MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions
description
Transcript of MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions
MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions
Enrique DelamonicaUNICEF - Nigeria, Chief of Social Policy and Gender Equality
Izmir, May 2014
Structure
1) Introduction2) Intra-urban analysis (Latin America)3) Cumulative disparities (Sub-Saharan Africa)4) Summary and Final Remarks
Vulnerable to…
Non-income poor(rights deprived)
AIncome poor
BC
Combining dimensions and concepts of deprivation and poverty
Excluded
Reducing poverty, increasing disparities
Income
PovertyLine
Income poverty = 20%Income poverty = 40%
Defining Inequalities and Inequities
• Equity is based on simple notions of fairness and distributive justice
• Disparities or inequalities are gaps between population groups
• Some of these gaps may be unavoidable (e.g. driven by biology)
• The gaps between population groups that are unfair and avoidable are termed inequities
Why does equity matter?
• National averages mask huge disparities between groups within a country
• Marginalization and exclusion are multi-dimensional
• Disaggregating by ethnicity, region, educational level, etc. can lead to more effective policies
• Mapping inequities can better focus interventions and services to ensure universal access
Dimensions of inequityEconomic Quintiles (income, wealth)
Poor/non-poorSex Male/female
Educational attainment None, primary, secondary+Exclusion of non-standard curricula
Geography Residence (Urban/rural)Region/Province
Ethnicity Country specific groupsDominant/non-dominant
Dimensions of Inequity (cont’d)
• Age• Parent’s occupation, type of employment• Different abilities
• Other dimensions (although household surveys may not always include them)– Orphans/street children– Linguistic minorities– Refugees
Quintile analysisHouseholds ranked according to
their wealth and grouped into quintiles (20%)
Public service utilization estimated for each quintile
Richest quintile uses services at a rate three times larger than poorest quintile (relative gap or ratio)
There is a 20 points absolute gap
30
25
20
15
10
Intra-urban equity: classification of children and adolescents according to
the level of deprivation.
Comparison between family income and the poverty line (or a wealth index proxy)
Variable Description Categories
Householdconditions
Three possible deficiencies:
1. Inadequate housing materials2. Limited access to water2.Overcrowding (more than three persons per room)
Severe deprivation:2 or three deficienciesModerate deprivationOne deficiency
No deprivation No deficiencies
Parents’Education
Average years of schooling Low: < 6yearsAverage/High: >= 6 years
Monetary poverty
Poor: family income below the poverty lineNon Poor: family income above the poverty line
Outline for the classification of households according to the level of
deprivation
Monetary poverty Poor Non-poor
Parents’ education Low Average/High Low Average/high
Housing conditions
Severe deficiency
HIGH deprivation
HIGH deprivation
HIGH deprivation
HIGH deprivation
Moderate deficiency
HIGH deprivation
HIGH deprivation
MODERATE deprivation
No deficiency HIGH deprivation
MODERATE deprivation
MODERATE deprivation
NO deprivation
HIGH deprivation
Distribution of children by area of residence and in urban areas according to level of deprivation
Latin America and the Caribbean , circa 2009 (in %)
HIGH deprivation29,0%
MODERATEdeprivation27,6%
NO deprivation
43,4%
Official Household surveys and MICS3, circa 2009.
Rural Urban High Moderate No deprivationChile 13.2 86.8 7.6 21.7 70.7Uruguay 13.9 86.1 10.1 23.4 66.5Costa Rica 46.6 53.4 12.3 28.0 59.7Panama 41.0 59.0 12.8 12.2 75.0Argentina -- 100* 17.3 25.7 57.0Peru 35.9 64.1 23.2 30.1 46.7Brazil 18.7 81.3 26.0 29.0 45.0Ecuador 37.0 63.0 27.0 25.1 48.0Total 25.3 74.7 29.0 27.6 43.4Belize/Guyana/Suriname (MICS 3) 58.3 41.7 29.4 30.7 39.9Mexico 26.1 73.9 32.1 26.5 41.4Colombia 20.5 79.5 32.1 32.0 35.8Dominican Republic 27.4 72.6 32.6 31.8 35.6Paraguay 45.8 54.2 41.6 33.0 25.4El Salvador 42.2 57.8 53.6 23.7 22.8Guatemala 56.4 43.6 55.5 23.8 20.7Bolivia 38.2 61.8 61.7 18.4 19.9Honduras 59.2 40.8 61.8 24.2 14.1Nicaragua 49.2 50.8 64.7 21.1 14.2
Country Area of Residence Level of deprivation (urban areas)
The annual urban household survey of Argentina does not include rural areas. According to the 2001 census 87,5% of all children and adolescents lived in urban areas
Some intra-urban disparities
Total Rural
UrbanNo deprivation
High deprivation
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No measles vaccine
Total Rural
UrbanNo deprivation
High deprivation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Underweight
Total Rural
UrbanNo deprivation
High deprivation
0
5
10
15
20
25
Teens not attending secondary Absolute Diff. Relative Diff.
Urban-Rural
Intra-urban
Urban-Rural
Intra-urban
No measl V.
0 3.2 0 1.4
Underw. 15.2 11.4 2.3 2.7
Not in school
11.0 10.5 2.1 2.9
Some intra-urban disparities
Total Rural
UrbanNo deprivation
High deprivation
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No birth registration
Total Rural
UrbanNo deprivation
High deprivation
0
5
10
15
20
25
Teen pregnancy
Total Rural
UrbanNo deprivation
High deprivation
02468
101214
Teens: No work nor studyAbsolute Diff. Relative Diff.
Urban-Rural
Intra-urban
Urban-Rural
Intra-urban
B. Reg. 4.4 6.4 1.7 3.4Teen Pr. 8.1 11.9 1.6 2.4
No work nor study
4.9 7.9 1.7 3.0
Single StratificationVisualizations
Poorest Q2 Q3 Q4 Richest
Dominican Republic: U5MR by Quintile
U5MR is not statistically different for children in the three richest quintiles (60%)
Single StratificationVisualizationsBolivia: U5MR by Quintile
Poorest Q2 Q3 Q4 Richest
The level of U5MR is different for eachlevel of wealth (steep gradient)
17
Simultaneous StratificationConstructing Tables that measure combined effect of two stratifiers
• Why simultaneously stratify?– Build upon the simple stratification by adding a
second social stratifier– This reflects the reality that multiple forms of
marginality interact – e.g.: comparison between health outcomes for
girls of different ethnicities, or comparison between boys and girls within the same ethnicity
18
Simultaneous StratificationConstructing Tables that measure combined effect of two stratifiers
• Cleaning the data– Similar to single stratification– Small sample size is more likely to be a problem
• Especially for groups with many categories (ethnicity, region)
• Can be rectified with regrouping • Statistical analysis requires sufficient observations in all
categories of interest to obtain reliable results
19
Simultaneous Stratification with p-values Skilled Birth Attendant in Kenya
MONETARY POVERTY LINE
Stratifier Class Level Not Poor Poor p-valueEducation None 40 19 0.0000
Primary 45 24 0.0000 Secondary or more 77 43 0.0000p-value 0.0000 0.0000
Region Central 70 n/a n/a Coast 49 14 0.0000 Eastern 56 31 0.0000 Nairobi 78 n/a n/a Nyanza 52 24 0.0000 Rift Valley 50 24 0.0000 Western 39 26 0.0003p-value 0.0000 0.0003
Residence Rural 49 25 0.0000 Urban 72 40 0.0054 p-value 0.0000 0.0057
20
Simultaneous StratificationSignificance Tests
• Similar to those used in the singly stratified tables.
• BUT: we are using two stratifiers, so the tests can be run comparing rows or columns.
21
Simultaneous StratificationInterpreting Tables
Immunization in Ethiopia stratified by maternal education and sex
DPT 3 Measles
MATERNAL EDUCATION Male Female p-value Male Female p-value
None 19 13 0.0506 25 20 0.4486
Primary 37 34 0.6466 39 39 0.8902
Secondary 53 59 0.0711 48 76 0.9682
p-value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0019 0.0000
22
Simultaneous Stratification: VisualizationChild health indicators in Cambodia by sex and maternal education
0
20
40
60
80
100Female, no education
Male, no education
Female, primary education
Male, primary education
Female secondary education
Male, secondary education
Underweight Measles DPT3
Richest 20%
Poorest 20%
Poor, rural Hausa girls
Rich, rural girls
Poor, urban boys
Poor, rural girls
Nigeria
Rural Hausa
Rich, urban boys
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rich, rural boys
C. A. R.
Chad
Bangladesh
Cameroon
Honduras
IndonesiaBolivia
Cuba
Ukraine
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Aver
age
num
ber o
f yea
rs o
f sch
oolin
g
3.5 years
9.7 years
0.5 years
1.3 years
0.3 years
BoysGirls
6.6 years
10 years
Education: Multiple Disparities
2.6 years
23
Summary and Final Remarks
• Equity and equality are different• So is poverty, vulnerability TO and other concepts• Gender and ethnic disparities go well beyond
quantifiable issues• Intra-urban inequities often larger than urban-rural • Importance of confidence intervals• It is possible to analyze cumulative effect of
inequity (CAREFULLY)• Avoid under-utilization of data (avoid wasting
resources)