Understanding Material Deprivation in Europe: A Multilevel Analysis

In this paper, taking advantage of the inclusion of a special module on material deprivation in EU-SILC 2009, we provide a comparative analysis of patterns of deprivation. Our analysis identifi es six relatively distinct dimensions of deprivation with generally satisfactory overall levels of reliability and mean levels of reliability across counties. Multi-level analysis based on 28 European countries reveals systematic variation across countries in the relative importance of with and between country variation. The basic deprivation dimension is the sole dimension to display a graduated pattern of variation a across countries. It also reveals the highest correlations with national and household income, the remaining deprivation dimensions and economic stress. It comes closest to capturing an underlying dimension of generalized deprivation that can provide the basis for a comparative European analysis of exclusion from customary standards of living. A multilevel analysis revealed that a range of household and household reference person socio-economic factors were related to basic deprivation and controlling for contextual differences in such factors allowed us to account for substantial proportions of both within and between country variance. The addition of macro-economic factors relating to average levels of disposable income and income inequality contributed relatively little further in the way of explanatory power. Further analysis revealed the existence of a set of signifi cant interactions between micro socio-economic attributes and country level gross national disposable income per capita. The impact of socio-economic differentiation was signifi cantly greater where average income levels were lower. Or, in other words, the impact of the latter was greater for more disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. Our analysis supports the suggestion that an emphasis on the primary role of income inequality to the neglect of differences in absolute levels of income may be misleading in important respects.