‘ M issing’ Dimensions of Poverty and Gender

1. ‘Missing’ Dimensions of Poverty and Gender Sanjeewanie Kariyawasam Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA)

2. Introduction • Poverty is thought to be a multidimensional phenomenon • But focus often only on consumption/income dimensions because of lack of survey data • Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) on the ‘missing dimensions of poverty’ study • Employment Quality, Empowerment, Dignity, Physical Safety, Subjective and Psychological Wellbeing • Survey Module was piloted in Badulla District

3. Study Frame • Methodology • Stratified random sample • Sample size 229 (55% of respondents are females) • For this study, unit of analysis is respondent • Odds ratio analysis and factor analysis to construct deprivation • Focus - Is there a gender difference in terms of: • Employment Quality • Having a good and decent job is associated with being out of poverty • Indicators: Protection, Job satisfaction, Discouraged employment • Subjective and Psychological Wellbeing • Not a dimension of poverty, but the expected end-result of development • Indicators: Subjective wellbeing – happiness and life satisfaction Psychological wellbeing – meaning in life, autonomy, competence, relatedness

4. Employment Quality; Protection • Substantially more men are employed than women, though women are slightly better educated – in line with LFS data • Low protection (60% deprived) from employment due to informality but study finds no gender difference

5. Employment Quality; Job satisfaction 84% are dissatisfied about their job • two stage composite index, deprived on one or more indicators • More females report experiencing unfair treatment at work than males

6. Employment Quality; Discouraged employment • There is a gender dimension in relation to why people are not employed • \ • Females are not working mainly due to child care and household work • but are they interested but discouraged from looking for work?

7. Subjective Wellbeing • High levels of reporting of overall happiness across both genders • 90% are very happy or fairly happy • Among women lack of happiness is linked to low socioeconomic wellbeing • High levels of life satisfaction across both genders • Over 90% are satisfied with life overall, food, local security, family, dignity, free choice, ability to help others and religion • More women than men are not satisfied with their ability to exercise free choice • Women who are not working are less satisfied about health, education, and work

8. Psychological Wellbeing • 75% of respondents have meaning in their life • Males less positive about having clear meaning in life, satisfactory meaning and clear sense of what gives meaning to life • Higher educational attainments associated with having clear meaning of life irrespective of gender • 84% of respondents have autonomy • 10% of both genders said they are not free to decide how to lead own life • Males are less positive about freedom to express ideas and opinions • 93% of respondents are positive about their competence • Males less likely to say that others tell them that they are capable and feel a sense of accomplishment • Females are less likely to say that they feel very capable • 82% of respondents feel relatedness • More males among those who said deprived

9. Conclusion • Deprivation in terms of employment quality • Gender aspects on discouraged employment only • However, there are high levels of subjective and psychological wellbeing • Gender aspects in autonomy, competence and life satisfaction with work, education etc Issues for further consideration • Implications for using a single indicator or a dimension to compute generalised‘deprivation’ • Study findings generalisable to Badulla

10. Thank you!