Launch of Launch of Regional Human Regional Human Development Development Report 2011—KievReport 2011—Kiev

Ukraine—natural place for the Russian language launch:◦ Ukraine was one of the countries covered by the regional project◦ The team involved in the national study embarked on a major effort of

expanding it into a deep and srious study published as NHDR for Ukraine◦ Clear policy commitment to social inclusion and human development

agenda

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

In particular, large team of authors and national teams in the 6 countries—many are here, others follow the launch on-line.

Why Kiev; acknowledgementsWhy Kiev; acknowledgements

Human Development and Social InclusionHuman 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 Approachultidimensional 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 Three dimensions of social exclusion (with 8 indicators each):8 indicators each):

Tough measurement question:

How many deprivations does it How many deprivations does it take to be excluded?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

Certain groups are more excluded (Serbia Survey)

Higher Human Development Index Higher Human Development Index correlates closely with higher social inclusioncorrelates closely with higher social inclusion

Drivers of exclusion and their implications for exclusion status

Poor governance goes closely with exclusion

23

Barriers to business exacerbate social exclusion

A better functioning labour market enhances social inclusion

Informal employment brings dubious benefits

Less tolerant values enhance social exclusion

Specifics of local contextand its implications for social exclusion

Tolerance of corruption heightens social exclusion

Location matters greatly!

30

Social exclusion is particularly high in mono-company towns

The quality of local infrastructure also affects social exclusion

Lasting effects of environmental disasters in yet another area: social exclusion

Towards an ‘individualized approach’ Towards an ‘individualized approach’ to social exclusion 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

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