1. Social Exclusion in Serbia, 2002-2007, as the Phenomenon of Multiple Deprivation Hana Baronijan, Ipsos Strategic Marketing Slobodan Cvejic, Faculty of Philosophy

2. © 20 10 Ipsos 2 Background – Measuring social exclusion in country context Social exclusion as a complex phenomenon is not easily measurable. 3 types of problems: defining the dimensions that it is composed of defining the indicators that measure these dimensions defining the relationship between the dimensions In Serbia social exclusion is also in focus of interest - Report on social inclusion in Serbia, 2008 Monitoring of social inclusion is achived through basic dimensions: 1. financial poverty, 2. employment, 3. health and 4. education + material deprivation and social participation Leaken indicators + Identification of the the nationally specific indicators.

3. © 20 10 Ipsos 3 Background - Presentation of the summary effect of social deprivation indicators The problem of analyzing the summary effects of individual indicators Two approaches: 1 st - Combines the values of indicators into one index e.g. HDI 2 nd - Observes multiple deprivation on individual level – makes possible to determine on the level of individual the mutual influence of deprivation in different dimensions – but in order to do that: personal data on all indicators need to be in one dataset indicators must be observed on the same selected population In this paper we tried to present the extent of multiple deprivation in Serbia with the second approach SILC survey isn’t yet implemented in Serbia - LSMS (2002, 2007). In order to perform the analysis we had to make the selection and modification of Laeken and national indicators to be used in the analysis.

4. © 20 10 Ipsos 4 Objectives and target groups Specific objectives are the following - to reveal: 1.The extent of multiple deprivation 2.Trend of multiple deprivation 2002-2007 3.To compare general population with one chosen vulnerable population, population with disabilities (PWD). 4.To analyze the basic socio-economic factors which are connected with multiple deprivation. The objective of this analysis was to ascertain multiple deprivation on individual level. 3 target populations in order to make comparisons: 1.group: general population in 2007,15 to 64, source: LSMS 2007 2.group: persons with disabilities in 2007, 15 to 64, source: LSMS 2007 3.group: general population in 2002, 15 to 64, source: LSMS 2002

5. © 20 10 Ipsos 5 Methodology – Dimensions and indicators Dimensions which were observed: 1.Financial deprivation 2.Deprivation in the area of employment 3.Health-related deprivation 4.Education-related deprivation 5.Material or/housing deprivation The used indicators were modified versions of EU Laeken indicators or national indicators (Report on Social Exclusion in Serbia) – necessary modification: 1.To narrow down indicators to the same denominator (population aged from 15 to 64 years) (e.g. Long-term unemployment rate) 2.To select only indicators which have values for each individual (e.g. Gini coefficient of income distribution was excluded). 3.To make changes which are specific for certain indicators (e.g. Poverty risk rate)

6. © 20 10 Ipsos 6 Presentation of results

7. © 20 10 Ipsos 7 Value of Modified Indicators of Social Deprivation which can be obtained from LSMS on Individual Level for 3 chosen populations

8. © 20 10 Ipsos 8 Multiple deprivation for the three tested populations: general population 15-64, 2007, general population 15-64 2002 and persons with disability, 15-64, 2007 F=financial deprivation; E=deprivation in the sphere of employment, H= health-related deprivation, Ed=education-related deprivation, M=material deprivation, Source: LSMS 2002 – 2007 Serbia Very small number of persons is affected by more than two forms of deprivation. On the other hand, being affected by at least some form of deprivation is widespread – in 2007 44% of the population was deprived on one dimension at least. Deprivation measured by our indicators is significantly reduced from 2002 to 2007 but to a lesser extent than financial poverty Persons with disabilities experience greater social exclusion than general population

9. © 20 10 Ipsos 9 Proportion of population 15 to 64 deprived on three dimensions: in the sphere of employment, education and financial poverty 7,0% 1,9% 21,8% 2,4% 0,2% 0,8% 3,5% 11,7% 5,3% 28,5% 100% Financial deprivation Employment deprivation Educational deprivation General population 15-64, 2007 14,6% 1,3% 24,1% 1,6%0,5% 1,6% 12,3% 30,5% 5,0% 39,6% 100% Financial deprivation Employment deprivation Educational deprivation Population of persons with disability, 15-64, 2007 4,9% 4,6% 23,2% 5,4% 1,0% 1,6% 3,1% 10,1%10,1% 12,6% 33,3% 100% Financial deprivation Employment deprivation Educational deprivation General population 15-64, 2002

10. © 20 10 Ipsos 10 Socio-economic factors related to multiple deprivation Wald’s coefficient represents the value of H2 statistic. * statistically significant at the level 5%; ** statistically significant at the level 1% Source: LSMS 2002 – 2007 Serbia Binary logistic regression for probability that (1) a person is not deprived on any dimension, (2) a person is deprived on at least 2 dimensions, General population 15-64, 2007 Connection between basic demographic variables and multiple deprivation exists.

11. © 20 10 Ipsos 11 Conclusions In Serbia in the last 5 years - Multiple deprivation: significantly more widespread than financial poverty. But, very small number of persons was affected by more than two forms of deprivation. Persons with disabilities, although less affected by financial poverty, are more affected by multiple deprivation. Multiple deprivation has decreased in the 5-year period, but to a lesser extent than financial poverty has. Connection between basic demographic variables and multiple deprivation exists.

12. © 20 10 Ipsos 12 Discussion concrete percentages of deprivated persons largely depend on selection of indicators themselves - paying great attention to selection of indicators very hard, or almost impossible, to find universal indicators for the whole population 0+ surveys on which this analysis is based do not include the most excluded segments of the population, the so-called "invisible" people Finally, degree of social deprivation can be spoken about only conditionally

13. © 20 10 Ipsos 13 Thank you!