Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The UK government places considerable emphasis on the targeting of resources to areas most in need. For the Single Regeneration Budget and other purposes, use is made of the Index of Local Deprivation (ILD), formerly the Index of Local Conditions (ILC), to identify eligible areas. In this paper we show that this index suffers from such serious structural defects that it is unsuitable for the purpose to which it is put. These defects include the scale dependency of the index, the inappropriate treatment of positive and negative numbers, the unequal weights assigned to the indicators used and the difficulties introduced by using a nonlinear structure for the index. Recent decisions to modify the ILD do not address these defects and one change that has been mooted would exaggerate the scale bias. Suggestions are made for what should be done in replacing and supplementing the ILD to provide a better basis for assessing relative need.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bradford

M G

Robson

B T

Tye

, 1995, “Constructing an urban deprivation index: a way of meeting the need for flexibility” Environment and Planning A 27 519–533

Carr-Hill

R A

Sheldon

, 1991, “Designing a deprivation payment for general practitioners: the UPA(8) wonderland” British Medical Journal 302 393–396

Connolly

Bounds

O'Sullivan

, 1994, “Single Regeneration Budget: Index of Local Conditions” BURISA number 116, 8–12

DETR, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU

1997a, “Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. Round 4: Supplementary Guidance”

1997b, “Regeneration Programmes—the way forward”

1997c, “1996 Index of Local Deprivation—a note for discussion”

1998, “1998 Index of Local Deprivation”

DoE, Department of the Environment; now Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU

10.

1994, “A 1991 Index of Local Conditions”

11.

1955, “1991 Deprivation Index: a review of approaches and matrix of results” (The Stationery Office, London)

12.

1997, “Partners in regeneration. The Challenge Fund. Bidding guidance”

13.

Flowerdew

(Ed.), 1994, “Theme issue: Local Government Standard Spending Assessment” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 12(1) 1–122

14.

GO-NE, 1997 “Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund Round 4”, Government Office for the North East, Wellbar House, Gallowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4TD

15.

Henderson

, 1994, “Identifying local conditions” BURISA number 115, 5–8

16.

LIA, 1998 Rural Poverty The Local Identity Agency, 211 Piccadilly, London

17.

Martin

Senior

M L

Williams

H C W L

, 1994, “On measures of deprivation and the spatial allocation of resources for primary health care” Environment and Planning A 26 1911–1929

18.

Robson

B T

Bradford

M G

, 1994, “Identifying local conditions: a response” BURISA number 116, 13–14

19.

Robson

B T

Bradford

M G

Tomlinson

, 1997, “Updating the Index of Deprivation: consultation draft”, Centre for Urban Policy Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester

20.

Simpson

, 1994, “The misuse of the DoE Index of Local Conditions: a comment” BURISA number 116, 14–15

21.

Simpson

, 1996, “Resource allocation by measures of relative social need in geographical areas: relevance of the signed χ2, the percentage, and the raw count” Environment and Planning A 28 537–554

22.

Visvalingham

, 1976, “Chi-square as an alternative to ratios for statistical mapping and analysis”, WP8, Census Research Unit, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham

The Use of Indicators for Targeting Public Expenditure: The Index of Local Deprivation

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References