Economic and personal security
as part of quality of life of EU
member states
Mgr. Tetiana Korovchenko,
doc.Ing. Ivana Kraftova, CSc.
XXI. International Colloquium of Regional Sciences
13. – 15. 6. 2018, Kurdějov
Introduction
A variety of risks of different natures may threaten the
material conditions of individuals and households in unforeseeable
ways. Examples are losing one's job, impaired health, problems
related to aging, or even events at the global level.
On the other hand, non-economic risks such as violence
and crime may endanger physical safety. Even when risks do not
actually materialize, however, the subjective perception of a threat
and the ensuing feelings of insecurity effectively undermine quality
of life.
The aim of the article is to compare the status of the relevant
indicators chosen in the EU countries, their variability and the
changes that took place between 2010 and 2015.
In order to compare the overall situation, one composite
indicator is constructed consisting of two subsets of basic
indicators from the field of economic and personal security.
The aim
To fulfill the objectives of the EU is certainly important not only
wealth creation, but also reducing disparities in the region, which is
known as the economic and personal security, and that is
increasingly on the agenda of academic and professional
discussions and political negotiations.
It is precisely in this area that the focus of research, which aims to:
a) compare the position of EU countries using the composite
indicator on economic and personal security;
b) to determine the evolution of the variability of the indicators
selected for assessing economic and personal security within
the EU member states.
Hypothesis
a. The position of all EU countries between 2010 and 2015 in the
aggregate in the economic and personal security has improved;
b. Variability indicators of both groups of indicators decreased in
2015 compared to 2010, while the average coefficient of
variation for both areas are at the similar level.
Methods
Akronym Description
RIPT at risk of poverty rate after social transfers
MADE material deprivation rate
DEMD depth of material deprivation
INHO intentional homicide
ASSA assault
ROBB robbery
UADR unlawful acts involving controlled drugs or precursors
YOUN youth unemployment rate
RIEP median relative income of elderly people (60+)
Tab. 1: Overview of the basal (baseline) indicators and their acronyms
All indicators - except RIEP - are minimizing, i.e. in order to improve the quality
of life, it is desirable to minimize them.
(1)
where: y – the standardized value; x – the variable; i - the country; j – the pointer
(2)
where yEPS = the composite indicator of economic and personal security as the sum of the standardized
values RIPT, YOUN and if RIEP its recalculation into one, given that it is a maximization indicator, further
sum of yMD and yCR.;
yMD is the standardized MD value, i.e. the square root of the product of the indicators of the
MADE and DEMD indicators;
yCR is the sum of the standardized values of the various indicators of personal security.
(3)
(4)
Akronym Description
RIPT at risk of poverty rate after social transfers
MADE material deprivation rate
DEMD depth of material deprivation
INHO intentional homicide
ASSA assault
ROBB robbery
UADR unlawful acts involving controlled drugs or precursors
YOUN youth unemployment rate
RIEP median relative income of elderly people (60+)
YMD
YCR
The hypothesis α will be confirmed if the value of the
composite indicator for all member countries for the year 2015
compared to 2010 is lower.
The β hypothesis will be confirmed if the value of the variation
coefficient for indicators in each of the economic and personal
security areas is reduced by 2015 compared to 2010 and, at
the same time, if the difference in the average of all measured
values of the variation coefficient will not exceed 50%.
Results
The hypothesis α is not confirmed, in four countries there was a slight
deterioration in 2015, i.e. YEPS increase.
Fig. 1: Development of economic and personal security of the EU between 2010 and 2015
Designed composite indicator YEPS can be hierarchically decomposed for
each country. As an example, for the eight indicators it is used graphical
comparison of the three countries in Figure 2.
Fig. 2: Representation of the state and changes in economic and personal security in selected countries
Czech Republic Germany Slovakia
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
RIPT
MD
INHO
ASSA
ROBB
UADR
YOUN
1-RIEP
2010 2015
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
RIPT
MD
INHO
ASSA
ROBB
UADR
YOUN
1-RIEP
2010 2015
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
RIPT
MD
INHO
ASSA
ROBB
UADR
YOUN
1-RIEP
2010 2015
Tab. 2: Variability evaluated indicators of economic security
indicator RIPT MD YOUN RIEP*
year 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015
min 9,00 9,70 3,62 3,63 9,50 7,20 0,73 0,64
country (min) CZ CZ LU SE AT DE CY EE
max 21,60 25,40 16,53 14,86 41,50 49,80 1,08 1,10
country (max) RO RO BG BG ES EL LU LU
variation coefficient 0,21 0,23 0,37 0,34 0,36 0,51 0,10 0,13
* Min and max values must be considered the opposite, in terms of maximizing indicator.
Tab. 3: Variability evaluated indicators of personal security
indicator INHO ASSA ROBB UADR
year 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015
min 0,54 0,49 7,73 1,50 11,57 9,94 9,08 11,25
country (min) SI AT EE RO RO SK FR FR
max 6,33 5,75 846,82 838,96 261,10 196,68 353,89 438,41
country (max) LT LT UK UK UK BE DK DK
variation coefficient 0,78 0,79 1,42 1,51 0,82 0,86 0,88 0,97
Tables 2 and 3 also show that hypothesis b has not been confirmed: excluding the MD
index, all variables have been increased, as measured by the coefficient of variation.
Average variation coefficient of economic security = 0,28
Average variation coefficient of personal security = 1,00
Conclusions
Research did not confirm the hypothesis to improve the value of
the composite economic and personal safety indicator in 2015
against 2010, in four Member States the situation worsened.
Neither the assumption of a reduction in the variability of the
individual indicators has been confirmed; except of the material
deprivation indicator, the variation coefficient has increased in all
cases. It has also been demonstrated that the variability of
personal safety indicators significantly outstrips the variability of
the economic indicators of EU Member States.
Thank you for attention.
Contact:
tetiana.korovchenko@upce.cz
ivana.kraftova@upce.cz