Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
21/11/2017
1
Session 5:
Who are the furthest behind?
Inequality of Opportunity in Asia and the Pacific
Ermina Sokou
6 October 2017
Strategic Dialogue on Poverty and Inequality
in Asia and the Pacific
Sustainable Socioeconomic Transformation Section,
Social Development Division
ESCAP
Structure
• Research questions
• Methodology
– Furthest behind
– Range & trend
– Index
– Decomposition
• Key Results
21/11/2017
2
Research questions
1. Which population groups are left behind?
2. Has inequality in access to opportunities
decreased or increased over time? Are the same
groups affected?
3. How do countries compare to each other?
4. How is inequality of opportunity “decomposed”?
Methodology
• Opportunities
Individual: Education, Health, Decent work, Participation
Household: WatSan, Clean Energy, Basic ICT, Finance
• Data sources
Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) &
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS)
21/11/2017
3
Methodology (cont’ed)
• Set of (1-5) indicators for each opportunity
• Criteria:
a) in SDG framework or
b) in MDG framework;
c) in DHS/ MICS
Total: 15 indicators / 21 countries
Methodology (cont’ed)
• Circumstances:
–Rural / Urban residence,
–Ethnicity / Religion,
–Sex,
–Poorer (bottom 40) / richer (top 60),
–Highest education level in HH,
–Number of children in HH,
–Age group,
–Education of mother.
21/11/2017
4
Types of Results
�Furthest behind / ahead groups
�Range of inequality across countries
�Human Opportunity Index
�Drivers of inequality (Decomposition)
Furthest behind/ ahead group
Example: Differences in secondary education attainment in Mongolia, 2013 (age: 20-35)
Sex
Residence / Sex
Wealth
Average attainment Average: 69%
Sample size: 100%
Poorer: 38%
Size: 39%
Rural: 29%
Size: 25%
Male: 21%
Size: 13%
Female: 37 %
Size: 12%
Urban: 58 %
Size: 14%
Richer: 88%
Size: 61%
Male: 83%
Size: 29%
Female: 93%
Size: 32%
21/11/2017
5
Range of inequality in A-PFigure 1: Secondary education attainment (20-35 year olds)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
KK
2015
AM
2010
KY
2012
PH
2013
MN
2013
TJ
2012
TM
2015
TH
2012
ID
2012
VN
2013
VU
2007
PK
2013
TL
2010
BD
2014
LA
2011
IA
2006
AF
2015
BT
2010
MM
2000
KH
2014
MV
2009
Average attainment rate
Group attainment rate (highest)
Group attainment rate (lowest)
Human Opportunity Index
• Rank countries: HOI = p�(1-D)
• , where:
– D is the dissimilarity index
– p�is average access (0 to 1)
– �� is the size of group i
– p� is the access of group I
• Drivers: Shapley decomposition
D = 12p� ���
�
���
|p� − p�|
21/11/2017
6
Education Opportunity Index:
Secondary
Country EOI – Secondary
1 Kazakhstan 0.92
2 Armenia 0.89
3 Kyrgyzstan 0.85
4 Philippines 0.60
5 Mongolia 0.57
….
17 India 0.12
18 Bhutan 0.11
19 Myanmar 0.11
20 Cambodia 0.10
21 Maldives 0.08
Results
21/11/2017
7
Who are the furthest behind?
Higher education: Who is furthest
behind/ahead?*
Urban, top 60
(men)
Rural, bottom 40 (women)
* Higher education attainment among 25-35 year olds
21/11/2017
8
… but in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Mongolia, Philippines…
Urban, top 60, women
Rural, bottom 40, men
* Higher education attainment among 25-35 year olds
Health: Which children suffer from
malnutrition?
Poorer,
rural boys
Top 60, urban
kids
Overweight:
1. Armenia: boys from larger
households
2. Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vanuatu:
urban kids with mothers that
have higher education
Overweight
Wasting
Wasting:
1. Pakistan: larger households
2. Cambodia, Bangladesh, Timor-
Leste: boys from rural, poorer
households
21/11/2017
9
Health: Which women have least
access to health care?
1. No professional help during childbirth
– Lower education
– Poorer
– Rural
– Older
2. No access to modern contraceptive
– Younger ones (15-24)
– Rural
– Lower education
What is the range of inequality?
21/11/2017
10
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
KK
2015
AM
2010
KY
2012
PH
2013
MN
2013
TJ
2012
TM
2015
TH
2012
ID
2012
VN
2013
VU
2007
PK
2013
TL
2010
BD
2014
LA
2011
IA
2006
AF
2015
BT
2010
MM
2000
KH
2014
MV
2009
Average attainment rate
Group attainment rate (highest)
Group attainment rate (lowest)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
MN
2013
KY
2012
KK
2015
PH
2013
TH
2012
AM
2010
VN
2013
TJ
2012
TM
2015
PK
2013
BD
2014
IA
2006
ID
2012
MV
2009
MM
2000
BT
2010
LA
2011
TL
2010
KH
2014
AF
2015
VU
2007
Figure 1: Secondary education attainment (20-35 year olds)
Figure 3: Higher education attainment (25-35 year olds)
Health
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20
10
20
12
20
12
20
06
20
15
20
13
20
13
20
14
20
12
20
13
20
07
20
10
20
13
20
15
20
06
20
14
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
12
AM KY TH TM KK MN VN KH TJ PH VU BT PK AF IA BD LA TL MV ID
Acc
ess
lev
el
(% )
Average access level
Highest access group
Lowest access group
Figure 4: Professional help during childbirth
21/11/2017
11
Clean Energy
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 5: Access to clean fuels
How do countries compare to each
other?
