Assessment of the social exclusion at the regional level using multi-criteria approach: evidence from the Czech Republic

Abstract

Research background: Social services are the main social tool used for the prevention and solution of social exclusion and its risk. Services of social prevention are focused on the well-being of the whole society and they prevent it from the influence of a wide range of socio-economic phenomena related to social exclusion, understood in multidimensional terms.

Purpose of the article: The purpose of the paper is to evaluate districts of the Czech Republic with respect to selected socio-economic factors that lead or can lead to social exclusion, when the emphasis is placed on the exclusion of children and youth, and to identify the causes of differences existing among these districts within the period of years 2011?2016.

Methods: The paper focuses on multi-criterial assessment of districts of the Czech Republic using 23 indicators covering main aspects of social exclusion, which are processed with the Technique of Order Preference Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS technique) in combination with the Coefficient of Variance method used to determine the indicators? weight. The results obtained using these methods are completed by the Moran?s index, Shapiro-Wilk test, Mann-Whitney test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Kendall Rank Coefficient and Levene?s test.

Findings & value added: A small number of districts with very negative assessment, with the presence of social exclusion and its higher risk, respectively, are identified. Differences among regions are constant and could not be assigned to randomness or disposable changes in the structure of indicators. Higher number of children born to unmarried mothers can be considered a typical aspect of the districts with higher risk of the social exclusion. The methods applied in the research, whose results and findings are presented in the paper, can be inspiring to further studies focusing on the social exclusion in its multidimensionality. The research is framed with the European Union discourse of social exclusion, thus the presented findings also open space for the comparisons and discussions of the factors associated with the social exclusion in other European Union Member States.

Keywords

social exclusion, TOPSIS technique, Coefficient of Variance method

References

1. Abello, A., Cassells, R., Daly, A., D?Souza, G., & Miranti, R. (2016). Youth social exclusion in Australian communities: a new index. Social Indicators Research, 128(2), 635?660. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-1048-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1048-9
   View in Google Scholar
2. Balcerzak, A. P. (2020). Quality of institutions in the European Union countries. Application of TOPSIS based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 17(1), 101?122. doi: 10.12700/APH.17.1.2020.1.6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.17.1.2020.1.6
   View in Google Scholar
3. Balcerzak, A. P., & Pietrzak, M. B. (2017). TOPSIS with Generalized Distance Measure GDM in assessing poverty and social exclusion at regional level in Visegrad countries. In P. Pražák (Ed.). 35th International conference mathematical methods in economics MME 2017 conference proceedings. Hradec Králové: University of Hradec Králové, 18?23.
   View in Google Scholar
4. Bareš, P. (2006). Přiměřenost sociálních služeb aktuálním potřebám. Prague: Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs.
   View in Google Scholar
5. Barnes, H., Noble, M., Wright, G., & Dawes, A. (2009). A geographical profile of child deprivation in South Africa. Child Indicators Research, 2(2), 181?99. doi: 10.1007/s12187-008-9026-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-008-9026-2
   View in Google Scholar
6. Bernard, J., & Šimon, M. (2017). Inner peripheries in the Czech Republic: the multidimensional nature of social exclusion in rural areas. Czech Sociological Review, 53(1), 3?28. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2017.53.1.299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2017.53.1.299
   View in Google Scholar
7. Chakravarty, R. S., & D?Ambrosio, C. (2006). The measurement of social exclusion. Review of Income and Wealth, 52(3), 377?98. doi: 10.1111/j.14754991.20 06.00195.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2006.00195.x
   View in Google Scholar
8. Czech Statistical Office (2019). Public database Retrieved from https://vdb.czso.cz /vdbvo2/faces/en/index.jsf (16.11.2020).
   View in Google Scholar
9. Dean, H., & Platt, L. (2016). Poverty and social exclusion. Oxford: Social Advantage and Disadvantage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198737070.001.0001
   View in Google Scholar
10. Estivill, J. (2003). Concepts and strategies for combating social exclusion: an overview. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/socsec /step/download/96p1.pdf (01.10.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
11. European Commission (2019). Eurostat data. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/data/database (05.09.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
12. Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F. (1963). Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. London: Oliver and Boyd.
    View in Google Scholar
13. GAC (2015). Analýza sociálně vyloučených lokalit v ČR. Retrieved from https://www.esfcr.cz/docments/21802/791224/Anal%C3%BDza+soci%C3%A1ln%C4%9B+vylou%C4%8Den%C3%BDch+lokalit+v+%C4%8CR/65125f3c-3cd9-4591-882b-fd3935458464 (12.03.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
14. Harding, A., Daly, A., McNamara, J., & Yap, M. (2009). Australian children at risk of social exclusion: a spatial index for gauging relative disadvantage. Population, Space and Place, 16(2), 135?150. doi: 10.1002/psp.531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.531
    View in Google Scholar
15. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
    View in Google Scholar
16. Keller, J. (2014). Exclusion as a social problem and a methodological issue. Ostrava: University of Ostrava.
    View in Google Scholar
17. Kendall, M. G. (1970). Rank correlation methods. London: Griffin.
    View in Google Scholar
18. Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step?wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243?258. doi: 10.3846/jbem.2010.12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
    View in Google Scholar
19. Levitas, R. (1998). The inclusive society? Social exclusion and new labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    View in Google Scholar
20. Maier, K., & Franke, D. (2015). Trends in spatial socio-economic polarisation in the Czech Republic 2001?2011. Czech Sociological Review, 51(1), 89?123. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2015.51.1.155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2015.51.1.155
    View in Google Scholar
21. Macešková, M., Ouředníček, M., & Temelová, J. (2009). Socio-spatial differentiation in the Czech Republic: implications for public (regional) policy. Ekonomický časopis, 57(7), 700?715.
    View in Google Scholar
22. Mareš, P., & Sirovátka, T. (2008). Social exclusion and social inclusion - concepts, discourse, agenda. Czech Sociological Review, 44(2), 271?94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2008.44.2.03
    View in Google Scholar
23. Mareš, P., Horáková, M., & Rákoczová, M. (2008). Sociální exkluze na lokální úrovni. Prague: Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs.
    View in Google Scholar
24. McCrystal, P., Higgins K., & Percy, A. (2001). Measuring social exclusion: a lifespan approach. Radical Statistics, 76.
    View in Google Scholar
25. Mertl, J. (2007). Přístupy k hodnocení efektivnosti sociálních služeb v národním hospodářství. Prague: Research Institute for Labour and Socual Affairs.
    View in Google Scholar
26. Mikeszová, M., Sládek, J., Lux, M., Česelský, J., Šmídak, V., & Kadlecová, M. (2010). Mapování skupin obyvatel akutně ohrožených sociálním vyloučením ve vybraných čtyřech krajích (v Praze, Středočeském kraji, Jihomoravském kraji a Moravskoslezském kraji) v souvislosti s nedostupností bydlení. Retrieved from https://www.esfcr.cz/docments/21802/791290/46_Mapov%C3%A1n%C3 %AD+skupin+obyvatel+akutn%C4%9B+ohro%C5%BEen%C3%BDch+soci%C3%A1ln%C3%ADm+vylou%C4%8Den%C3%ADm+v+soivislosti+s+bydlen%C3%ADm.pdf/342c8466-2505-408d-b3dd-1891ee953e82?version=1.0&prev iewFileIndex= (15.03.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
