NS4053 Winter Term 2014

Assessing Social Risk

Social Risk Assessment I

RGE, “Monitoring Social Risk”, February 12, 2014

•Assessing social risk in countries is a growing field

•Measure of social inclusion allows analysis to understand the dynamics likely to occur especially

• During shifts in governments or

• Other periods of political uncertainty

•The main dimensions of this measure are:

• Discrimination against minorities

• Life satisfaction

• Perceived Deprivation

2

Social Risk Assessment II

Minority Inequality

•No differences in legal discrimination but

•Great differences in perceived discrimination

•In general EMs score significantly lower (higher minority discrimination) than DMs and slightly lower than FMs

•Among EMs minority groups in Poland, Turkey and Egypt experience the highest levels of discrimination

•Minorities in Bahrain Jordan and Tunisia lack some rights that other groups have

•Although DMs generally score well on perceived discrimination, Israel, Japan and to a lesser extent France stand out as having poor environments for minority groups.

3

Social Risk Assessment III

Life Satisfaction•In general levels of satisfaction are significantly higher in DMs, with Germany improving and Finland weakening•People in Japan, Hong Kong, Israel and Portugal are the least satisfied with their lives•Over past year Finland has seen the biggest decline in satisfaction with Germany the biggest gain•Russia and South Africa have the most dissatisfied populations among EMs

• In Russia people are not satisfied with their jobs and personal health

• South Africans have a low level of satisfaction with their communities and report constant negative experiences

•People in UAE and Qatar are the most satisfied in the EMs•Perceptions of satisfaction have declined significantly over the last year in Greece, Mexico and Thailand 4

Social Risk Assessment IV

Life Satisfaction (contd.)

•Among the FMs, Oman stands out for its high life-satisfaction score (9.3 compared with an average of 4.8)

•Croatia and Kenya display the same level of satisfaction despite a great disparity in income per capita

•People in the Ukraine display the lowest level of satisfaction (especially with their job and health)

•Bulgaria next lowest (where only 40% believe they had a “purposeful life” and

•Romania next where only 51% of people are happy with their jobs and 45% with the future they face

5

Relatively High Discrimination Against Minorities (0 weak, 10 strong)

6

Countries With Highest and Lowest Levels of Social Risk

7

DM Life Satisfaction Scores

(0 = weak, 10 = strong)

8

EM Life Satisfaction Scores

9

FM Life Satisfaction Scores

10

• Perceived deprivation• Reflects the gap between objective measures of health, living

stndards, safety and education and populations’ satisfaction with what society offers in these areas

• In countries with scores above 5 people believe that their lives are better than they objectively are on an international comparison basis

• In societies that score below 5beople believe that their lives are worse than the model indicates they are

• High perceived deprivation scores suggest a socially cohesive country

• Low sscores suggest a abroad lack of truct in societyAn indication of the p;otential for political instability and

• A general sign of unwillingness to support instittiions such a pay ing taxes

• Country dispersion with by per capita income is greatest in the FM markets

11

Perceived Deprivation

12

DM Perceived Deprivation Scores

13

EM Perceived Deprivation Scores

14

FM Perceived Deprivation Scores

15

Complete Model Framework

16