Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Simple versus composite indicators of socioeconomic status in resource allocation formulae: the case of the district resource allocation formula in Malawi

BMC Health Services Research201010:6

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-6

Received: 10 June 2009

Accepted: 6 January 2010

Published: 6 January 2010

Abstract

Background

The district resource allocation formula in Malawi was recently reviewed to include stunting as a proxy measure of socioeconomic status. In many countries where the concept of need has been incorporated in resource allocation, composite indicators of socioeconomic status have been used. In the Malawi case, it is important to ascertain whether there are differences between using single variable or composite indicators of socioeconomic status in allocations made to districts, holding all other factors in the resource allocation formula constant.

Methods

Principal components analysis was used to calculate asset indices for all districts from variables that capture living standards using data from the Malawi Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006. These were normalized and used to weight district populations. District proportions of national population weighted by both the simple and composite indicators were then calculated for all districts and compared. District allocations were also calculated using the two approaches and compared.

Results

The two types of indicators are highly correlated, with a spearman rank correlation coefficient of 0.97 at the 1% level of significance. For 21 out of the 26 districts included in the study, proportions of national population weighted by the simple indicator are higher by an average of 0.6 percentage points. For the remaining 5 districts, district proportions of national population weighted by the composite indicator are higher by an average of 2 percentage points. Though the average percentage point differences are low and the actual allocations using both approaches highly correlated (ρ of 0.96), differences in actual allocations exceed 10% for 8 districts and have an average of 4.2% for the remaining 17. For 21 districts allocations based on the single variable indicator are higher.

Conclusions

Variations in district allocations made using either the simple or composite indicators of socioeconomic status are not statistically different to recommend one over the other. However, the single variable indicator is favourable for its ease of computation.

Background

Health care systems adopt various ways of allocating resources to sub-national areas and agencies. The four commonly used methods are: i) political patronage ii) historical allocations iii) bids by local governments and iv) needs-based resource allocation formulae [1]. Political patronage entails government rewarding loyal constituencies and potential strongholds. Under historical allocation, funds are allocated according to past year's expenditures adjusted by inflation and efficiency changes. Under the third mechanism, central Government will allocate resources by scrutinizing uncapped budget submissions made by Local Authorities, funding activities that are in line with overarching national strategies. The needs based resource allocation formula entails central Government allocating resources based on a mathematical formula that integrates need for health care. The allocation of resources usually takes place in the context of devolution where services are delivered by lower level jurisdictions.

Formula funding has become a preferred method of allocating resources in many publicly financed health systems. Some of the merits of needs-based resource allocation formulae include that resources are allocated to areas of high priority, where they can secure the highest marginal health benefit. Besides, a well designed formula allows financial resources to be allocated to providers in proportion to services that they deliver. Formula funding also presents a widely accepted mechanism for setting budgets for devolved organizations [1].

In most African countries, health expenditures across different districts or regions have not matched with need for health care [2]. This is largely attributable to inheritance of past inequitable systems and allocation patterns that ensued from such systems. Explicit resource allocation formulae hence ensure that the share of total resources allocated to an area is based on indicators of relative need for health care [2].

The resource allocation formula for funding districts in Malawi was reviewed in 2007/08 with a view to improving its ability to reflect need and capture differential costs of service provision across districts. The basic indicator of health care need in the formula is population by district which is weighted by stunting. Stunting was selected as an indicator of overall socioeconomic status of a district such that districts with higher rates have lower socioeconomic status overall and vice versa. It is referred to as a simple or single variable indicator in this paper. It is expressed as percentage of children under-five, by district, whose height-for-age falls below minus 3 standard deviations from the median height-for-age of a standard reference population used in the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006. Stunting has been recommended as a reliable measure of overall socioeconomic deprivation [3, 4].

It has been argued that a single variable indicator of need can be susceptible to rapid changes or fluctuations which might not reflect actual patterns of need [5]. Its advantage, however, is that it is much easier to compute. The composite indicator, on the other hand, requires differential weighting of variables which can be achieved by either employing expert opinion or through a principal components analysis. In many countries where the concept of need has been incorporated in resource allocation, composite indicators of socioeconomic status such as deprivation and asset indices have been used (see Zere et al. 2007, McIntyre et al. 2000). This paper examines, using the Malawi district resource allocation formula, whether there are differences between weighting population with simple and composite indicators of socioeconomic status in terms of allocations made to districts, holding all other factors in the formula constant.

