Launch of Regional Human Development Report 2011—Oxford

Oxford—natural place for launch:◦ evolving OPHI-UNDP cooperation ◦ large network of HD professionals and students

Report is the fruit of very hard work, with support of many dedicated people—we thank them all

In particular, large team of authors—many are here, others follow the launch on-line.

Why Oxford; acknowledgements

Human Development and Social Inclusion

Complementary, people-centered concepts; evolved in parallel so far

Human development is the goal to achieve—people living long, healthy and creative lives they have reason to value;

Social inclusion is the means to get there; and

Social exclusion—the existence of cumulative deprivations in three dimensions—is the obstacle to be overcome to achieve the goal.

Overall objectives of the Report

Understand the dynamics of social exclusion, inclusion and human development in the region since 1991

Provide tools for assessing levels and intensity of social exclusion, detecting its main causes and the risks

Identify determinants of social exclusion in individual dimensions

Formulate realistic, evidence-based policy responses at central and local levels to

effectively address it

To achieve these objectives, we

Define the chain of social exclusion: risks interacting with drivers and local characteristics to result in exclusion status

Develop an operational methodology for social exclusion measurement and monitoring at national and local levels

Analyze patterns of exclusion

Provide policy recommendations rooted in local specifics to enhance social inclusion.

Exclusion, not multi-dimensional poverty

Same methodology as MPI, but different application

Social exclusion: accumulation of deprivations-Dynamic process: interaction of exclusion risks,

drivers, local context; feedback loops

-Relative (but not subjective): deprivations are measured relative to others in same society; but the measure is not about feelings of deprivation—it is about not having access to basic consumption basket, public services or social networks.

6

Individual characteristics gender, ethnicity, health status

Inclusion

Exclusion

Institutions, policies and values

Positive reinforcing feedback i.e. vote, voice or action

Negative feedback i.e. informality, unemployment

Feedback to traitsPositive: empowered, educated, Negative – accident as consequence of informal labor

Local context: rural, mono-town

Drivers of Exclusion

The social exclusion chain

The report’s quantitative underpinnings

Social Exclusion Survey in 6 countries of the region (FYROM, SRB, UKR, MVA, TAJ, KAZ)

Locality-specific data for contextualization of survey

Secondary data on all countries of the region

Development and other indicators relevant to social exclusion and inclusion

Quantifying social exclusion

Multidimensional Poverty Approach

Same UNDP/OPHI approach as used for Global HDR 2010 for poverty

‘Dual cutoff’ method:

within dimension: based on deprivation with respect to given dimension

across dimensions: overall threshold (number of deprivations) beyond which a person is considered socially excluded

Economic: Deprivation in ◦ incomes, basic needs, ◦ access to employment, financial services; ◦ material needs and lack of amenities; ◦ housing and ICT-related exclusion.

Social services: Access to and affordability of ◦ education and health services;◦ other public services, such as public utilities.

Participation: Deprivation in ◦ political, cultural and social participation;◦ political, cultural and social support networks.

Three dimensions of social exclusion (with 8 indicators each):

Tough measurement question:

How many deprivations does it take to be excluded?

Threshold-number of deprivations, a matter of choice

Our survey: 9

12

The cut-off line affects the share of excluded, but not countries’ relative standing

Social exclusion headcount for three different thresholds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Deprivation cutoff value

Per

cent

age

of p

eopl

e co

nsid

ered

'soc

ially

exc

lude

d'

for

each

cut

off v

alue

threshold

Kazakhstan

Moldova

FYRMacedoniaSerbia

Tajikistan

Ukraine

Share of socially excluded and the social exclusion index

 Kazakhsta

n MoldovaFYR

Macedonia Serbia Tajikistan Ukraine

Magnitude of social exclusion at cut-off 9

(A) Social exclusion headcount 32% 40% 12% 19% 72% 20%(B) Average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded 10.5 11.0 10.8 10.8 11.1 10.4(C) Intensity - average number of deprivations experienced by the socially excluded as percentage of total (24) 44% 46% 45% 45% 46% 43%Multidimensional Exclusion Index (MEI) = (A) *(C) 14 18 5 8 33 9

Highly even contribution of individual dimensions to overall exclusion

  Kaz. MoldovaFYR

Macedonia Serbia Tajikistan UkraineA. Economic exclusion

34% 32% 30% 31% 39% 28%

B. Exclusion from social services

34% 39% 38% 38% 34% 36%

C. Exclusion from participation in civic and social life and networks

32% 30% 32% 31% 27% 36%

Main findings: Individual characteristics and exclusion status

Social exclusion and age: children and elderly are most affected

Social exclusion of children, youth and elderly

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajiki s tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Chi ldren (0-14 years ) Youth (15-29 years )

Adults (30-64 years ) Elderly (>65 years )

Employment is crucial to avoid social exclusion

Social exclusion of the unemployed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Unemployed National average

Low education level raises social exclusion

Social exclusion of the poorly educated

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajikis tan Ukraine

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Low level of education National average

Certain groups are more excluded (Serbia Survey)

Headcount of social exclusion for Roma, IDPs and general population in Serbia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Deprivation cutoff value

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of p

eo

ple

co

nsi

de

red

'so

cia

lly e

xclu

de

d' f

or

ea

ch

cuto

ff va

lue

threshold

General population

Roma

IDPs

Higher Human Development Index correlates closely with higher social

inclusion

HDI versus the percentage of the population that is considered socially excluded

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Percentage of socially excluded people

HD

I (2

01

0)

Ukraine

FYR Macedonia

Serbia

Kazakhstan

Moldova

Tajikistan

Drivers of exclusion and their implications for exclusion status

Poor governance goes closely with exclusion

Social exclusion and government effectiveness

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00

Government effectiveness

Soc

ial e

xclu

sion

inde

x

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

UkraineSerbia

FYR Macedonia

23

Barriers to business exacerbate social exclusion

Social exclusion and business environment

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Number of procedures to set up a business

So

cia

l e

xc

lus

ion

in

de

x

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

UkraineSerbiaFYR Macedonia

A better functioning labour market enhances social

inclusionSocial exclusion and institutions in the labour market

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Use of employment agency for job search

Soc

ial e

xclu

sion

inde

x

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

Ukraine Serbia

FYR Macedonia

Informal employment brings dubious benefits

Social exclusion and informality in the labour market

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percentage of informal contracts

So

cia

l exc

lusu

ion

ind

ex

Tajikistan

Moldova

Kazakhstan

UkraineSerbia

FYR Macedonia

Less tolerant values enhance social

exclusionSocial exclusion and attitudes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65

Share of people who think that children with disabilities should not go to mainstream schools

So

cia

l exc

lusi

on

ind

ex

Tajikistan

Moldova

KazakhstanUkraine

Serbia

FYR Macedonia

Specifics of local contextand its implications for social exclusion

Tolerance of corruption heightens social

exclusionSocial exclusion index by dominating values (tolerance to

corruption) and type of settlement

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Villages Small towns Capital

Low acceptance ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done

High acceptance ofunoffi cial payments forservices or for gettingbusiness done

Location matters greatly!

Social exclusion by type of settlement in which respondents live

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Kazakhstan Moldova FYRMacedonia

Serbia Tajikis tan Ukra ine Six-countryaverage

Perc

enta

ge o

f soc

ially

exc

lude

d pe

ople

Vi l lage Smal l town

Regional or economic centre Capita l

30

Social exclusion is particularly high in mono-company towns

Social exclusion index by employment opportunities and the way the current crisis affected local economy

27

11

20

7

16

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Single or two employers Multiple employers

Local economy declined No change Local economy grew

The quality of local infrastructure also affects

social exclusionQuality of local transportation infrastructure and social

exclusion index

11

19

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Good and excellent Poor Bad

Lasting effects of environmental disasters

in yet another area: social exclusionImpact of environmental disasters on social exclusion index

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Area affected by radiation, chemicalcontamination or environmental

degradation

Area that did not experience any majordisaster

Exclusion fromparticipation incivic and social lifeand networks

Exclusion fromsocial services

Economicexclusion

Towards an ‘individualized approach’ to social exclusion

Integrating individual risks, specifics of local context, and values.

Different combinations of individual risks, drivers and local context results in different levels of social exclusion

Average

Capital or economic center

Small town

Village

Average risk of exclusion in the region hides significant territorial differences…

Individual vulnerabilities (like disability) interact with local

conditions and amplify exclusion

Disabled doesn’t mean automatically excluded!

Local conditions matter

Combination of risks, concluded

Value of the social exclusion index by age and environmental status of the settlement

33

14

13

7

10

4

33

25

17

18

19

13

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Village affected by environmental disaster

Village not affected by environmental disaster

Small town affected by environmental disaster

Small town not affected by environmental disaster

District centre or capital not affected byenvironmental disaster

District centre or capital affected by environmentaldisaster

Elderly

Youth

In sum: both who you are and where you live matter

If you are young person, with low education, living in a village, or a town with a single company—you face a high risk of exclusion…

…and secondary education doesn’t help much in these conditions…

…while vibrant business environment makes a lot of difference

…economic centers offer more opportunities (even with low education)

…and much more if you are educated

++

++ + +

37

Conclusions Transition to a market economy in the region left some

out in the cold. Reforms have not always helped to improve lives.

It could be anyone! Everyone is at risk of being left out of society, not only marginalized groups.

Income doesn’t tell the whole story ! To be part of society, you also need access to public services, and opportunities to participate in community life.

Attitudes, local economy characteristics, policies matter

No single policy can eliminate exclusion - Policies need to be comprehensive to break the social exclusion chain

38

Recommendations

Genuine, sustained commitment to social inclusion with clear targets

Preventive focus on individual vulnerabilities Clear focus on people’s capacities Addressing institutional drivers is crucial Match this with deliberate efforts to change mindsets UNDP can help:

◦ We can generate projectable ideas ◦ We can implement them region-wide using our country office

network, and partners