Advertisement

A Spatial Microsimulation Model for Social Policy Evaluation

  • Dimitris Ballas
  • Graham P. Clarke
  • Ian Turton
Part of the The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 70)

Abstract

Evaluation is a critical step in the analysis of social policies which, itself, can influence public thinking (Unrau, 1993; Manski and Garfinkel, 1992). Policy-relevant spatial modelling is an expanding area of research, which has a lot of potential for the evaluation of the socio-economic and spatial effects of major national social policy programmes. However, traditional modelling approaches to social policy analysis usually focus on the impact on the socio-economic structure of the population and they have tended to ignore the geographical dimensions of social policies. In particular, the focus has usually been on the redistributive effects of government policies (such as budget changes and social security benefit policies etc.) between households, but there has generally been a paucity of studies that investigate the spatial impacts of these policies.

Keywords

Microsimulation Model Child Benefit Retirement Pension Spatial Impact Small Area Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvanides, S. (2000), Zone Design Methods for Application in Human Geography. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Geography, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, H. (1993), `The local income and employment impact of Lancaster University.’ Urban Studies, 30, 1653–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, H. and J. Taylor (1993), Regional Economics and Policy ( 2nd edition ). Harvester Wheatsheaf, Brighton.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, A.B. (1996), `Seeking to explain the distribution of income.’ In J. Hills (ed.), New Inequalities: The Changing Distribution of Income and Wealth in the United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 19–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballas, D. and G.P. Clarke (2000a), `GIS and microsimulation for local labour market analysis.’ Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24, 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballas, D. and G.P. Clarke (2000b), A Spatial Microsimulation Approach to the Analysis of Local Multiplier Effects. Paper presented at the 31st Regional Science Association British and Irish Section Conference, University of Bath.Google Scholar
  7. Ballas, D. and G.P. Clarke (2001a), `Modelling the local impacts of national social policies: a spatial microsimulation approach.’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ballas, D. and G.P. Clarke (2001b), `The local implications of major job transformations in the city: a spatial microsimulation approach.’ Geographical Analysis, 33, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ballas, D., G.P. Clarke and L. Turton (1999), Exploring Microsimulation Methodologies for the Estimation of Household Attributes. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on GeoComputation, Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, R. (1980), The Geography of Public Finance. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  11. Birkin, M. and M. Clarke (1988), `SYNTHESIS — a synthetic spatial information system for urban and regional analysis: methods and examples.’ Environment and Planning A, 20, 1645–1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Birkin, M. and M. Clarke (1989), `The generation of individual and household incomes at the small area level.’ Regional Studies, 23, 535–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkin, M. and G.P. Clarke (1995), `Using microsimulation methods to synthesize census data.’ In S. Openshaw (ed.), Census Users’ Handbook. Geoinformation International, London, pp. 363–387.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, G.P. (1996), `Microsimulation: an introduction.’ In G.P. Clarke (ed.), Microsimulation for Urban and Regional Policy Analysis. Pion, London, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  15. Curtis, S. (1989), The Geography of Public Welfare Provision. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  16. Dorling, D. and J. Tomaney (1995), `Poverty in the old industrial regions: a comparative view.’ In C. Philo (ed.), Off the Map: The Social Geography of Poverty in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group, London, pp. 103–132.Google Scholar
  17. Dowsland, K. (1993), `Simulated annealing.’ In C. Reeves (ed.), Modern Heuristic Techniques for Combinatorial Problems. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, J. (1995), `Social Policy and the City: A Review of Recent Policy Developments and Literature.’ Urban Studies, 32, 695–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falkingham, J. and C. Lessof (1992), `Playing God: or LIFEMOD — the construction of a dynamic microsimulation model.’ In R. Hancock and H. Sutherland H (eds.), Microsimulation Models for Public Policy Analysis: New Frontiers. Suntory-Toyota International Centre for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE, London.Google Scholar
  20. George, C., D. Allirajah and M. Barnes (1999), Welfare Benefits Handbook 1999/2000, Vol. 1. CPAG, London.Google Scholar
  21. George, C., D. Allirajah and M. Barnes (1999), Welfare Benefits Handbook 1999/2000, Vol. 2. CPAG, London.Google Scholar
  22. Goodwin, M. (1995), `Poverty in the city: “you can raise your voice, but who is listening?”’ In C. Philo (ed.), Off the Map: The Social Geography of Poverty in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group, London, pp. 65–82.Google Scholar
  23. Green, A.E. (1996), `Aspects of the changing geography of poverty and wealth.’ In J. Hills (ed.), New Inequalities: The Changing Distribution of Income and Wealth in the United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, A.E. (1998), `The geography of earnings and incomes in the 1990s.’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 16, 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamnett, C. (1997), `A stroke of the Chancellor’s pen: the social and regional impact of the Conservative’s 1988 higher rate tax cuts.’ Environment and Planning A, 29, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hancock, R. and H. Sutherland (eds.) (1992), Microsimulation Models for Public Policy Analysis: New Frontiers. Suntory-Toyota International Centre for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE, London.Google Scholar
  27. Higgs, G. (1994), `GIS in local government: analysis of the spatial implications of the council tax.’ Local Government Policy Making, 21, 33–37.Google Scholar
  28. Hill, M. and G. Bramley (1986), Analysing Social Policy. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Hills, J. (1996), `Introduction: after the turning point.’ In J. Hills (ed.), New Inequalities: The Changing Distribution of Income and Wealth in the United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. HM Treasury (2000), Prudent for a Purpose: Working for a Stronger and Fairer Britain. Available from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget2000/index.html, accessed May 2000.
  31. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1995) Inquiry into Income and Wealth, Vol. 1. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.Google Scholar
  32. Kirkpatrick, S., C.D. Gelatt Jr. and M.P. Vecchi (1983), `Optimization by simulated annealing.’ Science, 220, 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krupp, H. (1986), `Potential and limitations of microsimulation models.’ In G. H.Orcutt, J. Mertz and H. Quinke (eds.), Microanalytic Simulation Models to Support Social and Financial Policy. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 31–41.Google Scholar
  34. Longley, P., P. Higgs and D. Martin (1996), `The rates revisited? a geographical reassignment of property valuations and local tax burdens under the council tax.’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 14, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manski, C.F. and I. Garfinkel (1992), Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Marsh, C. (1993), `Privacy, confidentiality and anonymity in the 1991 Census.’ In A. Dale and C. Marsh (eds.), The 1991 Census User’s Guide. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  37. Martin, R. (1995), `Income and poverty inequalities across regional Britain: the North-South divide lingers on.’ In C. Philo (ed.), Off the Map: The Social Geography of Poverty in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group. London, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
  38. Mertz, J. (1991), `Microsimulation — a survey of principles developments and applications.’ International Journal of Forecasting, 7, 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCormick, J. and C. Philo (1995), `Where is poverty? The hidden geography of poverty in the United Kingdom.’ In C. Philo (ed.), Off the Map: The Social Geography of Poverty in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group, London, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  40. McKendrick, J. (1995), `Poverty in the UK: the Celtic divide.’ In C. Philo (ed.), Off the Map: the Social Geography of Poverty in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group, London, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
  41. Metropolis, N., A.W. Rosenbluth, M.N. Rosenbluth, A.H. Teller and E. Teller (1953), `Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.’ Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Middleton, E. (1995), Samples of anonymized Records. In S Openshaw (ed.), Census users’ handbook. Geoinformation International, London, 337–362.Google Scholar
  43. Musgrave, R.A. and Musgrave, P.B. (1984), Public finance in theory and practice. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Noble, M. and G. Smith (1996), `Two nations? Changing patterns of income and wealth in two contrasting areas.’ In J. Hills (ed.), New Inequalities: The Changing Distribution o f Income and Wealth in the United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 292–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Norman, P. (1999), Putting Iterative Proportional Fitting (IPF) on the Researcher’s Desk. Working Paper 99/03, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds.Google Scholar
  46. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (1997), New Earnings Survey 1997. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
  47. Openshaw, S. and L. Rao (1995), `Algorithms for reengineering 1991 Census geography.’ Environment and Planning A, 27, 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orcutt, G.H., Mertz, J. and Quinke H. (eds.) (1986), Microanalytic Simulation Models to Support Social and Financial Policy. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  49. Pham, D.T. and D. Karaboga (2000), Intelligent Optimisation Techniques: Genetic Algorithms, Tabu Search, Simulated Annealing and Neural Networks. Springer, London.Google Scholar
  50. Philo, C. (ed.) (1995), Off the Map: The Social Geography of Poverty in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
  51. Pinch, S. (1997), Worlds of Welfare: Understanding the Changing Geographies of Social Welfare Provision. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  52. The Guardian (2000a), The Difference in Your Pocket. 22 March, 2000.Google Scholar
  53. The Guardian (2000b), Budget: The Main Points. 22 March, 2000.Google Scholar
  54. The Guardian (2000c), Common Sense for Pensioners, William Hague’s Full Speech to the LSE. 24 May, 2000.Google Scholar
  55. The Guardian (2000d), Hague’s Pension Plans `Rob Peter to pay Paul’. 24 May, 2000.Google Scholar
  56. Unrau, Y.A. (1993) Expanding the role of program evaluation in social welfare policy analysis. Evaluation Review, 17, 653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Laarhoven, P.J.M. and E.H.L. Aarts (1987), Simulated Annealing: Theory and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williamson, P. (1992), Community Care Policies for the Elderly: A Microsimulation Spproach. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds.Google Scholar
  59. Williamson, P., M. Birkin and P. Rees (1998), `The estimation of population microdata by using data from small area statistics and samples of anonymised records.’ Environment and Planning A, 30, 785–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williamson, P. and D. Voas (2000), Income imputation for small areas: interim progress report. Paper presented at the conference Census of Population: 2000 and Beyond, Manchester.Google Scholar
  61. Wong, D.W.S (1992), `The reliability of using the iterative proportional fitting procedure.’ Professional Geographer, 44, 340–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Ballas
    • 1
  • Graham P. Clarke
    • 1
  • Ian Turton
    • 1
  1. 1.School of GeographyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations