Post on 22-Jan-2015
description
Launch of Regional Human Development Report 2011—Oxford
Oxford—natural place for launch:◦ evolving OPHI-UNDP cooperation ◦ large network of HD professionals and students
Report is the fruit of very hard work, with support of many dedicated people—we thank them all
In particular, large team of authors—many are here, others follow the launch on-line.
Why Oxford; acknowledgements
Human Development and Social Inclusion
Complementary, people-centered concepts; evolved in parallel so far
Human development is the goal to achieve—people living long, healthy and creative lives they have reason to value;
Social inclusion is the means to get there; and
Social exclusion—the existence of cumulative deprivations in three dimensions—is the obstacle to be overcome to achieve the goal.
Overall objectives of the Report
Understand the dynamics of social exclusion, inclusion and human development in the region since 1991
Provide tools for assessing levels and intensity of social exclusion, detecting its main causes and the risks
Identify determinants of social exclusion in individual dimensions
Formulate realistic, evidence-based policy responses at central and local levels to
effectively address it
To achieve these objectives, we
Define the chain of social exclusion: risks interacting with drivers and local characteristics to result in exclusion status
Develop an operational methodology for social exclusion measurement and monitoring at national and local levels
Analyze patterns of exclusion
Provide policy recommendations rooted in local specifics to enhance social inclusion.
Exclusion, not multi-dimensional poverty
Same methodology as MPI, but different application
Social exclusion: accumulation of deprivations-Dynamic process: interaction of exclusion risks,
drivers, local context; feedback loops
-Relative (but not subjective): deprivations are measured relative to others in same society; but the measure is not about feelings of deprivation—it is about not having access to basic consumption basket, public services or social networks.
6
Individual characteristics gender, ethnicity, health status
Inclusion
Exclusion
Institutions, policies and values
Positive reinforcing feedback i.e. vote, voice or action
Negative feedback i.e. informality, unemployment
Feedback to traitsPositive: empowered, educated, Negative – accident as consequence of informal labor
Local context: rural, mono-town
Drivers of Exclusion
The social exclusion chain
The report’s quantitative underpinnings
Social Exclusion Survey in 6 countries of the region (FYROM, SRB, UKR, MVA, TAJ, KAZ)
Locality-specific data for contextualization of survey
Secondary data on all countries of the region
Development and other indicators relevant to social exclusion and inclusion
Quantifying social exclusion
Multidimensional Poverty Approach
Same UNDP/OPHI approach as used for Global HDR 2010 for poverty
‘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
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.
Three dimensions of social exclusion (with 8 indicators each):
Tough measurement question:
How many deprivations does it take to be excluded?
Threshold-number of deprivations, a matter of choice
Our survey: 9
12
The cut-off line affects the share of excluded, but not countries’ relative standing
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
Share of socially excluded and the social exclusion index
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
Highly even contribution of individual dimensions to overall exclusion
Kaz. MoldovaFYR
Macedonia Serbia Tajikistan UkraineA. Economic exclusion
34% 32% 30% 31% 39% 28%
B. Exclusion from social services
34% 39% 38% 38% 34% 36%
C. Exclusion from participation in civic and social life and networks
32% 30% 32% 31% 27% 36%
Main findings: Individual characteristics and exclusion status
Social exclusion and age: children and elderly are most affected
Social exclusion of children, youth and elderly
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajiki s tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Chi ldren (0-14 years ) Youth (15-29 years )
Adults (30-64 years ) Elderly (>65 years )
Employment is crucial to avoid social exclusion
Social exclusion of the unemployed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Unemployed National average
Low education level raises social exclusion
Social exclusion of the poorly educated
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Low level of education National average
Certain groups are more excluded (Serbia Survey)
Headcount of social exclusion for Roma, IDPs and general population in Serbia
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
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of p
eo
ple
co
nsi
de
red
'so
cia
lly e
xclu
de
d' f
or
ea
ch
cuto
ff va
lue
threshold
General population
Roma
IDPs
Higher Human Development Index correlates closely with higher social
inclusion
HDI versus the percentage of the population that is considered socially excluded
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Percentage of socially excluded people
HD
I (2
01
0)
Ukraine
FYR Macedonia
Serbia
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Drivers of exclusion and their implications for exclusion status
Poor governance goes closely with exclusion
Social exclusion and government effectiveness
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00
Government effectiveness
Soc
ial e
xclu
sion
inde
x
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
UkraineSerbia
FYR Macedonia
23
Barriers to business exacerbate social exclusion
Social exclusion and business environment
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of procedures to set up a business
So
cia
l e
xc
lus
ion
in
de
x
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
UkraineSerbiaFYR Macedonia
A better functioning labour market enhances social
inclusionSocial exclusion and institutions in the labour market
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Use of employment agency for job search
Soc
ial e
xclu
sion
inde
x
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
Ukraine Serbia
FYR Macedonia
Informal employment brings dubious benefits
Social exclusion and informality in the labour market
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage of informal contracts
So
cia
l exc
lusu
ion
ind
ex
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
UkraineSerbia
FYR Macedonia
Less tolerant values enhance social
exclusionSocial exclusion and attitudes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65
Share of people who think that children with disabilities should not go to mainstream schools
So
cia
l exc
lusi
on
ind
ex
Tajikistan
Moldova
KazakhstanUkraine
Serbia
FYR Macedonia
Specifics of local contextand its implications for social exclusion
Tolerance of corruption heightens social
exclusionSocial 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 ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done
High acceptance ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done
Location matters greatly!
Social exclusion by type of settlement in which respondents live
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajikis tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Vi l lage Smal l town
Regional or economic centre Capita l
30
Social exclusion is particularly high in 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
The quality of local infrastructure also affects
social exclusionQuality of local transportation infrastructure and social
exclusion index
11
19
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Good and excellent Poor Bad
Lasting effects of environmental disasters
in yet another area: social exclusionImpact 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
Towards an ‘individualized approach’ to social exclusion
Integrating individual risks, specifics of local context, and values.
Different combinations of individual risks, drivers and local context results in different levels of social exclusion
Average
Capital or economic center
Small town
Village
Average risk of exclusion in the region hides significant territorial differences…
Individual vulnerabilities (like disability) interact with local
conditions and amplify exclusion
Disabled doesn’t mean automatically excluded!
Local conditions matter
Combination of risks, concluded
Value of the social exclusion index by age and environmental status of the settlement
33
14
13
7
10
4
33
25
17
18
19
13
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Village affected by environmental disaster
Village not affected by environmental disaster
Small town affected by environmental disaster
Small town not affected by environmental disaster
District centre or capital not affected byenvironmental disaster
District centre or capital affected by environmentaldisaster
Elderly
Youth
In sum: both who you are and where you live matter
If you are young person, with low education, living in a village, or a town with a single company—you face a high risk of exclusion…
…and secondary education doesn’t help much in these conditions…
…while vibrant business environment makes a lot of difference
…economic centers offer more opportunities (even with low education)
…and much more if you are educated
++
++ + +
37
Conclusions Transition to a market economy in the region left some
out in the cold. Reforms have not always helped to improve lives.
It could be anyone! Everyone is at risk of being left out of society, not only marginalized groups.
Income doesn’t tell the whole story ! To be part of society, you also need access to public services, and opportunities to participate in community life.
Attitudes, local economy characteristics, policies matter
No single policy can eliminate exclusion - Policies need to be comprehensive to break the social exclusion chain
38
Recommendations
Genuine, sustained commitment to social inclusion with clear targets
Preventive focus on individual vulnerabilities Clear focus on people’s capacities Addressing institutional drivers is crucial Match this with deliberate efforts to change mindsets UNDP can help:
◦ We can generate projectable ideas ◦ We can implement them region-wide using our country office
network, and partners