Skip to main content

Material Deprivation in Europe: Which Expenditures are Curtailed First?

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Council of the European Union (2011).

  2. 2.

    See also Guio and Marlier (2013).

  3. 3.

    As explained above (K + 1) × N comparisons will be needed, and these will be repeated !K times for a total number of iterations equal to [(K + 1) × N] × !K. In our sample (K = 13 and N = 520,000) this means 8,064,000 × 6,227,020,800 = 5.02 × 1016 iterations.

  4. 4.

    In IRT this is achieved by maximum likelihood estimation.

  5. 5.

    The deprivation score ranging from 0 to K in the DS method and the latent trait in IRT.

  6. 6.

    Drawing all the 13 curves would have made it too difficult to identify all the different necessities.

References

  1. Ayala, L., & Navarro, C. (2007). The dynamics of housing deprivation. Journal of Housing Economics, 16, 72–97.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  9. Dickes, P. (1989). Pauvreté et Conditions d’Existence. Théories, Modèles et Mesures. Document PSELL n°8. Walferdange:CEPS/INSTEAD.

  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.

  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).

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  22. Pérez-Mayo, J. (2005). Identifying deprivation in Spain: A new approach. Applied Economics, 37, 843–955.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Pomati.

Appendix

Appendix

See Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4

Fig. 1
figure1

Item response curves for four items, with severity ranking. EU-SILC 2009 cross-sectional data, Users’ database—August 2011, Authors’ computation

Fig. 2
figure2

The dominant deprivation pattern in the European Union (results based on IRT). EU-SILC 2009 cross-sectional data, Users’ database—August 2011, Authors’ computation

Fig. 3
figure3

Proportion of people who can’t afford the item, by level of income (top, from richer to poorer) and level of deprivation (from least deprived to extremely deprived). EU-SILC 2009 cross-sectional data, Users’ database—August 2011, Authors’ computation

Fig. 4
figure4

Order of curtailment for each item by country, data provided for a cluster of 16 countries with high correlation. EU-SILC 2009 cross-sectional data, Users’ database—August 2011, Authors’ computation

and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Table 1 List of deprivation items
Table 2 The eight deprivation profiles when there are three durable goods
Table 3 Order of curtailment, results based on IRT. (Color table online)
Table 4 Order of curtailment, results based on the concept of “deprivation sequence”. (Color table online)
Table 5 Codes of the various countries in the European Union
Table 6 Between countries rank correlation for DS
Table 7 Reproducibility coefficients for the various population subgroups within a country, assuming the DS is that of the country as a whole. (Color table online)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deutsch, J., Guio, AC., Pomati, M. et al. Material Deprivation in Europe: Which Expenditures are Curtailed First?. Soc Indic Res 120, 723–740 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0618-6

Download citation

Keywords

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