<mark>Source: authors</mark> <mark>similar rates of social-gaps to Gauteng in South Africa. The incidence of multidimensional social gaps in South Africa ranges from 46 to 82 percent and its intensity from 45 to 56 percent. In Peru this spread is narrower for incidence (56-81 percent) and for intensity (44-50 percent). Puno in Peru and North West in South Africa are the regional units with highest social-gap rates (Figure 4).</mark>

**<mark>Table 4: Social Sustainability Index (SSI), Incidence (H) and Intensity (A)</mark>**<sup>**12**</sup>

# **<mark>Panel A: Peru</mark>**

|<sup>**(a)**</sup>|**Nil**||**Gende**|**r**||||**Ethnici**|**ty**<br>|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Metric**|**atona**|**Male**|**Female **|**T-test**<sup>**(b)**</sup>|**Quechua**|**T-test**<sup>**(b) **</sup>|<sup>**Aymara **</sup>|**T-test**<sup>**(b)**</sup>|**Other**<br>**Indigenous**|<sup>**T-test(b)**</sup>|**Non-**<br>**Native**|
|**Incidence rate (H)**|67%|65%|<br>69%|<br>***|80%|<br>***|83%|<br>***|92%|<br>***|63%|
||_(0.05)_|_(0.06)_|_(0.05)_||_(0.05)_||_(0.06)_||_(0.02)_||_(0.05)_|
|**Intensit rate (A)**|47%|47%|<br>47%|<br>***|49%|<br>***|51%|<br>***|50%|<br>***|46%|
|**y**|_(0.01)_|_(0.01)_|_(0.01)_||_(0.01)_||_(0.01)_||_(0.01)_||_(0.01)_|
|**Social Sustainability**|0.31|0.31|0.32|<br>***|0.39|<br>***|0.42|***|0.46|<br>***|0.29|
|**index(SSI)**<br>(a) For each metric we report<br>(b) To assess difference betw<br>at 1%, 5% and 10% levels re|_(0.03)_<br>the point estim<br>een groups we<br>spectively. n.s d|_(0.03)_<br>ate and it<br>perfomed<br>enotes non|_(0.03)_<br>s standard e<br>t-tests. The<br>-statistical|rrors(in parent<br>baseline catego<br>significance.|_(0.03)_<br>heses).<br>ry for ethnicity|is non-native.|_(0.04)_<br>***, **, * d|enote statis|_(0.02)_<br>tically significant|differences bet|_(0.03)_<br>ween groups|

# **<mark>Panel B: South Africa</mark>**

|**Mtri**<sup>**(a)**</sup>|**National**||**Gende**<br>|**r**<br>|**Black**|||**Ethnicity**||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**ec**||**Male**|**Female **|**T-test**<sup>**(b)**</sup>|<br>**African**|**T-test**<sup>**(**</sup>|<sup>**b) Coloured**</sup>|**T-test**<sup>**(b)**</sup>|**Indian**|**T-test**<sup>**(b)**</sup>|**White**|
|**Incidence rate (H)**|65%|58%|70%|<br>***|72%|<br>***|51%|<br>***|42%|<br>***|29%|
||_(0.02)_|_(0.02)_|_(0.02)_||_(0.02)_||_(0.04)_||_(0.02)_||_(0.04)_|
|**Intensit rate (A)**|53%|51%|54%|<br>***|54%|<br>***|49%|<br>***|46%|<br>ns|45%|
|**y**|_(0.01)_|_(0.01)_|_(0.01)_||_(0.01)_||_(0.01)_||_(0.01)_|..|_(0.02)_|
|**Social Sustainability**|0.34|0.3|0.37|<br>***|0.39|<br>***|0.25|<br>***|0.19|<br>***|0.13|
|**index(SSI)**<br>(a) For each metric we repor<br>(b) To assess difference bet<br>5% and 10% levels respectiv|_(0.01)_<br>t the point estim<br>ween groups we<br>ely. n.s denotes|_(0.01)_<br>ate and it<br>perfomed<br>non-statist|_(0.01)_<br>s standard<br>t-tests. Th<br>ical signifi|errors(in parenth<br>e baseline catego<br>cance.|_(0.01)_<br>eses).<br>ry for ethnicity|is white. *|_(0.02)_<br>**, **, * denot|e statistically si|_(0.01)_<br>gnificant diffe|rences between|_(0.02)_<br>groups at 1%,|

<mark>Source: authors</mark>

# **5.2. Drivers of multidimensional social gaps**

Here we describe the composition of multidimensional social gaps. Understanding which indicators (or dimensions) contribute most to overall gaps in social sustainability can provide the basis for policy design aiming at alleviating the negative experiences of those who suffer multiple social gaps. Figure 5 presents the composition for both countries. Overall, we see in both countries that multidimensional social gaps are consistently driven by weak process legitimacy. This single dimension explains 40 percent of the overall social gaps in Peru, and 30 percent in South Africa. Limited social inclusion contributes 30 percent in Peru, while resilience accounts for 27 percent in South Africa. Within dimensions, low satisfaction with the way corruption is fought in South Africa, and inequality before the law in Peru, are the principal indicators driving multidimensional gaps in

> 12 Results correspond to a 33% cross-dimensional threshold of joint exclusions.

17