Brief country profile

Malawi is a sub-Saharan country that covers an area of 118, 484 square kilometres. It has 28 administrative districts, of which 4 are cities. The 2008 population and housing census estimated total population at 13,066,320 [6]. Life expectancy is low and is projected at 48 years for both males and females [7]. Table 1 presents some of the health and development indicators for the country [612]. GDP per capita for the year 2008 was estimated at US$ 850 purchasing power parity (PPP). However, the median per capita income of the richest income decile (i.e. the richest 10%) is about eight times that of the poorest decile. According to the 2008 Welfare Monitoring Survey, 40% of Malawians are classed as poor. As in many developing countries, percapita health expenditure is low. It was estimated at US$25 by the Malawi National Health Accounts (2008) far below the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended minimum of US$34 per capita.
Table 1

Health and development indicators for Malawi

Life expectancy at birth, male/female (years)

46.9/49.5

Total fertility rate

6.3

One year olds fully immunized against measles, 2007/08 (%)

85

Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births), 2006 (%)

69

Under-five mortality rate (per 1000 live births), 2006

118

Maternal mortality ratio (per 100, 000 live births)

807

Literacy rates, male/female (%)

79/59

Stunting in under-five children, 2006 (%)

46

Gross domestic product per capita, US$ PPP

850

Gini coefficient, 2005

0.38

Human development index, 2005

0.437

Adult HIV prevalence rate (15-49 years) (%)

12

Physician per population ratio

1:53,176

Nurse per population ratio

1:2,964

The epidemiological profile of Malawi is characterized by a high prevalence of communicable diseases including malaria, tuberculosis and HIV and AIDS; an increasing burden of non-communicable diseases such as cancer, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mental illnesses and high incidence of maternal and child health problems.

District resource allocation in Malawi

The district health system in Malawi is organised into two levels of care: i) primary - provided by health centres, dispensaries and community health workers and ii) secondary - provided by district hospitals and mission hospitals of equivalent capacity. Four districts have referral hospitals which provide tertiary health care but these are financed and managed separately from the district health system.

There are two categories of resources that are allocated to districts: recurrent and development. Recurrent allocations meet the operational costs of all health facilities in a district, while development funding is meant for capital expenditures such as construction or rehabilitation of health centres and purchase of big medical equipment. The district resource allocation formula applies only to the recurrent budget.

Until 2000/01, the allocation of district health funding was determined purely based on population. As such, allocations were directly proportional to district populations. The formula was subsequently revised by including the variables, poverty and under-five mortality to strengthen its ability to reflect need. In 2007/08, the formula was revisited again by replacing the previous proxy measures of need with stunting and including a variable that captures differences in the cost of delivering health care across districts. There are four variables in the current resource allocation formula and they are: stunting, index for differential costs of service provision, bed capacity and OPD utilization.

Given https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-10-6/MediaObjects/12913_2009_Article_1143_IEq1_HTML.gif , the total recurrent budget for districts as determined by the Ministry of Finance, the current allocation formula is expressed as:
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-10-6/MediaObjects/12913_2009_Article_1143_Equa_HTML.gif

Where x i is the allocation for district i,

V ni is the value of variable n for district i,

a n is the weight for variable V n

The weights a i for the variables are currently determined by policy makers.

Methods

Developing a composite indicator of need

Population size in a geographical area is the primary indicator of need [13]. It can be weighted by other indicators of relative need for health such as deprivation and asset indices as well as variables that proxy burden of disease to capture other dimensions of need that cannot be captured by population only. In this study we focus on asset indices as indicators of health care need. The premise for including the asset index as an indicator of health care need is that it is a measure of socioeconomic status and there is a well established relationship between health and socioeconomic status [14]. The report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health 2008 points out that the relationship is graded such that poorer individuals have poorer health [15].

Asset indices have been widely used because of the challenges in using standard measures of socioeconomic status that use income [16]. Income measures are difficult because they demand collecting accurate data which is expensive especially for low income countries. In addition, adjusting data for individuals who have multiple sources of income is rigorous. Further, income data does not capture income in kind e.g. maize or animals which may be traded and this leads to inaccurate estimation of actual income. Consumption expenditures are sometimes employed but these too are costly to collect [16].

Using an asset based indicator of need has got its own problems. Such measures are more reflective of longer run household socioeconomic status failing to take into account short term shocks to the household. The quality of assets is not captured and certain variables may have different relationship with socioeconomic status across the population [17].

There are important assumptions which are made when deriving the asset index. The first assumption is that variables are additive i.e. if an individual ranks poorly with respect to two or more variables, then that individual should be more deprived than one who ranks poorly on the basis of only one of them. Secondly, the variables should be weighted differently. This shows the relative importance of the variables included in the analysis [13].

