Identifying deprivation profiles in Spain: a new approach

Abstract

Usually, an indirect approach for measuring deprivation or poverty is used with poverty lines. However, some studies have used a direct approach to measure deprivation or poverty. The aim of this paper is improving the identification of the poor people. The central point of the concept of deprivation we use is related to the opportunity to have or do something. Therefore, deprivation means an inability to get the goods, facilities and opportunities, which are usual in the household environment. Since all of the needed variables are categorical, we use the latent class model to solve this problem because is the best model to achieve this objective. JEL classification numbers: I31, I32

Comparing poverty and deprivation dynamics: Issues of reliability and validity

“…5 We have also fitted the time heterogeneous latent class and latent Markov models described in Breen and Moisio [4] and Moisio [14]; however as in their case these models provided less satisfactory fits for the observed data. 6 For discussions concerning the dimensionality of deprivation see Dewilde, [6], Perez-Mayo, [17] and Whelan et al [26]. 7 The distinctive character of housing deprivation is also confirmed by Moisio's [14, p.114] analysis where observed exit rates are remarkably high.…”

Measuring Material Hardship among the US Population of Women with Disabilities Using Latent Class Analysis

“…This method has been used to assess material hardship using multiple indicators for each dimension (Ayala and Navarro 2004;Dewilde 2004;Perez-Mayo 2005). In the present study, we replicate this work using indicators from the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), and build on previous analyses to test the resulting measures of hardship for their measurement equivalence (Millsap and Kwok 2004) between the US population of women with and without disabilities.…”

“…These approaches are informative of the number of hardships experienced and allow researchers to compare households when multiple indicators are available. Yet, a number of researchers (e.g., Ayala and Navarro 2004;Beverly 2000;Dewilde 2004;Perez-Mayo 2005) have cautioned against the use of composite indices because most of these measures are based on assumptions that may not be valid. Three central problems include the assumptions that all indicators of material hardship have an equal impact on well-being; that different combinations of hardship indicators are inconsequential to the level of severity (i.e., whether some goods are substitutes or complements for each other is irrelevant); and that the severity of hardship is both continuous and linear.…”

“…This method has been used in the analysis of material hardship among the general, nondisabled population (Ayala and Navarro 2004;Bauman 2000;Dewilde 2004;Perez-Mayo 2005), and this approach has the potential to empirically establish a noncontinuous typology of hardship.…”

“…Frequently, this problem is circumvented by identifying a threshold and classifying those above the threshold as ''severe'' (e.g., Rector et al 1999). These typologies are necessarily ad hoc (Perez-Mayo 2005), and in the course of stratifying a continuous measure into a binary indicator, even more information, beyond the degree of substitutability or complementarity, is lost.…”