MICS Further Analysis and Dissemination: Equity Dimensions

Enrique DelamonicaUNICEF - Nigeria, Chief of Social Policy and Gender Equality

Izmir, May 2014

Structure

1) Introduction2) Intra-urban analysis (Latin America)3) Cumulative disparities (Sub-Saharan Africa)4) Summary and Final Remarks

Vulnerable to…

Non-income poor(rights deprived)

AIncome poor

BC

Combining dimensions and concepts of deprivation and poverty

Excluded

Reducing poverty, increasing disparities

Income

PovertyLine

Income poverty = 20%Income poverty = 40%

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

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

Dimensions of inequityEconomic Quintiles (income, wealth)

Poor/non-poorSex Male/female

Educational attainment None, primary, secondary+Exclusion of non-standard curricula

Geography Residence (Urban/rural)Region/Province

Ethnicity Country specific groupsDominant/non-dominant

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

Quintile analysisHouseholds ranked according to

their wealth and grouped into quintiles (20%)

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

30

25

20

15

10

Intra-urban equity: classification of children and adolescents according to

the level of deprivation.

Comparison between family income and the poverty line (or a wealth index proxy)

Variable Description Categories

Householdconditions

Three possible deficiencies:

1. Inadequate housing materials2. Limited access to water2.Overcrowding (more than three persons per room)

Severe deprivation:2 or three deficienciesModerate deprivationOne deficiency

No deprivation No deficiencies

Parents’Education

Average years of schooling Low: < 6yearsAverage/High: >= 6 years

Monetary poverty

Poor: family income below the poverty lineNon Poor: family income above the poverty line

Outline for the classification of households according to the level of

deprivation

Monetary poverty Poor Non-poor

Parents’ education Low Average/High Low Average/high

Housing conditions

Severe deficiency

HIGH deprivation

HIGH deprivation

HIGH deprivation

HIGH deprivation

Moderate deficiency

HIGH deprivation

HIGH deprivation

MODERATE deprivation

No deficiency HIGH deprivation

MODERATE deprivation

MODERATE deprivation

NO deprivation

HIGH deprivation

Distribution of children by area of residence and in urban areas according to level of deprivation

Latin America and the Caribbean , circa 2009 (in %)

HIGH deprivation29,0%

MODERATEdeprivation27,6%

NO deprivation

43,4%

Official Household surveys and MICS3, circa 2009.

Rural Urban High Moderate No deprivationChile 13.2 86.8 7.6 21.7 70.7Uruguay 13.9 86.1 10.1 23.4 66.5Costa Rica 46.6 53.4 12.3 28.0 59.7Panama 41.0 59.0 12.8 12.2 75.0Argentina -- 100* 17.3 25.7 57.0Peru 35.9 64.1 23.2 30.1 46.7Brazil 18.7 81.3 26.0 29.0 45.0Ecuador 37.0 63.0 27.0 25.1 48.0Total 25.3 74.7 29.0 27.6 43.4Belize/Guyana/Suriname (MICS 3) 58.3 41.7 29.4 30.7 39.9Mexico 26.1 73.9 32.1 26.5 41.4Colombia 20.5 79.5 32.1 32.0 35.8Dominican Republic 27.4 72.6 32.6 31.8 35.6Paraguay 45.8 54.2 41.6 33.0 25.4El Salvador 42.2 57.8 53.6 23.7 22.8Guatemala 56.4 43.6 55.5 23.8 20.7Bolivia 38.2 61.8 61.7 18.4 19.9Honduras 59.2 40.8 61.8 24.2 14.1Nicaragua 49.2 50.8 64.7 21.1 14.2

Country Area of Residence Level of deprivation (urban areas)

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

Some intra-urban disparities

Total Rural

UrbanNo deprivation

High deprivation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No measles vaccine

Total Rural

UrbanNo deprivation

High deprivation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Underweight

Total Rural

UrbanNo deprivation

High deprivation

0

5

10

15

20

25

Teens not attending secondary Absolute Diff. Relative Diff.

Urban-Rural

Intra-urban

Urban-Rural

Intra-urban

No measl V.

0 3.2 0 1.4

Underw. 15.2 11.4 2.3 2.7

Not in school

11.0 10.5 2.1 2.9

Some intra-urban disparities

Total Rural

UrbanNo deprivation

High deprivation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No birth registration

Total Rural

UrbanNo deprivation

High deprivation

0

5

10

15

20

25

Teen pregnancy

Total Rural

UrbanNo deprivation

High deprivation

02468

101214

Teens: No work nor studyAbsolute Diff. Relative Diff.

Urban-Rural

Intra-urban

Urban-Rural

Intra-urban

B. Reg. 4.4 6.4 1.7 3.4Teen Pr. 8.1 11.9 1.6 2.4

No work nor study

4.9 7.9 1.7 3.0

Single StratificationVisualizations

Poorest Q2 Q3 Q4 Richest

Dominican Republic: U5MR by Quintile

U5MR is not statistically different for children in the three richest quintiles (60%)

Single StratificationVisualizationsBolivia: U5MR by Quintile

Poorest Q2 Q3 Q4 Richest

The level of U5MR is different for eachlevel 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

   MONETARY POVERTY LINE

Stratifier Class Level Not Poor Poor p-valueEducation None 40 19 0.0000

Primary 45 24 0.0000 Secondary or more 77 43 0.0000p-value 0.0000 0.0000  

Region Central 70 n/a n/a Coast 49 14 0.0000 Eastern 56 31 0.0000 Nairobi 78 n/a n/a Nyanza 52 24 0.0000 Rift Valley 50 24 0.0000 Western 39 26 0.0003p-value 0.0000 0.0003  

Residence Rural 49 25 0.0000 Urban 72 40 0.0054 p-value 0.0000 0.0057  

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 Tables

Immunization in Ethiopia stratified by maternal education and sex

  DPT 3 Measles

MATERNAL EDUCATION Male Female p-value Male Female p-value

None 19 13 0.0506 25 20 0.4486

Primary 37 34 0.6466 39 39 0.8902

Secondary 53 59 0.0711 48 76 0.9682

p-value 0.0000 0.0000   0.0019 0.0000  

22

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

0

20

40

60

80

100Female, no education

Male, no education

Female, primary education

Male, primary education

Female secondary education

Male, secondary education

Underweight Measles DPT3

Richest 20%

Poorest 20%

Poor, rural Hausa girls

Rich, rural girls

Poor, urban boys

Poor, rural girls

Nigeria

Rural Hausa

Rich, urban boys

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

Rich, rural boys

C. A. R.

Chad

Bangladesh

Cameroon

Honduras

IndonesiaBolivia

Cuba

Ukraine

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Aver

age

num

ber o

f yea

rs o

f sch

oolin

g

3.5 years

9.7 years

0.5 years

1.3 years

0.3 years

BoysGirls

6.6 years

10 years

Education: Multiple Disparities

2.6 years

23

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)