2017-2018 POF: Loss of quality of life is almost twice as much in rural areas
November 26, 2021 10h00 AM | Last Updated: November 30, 2021 02h42 PM
The IBGE presents for the first time a multidimensional index for the loss of quality of life (IPQV), in addition to a second index that measures the socio-economic performance (IDS). The new indicators follow the recommendations of the United Nations and are based on a series of variables of the 2017-2018 Consumer Expenditure Survey (POF). The IPQV values range between 0 and 1; the closer to zero, the smaller the loss.
The Loss of Quality of Life Index (IPQV) in Brazil was 0.158 between 2017 and 2018. In the rural area (IPQV of 0.246), the loss was 1.5 times bigger than the national average and 1.7 times bigger than in the urban area (IPQV of 0.143). Nearly 15% of the Brazilians lived in the rural area and this share of the population contributed with one fourth of the Brazilian IPQV value.
The South Region (0.115) and the Southeast Region (0.127) had a better IPQV than the national one. Whereas the North (0.225) and Northeast (0.209) showed worse indexes.
Households whose heads were men presented less loss of quality of life, with and IPQV of 0.151, against 0.169 in households headed by women. And in households with black or brown heads (0.185), the loss of quality of life was 17% bigger than the national average and 50% bigger than those with white heads (0.123).
The range with less individual loss of quality of life concentrated 13.7% of the population and the range with most losses, 10.3%. Most of Brazilians are in the intermediate zone of cumulative losses of quality of life.
Among the 27 Federation Units, Maranhão has the biggest losses of quality of life (IPQV equal to 0.260) and Santa Catarina, the smallest (IPQV equal to 0.100).
The Socio-Economic Performance Index (IDS) incorporates the per capita household disposable income (RDFPC) and the losses of quality of life relative to six dimensions (Housing; Access to public utility services; Health and food; Education; Access to financial services and standard of living; Transportation and leisure) measured by the IPQV. In the period analyzed by 2017-2018 POF, the Socio-Economic Performance Index for Brazil was 6.201. The Federal District (6.970) and São Paulo (6.869) had the biggest indexes and Maranhão (4.897) and Pará (5.099), the lowest.
The United Nations (UN) recommends that its member states create multidimensional indicators able to assess the social development of different social groups. In order to meet this demand, the IBGE, in the scope of its Experimental Statistics, presents its Loss of Quality of Life Index (IPQV) and its Socio-Economic Performance Index (IDS) built based on a set of non-monetary indicators (objective and subjective ones) of different dimensions: Housing; Access to public utility services; Health and food; Education; Access to financial services and standard of living; Transportation and leisure. The new indicators are addressed in the module Profile of Expenditures in Brazil: Quality of Life Indicators, of 2017-2018 POF
The values of the individual losses range from 0 to 1, and the closer to zero, the lower the person’s cumulative loss and the better the quality of life. In order to evaluate the distribution of individual losses, 5 intervals were created: (1st) up to 0.05; (2nd) greater than 0.05 up to 0.10; (3rd) greater than 0.10 up to 0.20; (4th) greater than 0.20 up to 0.30; (5th) greater than 0.30 up to 1.00.
IPQV of the poorest 10% is four times higher than that of the richest 10% the poorest 10%
The IPQV value is calculated by the average of individual cumulative losses and for Brazil, that average was 0.158. The urban areas demonstrate a loss of quality quite lower (0.143) than that of the rural areas (0.246), i. e.: the loss in the rural area is almost twice as much (1.7 times more) as the urban and 1.5 times more than the average for Brazil.
Concerning the major regions, the South (0.115) and Southeast (0.127) presented the lowest indexes of loss, even lower than the national average. Conversely, North (0.225) and Northeast (0,209) had the highest loss indexes. Central-West (0.159) stood quite close to the average.
When the population subgroups are defined by the household characteristics, for households where the head self-declares as white, the IPQV value was of 0.123, lower than the value for Brazil. On the other hand, for the share of the population with a self-declared black or brown head, the IPQV value was of 0.185, 17.0% higher than the national value.
The IPQV of the lowest decile of per capita household disposable income was 0.260, the biggest in the subgroups. However, the IPQV for the last decile of income was of 0.063. So, the loss of quality of life for those in the lowest income range surpasses four times that of the 10% richest. But despite the fact that highest incomes lead to lowest losses of quality of life, even in those income ranges the index did not reach zero.
|Table 2 - Quality of life loss index - IPQV and contributions of the mean and mean deviations for the IPQV value, according to the selected subgroups and conditioning factors - 2017-2018 period|
|Selected subgroups and conditioning factors||IPQV||Contribution of the mean to the IPQV value||Contribution of the deviations to the IPQV value||Percentage contribution of the mean (%)||Percentage contribution of the deviations (%)|
|Geographic localization of the household|
|Up to 24 years of age||0.169||0.162||0.006||96.2||3.8|
|25 up to 44 years of age||0.158||0.152||0.007||95.6||4.4|
|25 up to 44 years of age||0.159||0.151||0.007||95.6||4.4|
|65 years of age and over||0.156||0.150||0.006||96.0||4.0|
|Color or race
|Black and brown||0.185||0.178||0.007||96.3||3.7|
Concerning education, the main highlight is in the subgroup with an uneducated household head, in which the IPQV was 0.255, that is, 1.6 times more than the Brazil value. In the subgroup in which the household head had complete higher education, the index was 0.076, almost half the value for Brazil.
