1. Measurement of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Japan
Aya K. Abe
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research
Tokyo, Japan
Second Townsend Memorial Conference, Measuring Poverty : The State of Art, January 2010

2. Poverty Rates of OECD countries(Mid 2000s)
Poverty Rates of OECVD Countries (Mid 2000s) : Income measure
Data: OECD(2008) Growing Unequal?

3. Political Context
Upto 2008 ：Denial stage

4. Oct. 2009: Announcement of Relative Poverty Rate Jan. 18, 2011:
Social Inclusion Special Team established under Prime Minister’s Office

5. From Research community
Up to 2000’s: some qualitative research on special risk groups, such as homeless population, single-mothers, etc.
From 2000’s: Some attempts to calculate extent of poverty among general population using large surveys (mostly income) (Abe 2005, Komamura 2005, etc.)

6. Brief Introduction of my work
2003 Necessities Survey (n=1350)
Asking general public what is “necessary”
2003 Social Living Survey (n=1520)
Using above items regarded “necessary”, asked who are deprived of those items + some social network questions
2006 Living Conditions Survey (n=584)
Asked Deprivation and social exclusion; more emphasis on social exclusion
Sample limited to one geographical area near Tokyo
2008 Social Living Survey (n=1021)
2003 and 2006 survey questions combined, covered all areas of Japan
2008 Necessities Survey for Children

7. Methodology：Defining Essentials and Identifying Who is Deprived
Is it essential?
Do you have it?
Yes No
Yes No
Do not want it
Cannot afford it

8. Socially Perceived Necessities in Japan

9. Data The 2003 Necessities Survey
Sample of 2000 adults (20 years +), randomly chosen from residents’ register all over Japan
1350 responses (response rate = 67.5%)
For 28 items, asked respondents whether they thought it is “necessary” to live normally in Japan

10. % of support for items

11. % those who think the item is essential
　JAPAN
　UK
Toys　(that most of other kids have, such as dolls, blocks, soccer ball, baseball etc.)
12.4%
84%*
Bicycle (including second-hand)
20.9%
55%
At least one pair of shoes (not second-hand)
40.2%
94%
Clothes (not second-had)
33.7%
70%
Own books
51.2%
89%
To be able to go to dentists (including check-ups)
86.1%
Australia
94.7%**
* UK question: “Toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)
** Australia : Community Understanding of Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey 2006 in Saunders et al. (2007)
Data: Japan Child Necessity Survey 2008 in Abe (2008), UK Office for National Statistics Omnibus Survey 1999, in Gordon et al. (2000)

12. % supporting items: 1st vs. 5th quintile (income)
Pension
Insurance
Savings
Internet
Family Trip
Family Own Toilet
% saying “Definitely required”: 1st quintile vs. 5th quintile
5th quintile (richest)
1st quintile (poorest)

13. % supporting items: by education
% saying “Definitely required”: College grads vs. Mandatory education only
telephone
College or above (12 + )
Suits
Dentist
Mobile
Internet
Wedding
Neighborhood clubs
Junior high school (9 yrs of education)

14. % supporting items: Women vs. Men
% saying “Definitely required”:
men vs. women
Microwave
Separate bedroom
Women
fruits
Mobile
Video player
Men

15. % supporting items: by location
% saying “Definitely required”: those living in village vs. those living in large cities
Living in Village
wedding
Dentist
Multiple bedrooms
Neighborhood clubs
Family’s own bathroom
Family trip
Internet
Living in Largest 13 cities

16. % supporting items: by Age
% saying “Definitely required”: Above 70 years old vs. Below 30 years old
telephone
Doctor
Above 70 years old
Wedding
Neighborhood clubs
Video pl.
Mobile
Internet
Below 30 years old

17. Patterns of Deprivation in Japan

18. Data 2003 Social Living Survey
Sample of 2000 adults (20 years +), randomly chosen from residents’ register all over Japan
1520 responses (response rate = %)

25. Comparison of Japan-Australia Deprivation patterns
Why Deprivation approach?
Assumption that most households consist of nuclear families- Not the case in Japan -> raises questions re: equivalence adjustment
Presence of multi-generational hh
Deprivation approach: direct measurement of living standard, not relying on assumptions on resource sharing within families
Slides 25-XX: Saunders, Peter & Abe, Aya “Poverty and Deprivation in Young and Old: A Comparative Study of Australia and Japan.” Poverty and Public Policy, Vol.2, Iss.1, Article 5 (2010).

