Measuring conjoint vulnerabilities in Italy: an asset based approach Adolfo Morrone La multidimensionalità della povertà: come la ricerca può supportare le politiche locali Roma, 22 e 23 maggio 2012

Introduction Vulnerability is broader than economic insecurity. Refers to exposure to (material, physical, psychological) harm from one or more risks. Many definitions, measurement approaches for different risk contexts. Aim of project was to explore the usefulness of the “asset-based” approach to provide a common framework for the statistical measurement of vulnerable populations.

The asset based approach Focuses on the resources people can draw on to manage diverse risks. Ability to minimise well-being losses after a crisis (e.g. job loss, ill health) depends on people’s assets. “A person (or household) is vulnerable to future loss of well-being below some socially-accepted norms if he or she lacks (or is strongly disadvantaged in the distribution of) assets which are crucial for resilience to risks.”

The asset based approach (2) Assets considered in a broad sense. Tangible and intangible stocks of wealth used by households/individuals to generate well- being: –Economic capital –Human capital –Social capital –Collective assets

The role of asset in reducing vulnerability Assets are highly interrelated –High levels of one type are likely to reinforce other types. –But substitutability of different types of assets in the asset portfolio is important. Assets reduce vulnerability through: 1.Risk reduction 2.Risk mitigation 3.Coping

Seven indicators available in EU-SILC 2009 Economic capital Proportion of the population who do not own their own home Proportion of the population which cannot afford an unexpectd expense (subjective liquid asset poverty) Human capital Proportion of the population with less than ISCED 3 attainment in education Proportion of adults facing limitations in daily activities due to health issues Social capital People never going out with friends Collective assets Proportion of people reporting unmet medical care need Proportion of people excluded from 2 essential services Equal weights

Distribution of vulnerabilities Distribution of vulnerabilities by geographical areas. People years old. EU- Silc 2009 Number of vulnerabilities Cutoff (k)=3

Great differences in the percentage of vulnerable people Percentage of vulnerable people (k=3) by region. People years old. EU-Silc 2009

The intensity is higly correlated with the proportion of vulnerable people

Distribution of the MVI

Risk of poverty increses with MVI

Equal MVI different distribution of vulnerabilities MVI=22,1 A=53,6 H=41,2 MVI=22,3 A=54,7 H=40,8

Factors influencing vulnerability Logit model on the probability of experiencing 3 or morevulnerabilities (H)

Thank you for the attention