Household Needs Study - Incidence of Deprivation

A study undertaken by the Singapore Management University in partnership with the Ministry of Social and Family Development sought to find out what Singaporeans deemed essential for "normal life" in Singapore. The findings were published in a Channel News Asia article on 12 July 2024. The article alluded to only some of the findings from the survey, the actual report showed much more, such as the incidence of “deprivation” across different demographics.

In understanding any analysis, it is important to understand the underlying definitions; and in this case, we need to understand “Deprivation” was defined in the study. Deprivation is measured relative to the study’s participants; relative deprivation is defined as the lack of access to an item/activity that was deemed essential by >50% of respondents and if the individual indicated that they could not afford it. The report highlighted the following findings:

Two-thirds of respondents did not experience relative deprivation for any of the top 40 items/activities deemed essential by the majority of respondents.
The remaining one-third of respondents who experienced relative deprivation were deprived of an average of 4 items/activities.
Housing type and monthly household income were statistically significant factors in predicting relative deprivation.

The good news is that most Singaporean don’t feel like they have been deprived of what the majority deems essential to “normal life” in Singapore; and if they did, they only feel deprived in only 4 out of the top 40 essential items. As in most cases, pivotal insights are usually found in the details.

Differences in Perceptions of Deprivation

The survey was intended to help discern between what items/activities are needs (essential) vs wants and which groups (if any) in Singapore are short on their needs. But understanding the needs and wants of a culturally, racially and religiously diverse society with a high-income inequality is challenging for many reasons, for example:

Every person’s perception of needs or wants is different.
The items that are deemed “essential” could be very different from the perspective of an individual vs a household, young vs old.
The differences in perceptions also make it challenging for actionable policy making.

Perceptions of Deprivation by Income and Housing type

Given the diversity in Singapore and across respondent profile, it should not be surprising to find differences in their ranking of what is essential. But not all differences are equal. FYT has taken the liberty to compile the data from the report and present them in the above data visualization. It separates the statistically significant differences (green) across the groups from the ones that have no statistically significant differences (grey).

Most survey design set a threshold of 5%, if the data shows a p-value of less than 0.05 when comparing different groups (e.g., different housing types), it would conclude that there is a statistically significant difference between those groups regarding the item in question. But if the p-value is greater than 0.05, then it suggests that the differences are likely due to chance. This allows the researchers to separate the meaningful findings from those that are due to random chance.

For example, data suggests that those living in 1-2 room HDB flat have a statistically significant perception of deprivation in relation to a purchased home of their own, as opposed to those in other housing types. Similarly, those with household incomes of less than SG$2,499 have a statistically significant perception of deprivation in relation to having air conditioning, as opposed to those in other household income groups.

Based on the data visualizations, there are a few notable observations,

Both those with lower household incomes AND those living in smaller dwelling types show a higher incidence of deprivation. It shouldn’t be too surprising, since the lower household incomes do tend to live in smaller dwelling types.
However, the data suggests that the incidences are stronger by dwelling types than they are by household incomes.
While the same items/activities show statistically significant differences across their respective groups, the relative deprivation was significantly higher across housing types. In fact, those who live in 1-2 room HDB dwellings show significantly higher relative deprivation.
Some factors in the relative deprivation by age were statistically significant, but they were nowhere close to the magnitude in Household Income and Dwelling Type.

At face value, this might suggest that dwelling type might be a more reliable variable to consider exploring the topic of relative deprivation.

Perceptions/Attitudes about Poverty

The survey also included questions about respondents’ attitudes towards poverty. Based on the insight that dwelling types are a notable factor, FYT investigated the variations in this item along the same factors and found the following:

In the factors that showed statistical differences, more of those living in 1-2 room HDB dwellings tended to cite more reasons for poverty.
While the incidences in some of the factors were similar for some factors (+/- 5%), some were notably higher. More living in 1-2 room HDB dwellings believed that poverty was due to God’s will, it was their fate, and the government was not doing enough to help poor people, and progressively fell as dwelling types got larger.
Notably, more of those living in 3-4 room HDB dwellings believed that poverty was due to their inability to manage money; while those living in 5 room HDB or larger public dwellings believed that poverty was due to them not actively improving their lives.
Finally, more of those living in private properties believed that poverty exists due to the uneven distribution of wealth in Singapore.

Great insights…but now what?

While informative, this reporting does not provide all the answers to the multi-faceted issue of poverty in Singapore. But it does provide some insights into:

The specific items/activities that Singaporeans deem as “essential for a normal life” in Singapore
- Is the list in the survey comprehensive enough for a list of essential items/activities in Singapore?
- It also shows the differences in what different segments deem as “essential to normal life” in Singapore.
The specific groups who perceive themselves to live in relative deprivation to “essential” items/activities to a normal life in Singapore.
- Are the findings reliable? Are the relative deprivations real or only perceived?
- If the intent is to ease the hardships of those who are deprived of the essentials, are the insights actionable? Whose responsibility is it to take action? Where would the resources come from?
Society’s perceptions about the underlying causes of poverty in Singapore
- Poverty is not simply a case about providing sufficient financial resources, it is also about how poverty is perceived in society.
- It suggests that the poor have different views about poverty than those in higher income brackets.
- Even armed with these insights, changing society’s views on poverty is not an easy feat and often takes years if not decades. Is this agenda something that the Singapore Government prepared to undertake? How?

This research project by SMU is not an end point, but rather a starting point to understanding poverty in Singapore, and more importantly, if and how the Singapore Government might want to address it. Poverty is a multi-faceted issue and requires more study and contextualization. Check out these additional resources for reference, FYT will provide more as more data is available: