The Global Gridded Relative Deprivation Index (GRDI), Version 1 (GRDIv1) data set characterizes the relative levels of multidimensional deprivation and poverty in each 30 arc-second (~1 km) pixel, where a value of 100 represents the highest level of deprivation and a value of 0 the lowest. GRDIv1 is built from sociodemographic and satellite data inputs that were spatially harmonized, indexed, and weighted into six main components to produce the final index raster. Inputs were selected from the best-available data that either continuously vary across space or have at least administrative level 1 (provincial/state) resolution, and which have global spatial coverage.

Purpose and brief description EU-SILC (European Union - Statistics on Income and Living Conditions) is a survey on income and living conditions and an important tool to map poverty and social exclusion at both Belgian and European level. The objective of this survey is to establish a global framework for the production of 'Community' statistical data on income and living conditions (EU-SILC), including both coherent cross-sectional and longitudinal data on income and poverty (level, composition,...) at national and European level. The survey is carried out in Belgium and in the other EU Member States and is coordinated by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. In Belgium, the SILC is organised by Statbel. Population Private households in Belgium Data collection method and sample size CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) - CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview). Response rate ± 60% (N= ± 6.000 households) Periodicity Annually. Release calendar First quarter after survey year Forms SILC: individual questionnaire SILC: questionnaire households Definitions Risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) The risk of poverty or social exclusion, abbreviated AROPE, refers to the situation in which individuals are faced with at least one of the 3 following poverty risks: monetary poverty, severe material and social deprivation or living in a household with very low work intensity. The AROPE rate, the share of the total population at risk of poverty or social exclusion, is the main indicator for monitoring the ‘EU 2030’ target on poverty and social exclusion. Poverty risk = Monetary poverty risk (AROP) The at-risk-of-poverty rate (AROP) is the percentage of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the poverty threshold. The indicator does not measure wealth or poverty, but low income in comparison to other residents in that country. This does not necessarily imply a low standard of living. Poverty risk before social transfers: Percentage of people whose equivalised disposable income after deduction of all social transfers falls below the poverty threshold. Poverty risk before social transfers, excluding pensions: Percentage of people whose equivalised disposable income after deduction of social transfers, excluding pensions, falls below the poverty threshold. Material and social deprivation rate (MSD) and severe material and social deprivation (SMSD) The material and social deprivation rate refers to the inability to afford some goods/services considered by most people to be desirable or even necessary to lead an adequate life. The indicator distinguishes between individuals who cannot afford a certain good/service/activity, and those who do not have this good/service/activity for another reason, e.g. because they do not want or do not need it. The EU-SILC survey asks households about their financial (in)ability to: Pay the bills as scheduled Take every year one week’s holiday away from home Eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or vegetarian equivalent every second day Face unexpected financial expenses Afford a car Keep the home warm Replace damaged or worn-out furniture In addition, people are asked about their individual financial (in)ability to: Replace worn out or old-fashioned clothes by new ones Have two pairs of shoes in good condition Afford an internet connection at home Get together with friends/family (relatives) for a drink/meal at least once a month Participate regularly in a leisure activity Spend a small amount of money each week on yourself The material and social deprivation rate (MSD) is defined as the enforced inability to pay for at least five of the above-mentioned items. The severe material and social deprivation rate (SMSD) is defined as the enforced inability to pay for at least seven of the above-mentioned items. Low work intensity (LWI) The indicator persons living in households with very low work intensity is defined as the number of persons living in a household where the members of working age worked a working time less than 20% of their total work-time potential during the previous 12 months. The work intensity of a household is the ratio of the total number of months that all working-age household members have worked during the income reference year and the total number of months the same household members theoretically could have worked in the same period. An employee of working age is a person aged 18-59, excluding students aged 18-24. Households composed only of children, of students aged less than 25 and/or people aged 60 or more are completely excluded from the indicator calculation. Level of education The level of education is measured using a detailed questionnaire, and the people are then divided into three groups. Low-skilled people are people who list lower secondary education as their highest level of education. Medium-skilled people are people who obtained a diploma of higher secondary education but not of higher

