Multidimensional poverty risk of vulnerable households in Indonesia


Since transition, there has been divergence between economic and human development in each region in Indonesia, which gives rise to question whether the use of a multidimensional approach instead of a financial assessment of poverty leads to a different identification of vulnerable socio-demographic groups. Moreover, every province of Indonesia is very diverse, which suggests that the relation between socio-demographic household characteristics might vary between different regions in the country.

Ellis (2000) developed a theory which is based on the capabilities approach as developed by Sen in 1983. This approach to assess human well-being evolved from the basic needs approach, and rejects the use of an objective financial cut-off for poverty, and a focus on only physical assets and the utility gained by individuals. The focus of the capability approach is on the ability to act and views commodities as means, not as ends to achieve a certain standard of well-being. The livelihood framework distinguishes assets, access, and activities, which together determine the living gained by an individual or household. Another alternative approach to measure well-being is by using subjective well-being or life satisfaction, which originates on the work of Easterlin (1974) who linked psychology to economics. Subjective well-being is also viewed as an household asset, and is with other (more objective) indicators of household capabilities integrated in a multidimensional well-being index.

The construction of the multicomponent index is based on earlier work of Klasen (2000) and Guio (2005). Research of the World Bank (2000, 2005) showed that well-being problems in Indonesia are mainly linked to housing and (semi-)public services, such as health care, education, and utilities. Moreover, studies by a.o. Bezemer (2006) and the World Bank (2005) show that women, children, elderly, and households in rural areas are vulnerable groups in Indonesia. Other research by the World Bank (2006) adds that there is a concentration of deprivation in secondary cities. Moreover, vulnerable households tend to be trapped in bad general living conditions with restricted access to improvements in their well-being situation. Further, some sociological case studies by Smith et al. (2006, 2008) and Stenning et al. (2007) show that low welfare is strongly connected with low skill, bad health, unemployment, and old age in poor areas. Moreover, Smith (2000, 2003) finds that regional welfare is strongly connected with industrial activity and high skill levels.

Financial poverty is defined as an inadequate level of income to satisfy basic material needs. Multidimensional poverty (or deprivation) is defined as an insufficient level of capabilities to meet basic needs. For both poverty and deprivation, a 40% and 20% cut-off point is used to compare the vulnerability of households based on both measurements of well-being. 

Kompas stated that for many households financial poverty and deprivation do not overlap necessarily. With a lower poverty line, the overlap between the two different poverty types is even smaller (relatively). The relation between poverty and deprivation ranks of households is also quite weak. This is in particular the case for the worst-off households in Indonesia.
Besides the obvious differences in poverty and deprivation rates between the regions, the differences between the poverty rate and the deprivation rate in each region is surprising. The ‘richer’ regions have a relatively high deprivation rate, while the poorest regions experience a deprivation rate that is low in relation to their financial poverty rate. 

Advertisements

~ by ketekbasahminggir on September 12, 2012.

3 Responses to “Multidimensional poverty risk of vulnerable households in Indonesia”

  1. […] Multidimensional poverty risk of vulnerable households in Indonesia (ketekbasahminggir.wordpress.com) […]

  2. bie… minta papernya “Research of the World Bank (2000, 2005)” ellis (2000) klassen (2000) guio (2005)

  3. Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors, for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings, You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword….wait there’s even more Now what if i told you there was a simple WordPress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That’s right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: