Global Study On Child Poverty And Disparities (PDF) - Social Policy ...

Table 4.2: Relative performance of provinces and urban centres on child disparity indicators
Torba Sanma Penama Malampa Shefa Tafea Luganville Port Vila Vanuatu
Share of children 5.0 13.3 17.1 14.9 13.7 17.9 5.0 13.1 100.0
Poverty
Below $1.25/day 2.63 0.20 0.30 0.43 1.98 2.19 0.19 0.37 1.00
National BNPL 2.32 0.74 1.01 0.65 1.33 1.53 0.29 0.35 1.00
Regional BNPL 1.79 0.35 0.45 0.27 1.15 1.30 0.84 2.43 1.00
50% median 2.01 0.85 0.95 0.78 1.19 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.00
Deprivation
Shelter 2.97 0.76 2.66 0.24 0.04 2.11 0.23 0.06 1.00
Sanitation 1.53 3.07 0.00 0.00 0.17 2.63 1.03 0.17 1.00
Water 0.70 1.36 0.69 0.49 0.55 2.66 0.00 0.16 1.00
Information 1.60 1.24 1.44 1.30 0.67 1.37 0.25 0.12 1.00
Food 1.58 2.82 1.62 1.38 1.00 1.50 2.28 3.92 1.00
Education 1.04 0.28 0.68 0.07 0.37 1.28 0.31 0.43 1.00
Health 1.07 1.13 1.11 0.17 0.98 1.32 1.54 1.45 1.00
At least 1 severe deprivation 2.06 1.27 1.63 0.37 0.36 2.01 0.44 0.44 1.00
2+ severe deprivations 1.85 0.98 1.94 0.08 0.16 3.30 0.23 0.13 1.00
Food deprivation
Underweight 1.19 1.23 1.23 0.99 0.80 0.72 1.47 0.84 1.00
Severely underweight 1.82 1.64 1.64 1.27 0.27 0.77 0.73 1.45 1.00
Stunted 0.75 1.11 1.11 1.15 0.82 0.88 0.84 1.11 1.00
Severely stunted 0.47 1.31 1.31 0.96 0.75 1.01 1.07 1.53 1.00
Wasted 1.34 1.78 1.78 0.71 0.88 0.17 1.49 1.17 1.00
Other
Birth registration 1.23 1.06 1.06 1.25 0.88 2.04 0.58 0.70 1.00
Marriage by 15 0.14 0.96 0.96 0.73 1.40 1.14 0.36 0.93 1.00
Marriage by 18 0.34 0.97 0.97 0.87 1.31 1.34 0.55 0.85 1.00
School attendance 1.01 1.06 1.06 0.86 0.97 1.14 0.99 0.95 1.00
Legend: Red/High: More than 1.5 times the average. Blue/Average: Between 0.5 and 1.5 times the average. Green/Low: Less
than half the average. Scores for school attendance and birth registration are inverted from original scores to reflect that higher
rankings on these dimensions are better than lower rankings.
The degree of variance in outcomes also differs
across indicators. For example, differences across
provinces in the extent of the various measures
of food deprivation are relatively narrow. The
variation in shelter and sanitation outcomes is
much greater, with the variation in expenditure
poverty outcomes falling between these extremes.
A further way of summarising these results into
a single composite indicator is shown in Figure
4.2, which calculates the unweighted average
of the provincial scores in each dimension.
This is a simple way of ranking each province’s
performance, but it illustrates the possible effects
of taking into account the range of potential
dimensions of disadvantage. Certain features of
the results are of particular interest. First, when
all indicators are given the same weight, then
it is Tafea and not Torba that comes out as
the most disadvantaged, even though Torba
is disadvantaged in terms of more indicators
than Tafea. This is due to the fact that Torba
does relatively well in a number of dimensions,
including stunting and early marriage. Tafea
contains nearly 18 per cent of Vanuatu’s children,
while Torba has only 5 per cent. Thus the
concentration of disadvantage is greater in Tafea.
Figure 4.2: Relative disadvantage by location,
2006 to 2007
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 Malampa Luganville Shefa Port Vila Vanuatu Penama Sanma Torba Tafea
Source: Calculated by authors
72