1 / 16

The Laeken Indicators: Some Results and Methodological Issues in Acceding and Candidate Countries

The Laeken Indicators: Some Results and Methodological Issues in Acceding and Candidate Countries Anne-Catherine Guio - Eurostat -. Developments at EU level in the field of social inclusion. Launching of the Lisbon strategy (March 2000)

miyo
Download Presentation

The Laeken Indicators: Some Results and Methodological Issues in Acceding and Candidate Countries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Laeken Indicators: Some Results and Methodological Issues in Acceding and Candidate Countries Anne-Catherine Guio - Eurostat -

  2. Developments at EU level in the field of social inclusion Launching of the Lisbon strategy (March 2000) « the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion » + Open method of coordination (OMC)

  3. The OMC in the field of social inclusion • Fixing common objectives/guidelines for the EU as a whole (Dec 2000, Nice) • Preparing national action plans on social inclusion (first Nap/incl summer 2001) • Establishing common indicators to monitor progress (Laeken, Dec2001) • Exchanging best practices across MS : peer review

  4. Laeken indicators • 18 indicators, a consistent whole • 10 primary, 8 secondary + national 3rd level • 4 important dimensions: financial poverty, employment, health, education: multidimensionality • The work is on going…

  5. Monetary aspects of poverty risk For EU15 Member States : • Between 1994 and 2001 the income based indicators were calculated for the Member States on the basis of the ECHP • EU-SILC will replace ECHP • We are now entering in a transition period…

  6. Monetary Laeken indicators in ACC and CAN • Change of practices (consumption-based indicators versus income-based indicators) • No ex-ante harmonized survey • Use of national data sources • Huge effort of ex-post harmonization • Till EU-SILC (launch in 2005, results in 2006)

  7. Income Definition • Harmonized with ECHP income definition • BUT including income in kind • Substantial component of income in these countries • Precursor of SILC income definition • Particular attention to exclude non-regular income (lottery winnings, insurance claim receipts, sales…) usually included in national definition

  8. At-risk-of-poverty rate, at level of total population, 2001

  9. Poverty measured as a relative concept • Threshold: 60% of the national median equivalised income (+ 40%, 50%, 70%) • Relative rather than absolute • Defined in relation to the level of prosperity in each country • Crucial to take into account the level of the threshold

  10. At-risk-of-poverty threshold, single person, 2001

  11. Breakdowns of poverty risk, expressed in % of poverty risk for total population, 2001

  12. Equivalence scale sensitivity At-risk-of-poverty rate

  13. At-risk-of-poverty rate, by age

  14. Further research: Deprivation • Possible candidate to provide complementary information in the portfolio of common indicators • Set of deprivation items will be available in EU-SILC • Methodological issues are being studied in Eurostat for the moment • Some information already available in national surveys for ACC and CAN…

  15. Deprivation

  16. Conclusions • Valuable comparative information on poverty in an Enlarged Union • Crucial to invest in the harmonized instrument EU-SILC and in data quality • Important to consider theFULL portfolio of Laeken indicators – multidimensionality • Importance of considering differences of at-risk-of-poverty thresholds and deprivation level • Indicators in development – dynamic process • Importance of sensitivity analysis (equiv. scale…)

More Related