Social Exclusion in Serbia, 2002-2007, as the Phenomenon of Multiple Deprivation

Hana Baronijan, Ipsos Strategic MarketingSlobodan Cvejic, Faculty of Philosophy

2

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Background – Measuring social exclusion in country context

• Social exclusion as a complex phenomenon is not easily measurable.

• 3 types of problems:

• defining the dimensions that it is composed of

• defining the indicators that measure these dimensions

• defining the relationship between the dimensions

In Serbia social exclusion is also in focus of interest - Report on social inclusion in Serbia, 2008

Monitoring of social inclusion is achived through basic dimensions: 1. financial poverty, 2. employment, 3. health and 4. education

+ material deprivation and social participation

Leaken indicators + Identification of the the nationally specific indicators.

3

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Background - Presentation of the summary effect of social deprivation indicators

• The problem of analyzing the summary effects of individual indicators

• Two approaches:

• 1st - Combines the values of indicators into one index e.g. HDI

• 2nd - Observes multiple deprivation on individual level – makes possible to determine on the level of individual the mutual influence of deprivation in different dimensions – but in order to do that:

• personal data on all indicators need to be in one dataset

• indicators must be observed on the same selected population

• In this paper we tried to present the extent of multiple deprivation in Serbia with the second approach

• SILC survey isn’t yet implemented in Serbia - LSMS (2002, 2007).

In order to perform the analysis we had to make the selection and modification of Laeken and national indicators to be used in the analysis.

In order to perform the analysis we had to make the selection and modification of Laeken and national indicators to be used in the analysis.

4

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Objectives and target groups

Specific objectives are the following - to reveal:

1. The extent of multiple deprivation

2. Trend of multiple deprivation 2002-2007

3. To compare general population with one chosen vulnerable population, population with disabilities (PWD).

4. To analyze the basic socio-economic factors which are connected with multiple deprivation.

The objective of this analysis was to ascertain multiple deprivation on individual level.

The objective of this analysis was to ascertain multiple deprivation on individual level.

3 target populations in order to make comparisons:

1. group: general population in 2007,15 to 64, source: LSMS 2007

2. group: persons with disabilities in 2007, 15 to 64, source: LSMS 2007

3. group: general population in 2002, 15 to 64, source: LSMS 2002

5

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Methodology – Dimensions and indicators

Dimensions which were observed:

1. Financial deprivation

2. Deprivation in the area of employment

3. Health-related deprivation

4. Education-related deprivation

5. Material or/housing deprivation

The used indicators were modified versions of EU Laeken indicators or national indicators (Report on Social Exclusion in Serbia) – necessary modification:

1. To narrow down indicators to the same denominator (population aged from 15 to 64 years) (e.g. Long-term unemployment rate)

2. To select only indicators which have values for each individual (e.g. Gini coefficient of income distribution was excluded).

3. To make changes which are specific for certain indicators (e.g. Poverty risk rate)

6

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Presentation of results

7

© 201

0 Ip

sos

2007 2007 2002General population

Population of the disabled

General population

15-64 15-64 15-64% % %

Financial deprivationAt-risk-of-poverty 005,3 5,0 012,6Deprivation in the area of employmentLong-term unemployment 006,6 2,9 -Very long-term unemployment 005,3 2,7 -Discouraged persons 001,5 0,7 -Long-term unemployed and discouraged persons 008,1 3,6 -Persons 0-65 living in jobless households 011,7 30,5 010,1Health-related deprivationSelf-defined health status 013,4 74,3 -Non-coverage by health insurance 006,7 3,8 -Inability to access health care due to financial reasons 001,0 2,7 001,3Inability to access health care as a form of deprivation 1,1 2,7 1,4Education-related deprivationLow educational attainment (finished primary school or less) 28.5 39,6 033,3Material deprivationSubstandard infrastructural equipment 009,2 13,3 044,4Overcrowding 011,9 9,0 018,3Low quality of accommodation and problems with maintenance of flat 012,1 18,1 017,2Substandardly equipped with household appliances 049,0 61,0 078,6

Indicator (modified Leaken and nationally specific indicators)

Value of Modified Indicators of Social Deprivation which can be obtained from LSMS on Individual Level for 3 chosen populations

8

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Multiple deprivation for the three tested populations: general population 15-64, 2007, general population 15-64 2002 and persons with disability, 15-64, 2007

General population

Persons with disability,

General population

15-64, 2007 15-64, 2007 15-64, 2002% % %

Deprived on all FIVE dimensions F, E, H, Ed, M 0 0,1 0,0

Any 4 0,5 0,6 0,8

F, E, H, Ed 0,0 0,1 0,1

F, E, H, M 0,0 0,1 0,1

F, E, Ed, M 0,4 0,5 0,6

F, H, Ed, M 0,1 0,2 0,1

E, H, Ed, M 0,0 0,1 0,1

Any 3 2,6 3,5 4,4

F, E, H 0,0 0,1 0,2

F, E, Ed 0,8 1,6 1,6

F, E, M 0,5 0,5 0,8

F, H, Ed 0,1 0,3 0,3

F, H, M 0,1 0,2 0,2

F, Ed, M 1,5 0,8 2,6

E, H, Ed 0,2 0,6 0,2

E, H, M 0,1 0,1 0,1

E, Ed, M 0,8 1,4 0,8

H, Ed, M 0,2 0,2 0,2

Any 2 11,3 20,7 18,0

F, E 1,1 2,1 2,6

F, H 0,2 0,6 0,4

F, Ed 3,2 3,2 7,0

F, M 2,1 0,9 4,4

E, H 0,3 1,2 0,4

E, Ed 4,3 13,9 4,7

E, M 1,2 2,0 1,3

H, Ed 0,6 1,5 0,8

H, M 0,2 0,2 0,3

Ed, M 4,8 4,2 7,4

Any 44,1 62,0 52,3

F 5,3 5,0 12,6

E 11,7 30,5 10,1

H 1,1 2,7 1,4

Ed 28,5 39,6 33,3

M 11,9 9,0 18,355,9 38,0 47,7

Deprived on at least TWO dimensions

Deprived on at least ONE dimension

NOT deprived on ANY dimension

Dimensions ofdeprivation

Deprived on at least FOUR dimensions

Deprived on at least THREE dimensions

F=financial deprivation; E=deprivation in the sphere of employment, H= health-related deprivation, Ed=education-related deprivation, M=material deprivation, Source: LSMS 2002 – 2007 Serbia

• Very small number of persons is affected by more than two forms of deprivation.

• On the other hand, being affected by at least some form of deprivation is widespread – in 2007 44% of the population was deprived on one dimension at least.

• Deprivation measured by our indicators is significantly reduced from 2002 to 2007 but to a lesser extent than financial poverty

• Persons with disabilities experience greater social exclusion than general population

9

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Proportion of population 15 to 64 deprived on three dimensions: in the sphere of employment, education and financial poverty

7,0%

1,9%

21,8%

2,4%0,2%0,8%

3,5%

11,7%

5,3%

28,5%

100%

Financial deprivation

Employment deprivation

Educational deprivation

General population 15-64, 2007

14,6%

1,3%

24,1%

1,6%0,5%1,6%

12,3%

30,5%

5,0%

39,6%

100%

Financial deprivation

Employment deprivation

Educational deprivation

Population of persons with disability, 15-64, 2007

4,9%

4,6%

23,2%

5,4%1,0%1,6%

3,1%10,1%

12,6%

33,3%

100%

Financial deprivation

Employment deprivation

Educational deprivation

General population 15-64, 2002

10

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Socio-economic factors related to multiple deprivation

Exp(B)Wald’s coefficient Exp(B)

Wald’s coefficient

1.336 24.14** 1.292 7.67**0.98 43.07** 1.019 17.78**

76.27** 23.95**1 Marriage or de facto marriage 2.585 34.84** 1 Lives alone 1.29 3.182 Lives alone 1.414 3.58 2 Divorced 1.307 1.483 Divorced 2.039 11.62** 3 Widower/Widow 2.36 20.87**

1.617 60.41** 1.393 12.24**25.16** 17.02**

1 Belgrade 1.758 22.58** 1 Vojvodina 1.283 3.212 Vojvodina 1.448 10.63** 2 Western Serbia 1.253 1.63 Šumadija 1.332 4.58* 3 Šumadija 1.15 0.764 Western Serbia 1.415 8.04** 4 Eastern Serbia 1.77 10.58**5 Southeastern Serbia 1.299 4.23* 5 Southeastern Serbia 1.665 10.56**

0.905 21.81** 1.147 20.80**0.795 11.74** 1.495 20.15**

Gender (referential Female) Gender (referential Male) Age Age Marriage (referential Widower/Widow) Marriage (referential Marriage or de facto marriage)

Region (referential Eastern Serbia) Region (referential Belgrade) Type of settlement (referential Rural) Type of settlement (referential Urban)

Dependency ratio Dependency ratioSize of household Size of household

Number of cases 11771 Number of cases 11771

(1) a person is not deprived on any dimension (2) a person is deprived on at least 2 dimensions

Predictors Predictors

Wald’s coefficient represents the value of H2 statistic. * statistically significant at the level 5%; ** statistically significant at the level 1%Source: LSMS 2002 – 2007 Serbia

Binary logistic regression for probability that (1) a person is not deprived on any dimension, (2) a person is deprived on at least 2 dimensions, General population 15-64, 2007

Connection between basic demographic variables and multiple deprivation exists.

11

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Conclusions

In Serbia in the last 5 years - Multiple deprivation:

significantly more widespread than financial poverty.

But, very small number of persons was affected by more than two forms of deprivation.

Persons with disabilities, although less affected by financial poverty, are more affected by multiple deprivation.

Multiple deprivation has decreased in the 5-year period, but to a lesser extent than financial poverty has.

Connection between basic demographic variables and multiple deprivation exists.

12

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Discussion

concrete percentages of deprivated persons largely depend on selection of indicators themselves - paying great attention to selection of indicators

very hard, or almost impossible, to find universal indicators for the whole population 0+

surveys on which this analysis is based do not include the most excluded segments of the population, the so-called "invisible" people

Finally, degree of social deprivation can be spoken about only conditionally

13

© 201

0 Ip

sos

Thank you!