IBP 40

See also: Barometer (homonymy), IBP, 40 (number)

IBP 40 or barometer of the inequalities and poverty is a synthetic indicating Inégalité S and Pauvreté created in 2002 by a team of militants trade unionists, economists, and statisticians gathered at the origin in the collective Réseau of alarm on the inequalities. The IBP 40 was created following a polemic on the relative use of the incidence of poverty like indicator of measurement of poverty and the inequalities.

History

The idea of the IBP 40 was born in 1999. It refers to the CAC 40, on a side, and with the GDP, but written at back, other side. According to one of its creators, “at that time, at the same time as the growth seemed to set out again, associations announced, on the ground, the recrudescence of the inequalities and the social strains. The shift between this reality of ground and them (rare) indicating official available led the SPOKE to think of the construction of an indicator which could better describe these tendencies”.

The IBP 40 is a barometer built on 58 statistical series concerning six dimensions of the inequalities and poverty: work, incomes, housing, education, health and justice. The first results of this work were published in the shape of a file of 10 pages in the number of April 2002 of the monthly magazine economic Alternatives.

The indicator was not held up to date and its last value goes back to 2004.

Objective and method

The objective of this indicator is better to apprehend the evolution of the inequalities and poverty in particular by taking into account other dimensions that the strictly monetary component.

The independent measurement of Poverty lines used in the European Union, in France, and in the majority of the developed Countries, is a measurement of relative poverty : the poverty lines are defined as being equal to 50 % or 60 % of the Median income of the population (50 % of the population gaining more than this income, and 50 % less). They are the values measured by the INSEE, which publishes in parallel of many work relating to the inequalities and of the indicators not directly monetary.

The IBP 40 incorporates, with a choice of weightings subjective, different indicating, to obtain a total index , which INSEE always refused to make, for reasons of verifiability and statistical rigor (“a very convincing aggregation of the series not always”). INSEE preaches to analyze each series of indicator per field and to control them well. In addition to the percentage of individuals located under the poverty line, five other dimensions are added by the members of collective IBP 40, who are supposed to reflect nonmonetary poverty: employment and work, health, education, housing, and justice. Each dimension is evaluated by several indicators, with the result that 58 indicators are used in the formula of the IBP 40.

The construction of the indicator is done in two stages. The first consists in standardizing on the interval 0-10 each basic series. The lowest value observed over the period takes value 0, and value 10 is granted to the highest value of the basic series. A high value of the index will mean that inequalities, or poverty, are higher on average than during the period of calibration.

The second stage consists in incorporating the indices standardized by granting a different weighting between six dimensions. The choice of weights is subjective, as in any construction of aggregative index (see for example the Indicateur human development). The IBP 40 attaches a greatter importance to the returned indices and employment which have a weight of a quarter each one, whereas the other indices represent each one a eighth. Naturally, another weighting leads to another apprehension of the evolution of the inequalities and poverty. As example, the recalculation of the index without taking account of dimension justice makes it possible to conclude that the inequalities and poverty slightly moved back since 1990.

Indices used in the IBP 40

The index employment and work is built using twenty-four indicators divided into four groups:

an index relating to the work conditions measured by the share of work Sunday, leaves, the accident frequency rate night-work of work with stop, median duration of the sick leave for accident, accident frequency rate mortals, many recognized occupational diseases, painfulness, repetitive work,
an index of unemployment measured by the rate of Chômage the ILO, unemployment rate “complementary” to official unemployment, ratio unemployment rate Homme/Femme, ratio unemployment rate <25 ans/25-49 years, ratio unemployment rate frameworks/used, ratio unemployment rate frameworks/working, share of the unemployed of long-duration in the unemployed, leaves on the unemployeds on benefit,
an index of precariousness measured by the rate of part time, rates of interim, rates of Limited time contract (CDD), behalf of the women in part time and rates of under-employment,
a bearing index on the industrial relationships measured by the number of days of strike reported to the occupied paid population, the share of the votes at the work's councils going to candidates non-unionists and the share of the protected employees fired in the discharged employees.

The index returned is built using fifteen indicators divided into four groups:

an index of wages measured by the variation inter-deciles, ratios of wages man-women and ratio 26-30 years compared to the 41-50 years, leaves the wages in the whole of the employees, SMIC monthly Net compared to the full-time average wages,
an index of consumption measured by the index of purchasing power, rate of over-indebtedness of the households, incident rate of appropriations,
an index of the inequalities of incomes and taxation measured by the share of the financial incomes in the income available gross of the households, leaves the wages in the added-value, leaves the hearths subjected to the Wealth tax in the hearths declaring the Income tax and leaves the income tax in the revenues from taxes.
and an index of poverty measured by the average guaranteed income (defined by the weighted average of the existing social minimums) brought back to the income available average, many allocatees of minima on the number of households, leaves the population living of the social minimums, leaves gross the social security benefits in the income available of the households.

The index health is built using five indicators: the life expectancy with the birth, the difference in life expectancy between frameworks and workmen, the share of the health expenditure in the Gross domestic product, the share of the health expenditure dealt with by the households and the disparity of the regional medical densities.

The index education is built using five indicators: the access to the baccalaureat, exits of the education system, inequalities of level in French and mathematics, the proportion of children of frameworks compared to the children of employees in CPGE.

The index housing is built using five indicators: the weight of the expenditure of housing in the household consumption, the price index of the rents brought back to the consumer price index, the share of the operational startups helped (PLA) in the operational startups, the share of the amount of personal assistances to housing in the consumption of housing and the number of complaints in justice of the financial backers for unpaid of rents.

The index justice is built using four indicators: the rate of imprisonment, the rate of Detention pending trial, the share of condemned to sorrows of more than five years and the rate of recognition of the requests for statute of refugees.

Statistics for France

Statistics for France (except dimension " justice")

Position of the IBP 40 in the debate on the indicators in France in 2005

At the time of the media debate in 2005 on the measurement of poverty, BIP 40 was evoked very often; it caused criticisms within INSEE and of the encouragements, in particular on behalf of the trade-union actors. Thus, as of the plenary assembly of the National council of the statistical data (or CNIS) of February 11th, 2005, BIP 40 was quoted in the report of its debates. The Director of the demographic and social statistics of INSEE, Stephan Lollivier, thus stated reserves there: Besides “does This indicator raise two problems, one of conceptual nature (which measurement this indicator?) and the other of practical nature (a very convincing aggregation of the series not always). Moreover, the indicator is limited, contrary to the GDP, the series elementary themselves being limited. ”

Concerning the IBP 40, the representative of DREES declared of sound with dimensions that “the side " box noire" of such a total indicator is moreover, seems it contradictory with the objective of a clear and transparent communication on the evolutions in progress as regards social inequalities. It is indeed difficult to immediately apprehend what such a figure or incorporated index reflects, and which are the determinants which weigh thus, a year given, on the evolution of the inequalities and poverty (unemployment, variations of initial incomes, redistribution….)”. According to Jacky Fayolle, the director of the Research institute economic and social (ANGERS), which is managed in particular by wage earners associations, “the question is not to know if the statisticians of INSEE are better than those of BIP 40. INSEE probably has some strong comparative advantages, but it is necessary to recognize with an private initiative, like that of BIP 40, the merit to have put forward a measure in real-time of the dynamics of the inequalities and to have thus urged on the public information system”. “From the whole of the existing proposals (indicators of Laeken promoted by the committee of social protection of the European Union, proposals of the CERC in 2002 or BIP 40, etc), it would be desirable to identify a precise number of indicators which are, for France, regularly published in real-time, and which makes it possible to divide, if possible, a balanced vision of the intrinsic situation of the poor people and their position in the company. ”

The debate thus impelled by the construction and the diffusion of BIP 40 was going finally to lead to the decision of the CNIS to set up in 2006 an work group chaired by Jacques Freyssinet and intended to propose means for better taking into account the inequalities, and not only poverty, in the public statistics.

Other activities of collective IBP 40

The collective at the origin of BIP 40 carries out a reflection on the development of the inequalities and poverty, which led it to other initiatives aiming at fighting them. It took part in particular in work of the National council of the statistical data on several occasions: he was an active member of the work group says “Standards of living and social inequalities” set up in September 2006, chaired by the professor Jacques Freyssinet and intended to propose new public means of information on the inequalities; and since June 2007, several of its members left fascinating the work group bearing on “the definition indicators as regards employment, unemployment, under-employment and precariousness of the employment” and chaired by Jean-Baptiste de Foucauld.

It disseminates in addition on its Internet site critical information intended “to nourish the social debate around the inequalities and of poverty”.

Among the activities of the collective gathered in an abstract way around the founders of the IBP 40, it is necessary to also quote the diffusion since the end of 2006 of the “Other figures of unemployment” (more known under initials ACDC). The presentation of notes ACDC every month before the figures of INSEE, with a press conference to dispute the official presentation and the policy of the outgoing government, played a considerable part in the animation of the social debate before the French presidential elections of at the beginning of 2007. She also exploited a part in the creation of the work group of the CNIS the definition of indicators as regards employment, unemployment, under-employment and precariousness of employment.

The collective publishes regularly on its site of the articles relating to the topicality of the new forms of Précarité: invisible unemployments, disadvantages of new the " lease at déterminée" duration; , CPE and CNE, etc. The " committee of rédaction" site of BIP 40 is animated in particular by a professor of economy, specialist in the economic indicators, Jean Gadrey, in addition president of the commission " Trade and services" CNIS and member of the scientific advice of Attac, statisticians economists specialists in the Unemployment, Precariousness and Work such Pierre Concialdi, Thomas Coutrot or Michel Husson, researchers of CNRS like Catherine Levy and Georges Menahem, sociologist who works on the safety indicators, or of active militant associations on housing like Jean-Baptiste Eyraud.

Random links: