Multidimensional Child Deprivation and Poverty Measurement: Case Study of Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Published in: Social indicators research 2017-04, Vol.131 (3), p.999-1014
• Main Authors: Chzhen, Yekaterina, Ferrone, Lucia
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bosnia-Hercegovina; Case studies; Child care services; Child poverty; Children; Children & youth; Consumption; Deprivation; Disadvantaged; Educational Resources; Households; Housing; Human Development Index; Human Geography; Leisure; Living Standards; Low income groups; Microeconomics; Nutrition; Participation; Poverty; Public Health; Quality of Life Research; Rates; Relative deprivation; Rights; Rural areas; Rural poverty; Rural urban differences; Social participation; Social policy; Social research; Social Sciences; Society; Sociology; Standard of living; Student Records; Studies; Sustainable Development; Urban areas; Urban poverty
• ISSN: 0303-8300; 1573-0921
• DOI: 10.1007/s11205-016-1291-8

This study applies UNICEF’s rights-based multiple overlapping deprivation analysis framework to a single country case study—Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Using data from the Extended Living Standards Measurement Survey 2011 for children aged 5–15, the paper analyses the incidence and intensity of multidimensional child deprivation and examines its relationship to household-based monetary poverty, drawing on differences between rural and urban areas. Seven dimensions of deprivation have been identified using the child rights framework: Nutrition, Clothing, Educational Resources, Leisure, Social Participation, Information and Housing. We find that the majority of school-age children in BiH are deprived in one or more dimensions and one in four are deprived in three or more dimensions out of seven. Children in consumption poor households are more likely to be deprived in every dimension analysed separately and in a greater number of dimensions at once. Nevertheless, the degree of overlap between poverty and multidimensional deprivation is moderate, suggesting that child deprivation cannot be eradicated solely by increasing households’ consumption capacity. Finally, the study finds no significant differences by type of area in multidimensional deprivation rates for consumption-poor children aged 5–15. In contrast, non-poor children in rural areas are substantially more likely to be deprived in three or more dimensions at once than their counterparts in urban areas. Overall, these results call for a multifaceted policy approach targeting both the demand for and supply of children’s goods and services.