27. Milar, J. (2007). Social exclusion and social policy research: defining exclusion. In D. Abrams, J. Christian & D. Gordon (Eds.). Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research. Chichester: Wiley, 1?15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773178.ch1
    View in Google Scholar
28. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Czech Republic (2019). Národní statistiky. Retrieved from http://www.msmt.cz/vzdelavani/skolstvi-v-cr/statistika-skolstvi/narodni-statistiky (20.06.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
29. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Czech Republic (2019). Výsledky. Retrieved from https://portal.mpsv.cz/sz/stat/vydelky (20.06.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
30. Musil, J., & Müller, J. (2008). Inner peripheries of the Czech Republic as a mechanism of social exclusion. Czech Sociological Review, 44(2), 321?348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2008.44.2.05
    View in Google Scholar
31. Novák, J., & Netrdová, P. (2011). Spatial patterns of socioeconomic differentiation in the Czech Republic at the level of municipalities. Czech Sociological Review, 47(4), 297?323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2011.47.4.05
    View in Google Scholar
32. Olson, D. L. (2004). Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40(7-8), 721?727. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2004.10.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2004.10.003
    View in Google Scholar
33. Oroyemi, P., Damioli, G., Barnes, M., & Crosier T. (2019). Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course: families with children, Research. Retrieved from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty/downloads/keyoff icialdocuments/SEU_Risks_Families_and_Children.pdf (20.10.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
34. Pietrzak, M. B. (2016). The problem of the inclusion of spatial dependence within the TOPSIS method. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(3), 69?86. doi: 10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-3/5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-3/5
    View in Google Scholar
35. Room, G. (1995). Poverty and social exclusion: the new European agenda for policy and research. In Room, G. (Ed.). Beyond the threshold: the measurement and analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press, 1?9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56687/9781447366577-005
    View in Google Scholar
36. Sen, A. (2000). Social exclusion: concept, application, and scrutiny. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29778/social-exclusi on.pdf (21.10.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
37. Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133(5-6), 531?578.
    View in Google Scholar
38. Singla, A., Sing Ahuja, I., & Sing Sethi, A. (2017). Comparative analysis of technology push strategies influencing sustainable development in manufacturing industries using TOPSIS and VIKOR technique. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(1), 129?146. doi: 10.18421/IJQR12.01-08.
    View in Google Scholar
39. Sirovátka, T., Kofroň, P., Rákoczyová, M., Hora, O., & Trbola R. (2005). Příjmová chudoba, materiální deprivace a sociální vyloučení v České republice a srovnání se zeměmi EU (výzkumná zpráva z projektu Monitorování chudoby). Prague: Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs.
    View in Google Scholar
40. Social Exclusion Unit (2001). Preventing social exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.bris.ac.uk/poverty/downloads/keyofficialdocuments/Preventing%20Social%20Exclusion.pdf (21.10.2020).
    View in Google Scholar
41. Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitiene, I., & Balezentis, A. (2012). Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(2), 3302?3311. doi: 10.1016/j.rser. 2012.02.067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.067
    View in Google Scholar
42. Trbola, R., Nečasová, M., & Rákoczyová, M. (2015). Role lokálních vlád při řešení problémů sociálních začleňování. Prague: Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs.
    View in Google Scholar
43. Vaňková, I., & Vavrek, R. (2020) Evaluation of local accessibility of homes for seniors using multi-criteria approach ? evidence from the Czech Republic. Health and Social Care in the Community, 106, 105519. doi: 10.1111/hsc .13231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13231
    View in Google Scholar
44. Vavrek, R. (2019). Evaluation of the impact of selected weighting methods on the results of the TOPSIS technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(6), 1821?1843. doi: 10.1142/S021962201950 041X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962201950041X
    View in Google Scholar
45. Vavrek, R., & Bečica, J. (2020). Capital city as a factor of multi-criteria decision analysis ? application on transport companies in the Czech Republic. Mathematics, 8(10), 1765. doi: 10.3390/math8101765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math8101765
    View in Google Scholar
46. Víšek, P., & Průša, L. (2012). Optimalizace sociálních služeb. Prague: Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs.
    View in Google Scholar
47. Yalcin, E., & Unlu, U. (2018). A multi-criteria performance analysis of initial public offering (IPO) firms using critic and Vikor methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 534?560. doi: 10.3846/20294913.2 016.1213201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1213201
    View in Google Scholar
48. Yoon, K. (1980). Systems selection by multiple attribute decision making. Kansas: Kansas State University.
    View in Google Scholar
49. Zavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. (2016). Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems: an overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(3), 645?648. doi: 10.1142/S02196 22016300019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016300019
    View in Google Scholar
50. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildiene, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165?179. doi: 10.3846/20294913.2014.892037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
    View in Google Scholar
51. Zeleny, M. (1975). MCDM ? state and future of arts. Operations Research, 23(2), B413?B413.
    View in Google Scholar