Social Indicators Research

, Volume 120, Issue 3, pp 723–740 | Cite as

Material Deprivation in Europe: Which Expenditures are Curtailed First?

  • Joseph Deutsch
  • Anne-Catherine Guio
  • Marco Pomati
  • Jacques Silber
Article

Abstract

This paper takes a close look at material deprivation in 27 European Union countries. Its main goal is to explore which expenditures individuals/households curtail first when facing economic difficulties. Two methodologies are applied: item response theory, a psychometric method also known as latent trait analysis, and the concept of deprivation sequence which is an extension of the notion of “order of acquisition of durable goods”. Both approaches show similar results when applied to EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions material deprivation data. Overall, the order of curtailment found in the data does not differ substantially between EU Member states. Looking at within country variations, our analysis shows that the order of curtailment of the country as a whole is very similar to that of the various population subgroups.

Keywords

Durable goods EU-SILC European Union Item response theory Material deprivation Order of acquisition 

References

  1. Ayala, L., & Navarro, C. (2007). The dynamics of housing deprivation. Journal of Housing Economics, 16, 72–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayala, L. & Navarro, C. (2008). Multidimensional indices of housing deprivation with applications to Spain. Applied Economics, 40(5), 597–611.Google Scholar
  3. Bérenger, V., Deutsch, J., & Silber, J. (2013). Order of acquisition of durable goods and multidimensional poverty measurement: A comparative study of Egypt, Morocco and Turkey. Economic Modelling, 35(C), 881–891.Google Scholar
  4. Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2007). Summarizing multiple deprivation indicators. In S. P. Jenkins & J. Micklewright (Eds.), Inequality and poverty: Re-examined (pp. 166–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Council of the European Union (2011). Opinion of the Social Protection Committee on: Reinvigorating the social OMC in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy, Doc. 10405/11, Brussels: European Council. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st10/st10405.en11.pdf.
  6. Deutsch, J., & Silber, J. (2008). The order of acquisition of durable goods and the multidimensional measurement of poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Deutsch, J., Lazar, A., & Silber, J. (2013). Becoming poor and the cutback in the demand for health services. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 3, 2–49.Google Scholar
  8. Dickes, P. (1983). Modèle de Rasch pour items dichotomiques: Théorie, Technique et application à la mesure de la pauvreté. Nancy: Université de Nancy II.Google Scholar
  9. Dickes, P. (1989). Pauvreté et Conditions d’Existence. Théories, Modèles et Mesures. Document PSELL n°8. Walferdange:CEPS/INSTEAD.Google Scholar
  10. Dickes, P., & Fusco, A. (2008). The rasch model and multidimensional poverty measurement. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement (pp. 49–62). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Gailly, B., & Hausman, P. (1984). Des Désavantages Relatifs à une Mesure Objective de la Pauvreté. In G. Sarpellon (Ed.), Understanding poverty (pp. 192–216). Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  12. Guio, A. -C. (2009). What can be learned from deprivation indicators in Europe? Eurostat methodologies and working paper, Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  13. Guio, A. -C., Gordon D. & Marlier E. (2012). Measuring material deprivation in the EU: Indicators for the whole population and child-specific indicators, Eurostat Methodologies and working papers, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities(OPOCE).Google Scholar
  14. Guio, A. -C. & Marlier, E. (2013) Alternative versus current measures of material deprivation at EU level: What difference does it make?. Improve working paper.Google Scholar
  15. Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In A. S. Stouffer et al. Measurement and Prediction. The American Soldier Vol. IV. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Mack, J., & Lansley, S. (1985). Poor Britain. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  17. Marlier, E., Atkinson, A. B., Cantillon, B., & Nolan, B. (2007). The EU and social inclusion: Facing the challenges. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Paroush, J. (1963). The order of acquisition of durable goods. Bank of Israel Survey, 2, 47–61.Google Scholar
  19. Paroush, J. (1965). The order of acquisition of consumer durables. Econometrica, 33(1), 225–235.Google Scholar
  20. Paroush, J. (1973). Efficient purchasing behavior and order relations in consumption. Kyklos, 26(1), 91–112.Google Scholar
  21. Pérez-Mayo, J. (2004). Consistent poverty dynamics in Spain. IRISS Working Paper Series N0. 2004–09, Differdange, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  22. Pérez-Mayo, J. (2005). Identifying deprivation in Spain: A new approach. Applied Economics, 37, 843–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Szeles, M., & Fusco, A. (2013). Item response theory and the measurement of deprivation: Evidence from Luxembourg data. Quality & Quantity, 47(3), 15–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Townsend, P. B. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Deutsch
    • 1
  • Anne-Catherine Guio
    • 2
  • Marco Pomati
    • 3
  • Jacques Silber
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsBar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.CEPS/INSTEADEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  3. 3.School for Policy StudiesUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations