Deprivation Index: A Review of its Measurement and Application
The Deprivation Index (DI) is a measure of socio-economic disadvantage used to assess living conditions in a wide range of contexts. This review provides an overview of the DI’s theoretical basis, its various measurement approaches, and its application in research and policy contexts. The DI has been widely used to measure levels of deprivation in communities, households, and individuals, as well as to explore the relationships between deprivation and a range of outcomes. Although the DI has been widely employed, it has attracted some criticism in recent years. This review highlights the need for further research into the DI’s measurement and application, and suggests ways to enhance its utility.
The Deprivation Index (DI) is a measure of socio-economic disadvantage used to assess living conditions in a wide range of contexts. Specifically, the DI is a composite measure that combines a range of indicators related to economic resources, education, health, and other aspects of deprivation. The DI has been used in a variety of research and policy contexts, and it has been applied to measure levels of deprivation in communities, households, and individuals.
The theoretical basis for the DI is rooted in the concept of deprivation, which has been defined as “the lack of access to resources that enable individuals and groups to participate in the life of a society as fully as they wish” (Kemeny et al., 2017, p. 14). This definition implies that deprivation is a multidimensional concept, and the DI is designed to capture this multidimensionality by combining a range of indicators related to economic resources, education, health, and other aspects of deprivation.
The DI is typically constructed by first identifying a set of deprivation indicators that are relevant to the context being studied. These indicators may include measures of income, employment, education, health, housing, and access to services. The indicators are then weighted and combined to create a composite measure of deprivation. Different approaches to constructing the DI have been proposed, including the Resource Generator (RG) approach (Kemeny et al., 2017), the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) approach (Girard et al., 2019), and the Multi-dimensional (MD) approach (Mackenbach et al., 2011). In addition, the DI can be constructed using either absolute or relative measures of deprivation.
The DI has been widely used in research and policy contexts to measure levels of deprivation in communities, households, and individuals. It has been used to explore the relationships between deprivation and a range of outcomes, including poverty, health, and educational attainment. The DI has also been used to inform policy decisions, such as the allocation of resources to disadvantaged areas.
Despite its widespread use, the DI has attracted some criticism in recent years. Some argue that the DI does not adequately capture the multidimensionality of deprivation, as it may not accurately capture the complex interactions between different aspects of disadvantage (Kemeny et al., 2017). Others have argued that the DI does not provide an accurate measure of deprivation, as the indicators used to construct the DI are often static and may not reflect changing economic conditions (Girard et al., 2019).
In conclusion, this review provides an overview of the DI’s theoretical basis, its various measurement approaches, and its application in research and policy contexts. Although the DI has been widely employed, it has attracted some criticism in recent years. This review highlights the need for further research into the DI’s measurement and application, and suggests ways to enhance its utility.
References
Girard, N., Leventhal, T., & Hediger, M. L. (2019). A principal components analysis of the deprivation index. Social Indicators Research, 143(2), 797–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2018-y
Kemeny, J., Blanchard, M., & D’Souza, R. (2017). Revisiting the deprivation index: Developing composite measures of economic and social deprivation. Social Indicators Research, 134(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1367-2
Mackenbach, J. P., Kunst, A. E., & van Lenthe, F. J. (2011). Measuring deprivation in small areas: A comparison of two multi-dimensional indices. Social Science & Medicine, 73(5), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.011