Deprivation and its Spatial Articulation in the Republic of Ireland

Methodological Considerations in the Construction of Area-based Indicators

Trutz Haase

MSI Roundtable, Brussels, 3rd June 2004Mainstreaming Social Inclusion

Structure of Presentation

The purpose of deprivation indices

Methodological considerations in the construction of deprivation indices

The new deprivation index for the Republic of Ireland

Conclusions and the way forward

The Purpose of Deprivation Indices

The Purpose of Deprivation IndicesTo provide insights into the underlying structural dimensions of deprivation or factors that influence the reproduction of spatial inequalities

To provide a basis for consensus on Targeting Social Need (TSN) Stakeholders, users and general public must be on board to develop the political climate in which inequalities can be addressed

To facilitate inter-temporal comparison for monitoring and evaluation purposes

Methodological Considerations

Concepts Used in this StudyDomains thematic areas such as income, employment, health, education, social class and housingIndicators variables such as the unemployment rate or the percentage of adults with a Third Level educationDimensions underlying factors that account for the systematic relationships between indicatorsOverall disadvantage index combination of multiple dimensions into single affluence/deprivation scoreComparability over time using actual disadvantage scores with identical units of measurement over successive Census wavesRelative disadvantage index is constructed by centring the overall disadvantage scores on their mean values at each point in time

DomainsIncomeEmploymentHealthEducation Access to ServicesSocial EnvironmentHousing

In applied research, similar domains are often used when selecting indicators

and IndicatorsFew indicators or many? Consistency of concepts and definitions over timeIndicators should have a large population base as denominator Indicators of material deprivation or at risk a false distinctionConsistency of concepts and definitions between countriesTimeliness expectations regarding the extent of change over short periods of time may be misleading

The Census of Population remains by far the most robust and accurate source of indicators for detailed spatial analysis

Taking Space SeriouslyCounting the poor is not the purpose of deprivation indices

Deprivation at the aggregate level is more than merely the sum of individually-experienced povertye.g. unemployment in rural arease.g. educational outcomes in deprived urban areas

A spatial deprivation index should identify the underlying causal structures and processes, facilitating area-based interventions as a complement to individual-level entitlements/benefits.

True Multidimensionality?Income 25%- essentially urbanEmployment25%- essentially urbanHealth15%- essentially urbanEducation 15%- urban and ruralAccess to Services10%- predominantly ruralSocial Environment 5%- essentially urbanHousing 5%- more rural

The Noble Index, for example, uses many indicators, but its coverage of the different dimensions of disadvantage is nevertheless weak. Dimensions that cut across domains are never investigated and the method of aggregation generates a strong urban bias.

Overall Affluence and Deprivatonin the Republic of Ireland 1991 - 2002

The Underlying Dimensions of Social DisadvantageDemographic Decline population loss and the social and demographic effects of prolonged population loss (age dependency, low education of adult population)

Social Class Deprivation social class composition, education, housing comfort

Labour Market Deprivation unemployment, lone parents, low skills base

The Basic Model of DisadvantageAGEDEPd1POPCHGd2EDLOW_d3EDHIGHd4HLPROFd5PEROOMd6LONPARd7LSKILLd8UNEMPMd9UNEMPFd10DemographicDeclineSocial ClassDisadvantageLab. Mkt.Deprivation

The Disadvantage Model for 1991, 1996 and 20020.08/0.08/0.170.55/0.61/0.580.48/0.53/0.570.50/0.49/0.541996 covariance not statistically significant

Dynamic Path Diagram for 1991, 1996 and 2002

The SEM-based Modeltrue multidimensionalityno double-countingindicators selected on a need to specify basisno small number problemsvariety of alternative fit indices to test model adequacy identical structure across multiple wavesidentical scale across multiple waves true distances from the means are maintained at all timestrue compatibility over timemeasurement of change in actual and relative deprivation

Overall Affluence and Deprivation 1991Trutz HaaseSocial & Economic Consultant1991Haase & Pratschke 2003

Overall Affluence and Deprivation 1996Trutz HaaseSocial & Economic Consultant19911996Haase & Pratschke 2003

Trutz HaaseSocial & Economic ConsultantOverall Affluence and Deprivation 2002199119962002Haase & Pratschke 2003

Relative Affluence and Deprivation 1991Trutz HaaseSocial & Economic Consultant1991Haase & Pratschke 2003

Relative Affluence and Deprivation 1996Trutz HaaseSocial & Economic Consultant19911996Haase & Pratschke 2003

Trutz HaaseSocial & Economic ConsultantRelative Affluence and Deprivation 2002199119962002Haase & Pratschke 2003

Overall and Relative Deprivation in Dublin, 1991 - 2002199119962002

Conclusions

Comparison of Previous Deprivation Indices and New SEM-based Methodology

Major Characteristics of Indices to dateHaase & Pratschke 2004No backward compatibility of indicators.Full backward compatibility with previous Censuses in all concepts and measurements.Small number problem for some of the indicators.All indicators based on large population denominators.Frequently reduction to single dimension. (Indicators are multivariate but single dimensional)Three dimensions, based on theoretical and empirical foundations.Indices not based on Factor Analysis (e.g. Robson):Combination of domains resulting in double counting and arbitrary dimensionality (urban bias).No double counting, true multi-dimensionality.Indices based on Factor Analysis: Combination of domains through ranking, leading to loss of true measure of distances from mean.Metrics of all dimensions maintained through whole process.Provision of relative index only.Provides comparable measures of absolute and relative deprivation for multiple waves.Main output in form of ranking leading to loss of true measure of distances from mean.Full metrics of absolute and relative deprivation measures maintained at all times.

The Importance at European LevelThe need for identifying target areas below NUTS II level Expansion of EU necessitates increasing focus on smaller areas below NUTS II levelRequires methodology other than those based on regional GDP or GVA per capita

Comparability across all EU membership countriesIn reality: needs to be Census basedRequires identical concepts and measurement across all countries

Comparability over timeRequires identical concepts and measurements over timeNeeds to provide reliable indicator for monitoring and outcome assessment