26. Comparison of Japan-Australia Deprivation patterns
Community Understanding of Poverty and Social Exclusion (CUPSE) survey, 2006, Social Policy Research Centre (Saunders, Naidoo and Griffiths, 2007).
N=2,700
Japan
The Social Living Survey, 2003, NIPSSR (Abe 2006)
N=1,520

27. Difficulties Do we use the same list of items?
-> how do we account for differences in what is considered “necessary”?
Do we use the items selected using the same methodology?
What UNIT of comparison do we use?

32. Comparison by Household Type: Similarities
The number of items differs between JP and AUS, thus comparison of the absolute values of MDS or % of deprivation do not mean much. Instead, we need to look at patterns and ordering of family types within each country.
Similarities: Sole parents are the most deprived, followed by WA singles, WA with children. Least deprived are older couples, WA couples w/o children, older singles.

33. Comparison of hh types: remarkably similar
① Elderly single vs. WA single （AUS） ＜＜ （JP） ＜＜ ② Elderly single vs. Elderly couple （AUS） ＞＞ （JP） ＞＞ ③ WA single vs. WA couple w/o children ④ WA couple with children vs. WA couple w/o children （AUS） ＞ ⑤ WA couple with children vs. Lone parents （AUS） ＜＜ （JP） ＜＜

35. Overlap analysis
Le us define Low income & D<=2 to be consistent poverty
Aus: Consistent poverty is spread evenly at around 8% across all households (except sole parent hh).
Jp: the differential is very large across different household types; strikingly high in elderly singles & sold parents

36. Conclusion: Aus-Jap comparison
The ranking of poverty as measured by income differs between AUS-JP, but it is very similar if poverty is measured by deprivation.
Perhaps deprivation captures the “real” occurrence of poverty which is shared among countries?
From the overlap analysis, consistent poverty is more concentrated in Japan.

37. Measuring Social Exclusion in Japan

38. Data The 2006 Living Conditions Survey (LCS)
Sample of 1600 adults (20 years +), randomly chosen from the residents’ register in the southern Kawasaki City
Kawasaki is located between Tokyo and Yokohama, a part of industrial belt.
The southern part host many factories, and the city received influx of migrant laborers from rural sections of Japan.
584 responses (response rate = 36.5%)

39. Survey Concept
It should capture economic impoverishment not only by income, but also by material deprivation
It should capture how an individual is excluded (forced out) from various public constructs within a society, e.g. public schemes such as public pension and public health insurance, public services such as transportation and utilities, and public spaces such as libraries and sports facilities
It should capture exclusion from private spheres, e.g. lack of social relations (communication with others, meeting family obligations, doing activities with others) and social networks (support in need)
it should measure degree of individual’s involvement with society, e.g. social participation such as participation in local communities (neighborhood organizations, women’s clubs, PTA, etc.), civic activities (voting, political involvement, etc.), and personal communities (alumni clubs, sports and hobby circles, etc.)

40. These should enforced lack, rather than preference.
It should not only capture the enforced lack due to economic constraints, but also due to other constraints (health, family, work, social, etc.), and should be able to distinguish them

41. 8 dimensions chosen (lack of ) basic human needs,
material deprivation,
exclusion from systems and services,
(lack of) leisure and social participation,
inadequate housing,
(lack of ) social relation,
subjective poverty, and
income poverty

42. Almost all items were asked whether they “are wanted but cannot be obtained”, “not wanted (or not interested)” or “are obtained”.
For most of items, the survey also asks “the reason” why that item cannot be obtained : Economic, family, work, health, other reasons.

43. Example: Social Participation
Very few indicate economic reasons for not being able to participate in social activities
Family/Work reasons is most often cited.

44. Social Exclusion Indexes
Threshold for determining those who are "excluded" are decided by the author so that the exclusion rate will be 10 to 20% of the respondents.