21/11/2017
12
Education Opportunity Index (EOI)
# CountrySecondary
EOI
CountryHigher EOI
1 Kazakhstan 0.92 Kyrgyzstan 0.38
2 Armenia 0.89 Mongolia 0.35
3 Kyrgyzstan 0.85 Kazakhstan 0.35
4 Philippines 0.60 Thailand 0.30
… …
18 Bhutan 0.11 Cambodia 0.04
19 Myanmar 0.11 Lao PRD 0.04
20 Cambodia 0.10 Vanuatu 0.04
21 Maldives 0.08 Afghanistan 0.04
Health Opportunity Index (HOI):
women
# Country
HOI: Modern
Contraceptive Country
HOI: Professional
Help
1 Thailand 0.73 Armenia 1
2 Bhutan 0.61 Kyrgyzstan 1
3 Viet Nam 0.53 Thailand 1
4 Indonesia 0.52 Turkmenistan 1
….
14 Pakistan 0.21 Maldives 0.30
15 Tajikistan 0.20 Lao PDR 0.27
16 Timor-Leste 0.16 Timor-Leste 0.26
17 Afghanistan 0.16 Indonesia 0.22
21/11/2017
13
Health Opportunity Index (HOI):
children
# Country HOI- Wasting* Country HOI-Overweight*
1 Mongolia 0.99 Bangladesh 0.99
2 Kyrgyzstan 0.98 Cambodia 0.99
3 Armenia 0.98 Lao 0.98
4 Kazakhstan 0.97 VietNam 0.98
5 Turkmenistan 0.97 Myanmar 0.98
….
13 Maldives 0.91 Bhutan 0.93
14 Cambodia 0.91 Kazakhstan 0.92
15 Myanmar 0.90 Thailand 0.91
16 Bangladesh 0.87 Mongolia 0.90
17 Timor-Leste 0.83 Armenia 0.88
*Calculated as 1-HOI, because wasting/overweight are unwanted outcomes
Energy Opportunity Index (EOI)
# CountryElectricity
EOI
Country Clean Fuels
EOI
1 Turkmenistan 1 Turkmenistan 1
2 Kazakhstan 1 Kazakhstan 0.98
3 Kyrgyzstan 1 Armenia 0.97
4 Maldives 1 Maldives 0.89
… …
19 India 0.54 Bangladesh 0.08
20 Cambodia 0.41 Vanuatu 0.05
21 Timor-Leste 0.24 Lao PDR 0.02
22 Vanuatu 0.19 Timor-Leste 0.01
21/11/2017
14
What are the main drivers of
inequality of opportunity?
Education: two extremes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
sec high sec high
Philippines Tajikistan
De
co
mp
osi
tio
n o
f D
-In
de
x
PoorerHousehold Residence Sex
PoorerHousehold Residence Sex
21/11/2017
15
Electricity
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
De
com
po
siti
on
of
D-I
nd
ex
Wealth Residence Education
Clean Fuels
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
De
com
po
siti
on
of
D-i
nd
ex
Wealth Residence Education
21/11/2017
16
Stunting
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012 2013 2010 2007
TH PK TL VU
De
com
po
siti
on
of
D-i
nd
ex
Wealth Mothers education Children under 5 Residence Sex
Future analytical focus
• Composition of the ‘furthest behind’ (+ over time).
• Ethnicity / religion.
• Overlapping inequalities of opportunity:
– Probability that some groups lack more than one
– Link with income inequality
• Policy discussion
21/11/2017
17
Clean fuels over time…
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2000 2010 2006 2015 1997 2012 2005 2012 2006 2015 2003 2012 1991 2013 1998 2013 2000 2014 2000 2014
Armenia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Thailand Turkmenistan Indonesia Pakistan Philippines Bangladesh Cambodia
Acce
ss t
o e
lectr
icit
y (
%)
Figure 12: Changes in access to electricity over time
Average Highest Lowest
21/11/2017
18
Shapley decomposition
For example:
Mongolia / Education:
• 60% residence, 30% gender and 10% education
Impact of adding circumstance A:
Contribution of circumstance A:
![CMS490 INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS · Installation Instructions CMS490 3 DIMENSIONS LEGEND 34.9 1.38 22.4 0.88 88.9 3.50 0.88 34.9 1.38 88.9 3.50 DIMENSIONS: [MILLIMETERS] INCHES Tighten](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5f4dea82e142fe03b9093a55/cms490-installation-installation-instructions-cms490-3-dimensions-legend-349-138.jpg)
