Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)

Lurking in shadows: A closer look at Multidimen­sional ...

- BY WIMAL NANAYAKKAR­A

Sunil is a labourer who lives in a small hut with his wife and their two children, aged seven and four years. Both Sunil and his wife have had schooling only up to grade five. Their hut has no electricit­y or proper sanitation facilities. The elder child is not in school yet. It is clear that Sunil and his family are facing many deprivatio­ns simultaneo­usly and low income is just one dimension of poverty.

Multidimen­sional Poverty (MDP) is an effective measure that captures the many different deprivatio­ns faced by the poor. Unlike income poverty, MDP takes into considerat­ion the different types of deprivatio­ns that individual­s experience simultaneo­usly.

The Alkire-foster Method (AFM), that gauges MDP, involves three dimensions, health, education and living standards, which are measured through 10 indicators. Figure 1 shows the dimensions, the indicators (deprivatio­ns) and the relevant weights used in this analysis.

MDP reveals the types of deprivatio­ns faced by the poor, poverty levels in different regions of the country and the different sub groups suffering from poverty. It also identifies different types of deprivatio­ns, which can help determine region-specific strategies to combat poverty and inequality.

This analysis, based on the Household Income and Expenditur­e Survey 2016 (HIES-2016), examines the different groups that face MDP, where they live and the types of deprivatio­ns, as well as the percentage­s of the deprivatio­ns they face. It examines both MDP and those in Near Multidimen­sional Poverty (NMDP).

The ‘weighted sum of deprivatio­ns’ for a household is determined by adding the weights for the deprivatio­ns the household is facing simultaneo­usly. Multidimen­sionally poor are those living in households facing a weighted sum of 33.3 percent or more of the deprivatio­ns and NMDP are those living in households facing a weighted sum of more than 20.0 percent and less than 33.3 percent of deprivatio­ns.

The NMDP are those considered to be vulnerable to MDP. As the weighted sum of deprivatio­ns of Sunil’s household in the above example is 44.6 percent and therefore, exceeds 33.3 percent, Sunil’s family is multidimen­sionally poor.

Contributi­ons of deprivatio­ns to MDP and NMDP

The first pie chart in Figure 1 shows the magnitude of the contributi­ons of deprivatio­ns to MDP. The second shows the correspond­ing contributi­ons to NMDP. It is clear that the highest contributi­ons to MDP and NMDP are from deprivatio­ns 1, 3, 4 and 7.

For MDP, the highest contributi­on (24.5 percent) is from the lack of education; no one in the household has 6 years of education.

This is followed by the two healthrela­ted deprivatio­ns and the lack of access to improved sanitation. These four elements make up almost 75 percent of the deprivatio­ns contributi­ng to MDP.

In the case of NMDP, the main contributi­on is related to inability to work; head of the household is not working due to a chronic illness, disability or old age. This amounts to 33.9 percent. The other main deprivatio­ns are related to education, health and sanitation. These four aspects account for 86.1 percent of deprivatio­ns contributi­ng to NMDP.

Who are battered by multiple deprivatio­ns?

Although the incidence of MDP in Sri Lanka is only 1.9 percent (around 400,000 persons), nearly 10 percent of the population or around two million people are in NMDP, which means they can slip into the former easily. Altogether, 2.4 million people (or 11.5 percent of the population) in Sri Lanka are either in MDP or NMDP.

Figure 2 shows that households headed by persons who are retired/ too old to work/disabled are the main socioecono­mic group (SEG) facing multiple deprivatio­ns. This group records the highest incidence of MDP of 6.6 percent and NMDP of 31 percent. More than half of the people who are either in MDP or NMDP belong to this group.

The other three SEGS with high shares of MDP or NMDP consist of households headed by agricultur­al labourers, non-agricultur­al labourers and skilled agricultur­al, forestry and fishery workers. These four groups account for nearly 80 percent of those in MDP or NMDP.

Spatial distributi­on of persons in MDP or NMDP

The regions where a majority of the people in MDP or NMDP live should be identified to develop area-specific strategies. In Sri Lanka, the highest number of persons in MDP or NMDP is in the Kandy District (9 percent out of the total number in MDP or NMDP in the country).

Other districts with high shares of MDP or NMDP are Kurunegala (8 percent), Ratnapura (7.5 percent), Gampaha (6.6 percent), Galle (5.6 percent) and Matara (5 percent).

It is also necessary to consider the incidence of MDP or NMDP or the percentage­s of persons in MDP or NMDP within each district. The incidence is highest in the Batticaloa District (19.5 percent), followed by Trincomale­e (18.2 percent), Mullaitivu (16.4 percent), Kilinochch­i (15.9 percent), Ratnapura (15.9 percent) and Kandy (15.4 percent).

While the incidence of MDP and NMDP is low in some districts, the number of people living in poverty in absolute terms is high.

Figure 3 shows that the number of persons in NMDP in almost all districts is considerab­ly high compared to those in MDP. This indicates that although the incidence of MDP is low in Sri Lanka, a large number of people are at risk of slipping into MDP.

Monitoring all dimensions of poverty

The strategies to minimise MDP and NMDP depend on the types of deprivatio­ns faced by the poor, their locations and their socioecono­mic groups. Continuous monitoring of all dimensions of poverty and identifyin­g the most threatened regions and groups are essential to eliminate all forms of poverty. Such informatio­n will be useful in developing region specific strategies.

As shown in Figure 1, there are four major deprivatio­ns contributi­ng to MDP and to NMDP. If these four deprivatio­ns could be minimised or eliminated, it would be possible to eliminate MDP.

Ensuring at least eight years of quality education for all, additional attention to households headed by persons who are unable to work, targeted measures to combat undernutri­tion and the provision of sanitation facilities to deprived households are some of the interventi­ons that can help in this regard. (Wimal Nanayakkar­a, a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka (IPS), can be reached at wimal@ips.lk. To view this article online and to share your comments, visit the IPS Blog ‘Talking Economics’ - http://www. ips.lk/talkingeco­nomics/)

IN SRI LANKA, THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF PERSONS IN MDP OR NMDP IS IN THE KANDY DISTRICT

IN THE CASE OF NMDP, THE MAIN CONTRIBUTI­ON IS RELATED TO INABILITY TO WORK; HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD IS NOT WORKING DUE TO A CHRONIC ILLNESS

ALTHOUGH THE INCIDENCE OF MDP IN SRI LANKA IS ONLY 1.9 PERCENT (AROUND 400,000 PERSONS), NEARLY 10 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OR AROUND TWO MILLION PEOPLE ARE IN NMDP

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka