1 / 24

MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions

MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions. Enrique Delamonica UNICEF - Nigeria, Chief of Social Policy and Gender Equality Izmir, May 2014. Structure. 1 ) Introduction 2) Intra-urban analysis (Latin America) 3) Cumulative disparities (Sub-Saharan A frica)

nasia
Download Presentation

MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions Enrique Delamonica UNICEF - Nigeria, Chief of Social Policy and Gender Equality Izmir, May 2014

  2. Structure 1) Introduction 2) Intra-urban analysis (Latin America) 3) Cumulative disparities (Sub-Saharan Africa) 4) Summary and Final Remarks

  3. Vulnerable to… Income poor A C B Non-income poor (rights deprived) Combining dimensions and concepts of deprivation and poverty Excluded

  4. Reducing poverty, increasing disparities Income Poverty Line Income poverty = 40% Income poverty = 20%

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Dimensions of inequity

  8. 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

  9. Quintile analysis Households ranked according to their wealth and grouped into quintiles (20%) 30 25 20 15 10 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

  10. Variable Description Categories Three possible deficiencies: Severe deprivation : 2 or three deficiencies 1. Inadequate housing materials Household conditions Moderate deprivation One deficiency 2. Limited access to water No deprivation 2.Overcrowding (more than three persons per room) No deficiencies Parents’ Education Average years of schooling Low : < 6 years Average/High : >= 6 years Comparison between family income and the poverty line (or a wealth index proxy) Poor: family income below the poverty line Monetary poverty Non Poor: family income above the poverty line Intra-urban equity: classification of children and adolescents according to the level of deprivation.

  11. Monetarypoverty Poor Non-poor Parents’ education Low Average/High Low Average/high HIGH deprivation Severe deficiency HIGH deprivation HIGH deprivation HIGH deprivation Housingconditions HIGH deprivation HIGH deprivation Moderate deficiency HIGH deprivation MODERATE deprivation No deficiency HIGH deprivation MODERATE deprivation MODERATE deprivation NO deprivation Outline for the classification of households according to the level of deprivation

  12. Level of deprivation Area of Residence Country (urban areas) Rural Urban High Moderate No deprivation Chile 13.2 86.8 7.6 21.7 70.7 Uruguay 13.9 86.1 10.1 23.4 66.5 Costa Rica 46.6 53.4 12.3 28.0 59.7 Panama 41.0 59.0 12.8 12.2 75.0 Argentina -- 100* 17.3 25.7 57.0 Peru 35.9 64.1 23.2 30.1 46.7 HIGH Brazil 18.7 81.3 26.0 29.0 45.0 deprivation NO deprivation 29,0% Ecuador 37.0 63.0 27.0 25.1 48.0 43,4% Total 25.3 74.7 29.0 27.6 43.4 Belize/Guyana/Suriname (MICS 3) 58.3 41.7 29.4 30.7 39.9 Mexico 26.1 73.9 32.1 26.5 41.4 Colombia 20.5 79.5 32.1 32.0 35.8 MODERATE Dominican Republic 27.4 72.6 32.6 31.8 35.6 deprivation Paraguay 45.8 54.2 41.6 33.0 25.4 27,6% El Salvador 42.2 57.8 53.6 23.7 22.8 Guatemala 56.4 43.6 55.5 23.8 20.7 Bolivia 38.2 61.8 61.7 18.4 19.9 Honduras 59.2 40.8 61.8 24.2 14.1 Nicaragua 49.2 50.8 64.7 21.1 14.2 • 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 Official Household surveys and MICS3, circa 2009. Distribution of children by area of residence and in urban areas according to level of deprivationLatin America and the Caribbean , circa 2009 (in %)

  13. Some intra-urban disparities

  14. Some intra-urban disparities

  15. Single StratificationVisualizations Dominican Republic: U5MR by Quintile U5MR is not statistically different for children in the three richest quintiles (60%)

  16. Single StratificationVisualizations Bolivia: U5MR by Quintile The level of U5MR is different for each level 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

  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 TablesImmunization in Ethiopia stratified by maternal education and sex

  22. Simultaneous Stratification: VisualizationChild health indicators in Cambodia by sex and maternal education

  23. Ukraine Cuba Rural Bolivia Urban Indonesia Honduras Urban Cameroon Bangladesh Rural Chad C. A. R. Education: Multiple Disparities 14 12 Rich, rural boys 9.7 years Rich, urban boys 10 Richest 20% Rich, rural girls 10 years Boys 8 Girls Average number of years of schooling Nigeria Poor, urban boys 6.6 years 6 4 Poorest 20% 3.5 years 2.6 years Poor, rural girls 1.3 years 2 Rural Hausa Poor, rural Hausa girls 0 0.3 years 0.5 years

  24. 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)

More Related