45. Example: Exclusion from Systems
Almost none stated economic reasons
“Access” is most often cited reason.

46. Share of Respondents Excluded, by key social variables

47. Some Key findings (Gender)
Men show higher rate of exclusion than women (lack of social participation and subjective poverty)
Same as PSE (social participation), but even more so.
(Age Group)
The income poverty shows an U shape curve, but it does not seem to translate directly to Lack of Basic Needs and Material Deprivation.
Those at 50’s seem to be at higher risk of many dimensions of S.E., e.g. Housing, Subjective poverty, Lack of Social Participation, Lack of Social Relations
Concurs with the fact that the suicide rate for men peaks at age & 95% of homeless persons are men, a half of which are in their 50s.

48. (Household type)
Working age single-person households are by far the most at risk of social exclusion: Basic Needs, Material deprivation, housing deprivation, and lack of social participation
(Working Status)
Not being in the labor force, by itself, does not seem to indicate higher risk of social exclusion.
In fact, housewives and retired persons are at lower risk of social exclusion in some dimensions (subjective poverty, housing, social partipation)
However, not-being in the labor force for other reasons does indicate higher risk of social exclusion in 6 dimensions, including non-financial dimensions such as Exclusion from Systems and Lack of Social Relations. Involuntary detachment from the labor force is associated with social exclusion.

49. (Education Level)
Low education attainment (up to Junior high school = age 15, the compulsory education in Japan) is a strong link to social exclusion, not only for financial dimensions (income poverty, lack of basic needs, material deprivation, housing deprivation), but also for non-financial dimension s (exclusion from systems, lack of social relations).
High education attainment (college+) is associated with lower risk of social exclusion (systems, and basic needs)

50. Social Exclusion and Earlier Disadvantages
Outside Japan, there are many studies linking childhood poverty to adult outcomes.
However, in Japan, there are very few studies connecting earlier life disadvantages and poverty and/or social exclusion, since there has not been much accumulation of panel data sets.
The studies using the Japanese Panel Survey of Consumers (JPSC) , the only long enough panel data set, has shown those who divert from “standard life course”, such as those who divorce and who do not marry, are more prone to becoming poor (Iwata & Nishizawa 2005). However, JPSC only covers women in a certain cohort.

51. This Study
The survey was designed to capture major disadvantageous events (Independent variables): childhood poverty, divorce, prolonged illness or injury, involuntary lay-off.
Outcome (Dependent) variables include both financial poverty as well as social exclusion.
Control variables are : current income, sex, age class, single-elderly, current household type (has children, single-person household), current working status.

52. Results of Regression for Social Exclusion Indexes

53. Key Findings (Lay-off)
Having experience of a lay-off has positive and significant effect on current material deprivation, housing deprivation, lack of social participation, lack of social relations, exclusion from systems and subjective poverty, even after controlling for current income, age, sex, working status, and household type.
(Divorce)
Having experience of divorce has positive and significant effect on basic needs and housing deprivation, even after controlling for current marital status (single-person hh).

54. Key Findings (Prolonged illness and injuries)
Having experience of prolonged illness and injuries (which caused one to be out of work or school for more than one month) has positive and significant effect on exclusion from systems.

55. (Childhood poverty)
Having experienced childhood poverty (living standard at age 15 was “very low” (=1) out of scale of 5) has positive and significant effect on current lack of basic needs, even after controlling for current income, age, household type and other disadvantages such as divorce and lay-offs.
The causal relationship is indicated.
(Control variables)
Income: Negative and significant in all but one (systems exclusion), including social relations and participation.
Gender: Men are + *** (social relations, subjective poverty)
Age: does not seem to have that strong of a effect
Work sattus: + ** (Exclusion from systems) ??

56. Conclusions
Sections of population most vulnerable to income poverty is not most vulnerable to social exclusion.
Possible “new” vulnerable group: men in their 50s.
Disadantages in earlier stages of life seem to exhort influences on some aspects of current social exclusion, even after controlling for current income, work status, household type, etc.
The catch-phrase of the former PM Abe “a society in which one can re-challenge” DOES NOT seem to hold.
Childhood poverty seems to have irrevocable continuing effect on adult well-being not only via education and occupation (and thus income), but by another path.