Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative

1

Department of International Development

Queen Elizabeth House

University of Oxford


MISSING DIMENSIONS

OF POVERTY

A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators

Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative

1

Department of International Development

Queen Elizabeth House

University of Oxford


MISSING DIMENSIONS

OF POVERTY DATA

A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators

INDICATOR SHORTLISTS FOR:

Employment

Empowerment

Safety and Security

Going About Without Shame

1

Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing

Employment

Empowerment

Safety and Security

Going About Without Shame

Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing

1

August 2007

1

CONTENTS

INDICATORS OF EMPLOYMENT ………………………………….. / 5
INDICATORS OF EMPOWERMENT ……………………………….. / 8
INDICATORS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY ………………………. / 14
INDICATORS OF GOING ABOUT WITHOUT SHAME ………….. / 11
INDICATORS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SUBJECTIVE WELLBEING / 2

INTRODUCTION

This document contains the actual survey questions proposed in each of the five papers developed for the May 2007 Workshop on Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data. The proposal is that these questions – or a refinement of them – might be considered a ‘module’ that could be added to nationally representative individual or household surveys

Our intent here is to only lay out clearly the dimensions and indicators in outline form to spark discussion and improvement of the specific survey questions.

The full papers also include a discussion of:

  • the concepts and definitions in the literature
  • why a specific module might be needed
  • the reasoning behind the selection of these indicators and questions rather than others
  • reference to the academic analyses that have used data from these indicators
  • the weaknesses and potential biases of these proposed indicators
  • lists of other potential indicators that have been used
  • the research questions that could be answered were such questions integrated into multi-topic individual or household questionnaires.

The full papers are available on the OPHI website

The precise web address is:

To comment on the papers or on these questions please email the authors directly, or else send your comments to

INDICATORS OF EMPLOYMENT

María Ana Lugo ()

This paper module proposes a set of indicators of employment, the first four relating to quality of employment and the last to quantity of employment.

INDICATORS

Protection:1.Informal employment

Income: 2. Income from employment (including self-employed earnings)

Safety: 3. Occupational hazard (accidents, illnesses, and workplace exposures)

Time: 4. Under/over employed (prefer to work more/less than at present)

5. Multiple activities (number of income generating jobs)

Quantity:6. Discouraged unemployed(prefer to work but have stopped searching)

These following questions are to be included in the labour questionnaires, wherever appropriate.

  1. Protection: informal employment

Informal employment: we assume that informal sector enterprise questions are already included in the questionnaire, so that we only need to add questions to identify informal jobs not in the informal sector[1]

Q1. How many people altogether work in the same organisation where you do this work?
Number
Q2. (For employers, own-account workers and contributing family workers) Has the enterprise been already registered?
  1. Yes

  1. Is in the process of being registered

  1. No

  1. Do not know

  1. Do not want to answer

Q3. Are you employed temporarily or permanently?
  1. Temporarily

  1. Permanently

Q4. When you started this job, did you sign a written contract?
  1. Yes

  1. No

Q5. For this work … / Yes / No / Do not know
(a) Will you receive a retirement pension?
Are you entitled to …
(b) paid holidays ?
(c) paid sick leave?
(d) social security benefits ?
(e) free or subsidised medical care?
(f) maternity leave?
  1. Income from employment

Asked of self-employed (agriculture and non-agriculture)[2] after soliciting a description of the business

Q1. In a good month, how much profit does this business/enterprise/ farm normally make (net of costs)? (rupees)
Q2. What is the total value of equipment/stock that is used in the business? (rupees)

Alternatively (or complementarily), the matrix approach aims at computing the quantity and values of inputs and outputs. Questions differ according to the type of activity: non-agriculture (manufacturing, traders and other services) and agriculture. We include the questions in the Appendix to the full paper.[3].

  1. Occupational safety and health [4]

Accident
Q1.Have you suffered any accidental injury during the past 12 months?
No
Yes / Q1.1. Total number of accidents caused by work with more than 24 hours lost time
Q1.2. Total accidents caused by work requiring a medical consultation
Q1.3. Does the injury had a …
  1. no permanent effect
  2. permanent effect, able to work in the same job
  3. permanent effect, able to work, not in the same job
  4. permanent effect, not able to work at all

Illness
Q2.1. Have you stopped working during the past 12 months due to any health problems (illness) related to your work? Yes / No
Q2.2. Have you stopped working during the past 12 months due to any health problems (illness) that was aggravated by your work? Yes / No
Q2.3. How would you describe this illness?
  1. Upper respiratory disease (eg throat, nose, sinusis)
  2. Lower respiratory disease (eg asthma, TB, pneumonia)
  3. Hearing loss
  4. Upper limb disorder (neck, shoulder, arm, wrist, hand)
  5. Lower limb disorders (eg legs, foot)
  6. Other musculoskeletal (back, hip)
  7. Skin diseases
/
  1. Eyes strain, eye problems
  2. Headaches
  3. Other organ damage (liver, kidney)
  4. Cardiovascular disease
  5. Stress / depression
  6. Other

Workplace exposures (main activity)
Q3. Indicate with a tick if present or true, a cross if not present and ‘0’ if no answer
  1. Inadequate clean water supplies;
  2. Toilets inadequate / dirty
  3. Tripping hazards;
  4. Machine parts unguarded;
  5. Work with cutting/ grinding handtools
  6. Noise too loud to talk normally;
  7. Exposed to extreme heat source
/
  1. Use red or purple triangle chemicals
  2. Mineral dusts in workplace
  3. Vegetable dusts in workplace
  4. Handling heavy loads
  5. Uncomfortable work posture
  6. Long hours of standing

  1. Time-related underemployment[5]

Q1. What is the main reason for which you worked less than 40 hours?
  1. It is your normal schedule

  1. The work schedule was reduced due to low production or sales

  1. Lack of credit or financing

  1. Household work, caring for children

  1. Family or personal reasons, sickness or accident

  1. There is no more work

  1. Other (specify)

Q2. Considering the total number of hours worked last week, would you like to work more hours to obtain additional income?
  1. Yes

  1. No

Q3. (if the person is working more than 45 hours per week) Considering the total number of hours worked last week, would you like to work fewer hours at the expense of a reduction in income?
  1. Yes

  1. No

  1. Multiple jobs[6]

Following a question on how many hours the person worked in the past week (in all activities)

Q4. During the past 12 months did you do any other work besides ‘main occupation’?
  1. Yes
  2. No

(if ‘yes’) Q5. What kind of work? (from code list) .. up to four occupations
  1. Discouraged Unemployment [7]

Should follow standard question about job search such as “Have you made any effort within the past … months to find work, established a business or an enterprise?” and answered “No”

Q1. Which is the main reason why you did not look for work?
  1. Awaiting reply to earlier enquiries

  1. Waiting to start arranged job, business or agricultural

  1. Off season in agriculture

  1. Have a temporary / occasional work

  1. Got tired of searching

  1. Thought no work available

  1. Other (specify)

If the respondent answers “5” or “6” then she or he will be considered discouraged unemployed.

INDICATORS OF EMPOWERMENT

Solava Ibrahim () and Sabina Alkire ()

The aim of this paper module is to builds on existing efforts and indicators already in use, and proposes a small, robust, internationally comparable list of empowerment indicators that can address key research questions. Tables 1 to 9 at the end of this paper present the most commonly used indicators used to measure empowerment either directly or indirectly. Building on a growing body of empirical research, this section proposes the ‘short list’ of empowerment indicators and explains the reason for the selection of each indicator.