The share of people living in material and social deprivation in Norway was much higher among the foreign-born population than among the population born in Norway. Whereas around three percent of the Norwegian-born population lived in material and social deprivation between 2014 and 2022, this increased from 7.6 to 12.2 percent of the foreigners from 2014 to 2019. It dropped by around three percentage points by 2022. The material and social deprivation rate shows the share of the population that lacks an income level to cover basic material needs and to participate in an active social life.

Most measures of deprivation concentrate on deprivation among the livingpopulation and, thus, ignore premature mortality. This omission leads to asevere bias in the evaluation of deprivation. We propose two different measuresthat combine information on poverty and premature mortality of a populationin a meaningful manner. These indices satisfy a number of desirable propertiesunmet by all other measures combining early mortality and poverty. Moreover,one of these measures is readily computable with available data and easilyinterpretable. We show that omitting premature mortality leads to an under-estimation of total deprivation in 2015 of at least 36% at the world level. Atthe country level, the evolution of deprivation may differ substantially from thepicture obtained when the impact of premature mortality is ignored.

As of 2021, the average deprivation score experienced by Indians in multidimensional poverty stood at approximately ** percent. This reflected a lower score of deprivation 20 years prior in India, which recorded an average of just over ** percent. According to the source, the deprivation score of a person living in multi-dimensionally poverty is the sum of the weights associated with each indicator in which the person is deprived. These ** indicators are divided into three equally weighted dimensions: health, education, and standard of living.

Severely materially or socially deprived persons have living conditions severely constrained by a lack of resources, they experience at least 7 out of 13 following deprivations items: cannot afford i) to pay rent or utility bills, ii) keep home adequately warm, iii) face unexpected expenses, iv) eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, v) a week holiday away from home, vi) have access to a car/van for personal use; vii) replace worn out furniture; viii) replace worn-out clothes with some new ones; ix) have two pairs of properly fitting shoes; x) spend a small amount of money each week on him/herself (“pocket money”); xi) have regular leisure activities; xii) get together with friends/family for a drink/meal at least once a month; and xiii) have an internet connection. The indicator is based on the EU-SILC (statistics on income, social inclusion and living conditions).

Context

Most countries of the world define poverty as a lack of money. Yet poor people themselves consider their experience of poverty much more broadly. A person who is poor can suffer from multiple disadvantages at the same time – for example they may have poor health or malnutrition, a lack of clean water or electricity, poor quality of work or little schooling. Focusing on one factor alone, such as income, is not enough to capture the true reality of poverty.

Multidimensional poverty measures can be used to create a more comprehensive picture. They reveal who is poor and how they are poor – the range of different disadvantages they experience. As well as providing a headline measure of poverty, multidimensional measures can be broken down to reveal the poverty level in different areas of a country, and among different sub-groups of people.

Content

OPHI researchers apply the AF method and related multidimensional measures to a range of different countries and contexts. Their analyses span a number of different topics, such as changes in multidimensional poverty over time, comparisons in rural and urban poverty, and inequality among the poor. For more information on OPHI’s research, see our working paper series and research briefings.

OPHI also calculates the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index MPI, which has been published since 2010 in the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report. The Global MPI is an internationally-comparable measure of acute poverty covering more than 100 developing countries. It is updated by OPHI twice a year and constructed using the AF method.

The Alkire Foster (AF) method is a way of measuring multidimensional poverty developed by OPHI’s Sabina Alkire and James Foster. Building on the Foster-Greer-Thorbecke poverty measures, it involves counting the different types of deprivation that individuals experience at the same time, such as a lack of education or employment, or poor health or living standards. These deprivation profiles are analysed to identify who is poor, and then used to construct a multidimensional index of poverty (MPI). For free online video guides on how to use the AF method, see OPHI’s online training portal.

To identify the poor, the AF method counts the overlapping or simultaneous deprivations that a person or household experiences in different indicators of poverty. The indicators may be equally weighted or take different weights. People are identified as multidimensionally poor if the weighted sum of their deprivations is greater than or equal to a poverty cut off – such as 20%, 30% or 50% of all deprivations.

It is a flexible approach which can be tailored to a variety of situations by selecting different dimensions (e.g. education), indicators of poverty within each dimension (e.g. how many years schooling a person has) and poverty cut offs (e.g. a person with fewer than five years of education is considered deprived).

The most common way of measuring poverty is to calculate the percentage of the population who are poor, known as the headcount ratio (H). Having identified who is poor, the AF method generates a unique class of poverty measures (Mα) that goes beyond the simple headcount ratio. Three measures in this class are of high importance:

Adjusted headcount ratio (M0), otherwise known as the MPI: This measure reflects both the incidence of poverty (the percentage of the population who are poor) and the intensity of poverty (the percentage of deprivations suffered by each person or household on average). M0 is calculated by multiplying the incidence (H) by the intensity (A). M0 = H x A.

Find out about other ways the AF method is used in research and policy.

Additional data here.

Acknowledgements

Alkire, S. and Robles, G. (2017). “Multidimensional Poverty Index Summer 2017: Brief methodological note and results.” OPHI Methodological Note 44, University of Oxford.

Alkire, S. and Santos, M. E. (2010). “Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries.” OPHI Working Papers 38, University of Oxford.

Alkire, S. Jindra, C. Robles, G. and Vaz, A. (2017). ‘Multidimensional Poverty Index – Summer 2017: brief methodological note and results’. OPHI MPI Methodological Notes No. 44, Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford.

Inspiration

• Which countries exhibit the largest subnational disparities in MPI?
• Which countries have high per-capita incomes yet still rank highly in MPI?

Persons Experiencing Deprivation (%) by Deprivation Items Experienced, Poverty Status and Year

View data using web pages

Download .px file (Software required)

The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) collects timely and comparable multidimensional microdata on income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions.

The EU-SILC collection is a key instrument for providing information required by the European Semester (_[1]) and the European Pillar of Social Rights, and the main source of data for microsimulation purposes and flash estimates of income distribution and poverty rates.

AROPE remains crucial to monitor European social policies, especially to monitor the EU 2030 target on poverty and social exclusion. For more information, please consult EU social indicators.

The EU-SILC instrument provides two types of data:

• Cross-sectional data pertaining to a given time or a certain time period with variables on income, poverty, social exclusion and other living conditions.
• Longitudinal data pertaining to individual-level changes over time, observed periodically over four‐or more year rotation scheme (Annex III (2) of 2019/1700).

EU-SILC collects:

• annual variables,
• three-yearly modules,
• six-yearly modules,
• ad-hoc new policy needs modules,
• optional variables.

The variables collected are grouped by topic and detailed topic and transmitted to Eurostat in four main files (D-File, H-File, R-File and P-file).

The domain ‘Income and Living Conditions’ covers the following topics: persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion, income inequality, income distribution and monetary poverty, living conditions, material deprivation, and EU-SILC ad-hoc modules, which are structured into collections of indicators on specific topics.

In 2023, in addition to annual data, in EU-SILC were collected: the three yearly module on labour market and housing, the six yearly module on intergenerational transmission of advantages and disadvantages, housing difficulties, and the ad hoc subject on households energy efficiency.

Starting from 2021 onwards, the EU quality reports use the structure of the Single Integrated Metadata Structure (SIMS).

_{([1]) The European Semester is the European Union’s framework for the coordination and surveillance of economic and social policies.}

This is a quantitative data collection. This study aimed to collect comprehensive information on all forms of resources (including income and assets) and indicative information on deprivation and style of living in order to define and measure poverty among a representative sample of the population of the United Kingdom. This major study was the result of fifteen years research. In 1964 the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust agreed to finance pilot studies on fatherless families, large families and unemployed and disabled people which were then to be followed by a national survey of poverty. In 1967-68, following pilot work, interviews were completed with 2,052 households (6,045 people), in 630 parliamentary constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. Another 1,514 households (3,539 people), were later interviewed in a poor area of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales to secure information about the populations of the poorest areas. There were mixed reactions to the book’s publication in 1979. The concept of relative deprivation provoked much discussion but the issue of multiple deprivation experienced by individuals and families was largely ignored. Comparatively little attention was paid to certain forms of deprivation - such as deprivation at work and environmental or locational deprivation - although the report gave data about multiple deprivation drawn from 60 indicators. Nearly 50 years later this study was reanalysed in a project funded by Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The ‘Advancing Paradata’ project looked at shifts and continuities in the social process of gathering household survey data about poverty. In part it does this through analysis of survey paradata from the 1968 Poverty in the UK survey. Paradata captures the gamut of by-products of the collection of survey data and is of interest in understanding and improving survey quality and costs. The main focus has been on automatically captured macro items, but this is now expanding to include interviewer-generated observations. For the ‘Advancing Paradata’ project, information available only on paper questionnaires at the UK Data Archive was converted into digitised form and related metadata was created. A sample of 100 survey booklets has been selected for this collection. These booklets were chosen because they have significant quantities of marginalia written on the booklets. These booklets are available via the UK Data Service QualiBank, an online tool for browsing, searching and citing the content of selected qualitative data collections held at the UK Data Service. Names of survey respondents have been removed to protect confidentiality.

In 2022, the share of people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold was 12.3 percent in Finland. The share of people at risk of poverty fluctuated. In the past few years, the at-risk-of-poverty rate remained at around 12 percent.

SIA28 - Profile of the Population at Risk of Poverty, Experiencing Deprivation and in Consistent Poverty. Published by Central Statistics Office. Available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0).Profile of the Population at Risk of Poverty, Experiencing Deprivation and in Consistent Poverty...

The Indices of Deprivation are published nationally by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). These are the official indicators of deprivation. As such, wherever they show deprivation in local areas they provide strong and credible evidence to support funding bids and target resources.

Deprivation is measured by the Indices of Deprivation on an Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and also in specific domains and sub-domains of deprivation (for example Income, Employment, Education and Skills, etc). Two further datasets are included for Income Deprivation affecting Children (IDACI) and Older People (IDAOPI).

So as well as overall deprivation shown in the IMD, individual deprivation domains can also be used to identify and evidence distinct elements of deprivation. For example, rural access to housing and services is one of the various deprivation issues affecting local areas in Lincolnshire.

There are useful supporting resources to help people understand and use the Indices of Deprivation, please see the source weblink. Some further resources have also been included along with the dataset.

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

Severe housing deprivation rate is defined as the percentage of population living in the dwelling which is considered as overcrowded, while also exhibiting at least one of the housing deprivation measures.Housing deprivation is a measure of poor amenities and is calculated by referring to those households with a leaking roof, no bath/shower and no indoor toilet, or a dwelling considered too dark.

Almost half of the Mexican population (45.8 percent) younger than 18 years old lived in poverty in 2022. The poverty rate among adults (aged 18 or older) was more than ten percentage points lower, standing at 32.5 percent. The poverty rate for both age groups presented a significant decreased when compared to 2020.

In 2023, 17.2 percent of the Spanish population experienced severe material and social deprivation. This was the first increase since it rose from 14 percent in 2014 to 15.4 percent in 2020. In 2016, the highest level of material and social deprivation was recorded at around 18 percent.

🇮🇪 아일랜드

🇪🇪 에스토니아

1Weighted percentages include 95% confidence intervals that incorporate the effects of stratification and clustering due to the sample design.Ogumaniha Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) adapted from the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI).

🇪🇪 에스토니아