colombian longitudinal survey elca international seminar ...€¦ · international seminar on...
TRANSCRIPT
Colombian Longitudinal Survey– ELCA
International Seminar on Design, Collection and Analysis of Longitudinal Data
Adriana Camacho
Universidad de los Andes, Department of Economics
Noviembre 2015
Similar Poverty, higer inequality
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
199
6
199
7
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
2010
2011
2012
2013
Poverty
Colombia LAC
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
199
619
97
199
819
99
200
020
01
200
220
03
200
420
05
200
620
07
200
820
09
2010
2011
2012
2013
Inequality
LAC Colombia
Some additional peculiarities:
• The longest running armed conflict in the world. (High levels of crime and violence).
• Large vulnerabilities due to climate change.
• High informality in the Labor markets >50%
• Regional inequalities and great regional differences in development.
ELCA2010 - 2013
¿What are the main objectives of ELCA?
• Understand and study the economic and social changes that people and households experience.(rural and urban households)
• Understand factors that influence households’ vulnerability, risk management and strategies for coping with socioeconomic o violence shocks
ELCA Sample
• Sample: 10,800 households (Representative at the National and Regional level)
– 6.000 urban, 4.800 rural households
Urban area: 5 Regions
– Bogotá ,Central, Oriental, Atlantic, Pacífica
– Urban sample: representative of low and middle income status (strata 1-4 out of 6)
Rural area: 4 Regions
– Middle Atlantic, Cundi-Boyacense, Coffee region , Central-East
• Targeted children: 8,695 children under 10 years old: 4,282 urban children and 4,413 rural children.
Follow up (2013, 2016)
• Target respondents :– Head of household
– Partner
– Head of Household’s sons, step sons, grand children and grand grandchildren under 10 years old in 2010
• Migrants are surveyed in the follow up if they moved tomunicipalities close to original municipalities
• Attrition in 2013 5.8% of the sample
Municipalities in 2010 and 2013Sample in 2010: 80 municipalities Sample in 2013: 171 municipalities
Urban- Rural: Samples and questionnaires
Urban area5.446 households
Rural 4.718 households2010
20134.631households
Urban sampleUrban Questionnaire
Rural sampleUrban questionnaire
Rural sampleRural questionnaire
Urban sampleRural questionnaire
TOTAL: 4.911 householdsUrban Questionnaire
TOTAL: 4.351 householdsRural questionnaire
4,305 Hogares
46 hogares
276 hogares
171Missing households
163 missinghouseholds
The panel data allows us to study people’s experiences and changes through time.
2010 2013 2016
10,000 households 94% of sample was surveyed for the
first followup
2019
Early Chilhood Youth Adolescence Young Adult
Cognit. And SE tests Schooling, risky behaviors, teenage pregnancy Labor market-NINI
ELCA: innovations• Child development (cognitive, socio emotional tests and
antropometrics)
• Strategies of households to mitigate impact of shocks:
– Armed conflict
– Natural disasters
• Land tenure and informality of property rights:
– Agricultural production
– Conflict dynamics
• Community questionnaire: institutional services, infrastructure, public services, shocks and conflict.
Other information collected• Access to financial and insurance markets
• Labor markets: employment history, labor income and time use
• Economic conditions: consumption and income
• Housing conditions
• Agricultural production
• Health: status, perception and insurance
• Education
• Transferences: informal and government
• Access to social programs
• Participation in organizations and social networks
• Political participation and preferences
• Household’s geographic location: GPS
Households, poverty, shocks and conflict
Households change overtimeUrban area Rural area (4micro-regions)
Fuente: ELCA 2010, 2013
Households thtat transform:
56,9%
New households thatreceive followup persons
3.3
DividedHouseholds
6.3
Householdsthat remainunchanged
43.1
Households thtat transform:
62%
DividedHouseholds
5.7
Householdsthat remainunchanged
38
New households thatreceive follow up persons
3.6
householdsthat receivemembers
18.8
householdsthatreceivemembers
18.7
Householdsthat expelmembers18.4
Householdsthat expelmembers21.3
Householdsthat receiveand expelmembers10.2
Householdsthat receiveand expelmembers12.7
Rural and Urban Migration
3,0%
0,5%
Differenttown,samedepartment
17%
Change of department
2%
Permanecen zona urbana (99,5%)
Samemunicipality81%
Samemunicipality
25%
Differenttown, samedepartment
28%
Change of department
47%
UrbanRural
Fuente: ELCA 2010, 2013
Fuente: ELCA 2010, 2013
Households that remain un urban area Households that remain un rural area
Changes in income and migration
-482,448
-195,348
968,950
-1,000,000 -500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000
Otra vereda
Otro municipio(zona rural)
Áreas urbanas 95%
-19%
-48%
Urban areas
Other municipality(rural area)
Change of vereda
• Migrating to urban areas is associated with a higher income (95 % higher)• Migration to rural areas implies a reduction in the rural households income.
Poverty Dynamics: some remain in poverty, others overcome it and others fall into it
22.428.6
7.5
9.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2013 2010 2013
URBANO RURAL (4Microrregiones)
29,9
37,7
24,1get out of
poverty
Stay in poverty
Stay in poverty
Fall into poverty
Fall into poverty
% of poor households (Income poverty, spending under the poverty line)
Source: ELCA 2010, 2013
Only original households
21,5 get out of poverty
Households experience unexpected shocks
% of households that suffered shocks during the last three years
34.6
22.2
14.09.5 8.6 8.6
0.6
6.1
5.8
11.3
4.9 9.4
0.9
1.60
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Producción Salud Desastres Viviendaactivos
Familiar Empleo Violencia
Alta y media Baja
Urban area
Rural area (4 Micro regions)
20.3 18.6
10.1 8.9
3.9 3.31.3
4.1 6.5
11.0
6.7
4.71.0
0.50
5
10
15
20
25
Empleo Salud Familia Viviendaactivos
Desastres Producción Violencia
Alta o media Baja
Source: ELCA 2010, 2013
employment Health Family Housingassets
Disasters Production Violence
Production Health Disasters Housingassets
Family employment Violence
High ormedium
Low
LowHigh ormedium
Impact of violence shocks on socioemotional development
36.553.2
20 40 60
Muerte del jefe
Vivienda
Violencia
Desastres
Salud
Empleo
Mic
rorr
eg
ion
es
rura
l
Tuvo choque No tuvo choque
The violence shocks that households experience have a negative effect on the children’s socioemotional development.
Mayores problemáticas socioemocionales
Had a shock
Had No Shock
Employment
Health
Disasters
Violence
Housing assets
Dead of the head
12%17%
4 9 14
Producción
Vivienda
Empleo
Desastre
Violencia
Salud
Mic
rorr
eg
ion
es
rura
l
Tuvo choque No tuvo choque
Employment
Housing assets
The percentage of children who suffer from chronical malnutrition is considerably higher in rural households that suffered violence shocks
Impact of violence shocks on nutritional development
Health
Violence
Disasters
Production
Had a shock Had no shock
Labor market transitions
Children & Youth
ELCA is an ideal instrument to study the evolution of Colombian children and
adolescents• Elca contains information of nearly 8.700 children,
– socioeconomic household information
– Antropometric data.
– Cognitive test –PPVT 3-9 years
– Socioemotional test– Ages and Stages Questionaire(ASQ:SE) (2013) 0-5 years
– Strengths and Difficulties Questionaire (SDQ) (2016) 6-16 years
– Pregnancy information (prenatal care, breastfeeding)
– Children’s education and health information and vaccination .
– Caregivers information and parental practices
Child malnutrition was reduced in the past three years
15.0
10.112.0
6.77.4
3.14.6
3.33.51.9
3.22.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2010 2013 2010 2013
RURAL(4 Micro-regions) URBAN
Chronic, acute and global malnutrition by area and year (%)
Chronic Global Acute
Source: ELCA 2010, 2013
Gaps in receptive vocabulary tests remain unchanged between socioeconomic status
PPVT results of panel children: Urban area
2010 2013
PPVT score by ageBase line
8010
012
014
0
70 80 90 100 110 120Edad en meses
25% más pobre 25% menos pobre
Primer seguimientoPuntaje TVIP por edadPPVT score by age
First follow-up
poorer least poor
8010
012
014
0
40 60 80Edad en meses
25% más pobre 25% menos pobre
Línea de base
Puntaje TVIP por edad
poorer least poor
PPVT score by ageBase line
Source: ELCA 2010, 2013
Gaps in receptive vocabulary tests remain unchanged between urban & rural areas
PPVT results of panel children
2010 2013
Source: ELCA 2010, 2013
80
100
120
140
40 60 80Edad en meses
95% CI UrbanoMicrorregiones Rural
Línea de base
Puntaje TVIP por edadPPVT score by ageBase line
95% CIRural micro-regions
Urban
80
100
120
140
70 80 90 100 110 120Edad en meses
95% CI UrbanoMicrorregiones rural
Primer seguimientoPuntaje TVIP por edadPPVT score by age
First follow-up
95% CIRural micro-regions
Urban
Relationship between malnutrition in 2010 and verbal ability in 2013
80
90
100
110
120
Global 2010 Acute 2010 Chronic 2010 Global 2010 Acute 2010 Chronic 2010
Urban Rural micro-regions
PP
VT
sco
re
No
Yes
The overage is greater among the poorer
3.8%
1.9%
1.6%
5.1%
5.9%
4.5%
21.0%
10.6%
6.7%
20.9%
11.2%
10.1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Tercil 1
Tercil 2
Tercil 3
Tercil 1
Tercil 2
Tercil 3
Overage by wealth tertilesPanel children
Ru
ral (
4M
icro
-re
gio
ns)
Urb
an
Highest
Middle
Lowest
Highest
Middle
Lowest
2010 (5 - 9 years old) 2013 (7 - 13 years old)
Source: ELCA 2010, 2013
Household shocks affect educationalattainment
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Choque Salud Choque Empleo
Dropped out of school at least for two consecutive months over the last three years (Urban area)
No tuvo choque Tuvo choque
Health shock Employment shock
Had a shockHad no shock
Fuente: ELCA 2010, 2013
% o
f p
ne
lch
ildre
n
Rural Development
ELCA is an ideal instrument to study the social well-being in rural areas
(case of postconflict)
• Changes in land ownership and land use.
• Access to social protection programs.
• Political participation and electoral behaviour
• Security perception
• The sample includes regions that have been occupied by guerrilla groups and armed conflict.
Land owning
27.522.7
7.59.2
25.0 31.2
40.0 36.9
2010 2013
Land owner
Does not own land but works it
Informal property
Self report
Unaware
% of rural households
Fuente: ELCA 2010, 2013
Land dynamics in rural households
0 5 10
2.4
2.6
10.2
9.1
% Households
Land adquisition
Formalization of landproperty rights
Sold Land
Lost land
Fuente: ELCA 2010, 2013
The presence of illegal armed groups leads to more cattle raising and to more unexploited lands. For example, households in regions where armed groups
have been present for four years, have 7.4pp more land unexploited.
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
*
*
*
*
*
**
Investment
Unexploited landPasture crops
Land use related to years of presence of armed groups
Changes in consumption and land owning
564,667
-559,972
1,023,973
-800,000 -600,000 -400,000 -200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Total Consumption
Sold Land
Land adquisition
Formalization of landproperty rights
• The formalisation of lands relates with higher well being• Selling land: Are the households selling land to finance their consumption• Buying Land: Are the households adjusting their consumption so they can buy land?
Strategies to reduce attrition
• First wave:
– Results of cognitive and nutrition development: sent to each household
– Contact information of friends and relatives (contacts)
– Small gift for each household
• Call center: permanent contact with households to update location information
• SMS each month: (birthday, mother/father day, Christmas, new year)
• Raffles (each household has a raffle ticket)
– 5 bathroom kits (tiles, toilet, sink, shower)
– 2 monthly gift cards to redeem at
largest supermarket in Colombia (US$275)
Difficulties in the field• Questionnaire
– length• In urban area it takes on average 3.2 hours + tests
• In rural area it takes on average 5 hours + tests
– Rejections• Especially in urban areas, people are not willing to spend
too much time on the survey.
– People see no benefit from the survey• The survey delivers the book of the ELCA to households of
higher socioeconomic status.
• In 2016 the survey will deliver a flier explaining the use of the information.
Difficulties in the field• Others
– In 2010 the survey asked the households what gift they would like in 2013, so households were expecting these gifts.
– Children results: • Many results did not arrive and some people did not
understands them.
– The community leaders expect the University to help them resolve the community needs reported on the questionnaire.
Thank you