Measurement of Disability and Linkages with Welfare,

Employment and Schooling: The Case of Uzbekistan

Kinnon ScottCem MeteJune 2007

Disability and Welfare

Causality both waysLimited information on the linkConceptually differentSources:

• Administrative data • Census• Surveys

Need link to other information

Official Disability in UzbekistanLegal definitions of persons with

disability:• Category 1: Lost ability to work and

depend on others for their care• Category 2: Lost ability to work but do

not depend on others for their care• Category 3: Partially lost ability to work

Disability in Uzbekistan

Pop w/ official disability status:• 1996 2.4% 2003 3.4%Real increase?• Increase in disease (TB)• Value of benefits• Denominator problemSurvey alternative

Questions to answer

• Disability Measurement – How do different measures affect

incidence and distribution of disability

• Poverty and Disability– What linkages exist between

disability (various measures) and welfare (monetary, education, labor)

Uzbekistan Regional Panel Survey, 2005• Living Standards Measurement Study

survey– Welfare measure: consumption– Individual characteristics: education,

health, labor, migration– Household level data: welfare, housing,

agriculture, businesses– Regional: Tashkent, Andijan, Kashkadarya– Panel (short and truncated)

Uzbekistan Regional Panel Survey, 2005Multiple measures of disability• Official• Physical functioning: WG 6 areas: hearing,

vision, mobility, learning, communication, self-care, Full difficulty, severe, index

• Self-described as having disability• Self-described physical functioning limitation• Chronic Illness• Activities of daily living- index

Physical Functioning: 2005 URPS

Variable All Female Male Q 1 Q 5

Official disability 0.0383 0.0326 0.0445 0.0321 0.0507

No full limitations 0.6811 0.6476 0.7167 0.7367 0.5921

One full limitation 0.0323 0.0370 0.0274 0.0348 0.0305

One serious diff. or full limit. 0.1177 0.1381 0.0959 0.1069 0.1294

No. of full limitations 0.0486 0.0588 0.0376 0.0530 0.0419

No. serious diff. or full limit. 0.2053 0.2399 0.1684 0.1898 0.2235

Normalized domain score 0.0526 0.0609 0.0437 0.0433 0.0657

Alternative measures: 2005 URPS

Variable All Female Male Q 1 Q 5

Official Disability Status 0.0383 0.0326 0.0445 0.0321 0.0507

Chronic Illness 0.1189 0.1278 0.1093 0.0686 0.2114

Own disability assessment (w2) 0.1031 0.1032 0.1029 0.0715 0.1453

Own func. Disab. Assess, (w2) 0.0577 0.0552 0.0604 0.0495 0.0609

Normalized ADL score, w1 0.1218 0.1436 0.0981 0.1059 0.1539

Normalized ADL score, w2 0.1054 0.1192 0.0905 0.0767 0.1636

0.010.020.030.040.050.0

60.070.080.090.0

100.0

7- 16 17- 26 27- 36 37- 46 47- 56 57- 66 66+

Age groups

Perc

ent

One full limit

One serious diff. or limit

Own disability assess.

Own func. disabilityassess.Chronic

Official disability

Age and Disability Measures

Determinants of Official Disability Status

• Serious difficulty in 1/6 pf• Own assessment• ADL• Working age• Being male• Regional differences• Welfare level not significant

Summary of Different Measures

• 12 percent with serious difficulty or full limit on at least one area

• 3.2 % with full limit• Official disability 3.8%• Does change in definition change our

understanding of welfare links and indiviudal characteristics

Characteristics of those with disabilities

(Causality beyond the scope)

• Welfare

• Education

• Labor force participation

Characteristics of those with disabilities

(Causality beyond the scope)

• Welfare

• Education

• Labor force participation

Welfare

• Log pc consumption• Five measures:

– One full limitation– Official disability status– One full or serious difficulty– Chronic Disease– ADL, normalized score

• Hold constant: region, hhld composition, age, educ and gender of head

Welfare

• One full or serious difficulty leads to 4.8 percent decline in pc consumption

• Other four: negative but NS

Characteristics of those with disabilities

• Causality beyond the scope

• Welfare

• Education

• Labor force participation

Education

• Higher to basic: 60% increase in earnings

• Over 90% of 6-14 enrolled (2003)

• Enrollments start to fall at 15 and by 18 down to 2/3 enrollment

EducationProbability of enrollment 7-14 yr olds• Official disability status- 24% decline• One serious or full limit: 6.1%• Chronic illness: 11.6%Probability of enrollment 15-18• Official disability status: 42-49 %Yrs of schooling (tentative)• Full limitation: 2.5 yrs• Serious difficulty 1 yr

Characteristics of those with disabilities

• Causality beyond the scope

• Welfare

• Education

• Labor force participation

Labor force participation

• Active –ILO defn• W1 and W3: seasonality• Official disability status: 52% pts• Full Limitation: 37% pts• One serious or full: 24 % pts• Chronic illness: 19 % pts

Summary

• Measurement matters– For incidence– For understanding of linkages between disability

and welfare, education, labor

• Official disability status: increase women’s access, consistent application across region

• Surveys can usefully include disability questions

Variable All Female Male Q1 Q5

No problem w/          

Vision 0.8556 0.8351 0.8774 0.9137 0.7718

Hearing 0.9265 0.9176 0.9359 0.9358 0.9038

Movement-walk 0.8122 0.7743 0.8525 0.8673 0.7593

Learning 0.8366 0.8085 0.8666 0.8741 0.7895

Communication 0.9449 0.9448 0.9450 0.9475 0.9514

Self-care (wash) 0.9174 0.9032 0.9326 0.9129 0.9229

Full limit. with:  

Vision 0.0030 0.0033 0.0028 0.0028 0.0012

Hearing 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0034 0.0049

Movement-walk 0.0194 0.0256 0.0129 0.0172 0.0243

Learning 0.0042 0.0040 0.0043 0.0057 0.0034

Communication 0.0045 0.0055 0.0033 0.0064 0.0016

Self-care (wash) 0.0145 0.0175 0.0112 0.0175 0.0065

Incidence: physical funct.