APLICACIÓN DE LA TÉCNICA LIBS AL ANÁLISIS DE CR EN CHAPAS GALVANIZADAS Y HOJALATA.
8.3 Caracterización de las muestras por LIBS.
POVERTY MEASURES INCORPORATING NON-MONETARY DEPRIVATION INDICATORS 33 highly correlated with each other than with the other items. This analysis
identified three dimensions of deprivation:
1. basic life-style deprivation − consisting of basic items such as food and clothes;
2. secondary life-style deprivation − consisting of items such as a car, telephone and leisure activities; 3. housing deprivation − consisting of items related to
housing quality and facilities.
This structuring of the dimension of deprivation has been shown to have remained unchanged between 1987 and 1994 (Callan et al. 1996), and again to 1997 (Callan et al. 1999). We look in the next chapter at whether this remains the case in 2000.
The separate indices for enforced lack of basic, housing and secondary deprivation are of substantive interest in themselves, but in seeking to identify those excluded due to a lack of resources, we have concentrated on the basic deprivation index. The items in the basic deprivation index (marked with an asterisk in Table 5.1) clearly represented socially perceived necessities in the 1987 survey: “things that every household should be able to have and that nobody should have to do without”. They clustered together, they were possessed by most people, and reflect rather basic aspects of current material deprivation. This all supported the notion that they were useful as indicators of the underlying generalised deprivation one is trying to capture. Most of the items in the secondary dimension, on the other hand, were not overwhelmingly regarded as necessities. The third dimension, the housing and related durables, appear to be a product of very specific factors, and so − while providing valuable information about one important aspect of living standards − were not considered satisfactory as indicators of current generalised exclusion (Nolan and Whelan, 1996).
The pattern of scores between 1994 and 2000 on this 8-item (enforced lack) basic deprivation index is shown in Table 5.2. We see a steady decline in the mean basic deprivation score from about 0.6 in 1994 to only 0.2 in 2000. The percentage of households registering a score of one or more has fallen from 25 per cent in 1994 to only 10 per cent in 2000, while the percentage scoring two or more has fallen from 12 per cent to 4 per cent.
Table 5.2: Distribution of Scores on Eight Item Basic Deprivation Index, 1994, 1997, 1998 and 2000 Living in Ireland Surveys
Per Cent of Households
Score 1994 1997 1998 2000 0 74.6 84.1 87.2 90.3 1 13.2 8.9 7.2 5.9 2+ 12.2 7.0 5.5 3.8 All 100 100 100 100 Mean 0.58 0.30 0.24 0.17
We can explore this decline further by looking at the proportion experiencing enforced absence of one or more items in the basic index by household composition, presented in Table 5.3. We see that deprivation
34 MONITORING POVERTY TRENDS IN IRELAND
has fallen sharply between 1994 and 2000 for all family types, and for almost all a significant decline was seen between 1998 and 2000. Larger households, with 3 or more children, experienced the greatest decline in risk from 1998. Table 5.3: Risk of Scoring 1 or More on Basic Deprivation Index by Household Criteria
Composition Type, Living in Ireland Surveys, 1994, 1997, 1998 and 2000
1994 1997 1998 2000 1 adult 22.1 14.1 14.7 12.5 2 adults 15.0 10.7 8.4 5.7 3 or more adults 17.0 9.9 8.7 5.0 2 adults, 1 child 21.4 13.0 9.7 10.4 2 adults, 2 children 19.6 10.4 7.3 5.2 2 adults, 3 children 30.2 21.4 20.3 11.5 2 adults, 4 or more children 41.7 35.8 28.7 18.0 1 adult with children 56.6 27.6 34.3 30.8 3 or more adults with children 31.1 22.1 12.3 8.2
All 24.0 14.9 12.8 9.5
Categorising households by age and presence of children in Table 5.4, we find again that deprivation has fallen sharply since 1994 for all the categories. Between 1998 and 2000, there was no further decline among households where the reference person is aged 65 or over, though their mean deprivation level was already relatively low.
Table 5.4: Risk of Scoring 1 or More on Basic Deprivation Index by Presence of Children and Age of Household Reference Person, Living in Ireland Surveys 1994, 1997, 1998 and 2000
1994 1997 1998 2000
Aged < 65 No Children 19.0 13.0 12.3 7.5 Aged <65 with Children 30.8 18.8 15.6 11.7
Aged 65+ 18.5 10.8 8.7 8.9
All 24.2 14.9 12.7 9.5
Finally, we examine in Table 5.5 the mean level of basic deprivation by the economic status of the household reference person. Once again we see a marked decrease in basic deprivation for all types of households from 1994. From 1998 to 2000, there is also a decline except for households with a retired reference person. That decline is particularly large for households where the reference person is unemployed, ill or disabled. Table 5.5: Risk of Scoring 1 or More on Basic Deprivation Index by Labour Force Status
of Head, Living in Ireland Surveys 1994, 1997 and 1998
1994 1997 1998 2000 Employee 15.9 11.0 7.9 6.6 Self-employed 10.8 5.2 6.5 3.4 Farmer 16.8 6.3 7.5 6.4 Unemployed 57.8 40.6 38.1 26.0 Ill/disabled 48.4 31.4 31.0 15.5 Retired 17.8 9.5 8.3 8.7 Home duties 35.2 22.2 19.1 16.8 All 24.0 14.6 12.4 9.5
POVERTY MEASURES INCORPORATING NON-MONETARY DEPRIVATION INDICATORS 35
W
e have seen that there have been significant reductions between 1994 and 2000 in the basic index of deprivation, which is the measure we have used to date together with low income to identify households excluded because of a lack of resources. As in earlier work (Callan et al., 1996, Layte et al., 2000), we now combine basic deprivation with relative income poverty lines to construct a “consistent” poverty measure, distinguishing households that both have relatively low income and are experiencing basic deprivation. The use of a range of income lines allows us to see the consequences of varying the income criterion for the numbers and types of households identified as poor, so we again employ relative income lines derived as 40, 50 and 60 per cent of mean equivalised disposable income and as 50, 60 and 70 per cent of median disposable income.Table 5.6 shows the percentage of households in the sample deprived of one or more items on the basic index and falling under different relative income thresholds (using equivalence scale A). Using 60 per cent of mean income as the income element of the measure, Callan et al. (1999) showed that there were substantial falls in “consistent” poverty between 1994 and 1997, from 15 per cent to under 10 per cent, and Layte et al. (2000) reported a further fall to 8 per cent by 1998. In 2000 we now see that this decline has continued as that figure approaches 6 per cent. When 50 per cent of mean income is used the decline is less pronounced, from 9 per cent in 1994 to 5.1 per cent in 2000. When 40 per cent of mean income is used as the income element of the poverty measure the percentage below that line and reporting basic deprivation has been very low throughout, at about 2-3 per cent, but has not declined from that very low level. Table 5.6: Percentage of Households Below Proportions of Mean Income and Experiencing
Basic Deprivation in 1994, 1997,1998 and 2000 Living in Ireland Surveys
Proportion of mean income (Eq. Scale A)
Per Cent of Households Below Line and Experiencing Enforced Basic Deprivation
1994 1997 1998 2000
40 per cent of mean 2.4 3.1 3.5 2.9
50 per cent of mean 9.0 6.7 6.2 5.1
60 per cent of mean 15.1 9.7 8.2 6.2
While in previous studies we have constructed the consistent poverty measure for households and using income thresholds based on proportions of mean income, we saw in Chapter 3 that there are some arguments for focusing on persons instead. Using the 70 per cent median income threshold, we find that 5.5 per cent of persons were in such households in 2000 – slightly lower than the 6.2 per cent figure for households, implying that these households are below-average in size. In 1994, by contrast, the 15 per cent of households below 60 per cent of mean income and experiencing basic deprivation contained 17.4 per cent of all persons in the sample, and thus were slightly above average in size. As we shall see, this reflects important changes in the composition of the households affected – as the numbers involved declined sharply – over the period.
We also saw that there are arguments for deriving relative income thresholds from median rather than mean income. We therefore construct consistent poverty measures combining basic deprivation with median- based income lines, and the results for persons are shown in Table 5.7. We