development report 2012 - UMAR

194 Development Report 2012
Indicators of Slovenia’s development
Material deprivation
The material deprivation rate shows the long-term
effects of a bad financial situation of the population.
It measures the percentage of people who cannot
afford at least three of nine material deprivation
items. 1 These items refer to the possession (or lack) of
durable consumer goods and the economic strain on
households, which is a consequence of limited resources
of households rather than differences in tastes, lifestyle
preferences, personal choices and living conditions.
This is an opinion indicator, which, together with other
more commonly used indicators (such as the at-risk-ofpoverty
and inequality indicators), gives further insight
into the living conditions of the population. Unlike other
indicators that assess the poverty risk based on income
and are limited by a lack of available data (for example
on the self-employed and people working in the grey
economy, as well as on non-monetary transfers, debts
and profits of households, if any, etc.), this indicator is
based on responders’ answers regarding the nine items
mentioned above.
Material deprivation declined in 2010. It dropped
from 16.2% in 2009 to 15.8% in 2010. The rate was
highest in 2008 (16.9%) 2 and has been falling since
then. The decline reflects an improvement in the
material situation of households living above the atrisk-of-poverty
threshold, as their material deprivation
rate declined by 1.1 p.p. (from 13.1% to 12.0%). On the
other hand, the material deprivation rate of persons
below the threshold increased by 1.4 p.p. (from
41.2% to 42.6%). As a result of a low proportion of the
population below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold
(12.4%), the average material deprivation rate for
total population nevertheless declined. Among the
population below the at-risk-of-poverty line, the most
materially disadvantaged are the elderly (47% aged
65 and over).
In 2010, the material deprivation rate in Slovenia
(15.8%) was lower than the EU average (17.4%).
The gaps in material deprivation rates between EU
countries are striking. More than half of all households
are deprived in three or more analysed items in Bulgaria
and slightly fewer than half in Romania. On the other
1
These are: The household cannot afford (i) to face unexpected
expenses; (ii) a one-week annual holiday away from home; (iii) a
meal with meat, chicken or fish (or a vegetarian equivalent) at least
every second day; (iv) to pay for arrears (mortgage or rent, utility
bills or hire purchase instalments); (v) to keep home adequately
warm; (vi) to have a washing machine; (vii) to have a colour TV;
(viii) to have a telephone (mobile); (ix) to have a personal car.
2
Material deprivation based on the EU Survey on Income and
Living Conditions (EU-SILC) for EU-15 has been measured since
2003, for all EU-27 countries since 2005.
side of the spectrum are countries with less than
one tenth of population materially disadvantaged:
Luxembourg, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark
and Finland. Slovenia is among 11 EU countries
where material deprivation rates declined in 2010.
The material deprivation rate in the EU as a whole,
having dropped by 19.9% to 17.1% between 2005 and
2009, rose to 17.4% in 2010. The intensity 3 of material
deprivation in Slovenia is also lower than in the EU
as a whole. Slovenian households feel deprived in
3.5 items, on average, in contrast to 3.8 in the EU as a
whole, while the intensity of deprivation is lowest in
Luxembourg (3.2 items) and highest in Bulgaria (4.1
items).
The share of deprivation by items used in calculating
the material deprivation rate varies. In Slovenia,
most of the materially deprived people are classified
as such because they are unable to cover unexpected
expenses, afford a one-week annual holiday away
from home, or are in arrears on housing-related bills.
A telephone, a washing machine and a colour TV are
accessible to all (100%); 97% of respondents own a
car and 95% of them can keep their home adequately
warm (a deterioration by 2 p.p. relative to 2005).
Somewhat worse are the results in the capacity to
afford a meal with meat (or a vegetarian equivalent)
once a week (around 90% of respondents). However,
the situation is much grimmer when it comes to the
capacity to make regular payments of housing-related
bills (80%), go on a one-week holiday away from
home (around 70%), or cover unexpected expenses
(55%). In comparison with 2009, the situation
deteriorated most notably regarding the ability to
cope with unexpected expenses, as nearly half of the
population do not even have savings in the amount
of one minimum wage. The largest increase relative
to 2005 is seen in the share of people in arrears on
housing-related payments, which has been growing
since 2008. The ability to afford a holiday decreased
in the lower three quintiles, and the ability to cover
unexpected expenses in all quintiles, particularly the
bottom two. The answers to how people manage to
live on their income paint an even bleaker picture;
31% of respondents of the survey (EU-SILC) manage to
make ends meet ‘with difficulty’ (‘with some difficulty’
and ‘with great difficulty’ combined). Within that, 55%
of people in the first quintile find it difficult to make
it through the month, 39% of those in the second,
and more than a quarter (26%) in the third. These
shares are not even negligible in the fourth (16%)
and in the highest, fifth, quintile (7%). A comparison
of reasons shows that material deprivation is mainly a
result of deprivation in items that show the economic
3
Defined as the average number of items in which poor
households are deprived.