Social%20exclusion:%20Analyzing%20multiple%20dimensions%20in%20Europe

1
World Bank 2010
Social exclusion Analyzing multiple dimensions
in Europe
A B Atkinson, Nuffield College, Oxford and LSE
2

• Social Europe
• Broad conception of objectives
• Influence and indirect levers
• Development of EU poverty measure
• 2. Development of Laeken social indicators
• Principles of indicator design
• Multiple dimensions
• Why not combine into a single indicator?
• 3. Where next?
• The Europe 2020 targets
• Issues raised
• Evolving priorities

3
1. Social Europe
Europe 2020 and social inclusion target
Lisbon Agenda and Social Inclusion Process
Social Action Programmes First estimates of
poverty in the EU
Ultimate goal of European Social Union
Kok report priority to economic objectives
European agenda dominated by common internal
market and euro
Social policy means to restructuring
1958 1973 1982 1990 2000
2005 2010
The timeline of Social Europe
4
EUCouncil of Ministers
Member States

• Sets objectives
• Through Open Method of
• Coordination

National Action Plans
Monitoring
EU Commission
5
EU poverty measure at beginning of
century Percentage of people living in households
with equivalised disposable income below 60 per
cent of national median. Implemented using
European Community Household Panel, and now EU
Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
(EU-SILC). EU-SILC examined in A B Atkinson and
E Marlier, editors, Income and Living Conditions
in Europe, Eurostat December 2010.
6

• 2. Development of Laeken social indicators
• Political salience
• Academic input (report by Atkinson, Cantillon,
  Marlier and Nolan, 2001)
• Importance of underlying principles
• Indicators Sub-Group of Social Protection
  Committee.

7
Principles of indicator design

• Principles for individual indicators an
  indicator should
• Identify the essence of the problem and have a
  clear normative interpretation
• Be robust and statistically validated
• Be responsive to effective policy interventions
  but not subject to manipulation
• Be measurable in a way that is comparable across
  countries (EU and globally)
• Be comparable over time and available on a timely
  basis
• Not impose too great a burden on statistical
  offices and respondents.
• Principles for portfolio of indicators
• The portfolio should be balanced across
  dimensions
• The indicators should be mutually consistent
• The weight of each component should be
  proportionate
• The portfolio as a whole should be as transparent
  as possible.

7
8
TABLE 1 Primary Indicators Agreed by European
Union December 2001 1. Percentage of
individuals living in households with low incomes
(below 60 of the national median equivalised
income) 2.  Persistent financial poverty 3.
 Depth of financial poverty 4. Ratio of income
of top 20 to that of bottom 20 5. Coefficient
of variation of regional employment rates   6.
Long-term unemployment rate   7. Percentage of
people living in jobless households   8. Early
school leavers not in further education/training
  9. Life expectancy at birth   10. Self
perceived health status by income level.
9
9
Source EU news release 18 January 2010 Note
income year for UK is 2008
10
(No Transcript)
11
Developments in indicators since 2001
Introduction of an indicator of material
deprivation.
12
Why no composite indicator in Lisbon process?
At a policy level, combining different
indicators into a single number to arrive at a
country ranking may serve to galvanise action,
but it can be counterproductive. There is a risk
that countries will pursue bang bang policies,
concentrating on a single component of
well-being, rather than a balanced approach to
its different dimensions. The aim of policy
should be to improve overall performance and,
ideally, bring all countries to a high level of
performance on all dimensions. If such a high
level is obtained more or less uniformly, then
rankings of countries have little meaning.
Likewise, all countries may be performing equally
badly, and a ranking would then give no
indication of the need for action. In a situation
where countries are improving their performance,
but with no changes in ranking, then no change
would be recorded. These reasons, which thus
encompass considerations linked to both national
policy and international comparisons (over time
and at one point in time), may largely explain
why composite indices are not used in the EU
Social OMC. (Atkinson and Marlier, 2010).
13

• 3. Europe 2020
• The Europe 2020 Agenda agreed at the June 2010
  European Council represents a significant
  departure and a major challenge. The Agenda sets
  5 Headline Targets for 2020
• Employment (75 of 20-64 year-olds employed)
• RD/Innovation (3 GDP invested, public and
  private)
• Climate change/energy (20/20/20)
• Education (reducing early-school leaving below
  10, 40 completion of tertiary education)
• Social exclusion (20m people fewer in or at risk
  of poverty and social exclusion).

Socially inclusive growth
14
Implementation Each EU Member State is in process
of adapting the 5 EU-Headline Targets to their
national circumstances. the 5 EU-level targets
are being translated into national targets, to
reflect the level of ambition each is able to
make to the wider EU effort. Each country will
set its national targets in its national reform
programme. The targets do not imply
burden-sharing there are common goals, to be
pursued through a mix of EU and national
action. A key role will be played by monitoring.
15

• Fifth target
• Reduce by 20 million union of
• People living in households at risk of poverty
  (below 60 of country median) after social
  transfers
• People living in households suffering severe
  material deprivation (EU-wide scale)
• People living in households with very low work
  intensity.

16
Figure 5.9 Multiple indicators for Europe 2020
target
Material deprivation
At-risk-of-poverty
19
11.5
49.6
6.9
3
13.4
17
Joblessness
All figures in million and relate to 2008 Survey
Year total is 120.3 million.
17
(No Transcript)
18

• Raises issues
• Monitoring
• Freezing of social indicators (as US official
  poverty line)
• Multiple deprivation
• Relation with international indicators
• Evolving priorities.