1. Deprivation and its Spatial Articulation in the Republic of Ireland Methodological Considerations in the Construction of Area-based Indicators Trutz Haase MSI Roundtable, Brussels, 3 rd June 2004 Mainstreaming Social Inclusion

2. Structure of Presentation 1.The purpose of deprivation indices 2.Methodological considerations in the construction of deprivation indices 3.The new deprivation index for the Republic of Ireland 4.Conclusions and the way forward

3. The Purpose of Deprivation Indices

4. 1.To provide insights into the underlying structural dimensions of deprivation – or factors that influence the reproduction of spatial inequalities 2.To provide a basis for consensus on Targeting Social Need (TSN) Stakeholders, users and general public must be ‘on board’ to develop the political climate in which inequalities can be addressed 3.To facilitate inter-temporal comparison – for monitoring and evaluation purposes

5. Methodological Considerations

6. Concepts Used in this Study 1.Domains – thematic areas such as income, employment, health, education, social class and housing 2.Indicators – variables such as the unemployment rate or the percentage of adults with a Third Level education 3.Dimensions – underlying factors that account for the systematic relationships between indicators 4.Overall disadvantage index – combination of multiple dimensions into single affluence/deprivation score 5.Comparability over time– using actual disadvantage scores with identical units of measurement over successive Census waves 6.Relative disadvantage index – is constructed by centring the overall disadvantage scores on their mean values at each point in time

7. Domains…Domains…  Income  Employment  Health  Education  Access to Services  Social Environment  Housing In applied research, similar domains are often used when selecting indicators

8. …and Indicators  Few indicators or many?  Consistency of concepts and definitions over time  Indicators should have a large population base as denominator  Indicators of ‘material deprivation’ or ‘at risk’ – a false distinction  Consistency of concepts and definitions between countries  ‘Timeliness’ – expectations regarding the extent of change over short periods of time may be misleading The Census of Population remains by far the most robust and accurate source of indicators for detailed spatial analysis

9. Taking Space Seriously  ‘Counting the poor’ is not the purpose of deprivation indices  Deprivation at the aggregate level is more than merely the sum of individually-experienced poverty  e.g. unemployment in rural areas  e.g. educational outcomes in deprived urban areas  A spatial deprivation index should identify the underlying causal structures and processes, facilitating area-based interventions as a complement to individual-level entitlements/benefits.

10. True Multidimensionality?  Income 25%- essentially urban  Employment25%- essentially urban  Health15%- essentially urban  Education 15%- urban and rural  Access to Services10%- predominantly rural  Social Environment 5%- essentially urban  Housing 5%- more rural The Noble Index, for example, uses many indicators, but its coverage of the different dimensions of disadvantage is nevertheless weak. Dimensions that cut across domains are never investigated and the method of aggregation generates a strong urban bias.

11. Overall Affluence and Deprivaton in the Republic of Ireland 1991 - 2002

12. The Underlying Dimensions of Social Disadvantage  Demographic Decline  population loss and the social and demographic effects of prolonged population loss (age dependency, low education of adult population)  Social Class Deprivation  social class composition, education, housing comfort  Labour Market Deprivation  unemployment, lone parents, low skills base

13. The Basic Model of Disadvantage AGEDEP  1 POPCHG  2 EDLOW_  3 EDHIGH  4 HLPROF  5 PEROOM  6 LONPAR  7 LSKILL  8 UNEMPM  9 UNEMPF  10 Demographic Decline Social Class Disadvantage Lab. Mkt. Deprivation

14. The Disadvantage Model for 1991, 1996 and 2002 0.08/0.08/0.17 0.55/0.61/0.58 0.48/0.53/0.57 0.50/0.49/0.54 1996 covariance not statistically significant

15. Dynamic Path Diagram for 1991, 1996 and 2002

16. The SEM-based Model  true multidimensionality  no double-counting  indicators selected on a ‘need to specify’ basis  no small number problems  variety of alternative fit indices to test model adequacy  identical structure across multiple waves  identical scale across multiple waves  true distances from the means are maintained at all times  true compatibility over time  measurement of change in actual and relative deprivation

17. Overall Affluence and Deprivation 1991 Trutz Haase Social & Economic Consultant 1991 Haase & Pratschke 2003

18. Overall Affluence and Deprivation 1996 Trutz Haase Social & Economic Consultant 1991 1996 Haase & Pratschke 2003

19. Trutz Haase Social & Economic Consultant Overall Affluence and Deprivation 2002 1991 1996 2002 Haase & Pratschke 2003

20. Relative Affluence and Deprivation 1991 Trutz Haase Social & Economic Consultant 1991 Haase & Pratschke 2003

21. Relative Affluence and Deprivation 1996 Trutz Haase Social & Economic Consultant 1991 1996 Haase & Pratschke 2003

22. Trutz Haase Social & Economic Consultant Relative Affluence and Deprivation 2002 1991 1996 2002 Haase & Pratschke 2003

23. Overall and Relative Deprivation in Dublin, 1991 - 2002 199119962002

24. ConclusionsConclusions

25. Comparison of Previous Deprivation Indices and New SEM-based Methodology Major Characteristics of Indices to dateHaase & Pratschke 2004 No backward compatibility of indicators.Full backward compatibility with previous Censuses in all concepts and measurements. ‘Small number’ problem for some of the indicators.All indicators based on large population denominators. Frequently reduction to single dimension. (Indicators are multivariate but single dimensional) Three dimensions, based on theoretical and empirical foundations. Indices not based on Factor Analysis (e.g. Robson): Combination of domains resulting in double counting and arbitrary dimensionality (urban bias). No double counting, true multi-dimensionality. Indices based on Factor Analysis: Combination of domains through ranking, leading to loss of true measure of distances from mean. Metrics of all dimensions maintained through whole process. Provision of relative index only.Provides comparable measures of absolute and relative deprivation for multiple waves. Main output in form of ranking leading to loss of true measure of distances from mean. Full metrics of absolute and relative deprivation measures maintained at all times.

26. The Importance at European Level  The need for identifying target areas below NUTS II level  Expansion of EU necessitates increasing focus on smaller areas below NUTS II level  Requires methodology other than those based on regional GDP or GVA per capita  Comparability across all EU membership countries  In reality: needs to be Census based  Requires identical concepts and measurement across all countries  Comparability over time  Requires identical concepts and measurements over time  Needs to provide reliable indicator for monitoring and outcome assessment