Considering employment type and formalization, when the household head was employed in domestic services, the IPQV (0.203) was much higher than the national one. When the head declared to be an employer, the loss rate was only 0.093.
None of the six dimensions considered for the composition alone explains the value of IPQV in Brazil. The contribution of Education and Access to Financial Services and Standard of Living reached about 19% of the total marginal effects of all dimensions. Public Utility Services and Health and Food Services contributed with around 14%. The marginal effect is given by the difference between the IPQV and the new IPQV recalculated without considering the losses related to the respective dimension.
Although income is not part of the construction of the IPQV, households with lower incomes registered greater losses of quality of life. These losses were more concentrated in Education and Access to Financial Services and Standard of Living. See the dimensions considered for defining the indicators and the composition of the IPQV in the table below:
|Table 3 - Composition of the loss of quality of life index - IPQV: indicators by dimension, variables and weights|
|Dimensions||Binary variables of loss of quality of life (0 or 1, with 1 being deprivation)||Weight of a subgroup of the dimension||Weight within the dimension||Dimension weight||Final weight|
|Housing||No “exclusive bathroom for the household”||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Flooring other than "Ceramic, tile or stone or suitable wood"||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Roof other than "Tile with slab or suitable wood"||1/2||1/12||1/6||1/144|
|Roof of "Zinc, aluminum, sheet metal or other material"||1/2||1/12||1/6||1/144|
|Wall other than “Coated wall or suitable wood”||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Excessive household density||1/2||1/12||1/6||1/144|
|With leaky roof||1/2||1/12||1/6||1/144|
|With humid wall, floor or foundation||1/2||1/12||1/6||1/144|
|With mosquitoes, insects, rats, etc.||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|With environmental problems caused by traffic and industry||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Close to polluted rivers, bays, lakes, weirs or dams||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Close to slopes or areas susceptible to landslides or flooding||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Violence or vandalism in the household area||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Household rated as “Not good”||1||1/12||1/6||1/72|
|Public utility services||Electricity other than "General network, daily, 24-hour operational"||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Urban: water other than "General network, daily operational"; Rural: water different from "General network, daily operational" and water rating other than "Good or Satisfactory"||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Sewage drain other than "General network, rainwater network or septic tank connected to the network"||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Waste is not collected (other)||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Water supply rating other than “Good or Satisfactory”||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Power supply rating other than “Good or Satisfactory”||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Sewage drain rating other than “Good or Satisfactory”||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Waste collection rating other than “Good or Satisfactory”||1||1/8||1/6||1/48|
|Food and health||Medicine restriction||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Health care restriction||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Health rated as “Not Good”||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Light, moderate or severe insecurity||1/3||1/5||1/6||1/90|
|Moderate or severe insecurity||1/3||1/5||1/6||1/90|
|Food intake rated as “Not Good”||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Education||Households with children and teenagers aged 6-17 out of school.||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Households with illiterate residents aged 15 and over||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Households with residents aged 16 and over without complete primary education||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Households with residents aged 18 and over without complete secondary education||1/2||1/5||1/6||1/60|
|Households with residents aged 18 - 29 and without complete secondary education||1/2||1/5||1/6||1/60|
|Education rated as “Not Good”||1||1/5||1/6||1/30|
|Access to financial services and standard of living||No bank account (neither current nor savings account)||1||1/4||1/6||1/24|
|No stove or refrigerator||1/5||1/4||1/6||1/120|
|No washing machine||1/5||1/4||1/6||1/120|
|No microwave or dish-washer||1/5||1/4||1/6||1/120|
|No TV set (LED, plasma or LCD)||1/5||1/4||1/6||1/120|
|No computer or tablet||1/5||1/4||1/6||1/120|
|Past due water, light or gas bills||1/2||1/4||1/6||1/48|
|Past due services or goods rendered||1/2||1/4||1/6||1/48|
|“Difficult or very difficult” to make ends meet||1/2||1/4||1/6||1/48|
|“Very difficult” to make ends meet||1/2||1/4||1/6||1/48|
|Transportation and leisure||At least one resident spends 1 hour or more in the traffic; it is worth zero otherwise.||1/2||1/2||1/6||1/24|
|Transportation rating other than “Good or Satisfactory”||1/2||1/2||1/6||1/24|
|At least one resident works more than 50 hours and leisure rated as “Not Good”||1/2||1/2||1/6||1/24|
|Leisure rated as “Not Good”||1/2||1/2||1/6||1/24|
|Source: IBGE, Diretoria de Pesquisas, Coordenação de Trabalho e Rendimento, Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares 2017-2018.|
Just 13.7% of the Brazilian population is in the range of the lowest losses
About 13.7% of the Brazilian population (28 million people) were within the interval with the lowest individual losses (up to 0.05). In urban areas, 15.9% were in this group, whereas, in rural areas, only 1.2%.