A multivariate statistical technique called principal components analysis (PCA) is used to derive the asset index. Principal components analysis describes the variation of a set of variables as a set of linear combinations of the original variables, in which each consecutive linear combination is derived so as to explain as much as possible of the variation in the original data, while being uncorrelated with other linear combinations [17]. PCA works best when variables are highly correlated and their distribution varies across households [13].

Given k variables;
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-10-6/MediaObjects/12913_2009_Article_1143_Equb_HTML.gif

Where PC i is principal component i;

a ik represents the weight for the k th variable for the i th principal component

The first principal component, PC 1 explains the largest possible amount of variation in the original data, subject to the constraint:
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-10-6/MediaObjects/12913_2009_Article_1143_Equc_HTML.gif

i.e. the sum of the squared weights is equal to one [17]. Typically, the asset index is assumed to be the first principal component--that is, the first linear combination.

The asset index, A i , for individual i is defined as follows:
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-10-6/MediaObjects/12913_2009_Article_1143_Equd_HTML.gif

where a ik is the value of asset k for household i, a k is the sample mean, s k is the sample standard deviation, and f k are the factor scores or weights associated with the first principal component.

In this study we developed asset indices using principal components analysis. Data were obtained from the Malawi Multiple indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2006. They were available for only 26 out of the 28 districts because the two districts have only been recently established. The survey treated these two districts as part of the districts to which they originally belonged before they were demarcated. Variables were expressed as categorical variables with the dichotomous responses of 'Yes', coded 1, if the household possessed that variable and 'No', coded 0, if they did not. Most of the variables that were included in the asset index have been used in similar studies in developing countries (see Houweling et. al 2003, Vyas and Kumaranayake 2006, and Zere et. al. 2007). The spearman rank correlation test was used to check correlation of the all variables included in the PCA. Variables which were not significant at the 1% significance level were excluded from the analysis. Stata/SE 10.0 and Microsoft Excel 2003 were used for the analysis.

Results

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and factor scores derived from the PCA. Variables which have positive factor scores are associated with high socioeconomic status whilst the converse is true for those with negative values. The results in Table 2 show that households that use other sources of water other than piped are more likely to have low socioeconomic status, all other factors constant. Among types of toilet facility, pit latrine with no slab, composting toilet, hanging latrine and no toilet are associated with low socioeconomic status. Having a sand floor and having a thatched roof are also associated with low socioeconomic status. Ownership of a bicycle has an interesting result. It has a negative weight, however, which implies that, ceteris paribus, a household that owns a bicycle will be ranked lower than the one which does not. Vyas and Kumaranayake (2006) argue that this may be a result of high correlation between ownership of a bicycle and variables that are more likely to be associated with low socioeconomic status.
Table 2

Scoring weights derived from Principal Component Analysis

Variable Description

Mean

Std. Dev.

Factor Score

Car/Truck

0.009

0.093

0.068

Radio

0.934

0.248

0.016

Cell phone

0.060

0.238

0.111

Television

0.073

0.260

0.093

Bicycle

0.425

0.494

-0.007

Refrigerator

0.018

0.132

0.099

Cattle

0.476

0.499

0.040

Goat

0.654

0.476

0.024

Source of Water Supply

   

Piped into dwelling, household uses bottled water

0.014

0.119

0.084

Piped outside dwelling

0.033

0.179

0.071

Public tap/standpipe

0.126

0.331

0.042

Tube well/borehole, tube well with powered pump, cart with small tank/drum

0.516

0.500

-0.052

Unprotected well/spring

0.170

0.376

-0.032

Surface water, rainwater collection

0.067

0.250

-0.016

Type of toilet facility

   

Flush toilet of any type

0.020

0.140

0.092

Pit latrine with slab, pit latrine with slab and foot rest

0.101

0.301

0.037

Pit latrine without slab/open pit

0.680

0.466

-0.055

Pit latrine with slab and cover, pit latrine with slab/cover and foot rest

0.036

0.187

0.017

No toilet, composting toilet, hanging toilet/latrine

0.138

0.344

-0.025

Type of floor material

   

Tiles, cement, carpet, wood planks, other

0.167

0.373

0.133

Sand

0.789

0.408

-0.128

Type of roofing material

   

Thatch, sod, rustic mat, palm/bamboo

0.735

0.441

-0.124

Metal

0.229

0.420

0.126

Source of fuel for cooking

   

