH-Net-Income Current year / anchored in time (lagged income reference level for absolute impacts on income poverty) Measures Head Count [H], FGT 12

III Results I Income Poverty Montly & annual incomes longterm development of poverty rates percent 25,0 22,5 20,0 17,5 15,0 12,5 10,0 7,5 5,0 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 pov(h) HH-Inc/month pov(h) HH-Inc/p.year mpov(hi) HH-Inc(2D) mpov(mo) HH-Inc (2D/50) mpov(hu) HH-Inc(2D) 13

Age 0-08 Age 9-17 III Age 0-08 Age 9-17 Results I Income Poverty Age 0-08 Age 9-17 Age 0-08 Age 9-17 Montly & annual incomes longterm development of poverty rates 35 in percent 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 hheqr_pov60 m050_per_age h1_per_age h0_per_age mean hheqr_pov60 mean m050_per_age mean h1_per_age mean h0_per_age 14

Age 0-08 Age 9-17 III Age 0-08 Age 9-17 Results I Income Poverty Age 0-08 Age 9-17 Age 0-08 Age 9-17 Montly & annual incomes longterm development of poverty rates 25 in percent 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 20 15 10 5 0 hheqr_pov60 d2m050_per_age d4m050_per_age d6m050_per_age mean hheqr_pov60 mean d2m050_per_age mean d4m050_per_age mean d6m050_per_age 15

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: [Respondents, age 18+ ] Income (5) [Household level]: Monthly Income (Screener) [currrent & anchored in time] Annual Income (previous year) Imputed Rent [currrent & anchored in time] Annual Income (previous year) [currrent] Health (1) [Ind. Level]: Handicaps in everyday activities & low health atisfaction Education (1) [Ind. Level]: Left school without graduation, no vocational training [casmin] Work-Intensity (1) [Household level]: No individual in the household working or in education at working age [laeken] Housing(1) [Household level]: Less than 20sqm/per>3y bad condition missing of sanitary equipment Subjective Wellbeing (SWB) (1) [Ind. Level]: Life satisfaction 0-3 [Scale 0-10] 16

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: percent 25,0 5 Non-Income Dimensions 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Dep_Health Dep_Educ Dep_WI Dep_Housing Dep_SWB 17

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Income (5) [H], Resp. 18+ percent 25,0 22,5 20,0 17,5 15,0 12,5 10,0 7,5 5,0 2,5 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 hheqr_pov60 af_i5m050 af_i5h1 af_i5h0 18

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Income (5) [H] 25 in percent 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 20 15 10 5 0 hheqr_pov60 i5m050_per mean hheqr_pov60 19

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Health [Ind] percent 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Dep_Health H-Inc&Health(mc1[union]) M0-Inc&Health(mc50,w50) H-Inc&Health(mc100,[intersection]) 20

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: in percent 30 Health [Ind] 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 25 20 15 10 5 0 Dep_Health_age M0-Inc&Health(mc50,w50)_age Dep_Health_ M0-Inc&Health(mc50,w50)_ 21

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: percent Education [Ind] 35,0 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Dep_Educ M0-Inc&Educ(mc50,w50) H-Inc&Educ(mc1[union]) H-Inc&Educ(mc100,[intersection]) 22

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Education [Ind] 40 in percent 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Dep_Educ_age M0-Inc&Educ(mc50,w50)_age Dep_Educ_ M0-Inc&Educ(mc50,w50)_ 23

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Work-Intensity [H] percent 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Dep_WI M0-Inc&WI(mc50,w50) H-Inc&WI(mc1[union]) H-Inc&WI(mc100,[intersection]) 24

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Work-Intensity [H] in percent 60 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 50 40 30 20 10 0 Dep_WI_age M0-Inc&WI(mc50,w50)_age Dep_WI_ M0-Inc&WI(mc50,w50)_ 25

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Housing [H] percent 35,0 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Dep_Housing H-Inc&Housing(mc1[union]) M0-Inc&Housing(mc50,w50) H-Inc&Housing(mc100,[intersection]) 26

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Housing [H] in percent 25 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 20 15 10 5 0 Dep_Housing_age Dep_Housing_ M0-Inc&Housing(mc50,w50)_age M0-Inc&Housing(mc50,w50)_ 27

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Subjective Well-Being (SWB) [Ind] percent 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Dep_SWB M0-Inc&SWB(mc50,w50) H-Inc&SWB(mc1[union]) H-Inc&SWB(mc100,[intersection]) 28

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty Deprivation Measures: Subjective Well-Being (SWB) [Ind] 10 in percent 9 1995-1999 2000-2003 2004-2007 2008-2011 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Dep_SWB_age M0-Inc&SWB(mc50,w50)_age Dep_SWB_ M0-Inc&SWB(mc50,w50)_ 29

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty All Dimensions, Impact of Income (100,75,50,25,15,0 percent) percent 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 i100m0 i100h(u) i100h(i) i075m0 i075h(u) i075h(i) i050m0 i050h(u) i050h(i) i025m0 i025h(u) i025h(i) i015m0 i015h(u) i015h(i) i000m0 i000h(u) i000h(i) 30

IV Results II Multidimensional Poverty All Dimensions, Impact of Income ([M0] 100,75,50,25,15,0 %) percent 15,0 13,0 11,0 9,0 7,0 5,0 3,0 1,0-1,0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 i100m0 i075m0 i050m0 i025m0 i015m0 i000m0 31

V Discussion Multidimensional poverty measures Advantages Ability to put together items at different aggregation levels: individual / household / region Therefore we can overcome shortfalls in established poverty analyses: Working poor Intra-household variation of poverty (due to pool-assumption) We can include variables at regional levels to combine opportunities and constraints [health, labor market, education system] with visible indicators of deprivation for inividuals and households We are able to include subjective measures to show us, whether the existing frames are able to provide us with sufficient chances [constraints] 32

V Discussion Tasks for further developments: Identification: 1st Cutoffs / 2nd cutoffs (absolute/relativ lines; time) Problems of cardinality Weighting of dimensions Aggregation: Correlation based poverty measures (Final ) Remark The main difference between income-based poverty analyses and multidimensional poverty approaches are not the number of dimensions, which are taken into account The main differences is wether we adress all kind of welfare aspects to one monetary unit (which is easier to handle for measurement), or whether we deal with different dimensions and different measures at the same time. Again... many thanks to OPHI Jose Manuel Roche, Sabina Alkire!!! 33

Thank You!