About 21.8% of people who lived in housheolds with a white head were in the range with the lowest individual loss of quality of life, against 7.5% of households with a black or brownhead. Households headed by men (15.5%) also had better results than those where a woman was the head (11.0%). But 35.7% of the population (74 million people) were in the 3rd interval, from 0.10 to 0.20.
In the last interval, with the biggest losses (above 0.30) was 10.3% of the population. This percentage varied a lot according to the analyzed subgroup. For the urban area, it was 7.2%, for the rural area, 28.5%. If the head was white, only 5.0% entered this range, but if the person was black or brown, 14.2%. And 31.2% if they were uneducated and only 1.0% if they had complete higher education.
Maranhão is the state with the greatest loss of quality of life by the IPQV
The Socio-Economic Performance Index (IDS) is a result that combines the results for per capita household disposable income (RDFPC) and the loss of quality of life from six dimensions (Housing; Access to public utility services; Health and food ; Education; Access to financial services and standard of living; Transportation and leisure) through the IPQV. Thus, the index combines the capacity society has to generate resources and its quality of life.
|Table 6 - Loss of Quality of Life Index - IPQV and Socio-Economic Performance Index - IDS, by type of transformation of monthly per capita household disposable income - RDFPC, according to Federation Units - 2017-2018 period|
|Federtion Units||IPQV||Socio-Economic Performance Index (IDS)|
|Without transformation of the RDFPC||With logarithmic transformation of RDFPC|
|A= Mean of the RDFPC (R$)||A*IPQV (R$) (1)||IDS(A. IPQV) (R$) (2)||B= Ln of the mean of the RDFPC (3)||B*IPQV||IDS(B. IPQV )|
|Rio Grande do Norte||0.205||1212.85||248.31||964.54||7.101||1.454||5.647|
|Rio de Janeiro||0.149||1744.28||260.48||1483.80||7.464||1.115||6.349|
|Rio Grande do Sul||0.127||2102.01||267.67||1834.34||7.651||0.974||6.676|
|Mato Grosso do Sul||0.153||1751.43||267.78||1483.65||7.468||1.142||6.326|
|Source: IBGE. Diretoria de Pesquisas. Coordenação de Trabalho e Rendimento. Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares 2017-2018,|
|Note: (1) For the Brazil row, the result is weighted by the population of each Federation Unit. (2) The IDS is given by the difference between the average per capita household disposable income and the value (A*IPQV). (3)For the Brazil row, the result is weighted by the population of each Federation Unit.|
The weighted sum of the IDS of each Federation Unit defines the result for Brazil. Thus, the loss of quality of life in Brazil reduces the value of the Per Capita Household Disposable Income (RDFPC) by 14.5% (R$240.02), resulting in an IDS of R$1,410.77.
Maranhão, on the other hand, was the state with the highest IPQV, 0.260, which means that it has the greatest loss in quality of life in Brazil. As it was also the state with the lowest RDFPC, its IDS value was the lowest, R$555.30, with a reduction of 26.0% in relation to the RDFPC.
The state with the smallest loss of quality of life was Santa Catarina, with an IPQV of 0.100. However, as it has a lower income than other states, its position assessed by economic progress is the fourth largest, with a value of R$1,765.16.
Pará, despite having a higher RDFPC than Alagoas, Piauí and Paraíba, had the second highest IPQV in the country (0.244), which resulted in the second lowest IDS in the country (R$639.52), 24.4% below its RDFPC. Alagoas, on the other hand, has the second lowest RDFPC in Brazil, but the loss of quality of life recorded is below that of the other five Federation Units, which made the value of its IDS to be R$ 654.89 (-21.8%), above the result of Pará.
The survey also brings the possibility of adopting a second measure based on the Neperian logarithm (In) of the RDFPC. By transforming the RDFPC, the logarithmic function ensures that the same increase in the mean will have a greater impact on a society with less income than on a society with more income.
Thus, Brazil's IDS was 6.201. This value represents the average of the values of the Federation Units, weighted by the proportion of their respective populations. The highest values of the IDS were from the Federal District (6.970) and São Paulo (6.869). Of the 27 Federation Units, 18 were below the national average, including all in the North and Northeast. Sergipe had the highest IDS among the northeastern states (5.879, or 5.2% below Brazil), and Roraima (5.874), the highest in the North, 5.3% lower than the Brazilian average.
Maranhão (4.897) and Pará (5.099), even with the use of the second measure of the RDFPC, had the lowest results. The chart below shows the IDS values for each Federation Unit in ascending order, as well as the IDS value for Brazil. The adoption of ln(RDFPC) changes the ranking of Federation Units, as the IDS gives less importance to income. For example, the IDS of Santa Catarina surpasses the IDS of Rio Grande do Sul, indicating greater socio-economic progress in Santa Catarina, despite the fact it has lower income than the neighboring state.