Electricity, all types of gas, kerosene

0.009

0.096

0.080

Charcoal, coal

0.047

0.213

0.094

Wood

0.903

0.296

-0.116

To calculate district asset indices, individual asset indices were aggregated. Districts with negative indices are less impoverished, overall, than those with positive values. In order to incorporate the asset index in a resource allocation formula, there is need to normalize the indices. We added a value of 1.4669 which brought the least disadvantaged district, Ntchisi, to a value of 1 and the other districts to greater positive values. District populations were then multiplied by the normalized indices such that populations for highly deprived districts were considerably inflated and those for less deprived districts either remained constant or increased only slightly. Table 3 depicts the asset indices and district proportions of the national population weighted by either the asset indices or stunting rates.
Table 3

Simple and composite socioeconomic indicators by district

District

2008 Population

Normalised asset indices

Population weighted by asset indices

Population weighted by Stunting

Proportion of population weighted by asset indices (%)

Proportion of population weighted by stunting (%)

Balaka

316,748

1.194

378,083

361,093

1.94

2.31

Blantyre

999,491

2.616

2,614,947

1,162,408

13.41

7.44

Chikwawa

438,895

1.416

621,280

513,946

3.19

3.29

Chiradzulu

290,946

1.328

386,520

341,862

1.98

2.19

Chitipa

179,072

1.101

197,101

204,858

1.01

1.31

Dedza

623,789

1.021

636,917

799,074

3.27

5.11

Dowa

556,678

1.242

691,347

668,014

3.55

4.27

Karonga

272,789

1.479

403,586

304,978

2.07

1.95

Kasungu

616,085

1.210

745,753

732,525

3.83

4.69

Lilongwe

1,897,167

1.996

3,787,212

2,325,927

19.43

14.88

Machinga

488,996

1.095

535,673

628,849

2.75

4.02

Mangochi

803,602

1.255

1,008,684

963,519

5.17

6.16

Mchinji

456,558

1.199

547,441

594,895

2.81

3.81

Mulanje

525,429

1.447

760,077

634,718

3.90

4.06

Mwanza

94,476

1.240

117,167

109,970

0.60

0.70

Mzimba

853,305

1.731

1,477,107

1,013,726

7.58

6.49

Nkhata Bay

213,779

1.371

293,108

247,129

1.50

1.58

Nkhotakota

301,868

1.413

426,476

365,864

2.19

2.34

Nsanje

238,089

1.235

294,010

269,993

1.51

1.73

Ntcheu

474,464

1.115

529,115

581,693

2.71

3.72

Ntchisi

224,098

1.000

224,098

289,086

1.15

1.85

Phalombe

313,227

1.111

347,884

386,209

1.78

2.47

Rumphi

169,112

1.432

242,232

189,067

1.24

1.21

Salima

340,327

1.518

516,700

385,250

2.65

2.46

Thyolo

587,455

1.329

780,533

721,395

4.00

4.61

Zomba

670,533

1.391

932,631

835,484

4.78

5.34

Comparison of results from formulae employing either the simple or composite indicators of socioeconomic status

i) District proportions of national population

Generally, district proportions of national population are lower when the composite indicator is used than the simple one. Out of the 26 districts included in the study, district proportions of national population weighted by stunting are higher for 21 districts and lower for 5 districts namely; Blantyre, Karonga, Lilongwe, Mzimba and Rumphi. For the 21 districts, mean mark up in percentage points is 0.6. For the 5 districts the mean gain in percentage points is 2. However, Blantyre and Lilongwe districts have significant gains, 5.98 and 4.55 percentage points respectively. The spearman rank correlation test for district proportions of national population weighted by the composite and simple indicators produces a ρ of 0.97, significant at the 1% significance level. Figure 1 depicts the district proportions of national population weighted by either the simple or composite indicators.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-10-6/MediaObjects/12913_2009_Article_1143_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

District proportions of national population weighted by simple and composite indicators of socioeconomic status.

ii) Allocations

District allocations made using formulae that contain the single variable and composite indices are depicted in figure 2. The three dimensional graph shows on the left vertical axis allocations in Malawi kwacha made using the two approaches and on the right vertical axis differences in the allocations expressed in percentage terms. For 21 districts, allocations made using the formula that employs the single variable indicator are higher. Percentage differences in actual allocations exceed 10% for 8 districts namely; Blantyre, Dedza, Kasungu, Lilongwe, Machinga, Mchinji, Ntcheu and Phalombe and have an average of 4.2% for the remaining 17. A spearman rank correlation test of the allocations made using the two approaches shows high correlation, a ρ of 0.96 significant at the 1% significance level.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1472-6963-10-6/MediaObjects/12913_2009_Article_1143_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

District allocations made using formulae that employ either simple or composite indicators of socioeconomic status.

