Multidimensional Approach to an Analysis of Individual Deprivation: The MACaD Model and the Results of Empirical Investigation

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present a model of capability measurement, called MACaD (Multidimensional Analysis of Capabilities Deprivation), which is based on the observation of a list of functionings in a sample of people through an empirical analysis. Within the theoretical framework of the capability approach developed by Amartya K. Sen, we introduce an analytical definition of the concept of functioning that encompasses individual agency. Furthermore, we develop a multidimensional index based on the counting approach which allows us to represent individuals within a Cartesian space. Empirical analysis is carried out through a specific questionnaire administered to more than 500 individuals living in the Municipality of Rome 10. We have focused our attention on specific subgroups of our sample (households with children), a peculiar life dimension (expressing emotions) and capabilities transformation deficit.

Keywords::

• multidimensional poverty index
• capability approach
• poverty
• local policies

JEL classifications::

• I32
• I38

Notes

^* Email: [email protected]

^** Email: [email protected]

^† Email: [email protected]

^†† Email: [email protected]

^∥ Email: [email protected]

^§ Email: [email protected]

¹ Since 2008, the multidisciplinary research group has been engaged in a research action on poverty and well-being observed through a multidimensional focus. The research action is carried out as part of the European Social Fund Programming 2007–2013 in close collaboration with local authorities.

² The first one was a pilot research project carried out in six southern Italian regions. The MACaD questionnaire was directly administered to 523 individuals, half of whom were local administration social care services users.

³ As a matter of fact, the metropolitan area of Rome is composed by 19 so-called “municipalities”.

⁴ More than 700 valid questionnaires administered to social care services users, microcredit applicants, and people helped by a major Italian charity association.

⁵ The main indicators that have allowed us to operationalize this dimension (see Appendix A for more details) are the following: access to neighborhood's social infrastructures; perception of significant neighborhood problems; quality of close family relationships and friendships; frequency of activities carried out outside family environment such as voluntary work, sports, culture, entertainment, and church; and level of individual agency with respect to the resolution of perceived neighborhood problems. Many of these indicators refer to the research field on neighborhood effects on people's well-being (also children's well-being) which takes into account issues such as child- and family-related institutions, social organization and interaction, normative environment, and labor and marriage markets (Pebley & Sastry, 2003). On the same subject, see also Coulton, Korbin, Su, Measuring neighborhood Context for young children in an urban area, American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 1996—Sampson, Morenoff, Rowley Assessing “Neighborhood Effects”: Social process and new directions in research, Annual Review of Sociology,28: 443–478.

⁶ This is the so-called “counting approach”.

⁷ The World Bank employs the MPI, while the UNDP employs the HPI.

⁸ The questionnaire used was divided into six areas (one for each life dimension plus a registry) and consists of 108 questions.

⁹ We use a relative poverty line, which is an equivalent income of less than 60% of the national median.

¹⁰ Regarding the dimension “living in a house,” it is possible to see how significant it is (about 38% of people in the two subgroups are in the most deprived situation, quadrant C). The two aspects which best explain this result are related to the type of ownership of the house and the cost of rent or mortgage with respect to available income: most of the social services users of our survey live in rented houses or pay a mortgage and have to spend more than 30% of their (low) income to afford these expenses. According to the current definition of “financial exclusion,” we can argue that they are financially excluded. Again, 23% of the parents state that they have serious housing problems and are unable to deal with them and 20% have moved to another house in the last year, in search for a better house or because of eviction and difficult in paying rent, and/or of other expenses.

¹¹ The methodology is described in Appendix B.

¹² The tangible assets are material goods that the person has (housing, household services, number of rooms etc.), while intangible assets are immaterial goods available to the individual (the level of education, the quality of family relations, etc.).

¹³ It should be noted that the WCA shows lower values at higher processing capacity. This reading, which may seem counterintuitive, is actually justified for the type of indicator used, which works on the deprivation in ascending order rather than on well-being.