The following criteria were used to choose suitable indicators for the inclusion in individual or household surveys. First, the indicators need to be internationally comparable. This is particularly important as there is a gap in the literature on comparative empowerment studies[8]. Secondly, the indicators need to assess not only the instrumental but also the intrinsic aspects of empowerment. Third, as empowerment is a process, it is essential to select indicators that would be able to identify changes in empowerment levels over time. Fourth, the choice of the indicators’ short-list draws on experience with particular indicators to date, i.e. how frequently these indicators have been previously fielded and found to be ‘adequate’ measures of empowerment for research purposes. It goes without saying that the indicators need to be scrutinized on standard conditions of accuracy, validity, and reliability.

The proposed indicators focus on empowerment as expansion of ‘agency’ and exercise of ‘power’. The question on personal decisions examines the person’s control or power over his/her own decisions. The questions on household decision-making and autonomy reflect the focus on freedom, choice or power to exercise one’s agency in different domains. Further questions explore the ability of the individual to exercise his/her power from within, i.e. to change their lives. Finally, the last question examines the individual’s perception on his/her own community, i.e. the power with other members in his community when they act together. Based on these criteria, to capture the 4 elements of empowerment identified in our conceptual framework- control, choice, change and community-, this paper suggests tThe he following indicators areto measure empowerment:

-Indicator 1- ‘Power Over/Control’: Control over personal decisions

-Indicator 2 - ‘Power To/Choice and Value’: Household dDecision-making and domain-specific autonomy in different domains

-Indicator 3 -‘Power From Within/Change’:Changing aspects in one’s life [Individual Level]

-Indicator 4- ‘Power With/ Community’: Changing aspects in one’s life [Communal Level]

For the purposes of this paper, the set of indicators that we propose are mainly focusing on empowerment as expansion of ‘agency’ and exercise of ‘power’. The question on personal decisions examines the person’s control or power over his/her own decisions. The questions on household decision-making and autonomy reflect the focus on choice or power to exercise one’s agency in different domains. Further questions explore the ability of the individual to exercise his/her power from within, i.e. to change their lives. Finally, the last question examines the individual’s perception on his/her own community, i.e. the power with other members in his community when they act together.

-

By proposing indicators that measure empowerment directly, we are not undermining the role of institutions in the empowerment process. However, due to the difficulty of potential comparability and the variation of these institutions across socio-cultural contexts, this shortlist of indicators focuses only on the agency and power dimensions of the empowerment process. We therefore present this shortlist not as a final response but as a starting-place for discussion and improvement.

Indicator 1- ‘Power Over/Control’: Control over Personal Decisions

Q1.- How much control do you feel you have in making personal decisions that affect your everyday activities?

Control over all decisions [5]Control over most decisions [4]Control over some decisions [3]

Control over very few decisions [2]No control at all [1]

Indicator 2- ‘Power To/Choice and Freedom’: Household Decision-making and Domain-specific autonomyAutonomy in different domains

Household Decision-Making Autonomy

When decisions are made regarding the following aspects of household life, who is it that normally takes the decision? / 1Respondent
2Spouse
3Respondent & Spouse Jointly
4Someone else
5Jointly with someone else
6Other [Specify and add code:______] if 1, go to column 2; if not 1, skip to column 3. / If the answer on left is not 1:
To what degree do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding these issues if you want to?
11 To a very high degree
22 To a fairly high degree
33 To a small degree
4 Not at all / I am now going to ask you to tell me how accurate are three statements. Each can be somewhat true, or only one or two can be true.
To what extent do you feel that your decisions or your actions in ______[name the domain from the left hand column] are motivated by a desire to avoid punishment or to gain reward? / To what extent do you feel that your decisions or your actions in ______[name the domain from the left hand column are motivated by a desire to avoid blame, or so that other people speak well of you? / To what extent do you feel that your decisions or your actions in ______[name the domain from the left hand column] are motivated by
and reflect your own values and/or interests?
Minor Household Expenditure
Major Household purchases
Education of family members
Political Decisions[9]
Marriage Choices
Religious Beliefs[10]
Health Care for family members
Work and Employment

Indicator 3 -‘Power From Within/Change’: Changing Aspects in one’s Life [Individual Level]

Q1.- Would you like to change anything in your life?Yes [1]No [0]

Q2.- What three thing(s) would you most like to change?

A:
B:
C:

Q3.- Who do you think will contribute most to any change in your own life?[Enumerator: list up to 2 reasons]

Myself [1]My family [2]Our Group [3]Our Community [4]The local government [5]

The state government [6] Other (specify) ______

Indicator 4- ‘Power With/Community’: Changing Aspects in Communal Life [Communal Level]

Q1.- Do you feel that people like yourself can generally change things in your community if they want to?

Yes, very easily [5] Yes, fairly easily [4] Yes, but with a little difficulty [3]

Yes, but with a great deal of difficulty [2]No, not at all. [1]

Q2. Imagine a 10-step ladder, where at the bottom, on the first step, stand people who are completely powerless and without rights, and on the highest step, the tenth, stand those who have a lot of power and rights. On which step of this ladder are you today?

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

And on which step were you 10 years ago?

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1

Safety and Security: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators of Safety and Security orViolenceINDICATORS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY

Rachael Diprose[11] ()

‘Poverty never results from the lack one thing but from many interlocking factors that cluster in poor people’s experiences and definitions of poverty.’ (Narayan et al, 2000: 32).

WHO definition of violence: The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Why is violence an important dimension of poverty?: One of the greatest impediments to human security in the post-Cold War era is not inter-state wars resulting in mass destruction fought by the armed forces of nation states, but violence, perpetrated by individuals, groups, and state actors within the internal borders of nations (Hegre et al, 2001). Violence, resulting from everyday crime, large scale communal conflicts, insurgencies, or through state repression can and does undo the development gains achieved in education, health, employment, capital generation and infrastructure provision. Violence is a public health problem, a human rights problem, a community problem, and a problem for the state and the international community. It impedes human freedom to live safely and securely and can sustain poverty traps in many communities. However, violence is not always an inevitable part of human interaction. Many multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and poor peoples manage human interaction and channel conflict and the propensity for violence in peaceful ways.[12] Yet violence is still prevalent throughout the world. The World Report on Violence and Health (WHO, 2002: 10-11) states that self-inflicted, interpersonal or collective violence kills more than 1.6 million people every year with an overall age-adjusted rate of 28.8 per 100 000 population.

Why measure violence in household surveys?: An estimated 5.06 million people die each year as the result of injury (both accidental and intentional) (WHO, 2004a:1). According to data from high income countries[13] alone, for every person killed from injury, approximately 30 times as many people are hospitalised from injury, and 300 times as many are treated in hospital emergency rooms and then released.[14] Furthermore, the Human Development Report (2000) estimates that 5 million people were killed in 1990s from civil war. These figures, while horrifying, are vulnerable to gross under-reportage due to poor data availability, but do give some indication as to the seriousness of the problem, particularly in developing countries. Many of the world’s experts working on poverty reduction and violence prevention in particular, such as the World Health Organization (2005), the Human Security Centre (2005), the Inter American Institute of Human Rights (Perez-Valero, 2002: 9, cf Le Monde July 1992), and the agencies of the United Nations such as the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC resolution 2003/26) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime argue that there is an absence of reliable and comparable data collected at regular intervals over time which can adequately inform their policy and program design, as well as program monitoring and evaluation.

Types of violence: The aim of this paper is to outline a shortlist of indicators of both violent crime and conflict based violence which can be used in the large household surveys conducted by nation states, as well as international development agencies and others who conduct surveys in multi-country and multi-locality contexts. There are various types of violence identified by WHO including: self-directed violence or self-harm (deliberate overdose on drugs and alcohol, self-mutilation, self-immolation, suicide) – not measured here; interpersonal violence (e.g. assault, homicide, intimate partner violence, sexual violence); legal intervention (action by police or other law enforcement personnel); and, war, civil insurrection and disturbances (e.g. demonstrations and riots). This paper seeks to measure interpersonal violence, violence from legal intervention (by determining the perpetrators of violence, and violence from war, communal conflict, civil insurrection and disturbances through household surveys.