Is the Playing Field Leveling in Peru? The Evolution of Children’s Opportunities

Javier Escobal, GRADE & Young Lives –Peru

(and LCSPP/PREMPR – World Bank)

Human Rights, Development and Economic Growth - Metrics,

New Ways of Thinking, and New Strategies

April 7-8, 2011, Elliott School, Washington, DC

Outline

o Motivation: Recent trends in Poverty and Inequality

o The Human Opportunity Index

o Results based on Repeated Cross-Sections LSMS

o Some additional Results from a Longitudinal Sample

• Young Lives (Niños del Milenio)

• Access versus quality

• Multiple deprived children

The Context: Recent trends in Poverty and Inequality

Peru 2004-2009 - Poverty incidence and Gini coefficients

Poverty

PeruPoverty

UrbanPoverty

Rural

Gini(per capita

expenditure)2004 48.6 37.1 69.8 0.3752005 48.7 36.8 70.9 0.3792006 44.5 31.2 69.3 0.3852007 39.3 25.7 64.6 0.3792008 36.2 23.5 59.8 0.3532009 34.8 21.1 60.3 0.358

Sources: Poverty and Gini figures come from ENAHO 2004-2009. Gini figures are obtained from spatially price adjusted per capita expenditures. Adjusted Gini corrects the inequality index by the discrepancy between household survey data and national accounts.

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Pove

rty

Rate

(%)

GD

P G

row

th (%

)

GDP Growth (%) Poverty Rate (%)

The Context: Inequality

o Some gaps are narrowing … but some gaps are expanding

o Education (gap ↓)

o Urban/Rural (gap ↑)o Large, Medium, small cities, rural towns, and

disperse rural areas (gap ↑)

In relation to Children Wellbeing

Basic Statistics: Child Wellbeing  2000 2005 2007 2008 2009Stunting (chronic malnutrition) Peru (NCHS/CDC/OMS standard) 25.4 22.9 22.6 21.5 18.3

Urban 13.4 9.9 11.8 11.8 9.9

Rural 40.2 40.1 36.9 36.0 32.8

Bottom 20% N.A. 46.8 45.1 45.0 37.1

Top 20% N.A. 4.3 4.2 5.4 2.3Low Weight at Birth (<2.5 kg) Peru (OMS standard) N.A. 8.7 8.4 7.2 7.1

Urban N.A. 7.8 7.7 6.4 6.6

Rural N.A. 10.6 9.5 8.9 8.4

Bottom 20% N.A. 12.1 11.7 10.3 8.9

Top 20% N.A. 5.4 7.2 4.8 4.9

Source: INEI. Based on DHS Survey

The Context: Inequality in the access to basic services in Children

o In addition to stunting and low weight at birth:• Acute Diarrhea (gap ↓)• Pre-natal checkups (gap ↓)• Delivery in a Health Institution (gap ↓)• Growth monitoring (gap ↓)

• Full Immunization (gap ↑)• Acute respiratory Infections (gap ↑)• Access to identity card (gap ↑)• Anemia (gap ≈)

Probability of Starting Primary School on Time (2009)

• Rosa is one of five children of a single mother whose native language is Quechua and who received only one year of formal education during her own childhood. The household’s income falls in the bottom quartile among all Peruvian households.

• Luis is the only child of high school-educated parents whose native tongue is Spanish. His household is among the top quarter in terms of income

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Lima Met.

Sierra Urbana

Costa Urbana

Selva Urbana

Costa Rural

Selva Rural

Sierra Rural

Rosa Luis

Poor

Rich

Inequality of Opportunity

o The Human Opportunity Index (O) incorporates into a single composite indicator both overall access rates and the D-index measure of opportunity distribution.

o The index combines average access to opportunities with how equitably those opportunities are distributed (D). The proposed index is given by

Areas with big Improvements Finishing primary on time

HOI (level) HOI (annual change)

-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

ArgentinaPanamaJamaica

Costa RicaChile

VenezuelaParaguay

GuatemalaEcuadorUruguay

NicaraguaBrazil

El SalvadorMexico

HondurasColombia

Dominican RepublicPeru

Annual Change (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GuatemalaBrazil

NicaraguaEl Salvador

HondurasDominican Republic

ParaguayCosta RicaColombia

PanamaPeru

VenezuelaUruguay

ArgentinaEcuador

ChileMexicoJamaica

HOI (%)

Areas were improvement is meager: Access to drinkable water

HOI (level) HOI (annual change)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

JamaicaNicaragua

El SalvadorHonduras

PeruParaguay

GuatemalaColombia

Dominican RepublicEcuadorPanama

BrazilVenezuela

MexicoUruguay

Costa RicaArgentina

Chile

HOI (%)

-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

JamaicaEl SalvadorVenezuelaColombia

Costa RicaArgentinaNicaragua

PeruPanama

HondurasDominican Republic

ChileGuatemala

BrazilUruguay

ParaguayEcuadorMexico

Annual Change (%)

Results from Repeated Cross-Sections: Education

  2004   2009

 

Covera

ge rate

(%)

Dissimilari

ty Index

(%)

HO

I

(%)  

Coverag

e rate

(%)

Dissimilar

ity Index

(%)

HOI

(%)

Pre-school attendance (4-5) 77.51 10.36

69.5   82.80 6.77

77.2

Begin primary school on time 67.04 10.46

60.0   70.25 9.17

63.8

Finish primary (6th) on time 54.75 17.46

45.2   58.34 14.55

49.9

School attendance (ages 10-14) 94.68 2.17

92.6   96.84 1.29

95.6

Relative importance of different circumstances in determining HOI for Education (2009)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%Per capita expenditures

Region

Location

Educational of Head

Number of siblingsAltitude

Mother's Language

Single Parents

Sex

Pre-school attendance Begin primary on time Finish primary on time School attendance

Finishing Primary on Time

-

20

40

60

80

100

Lima Sierra Urbana

Costa Urbana

Selva Urbana

Costa Rural Selva Rural Sierra Rural

HO

I (%

)

2000 2004 2009

HOI related to Access to key Household Services

2004 2009

Coverage rate

(%)

Dissimilarity Index

(%)

HOI (%)

Coverage rate

(%)

Dissimilarity

Index (%)

HOI (%)

Adequate water supply 57.84 21.57

45.4 61.00 20.34 48.6

Adequate sanitation 58.56 25.33

43.7 65.19 15.98 54.8

Electricity 68.28 24.1251.8 78.66 14.48 67.3

Access to telephone 14.69 45.39 8.0 62.98 17.70 51.8

Relative importance of different circumstances in determining HOI for Infrastructure (2009)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%Location

Sex

Mother's Language

Educational of Head

Single ParentsNumber of siblings

Region

Per capita expenditures

Altitude

Water Sanitation Electricity Telephone

Evidence from Longitudinal Data: Young Lives

o Young Lives: An international study of childhood poverty 12,000 children in 4 countries over 15 years) Longitudinal project gathering comparable information in Ethiopia, India (Andhra Pradesh), Peru and Vietnam

o In Peru YL is tracking a representative sample of Peruvian children from two cohorts: a younger cohort who were aged between 6 months and 18 months in 2002 (born 2000) and an older cohort of children aged between 7.5 years old and 8.5 years old in 2002 (born 1994)

o Advantages from the point of view of studying Inequality of opportunitieso A larger set of circumstanceso A larger array of Child wellbeing indicators (opportunities)o Following the children through their life cycle.

o Data in the Public Domain

Evidence from Longitudinal Data: Young Lives

o Taking advantage of a broader set of circumstances• at least for Peru, extending the basic sets of circumstances

(i.e. urban/rural residence location; per capita household expenditure; gender; mother’s native language; educational attainment of the head of household and number of siblings) does not have an important effect on the HOI levels or their trends. Circumstances added:

• altitude of the dwelling were the children lives and the distance to the health facilities (as indicators or remoteness)

• mother’s marital status, • mother’s migration status and regions of residence (Costa,

Sierra, Selva)

• Basic circumstances were already capturing the bulk of the circumstance set. In particular mother’s native language; educational attainment and urban/rural location

Evidence from Longitudinal Data: Young Lives

Decomposition of Human Opportunity Index Changes for selected OutcomesYounger Cohort - Panel Sample

(considering extended circumstances)

Coverage Effect

(1)

Distributional Effect

(2)

Change in HOI

(3)=(1)+(2)

Relative Importance of

the Distributional

effect

(4)=(2)/(3)Has electricity 7.6 5.9 13.4 43.7Has proper sewerage 0.8 0.2 1.0 20.0Well Nourish (not stunted) -6.1 -3.1 -9.3 33.4Well Nourish (not underweighted) 0.9 0.4 1.2 28.7Source: YL data using Paes de Barros et al. (2008) methodology

YL: Changes in the Human Opportunity Index Within Urban and Rural Regions

URBANHOI R1

HOI R2

Coverage Effect

Distributional Effect

Changes in HOI

Has electricity 80.1 84.9 4.10 0.70 4.80Has proper sewerage 52.6 55.8 3.42 -0.23 3.19Well Nourish (not stunted) 77.8 72.5 -3.60 -1.73 -5.33Well Nourish (not underweighted) 94.6 95.8 0.91 0.33 1.23

RuralHOI R1

HOI R2

Coverage Effect

Distributional Effect

Changes in HOI

Has electricity 21.5 35.9 12.19 2.20 14.39Has proper sewerage 2.6 4.1 1.14 0.41 1.55Well Nourish (not stunted) 46.9 34.2 -13.00 0.32 -12.68Well Nourish (not underweighted) 86.6 88.5 0.91 0.96 1.86

Coverage Rates for Children under Alternative Circumstances Young Lives - Younger Cohort

  Indigenous Language Non-Indigenous Language  More than 4 siblings 3 or fewer siblings  Low Education High Education & IncomeROUND 1

Has electricity 41.7% 90.9%Has proper sewerage 6.2% 73.2%Well Nourish-R1 (1-Stun) 43.5% 88.2%Well Nourish-R1 (1-Maln) 83.2% 98.2%ROUND 2

Has electricity 49.4% 94.6%Has proper sewerage 7.7% 79.2%Well Nourish-R2 (1-Stun) 32.6% 87.9%Well Nourish-R2 (1-Maln) 87.9% 99.0%Changes between Rounds (in percentage points)

Has electricity 7.7% 3.7%Has proper sewerage 1.5% 6.0%Well Nourish-R2 (1-Stun) -10.9% -0.3%Well Nourish-R2 (1-Maln) 4.7% 0.8%Note: Indicators are based in the Panel sub-sample

For the Older Cohort

Human Opportunity Index Decomposition for selected OutcomesOlder Cohort - Panel Sample

(considering extended circumstances)

Change in Coverage

Effect

(1)

Distributional Effect

(2)

Change in HOI

(3)=(1)+(2)

Relative Importance of the Distributional

effect

(4)=(2)/(3)Has electricity 6.9 5.4 12.3 43.9 Has proper sewerage 3.0 3.5 6.5 53.4 Well Nourish- (Not Stunted) -6.8 -2.1 -8.9 23.9 Verbal Skills 29.0 11.0 40.1 27.4 Math Skills 37.9 13.3 51.2 26.0 Not being overage 5.9 -0.1 5.7 n.a.Not working -5.8 -0.3 -6.0 4.8 Source: YL data using Paes de Barros et al. (2008) methodology

Conditioning for first round opportunities in Round 2

HOI for Well Nourished Children (not stunted)Younger Cohort

Round 1 Round 2 Round 2 6-18 month 4.5-5.5 Years 4.5-5.5 Years

Basic

CircumstancesBasic

CircumstancesBasic Circumstances +

Outcomes R1Urban 77.8 72.5 71.5Rural 46.9 34.2 30.1Gap 30.9 38.3 41.4Note: Outcomes R1 include Electricity, Water, Sanitation, Vaccine card

What happens when we look at individual trajectories?

Nutritional Trajectories at ages 5 and 8

38.3

2.4

25.8

33.4

74.7

2.3

12.4 10.7

61.3

2.3

17.3 19.1

Never stunted Non stunted at 5y - Stuntedat 8y

Stunted at 5y - Non stuntedat 8y

Always stunted

Rural Urban National

Basic and Extended Sets of Circumstances and Nutritional Trajectories between ages 5 and 8

Basic Set of CircumstancesCatch up between 5

and 8yStunted at 5

and 8y  

Child sex (1=male) 46% 52% *Mother's language (1=spanish) 51% 40% *Education of the Household Head (years) 6.7 5.9 *Single Parent household (2006) 13% 13%  Number of siblings (excluding index child) (2006) 1.8 2.1  Assets Value Index 2006 (at Median Prices of 2006) 764 542  Per capita household expenditure 2002 (monthly) 73 68 *Per capita household expenditure 2006 (monthly) 91 84 *Per capita household expenditure 2009 (monthly) 107 101  Altitude (2006) 2161 2234  Female head of household (2002) 88% 90%  Mother's education (years of formal education) 6.0 4.7 ***Area of residence (2002) (1=urban) 41% 33% *Area of residence (2006) (1=urban) 45% 35% **Area of residence (2009) (1=urban) 52% 39% ***The household has received Juntos conditional transfers in some period between 2005 and 2009 36% 46%  Number of months the family received CCTs between 2005 and 2009 7.6 10.1 *Statistical difference at 99% (***) 95% (**) and 90% (*) confidenceSource: own estimations based on Young Lives dataset. Only younger cohort is analyzed (i.e. children born in 2001)

Early opportunities and increasing access to basic services

  Recovered from stunting between 5 and 8y

Stunted at 5 and 8y  

Nutrition and Health related opportunities      Received pre-natal care 90% 87%  Normal weight at birth 93% 90% *Was not weigthed at birth 20% 23%  Has a vaccination card (2002) 88% 88%  Low height for age in 2002 (Stunting) 38% 76% ***Low weight for age in 2002 7% 23% ***Consumed proteines in last 24hours-2006 88% 84%  

Cognitive related opportunities      School attendence in 2006 (preschool level) 77% 70% *

Access to basic services      Improved sanitation facilities       At age 1 (2002) 64% 63%   At age 5 (2006) 78% 74%   At age 8 (2009) 93% 86% ***Improved drinking water       At age 1 (2002) 47% 41%   At age 5 (2006) 48% 46%   At age 8 (2009) 69% 68%  Time to the nearest education center 10.8 8.8  Time to the nearest health center 48.8 44.2  

Statistical difference at 99% (***) 95% (**) and 90% (*) confidenceSource: own estimations based on Young Lives dataset. Only younger cohort is analyzed (i.e. children born in 2001)

One last Topic: Capturing differences in quality: the devil is in the details

Coverage rate (%)

Dissimilarity Index (%) HOI (%)

Education School attendance (ages 10-14) (ENAHO 2009) 96.84 1.29 95.59Begin primary school on time (ENAHO 2009) 70.25 9.17 63.81Finish primary (6th) on time (ENAHO 2009) 58.34 14.55 49.86

Coverage rate (%)

Dissimilarity Index (%) HOI (%)

Electricity Some Access to Electricity (YL Round 1) 60.68 25.09 45.45Electricity all days (last 15 days) (YL Round 1) 58.85 25.33 43.95Electricity 24 hours (YL Round 1) 57.86 25.41 43.16

Coverage rate

(%)Dissimilarity

Index (%) HOI (%)

Water Access de piped drinkable water (YL Round 2) 59.12 11.70 52.20Access 7 days a week (YL Round 2) 47.71 11.31 42.31Access 24 hours (YL Round 2) 21.45 15.27 18.17

Thanks!

YL data available at ESDS - UK http://www.ninosdelmilenio.orghttp://www.younglives.org.uk