Upload
jonathan-butler
View
219
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Human development is the goal to achieve; Social inclusion is the means to get there; while Social exclusion is the obstacle to be overcome to achieve the goal.
Jaroslav Kling, UNDP Bratislava Regional CentreSarajevo, May 26, 2011
Why this report?
Human development and social inclusion—complementary concepts that have evolved in parallel so far
Exploring the effects of transition from human development and social exclusion perspectives
Looking forward, ◦ define methodological framework and monitoring tools ◦ Set policy priorities based on evidence (data ®ional experience)
Overall objectives
Understand the dynamics of social exclusion, inclusion and human development in the region since 1991
Provide tools for assessing levels and intensity of social exclusion, its causes and risks
Identify determinants of social exclusion in individual dimensions and how it can be addressed
Formulate realistic responses at central & local levels
To achieve all that, we Analyze patterns of exclusion
Define the chain of social exclusion: risks interacting with drivers and local characteristics to result in exclusion status
Develop an operational methodology for social exclusion measurement and monitoring at aggregated (national) and disaggregated (local) levels
Give policy recommendations to enhance social inclusion
Provide tools for rooting this methodology in local specifics facilitating area-based social inclusion interventions
Hence the structure of the report: Theory –the relationship between human
development and social inclusion
Overview – the region’s social inclusion status and the implications of the transition decades going in-depth into six countries surveyed
Methodology –quantifying social exclusion in three dimensions to go beyond national aggregates and generalization
Exclusion, not multi-dimensional poverty
Exclusion: accumulation of deprivations-Dynamic process
-Relative (but not subjective) -Dignity is about meeting expectations
6
Targeting different audiences
Specific groups attribute different weights to individual layers of analysis:
Central government policymakers, parliamentarians: theory-overview-
methods
Local governments, Civil Society Organizations: theory-overview-methods
Academia: theory-overview-methods
Development partners (EU, World Bank, rest of UN): theory-overview-methods
Policy-oriented think-tanks: theory-overview-methods
General public: theory-overview-methods
The report…
Integrates available data to describe social exclusion outcomes during transition
Provides qualitative information on what happened and how; and quantitative analysis tested in the six countries
Serves as information resource (aggregated data) and as methodological basis for identifying the dimensions of exclusion
The report’s quantitative underpinnings
Social Exclusion Survey in 6 countries of the region
Localities-specific data for “contextualization of the survey data”
Secondary data on all countries of the region
Development and other indicators relevant to social exclusion and inclusion
Quantifying social exclusion
Multidimensional Poverty ultidimensional Poverty Approach
Same UNDP/OPHI approach as used for Global HDR 2010 for poverty
‘Dual cutoff’ method:
within dimension: based on deprivation with respect to given dimension
across dimensions: overall threshold (number of deprivations) beyond which a person is considered socially excluded
Economic: Deprivation in ◦ incomes, basic needs, ◦ access to employment, financial services; ◦ material needs and lack of amenities; ◦ housing and ICT-related exclusion.
Social services: Access to and affordability of ◦ education and health services;◦ other public services, such as public utilities.
Participation in civic and social life: Deprivation in ◦ political, cultural and social participation;◦ political, cultural and social support networks.
Three dimensions of social Three dimensions of social exclusion (with 8 indicators exclusion (with 8 indicators each):each):
Tough measurement question:
How many How many deprivations does it take deprivations does it take to be excluded?to be excluded?
Threshold-number of deprivations, a matter of choice
Our survey: 9
13
Share of socially excluded and the social exclusion index
Kazakhsta
n MoldovaFYR
Macedonia Serbia Tajikistan Ukraine
Magnitude of social exclusion at cut-off 9
(A) Social exclusion headcount 32% 40% 12% 19% 72% 20%(B) Average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded 10.5 11.0 10.8 10.8 11.1 10.4(C) Intensity - average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded as percentage of total (24) 44% 46% 45% 45% 46% 43%Multidimensional Exclusion Index (MEI) = (A) *(C) 14 18 5 8 33 9
Main findings: Individual characteristics and exclusion status
Overall results: Overall results:
Not surprising:qExclusion highly correlated with:
- Human Development Index:
- Unemployment- Low education
But,Also, highly correlated with transition ills:
◦Marginalization ◦Weak governance
As well as with the geography of economic restructuring
16
Social exclusion and age: children and elderly are most affected
Social exclusion of children, youth and elderly
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajiki s tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Chi ldren (0-14 years ) Youth (15-29 years )
Adults (30-64 years ) Elderly (>65 years )
Employment is crucial to avoid social exclusion
Social exclusion of the unemployed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Unemployed National average
Low education level raises social exclusion
Social exclusion of the poorly educated
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Low level of education National average
Certain groups are more excluded (Serbia Survey)
Headcount of social exclusion for Roma, IDPs and general population in Serbia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Deprivation cutoff value
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of p
eo
ple
co
nsi
de
red
'so
cia
lly e
xclu
de
d' f
or
ea
ch
cuto
ff va
lue
threshold
General population
Roma
IDPs
Higher Human Development Index Higher Human Development Index correlates closely with higher social correlates closely with higher social
inclusioninclusion
HDI versus the percentage of the population that is considered socially excluded
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Percentage of socially excluded people
HD
I (2
01
0)
Ukraine
FYR Macedonia
Serbia
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Drivers of exclusion and their implications for exclusion status
Poor governance goes closely with exclusion
Social exclusion and government effectiveness
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00
Government effectiveness
Soc
ial e
xclu
sion
inde
x
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
UkraineSerbia
FYR Macedonia
23
Barriers to business exacerbate
social exclusionSocial exclusion and business environment
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of procedures to set up a business
So
cia
l e
xc
lus
ion
in
de
x
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
UkraineSerbiaFYR Macedonia
A better functioning labour market enhances social
inclusionSocial exclusion and institutions in the labour market
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Use of employment agency for job search
Soc
ial e
xclu
sion
inde
x
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
Ukraine Serbia
FYR Macedonia
Informal employment brings dubious benefits
Social exclusion and informality in the labour market
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage of informal contracts
So
cia
l exc
lusu
ion
ind
ex
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kazakhstan
UkraineSerbia
FYR Macedonia
Less tolerant values enhance social
exclusionSocial exclusion and attitudes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65
Share of people who think that children with disabilities should not go to mainstream schools
So
cia
l exc
lusi
on
ind
ex
Tajikistan
Moldova
KazakhstanUkraine
Serbia
FYR Macedonia
Tolerance of corruption heightens social
exclusionSocial exclusion index by dominating values (tolerance to
corruption) and type of settlement
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Villages Small towns Capital
Low acceptance ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done
High acceptance ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done
Specifics of local contextand its implications for social exclusion
Location matters greatly!
Social exclusion by type of settlement in which respondents live
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia
Serbia Tajikis tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage
Perc
enta
ge o
f soc
ially
exc
lude
d pe
ople
Vi l lage Smal l town
Regional or economic centre Capita l
30
Social exclusion is particularly high in mono-company towns
Social exclusion index by employment opportunities and the way the current crisis affected local economy
27
11
20
7
16
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Single or two employers Multiple employers
Local economy declined No change Local economy grew
The quality of local infrastructure also affects
social exclusionQuality of local transportation infrastructure and social
exclusion index
11
19
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Good and excellent Poor Bad
Lasting effects of environmental disasters
in yet another area: social exclusionImpact of environmental disasters on social exclusion index
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Area affected by radiation, chemicalcontamination or environmental
degradation
Area that did not experience any majordisaster
Exclusion fromparticipation incivic and social lifeand networks
Exclusion fromsocial services
Economicexclusion
Towards an ‘individualized Towards an ‘individualized approach’ to social approach’ to social exclusion exclusion
Integrating individual risks, specifics of local context, and values.
In sum: both who you are and where you live matter
If you are young person, with low education, living in a village, or a town with a single company—you face a high risk of exclusion…
…and secondary education doesn’t help much in these conditions…
…while vibrant business environment makes a lot of difference
…economic centers offer more opportunities (even with low education)
…and much more if you are educated
++
++ + +
35
Conclusions q Transition to a market economy in the region left some
out in the cold. Reforms have not always helped to improve lives.
q It could be anyone! Everyone is at risk of being left out of society, not only marginalized groups.
q Income doesn’t tell the whole story ! To be part of society, you also need access to public services, and opportunities to participate in community life.
q Attitudes, local economy characteristics, policies matter
q No single policy can eliminate exclusion - Policies need to be comprehensive to break the social exclusion chain
36
Recommendations
Genuine, sustained commitment to social inclusion with clear targets
Preventive focus on individual vulnerabilities Clear focus on people’s capacities Addressing institutional drivers is crucial Match this with deliberate efforts to change mindsets
Seek for more information at:
http://europeandcis.undp.org/poverty/socialinclusion