Discussion

The objective of this study was to assess whether there are differences in the resources allocated to districts in Malawi when either simple or composite indicators of socioeconomic status are used to weight population, holding all other factors in the allocation formula constant.

We used PCA to derive asset indices for 26 districts. The results indicate that the two types of indicators are highly correlated and so are the district allocations made using either of them. An interesting result, however, is that allocations are higher for 21 districts when the single variable indicator is used. For Blantyre, Lilongwe and Mzimba districts the values of the asset indices are considerably higher than those of the single variable indicator. A possible explanation for this could be that stunting prevalence rates for these districts were underestimated. Blantyre and Lilongwe are the country's largest cities while Mzimba district contains the third largest city, Mzuzu. These three districts have the largest populations with an average of 1,249,988 while the rest of the districts have an average of 372,654. In addition, populations in the three cities are likely to be more heterogeneous than in the rest of the districts. In the Malawi Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006, district sample sizes were equal, at 1,200 households per district. For Blantyre, Lilongwe and Mzimba districts, therefore, there is possibility that, although the uniform sample sizes were calculated to provide statistically reliable estimates, they were not representative enough to effectively estimate the true population stunting rates.

Conclusions

From the study findings, district allocations made using the simple and composite indicators of socioeconomic status are not statistically different, holding all other factors in the allocation formula constant. However, the simple indicator is advantageous because it is easy to apply and does not involve complex statistical techniques as compared to the composite indicator. The PCA technique, used in the derivation of the composite indicators, has weaknesses in that selection of variables is based on the judgement of the analyst and there is no theory that guides how weights for the variables are generated [18].

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank colleagues in the Department of Planning and Policy Development, Ministry of Health, Malawi for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Planning and Policy Development, Ministry of Health

References

  1. Smith PC: Formula funding of public services. 2006, London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Regional network for equity in health in east and southern Africa: Are we making progress in allocating government health resources equitably in east and southern Africa? Policy Series no. 19. 2008, EQUINET and Health economics unit, University of Cape Town: Harare, 1-4.Google Scholar
  3. Zere E, McIntyre D: Inequities in under-five child malnutrition in South Africa. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2003, 2 (1): 7-10.1186/1475-9276-2-7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. WHO Working Group: Use and interpretation of anthropometric indicators on nutritional status. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1986, 64 (6): 929-941.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. McIntyre D, Muirhead D, Gilson L, Govender V, Mbatsha S, Goudge J, Wadee H, Ntutela P: Geographic patterns of deprivation and health inequities in South Africa: Informing public resource allocation strategies. 2000, EQUINET: HarareGoogle Scholar
  6. National Statistical Office: Population and Housing Census: Preliminary Report. Zomba. 2008Google Scholar
  7. National Statistical Office: Projected Population based on 1998 Malawi Population and Housing Census. Zomba. 2008Google Scholar
  8. National Statistical Office and UNICEF: Malawi Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006, Final Report. Lilongwe. 2008Google Scholar
  9. IMF World Economic Outlook database. [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=&br=1&c=676&s=NGDPRPC%2CNGDPPC%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr1.x=47&pr1.y=10]
  10. United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Report 2007/08. Fighting Climate Change: Human solidarity in a divided world. 2008, New York, Palgrave MacMillanGoogle Scholar
  11. National Statistical Office: Welfare Monitoring Survey 2006. Zomba. 2008Google Scholar
  12. National Statistical Office: Integrated Household Survey 2004-05. Household socioeconomic characteristics. Zomba. 2005, 1.Google Scholar
  13. Deprivation and Resource Allocation: Methods for small area research. EQUINET methods toolkit. 2003, EQUINET: HarareGoogle Scholar
  14. Rutstein SO, Johnson K: The DHS Wealth Index. DHS Comparative Reports No. 6. 2004, Calverton, MD, USA: ORC MacroGoogle Scholar
  15. Commission on social determinants of health: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. 2008, Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  16. O'Donnell O, van Doorslaer E, Wagstaff A, Lindelow M: Analyzing health equity using household survey data: a guide to techniques and their implementation. 2008, WBI Learning Resource series, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Seema Vyas, Kumaranayake L: Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. 2006, Oxford University Press and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Zere E, Mandlhate C, Mbeeli T, Shangula K, Mutirua K, Kapenambili W: Equity in health care in Namibia: developing a needs-based resource allocation formula using principal components analysis. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2007, 6: 3-10.1186/1475-9276-6-3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/6/prepub

Copyright

© Manthalu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement