nach oben

Social Indicators Research

Erschienen in:

01.11.2015

A Comparison of Two Simple, Low-Cost Ways for Local, Pro-Poor Organizations to Measure the Poverty of Their Participants

verfasst von: Mark Schreiner

Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The poverty scorecard and the Poverty Assessment Tool (PAT) are two simple, low-cost ways for local, pro-poor organizations to measure the expenditure-based poverty of their participants and thus to report on (and manage) their social performance. How do the two tools differ? For estimating a group’s poverty rate, both are unbiased, and the scorecard has smaller standard errors. For targeting individual households, the PAT correctly classifies about one more household per 100. The scorecard has had greater up-take due to its edge in availability, recentness, and transparency.

Vorheriger Artikel Mapping and Understanding Ethnic Disparities in Length of Schooling: The Case of the Hui Minority and the Han Majority in Ningxia Autonomous Region, China

Nächster Artikel Assessing Mass Opinion Polarization in the US Using Relative Distribution Method

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Poverty scorecards (“scorecards” for short) are also called “simple poverty scorecards”, “Progress out of Poverty Indexes^®”, or “PPIs^®” (trademarks registered by Grameen Foundation). All the names refer to the same approach, and most scorecards are also branded as PPIs^®. Like PATs (povertytools.org), scorecards are available at no cost (progressoutofpoverty.org or microfinance.com). Copyright in a given scorecard is held by its sponsor and by Microfinance Risk Management, L.L.C.

The world’s first scoring tools were likewise simple and transparent. “Because the first Fair, Isaac credit-scoring systems were to be deployed in small towns in rural America at the point of sale, they had to be simple enough to be understood by people with no knowledge of statistics and no access to calculators. [This drove] the choice of statistical method as well as the card format… Scoring was to be done manually by retail clerks, [so] addition… was possible but multiplication [was not]” (Poon 2007, p. 289).

FHI360 (2013 p. 9); povertytools.org/povertypres/USAID_PATs/player.html (slide 24), retrieved 26 February 2014.

Poverty outreach refers to the breadth of the number of poor clients served as well as the depth of the poverty of poor clients (Navajas et al. 2000).

Some pro-poor organizations may be frightened of the additional pressure that comes with social accountability, but this is their problem (Dunford 2002a, b).

Women’s World Banking (2013) offers five indicators for outreach to women.

Lobbying was led by the Microcredit Summit’s Sam Daley Harris with support from Muhammad Yunus, who later won the Nobel Peace Prize.

That is, the author of this paper.

The “flat maximum” phenomenon in the scoring literature also teaches that simple tools can be about as accurate as complex ones (Hand 2006; Baesens et al. 2003; Lovie and Lovie 1986; Kolesar and Showers 1985; Stillwell et al. 1983; Dawes 1979; Wainer 1976). Knowledge of the academic scoring literature and of the for-profit scoring industry allowed the scorecard developer to skip straight to the industry-standard Logit regression without wasting resources testing other approaches.

CASHPOR itself uses both its housing index and the poverty scorecard.

go.worldbank.org/T6LCN5A340, retrieved 24 Sept. 2014. DHS data comes with asset-index scores (dhsprogram.com/topics/wealth-index/, retrieved 24 Sept. 2014).

A CGAP-supported asset-index approach for poverty assessment (Zeller et al. 2006; Henry et al. 2003) has mostly been abandoned in favor of the scorecard and PAT.

Most countries’ proxy-means tests collect many more indicators than do the scorecard or PAT, although this adds little to targeting accuracy.

A few papers compare non-accuracy aspects of poverty-assessment tools (Boucher et al. 2010; Zeller 2004; Simanowitz et al. 2000; Hatch and Frederick 1998).

In this paper, expenditure is shorthand for “expenditure or income”, as some less-poor countries define and measure poverty in terms of income.

A household is said to be poor if its expenditure—considering the number of its members and perhaps their age and sex—is below a poverty line such as a country’s official national line or the World Bank’s international benchmark of $1.25/day at 2005 purchase-power parity. While this expenditure-based definition is not the only (nor necessarily the best) definition of poverty, it is what people and governments usually use, and it sums up poverty in a single, understandable number.

As of September 2014, scorecards are still being made and updated. No PATs have been made or updated since 2011.

Figure 1 is copied from povertytools.org/countries/Peru/USAID_PAT_PERU_05-2013.xls, retrieved 3 January 2014. Figure 2 is copied from Schreiner (2012b).

The PAT’s indicators and points are documented, and FHI360 (2013) is a high-level guide to linking responses, points, scores, and poverty estimates. But the process is not made clear by the PAT’s paper instrument, and few users—especially front-line workers—will dig up the documentation or understand how the parts fit together.

If the goal is to improve internal management, then cheating is self-destructive. Still, perverse incentives crop up with both the scorecard and the PAT whenever the entity that measures poverty is also rewarded for finding more poverty. And if a tool is used for targeting, then respondents also have incentives to try to look poorer than they are. Neihaus et al. (2013) and Drèze and Khera (2010) suggest that one way to deter corruption is to use simple targeting tools.

For a given indicator, the point value for the most-likely-poor response is always zero.

On average, the scorecard supports eight poverty lines, the PAT three (Table 1).

If the highest possible score is not 100 due to rounding, then make it 100 by nudging the points for the rarest “least-poor” response up or down by one or two. This hardly changes ranks and spares users from puzzling about something inconsequential.

Also, potential scorecard users usually review and field-test 15–20 finalist indicators.

See #12 on STAT-L FAQ, www-personal.umich.edu/~ dronis/statfaq.htm, retrieved 5 January 2014. According to Ira Bernstein, “Stepwise is no substitute for understanding the statistics, the data, and the domain. In general, because overfitting is a real issue, using theory and diagnostics to choose [indicators] that are somehow ‘non-optimal’ on the current data can nonetheless produce models that generalize better (and… are easier to explain to lay people).”

This is the “concordance index” or the “area under the curve” (AUC) that plots the share of all poor households who have scores below a score percentile (vertical axis) against the score percentile of all households (horizontal axis). This is like a Lorenz curve, with “share of all poor households” replacing “share of total income” and “score percentile” replacing “income percentile”. In this sense, AUC is like a Gini coefficient.

The other 19 PATs use all the survey data for construction.

See IRIS Center (2005) or—for Peru—Zeller et al. (2005).

q is between 0 and 1. For example, 0.5 is the median, and 0.25 is the first quartile.

On $1.25/day, see Ravallion et al. (2009). The median line divides people (not households) below a country’s national poverty line into two equal-sized groups (U.S. Congress 2004). The person-level poverty rate for the median line is half of the person-level rate for the national line. The PAT incorrectly derives the median line based on households instead of people (see the appendix in Schreiner 2014).

To leave the scorecard’s indicators and points untouched, the changes apply only to a scorecard’s validation sample. The changes tilt comparisons in favor of the PAT because the PAT’s construction—unlike the scorecard’s—is tuned to this line.

Given N samples indexed by i, estimates e _i, and true values v _i, bias = $ \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N} {\frac{{e_{i} - v_{i} }}{N}} $.

Sampling variation is what makes a given single sample—even if representative—an imperfect mirror of its population. Due to “luck of the draw”, some sub-groups in the sample are under- or over-represented, even though the differences would average out in repeated samples. Like an estimator’s bias, a sample’s representativeness is defined in terms of averages in repeated samples. In a single sample, an unbiased estimator can miss its mark, and a representative sample can—and generally does—fail to represent its population.

A tool may also be called overfit if it loses accuracy when it is applied to non-nationally representative samples (the second assumption fails) or when time changes the relationships between indicators and poverty (the third assumption fails).

For both tools, the average absolute bias is about 1.1 percentage points.

For example, if known bias is −1.1 percentage points and if the average poverty likelihood is 22.2 %, then an unbiased estimate is 22.2 − (−1.1) = 23.3 %. Bias is negative because the original estimate tends to be too low, so the adjustment increases the estimate. If bias is positive, then the adjustment decreases the estimate.

The scorecard’s average absolute bias is 1.1 percentage points, and the PAT’s is 0.7.

Here, statistically significant means that the absolute value of the bias of at least one of the tools lies outside the 90 % confidence interval of the absolute value of the bias of the other tool.

In the context of poverty mapping, Tarozzi (2008) and Tarozzi and Deaton (2007) argue that sub-group differences can lead to large biases. Their point is parried by Demombynes et al. (2008) and Elbers et al. (2008).

When setting a targeting cut-off, an organization will generally consider all four possible targeting outcomes, weighting each according to its net benefit. In this paper, targeting accuracy is compared across the scorecard and PAT using the hit rate while holding constant both the share of all households who are targeted and the underlying poverty rate.

The scorecard has 20 possible cut-offs, so targeting the same share of households as the PAT requires interpolating between cut-offs.

The developers of another poverty-measurement tool (poverty maps) also say that its first-stage models are too inaccurate to target individual households (Elbers et al. 2003; Demombynes et al. 2004), although Elbers et al. (2007) seems to back off this claim a bit.

World Bank (2012, Indonesia); Fernandez (2012, Philippines); Camacho and Conover (2011, Colombia); Sharif (2009, Bangladesh); World Bank (2009, Pakistan); Mostafa and da Silva (2007, Brazil); and Coady (2006, Mexico).

For take-up, support is important. Comparing the support available for the two tools is beyond the scope of this paper, as is comparing their overall financial costs.

The annual reports do not mention it directly, but it appears that more than 100 partners should have reported PAT results in each year.

Adams, D. W. (1971). Agricultural credit in Latin America: A critical review of external funding policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(2), 163–172.CrossRef

Adams, D. W., Graham, D. H., & Von Pischke, J. D. (1984). Undermining rural development with cheap credit. Boulder: Westview Press.

Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. Oxford poverty and human development initiative working paper no. 38. http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ophi-wp38.pdf. Retrieved 25 Feb 2014.

Baesens, B., Van Gestel, T., Viaene, S., Stepanova, M., Suykens, J. A. K., & Jan, V. (2003). Benchmarking state-of-the-art classification algorithms for credit scoring. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 627–635.

Bonbright, D. (2009). Proving or improving? Alliance, 14(1), 49–51. http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/sites/default/files/Measurement%20vs%20action.pdf. Retrieved 4 March 2014.

Boucher, S., Summerlin, R., & Meritxell, M. (2010). Poverty targeting and measurement tools in microfinance: Progress out of poverty index and the poverty assessment tool. http://www.microfinancegateway.org/library/poverty-targeting-and-measurement-tools-microfinance-progress-out-poverty-index-and-poverty. Retrieved 22 Sept 2014.

Brandenburger, T., & Furth, A. (2009). Cumulative gains model quality metric. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences,. doi:10.1155/2009/868215.

Camacho, A., & Conover, E. (2011). Manipulation of social-program eligibility. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2), 41–65.

Carter, M. R., & Barrett, C. B. (2006). The economics of poverty traps and persistent poverty: An asset-based approach. Journal of Development Studies, 42(2), 178–199.CrossRef

Coady, D. (2006). The welfare returns to finer targeting: The case of the PROGRESA program in Mexico. International Tax and Public Finance, 13, 217–239.CrossRef

Coady, D., Grosh, M., & John, H. (2004). Targeting of transfers in developing countries: Review of lessons and experience. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/cp/targettoc.pdf. Retrieved 25 Feb 2014.

Copestake, J. G. (2006). Mainstreaming microfinance: Social performance management or mission drift? World Development, 35(10), 1721–1738.CrossRef

Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision-making. American Psychologist, 34(7), 571–582.CrossRef

Demombynes, G., Elbers, C., & Lanjouw, P. (2008). How good a map? Putting small-area estimation to the test. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 116(4), 465–494.

Demombynes, G., Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J., Lanjouw, P., Mistiaen, J., & Berk, Ö. (2004) Producing an improved geographic profile of poverty: Methodology and evidence from three developing countries. In A. Shorrocks & R. van der Hoeven (Eds.), Growth, inequality, and poverty (pp. 154–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Drèze, J., & Khera, R. (2010). The BPL census and a possible alternative. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(9), 54–63.

Dunford, C. (2002a). Why set a threshold for service orientation to the very poor? Davis, CA: Freedom from Hunger. https://www.freedomfromhunger.org/why-set-threshold-service-orientation-very-poor. Retrieved 24 Sept 2014.

Dunford, C. (2002b). What’s wrong with loan size? Davis: Freedom from Hunger.

Elbers, C., Fujii, T., Lanjouw, P., Özler, B., & Yin, W. (2007). Poverty alleviation through geographic targeting: How much does disaggregation help? Journal of Development Economics, 83, 198–213.CrossRef

Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J. O., & Lanjouw, P. (2003). Micro-level estimation of poverty and inequality. Econometrica, 71(1), 355–364.CrossRef

Elbers, C., Lanjouw, P., & Phillippe George, L. (2008). Brazil within Brazil: Testing the poverty-map methodology in Minas Gerais. World Bank policy research working paper no. 4513, Washington, DC. doi:10.1596/1813-9450-4513. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Fernandez, L. (2012). Design and implementation features of the national household-targeting system in the Philippines. World Bank Philippine social protection note. No. 5. http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/hdnspu/70149.html. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

FHI360. (2013). USAID Poverty Assessment Tool (PAT) data-analysis guide. http://povertytools.org/USAID_documents/Manual/PATDataAnalysisManual.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Filmer, D., & Scott, K. (2012). Assessing asset indices. Demography, 49, 359–392.CrossRef

Grameen Foundation. (2014). Global report on poverty measurement with the Progress out of Poverty Index ^®. http://progressoutofpoverty.org/sites/default/files/PPI%20Global%20Report%202014.pdf. Retrieved 23 Sept 2014.

Grosh, M., & Baker, J. L. (1995). Proxy means tests for targeting social programs: Simulations and speculation. World Bank LSMS working paper no. 118, Washington, D.C. http://go.worldbank.org/W9OWN57PD0. Retrieved 25 Sept 2014.

Hand, D. J. (2006). Classifier technology and the illusion of progress. Statistical Science, 22(1), 1–15.CrossRef

Hatch, J. K., & Frederick, L. (1998). Poverty assessment by microfinance institutions: A review of current practice. Microenterprise best practices. http://www.povertytools.org/other_documents/PAbyMFIs.pdf. Retrieved 25 Sept 2014.

Henry, C., Sharma, M., Lapenu, C., & Manfred, Z. (2003) Microfinance poverty assessment tool. Consultative group to assist the poorest technical tool no. 5, Washington, D.C. http://www.cgap.org/publications/microfinance-poverty-assessment-tool. Retrieved 24 Sept 2014.

Hulme, D. (1997). Impact assessment methodologies for microfinance: Theory, experience, and better practice. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/155591/finsecissues/pdf/hulme.pdf. Retrieved 4 March 2014.

IRIS Center. (2011). Poverty assessment tool submission for Peru, 15 September. http://povertytools.org/countries/Peru/USAID_PAT_Peru_certification_15Sept2011.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

IRIS Center. (2010). Poverty assessment tool submission for Mexico, July 19. http://povertytools.org/countries/Mexico/USAID_PAT_Mexico.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

IRIS Center. (2005). Notes on assessment and improvement of tool accuracy. http://povertytools.org/other_documents/AssessingImproving_Accuracy.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Janet, B. (2011) The accuracy, precision, and implementation challenges of three different poverty measurement tools in El Salvador and Guatemala, M.S. Thesis, University of California, Davis.

Karlan, D. S., & Thuysbaert, B. (2013). Targeting ultra-poor households in Honduras and Peru. Yale University Economics Department working paper no. 125. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2351553. Retrieved 26 Sept 2014.

Kolesar, P., & Showers, J. L. (1985). A robust credit-screening model using categorical data. Management Science, 31(2), 124–133.CrossRef

Lovie, A. D., & Lovie, P. (1986). The flat-maximum effect and linear scoring models for prediction. Journal of Forecasting, 5, 159–168.CrossRef

Matul, M., & Kline, S. (2003). Scoring change: Prizma’s approach to assessing poverty. Spotlight note no. 4. Warsaw: Microfinance Centre for Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States. http://imp-act.org/sites/default/files/mfc_sn4.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Morduch, J. (2000). The microfinance schism. World Development, 28(4), 617–629.CrossRef

Mostafa, J., & da Silva, K. C. (2007). Brazil’s single registry experience: A tool for pro-poor social policies. www.ipc-undp.org/doc_africa_brazil/Webpage/missao/Artigos/CadastroUnicoJoanaMostafa.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Navajas, S., Schreiner, M., Meyer, R. L., Gonzalez-Vega, C., & Rodriguez-Meza, J. (2000). Microfinance and the poorest of the poor: Theory and evidence from Bolivia. World Development, 28(2), 333–346.CrossRef

Neihaus, P., Atanassova, A., Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2013). Targeting with agents. Amercan Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(1), 206–238.

Pistelli, M., Simanowitz, A., & Veronika, T. (2011). A survey of 405 MFIs reporting to MIX in 2009/10. http://themix.org/sites/default/files/MBB-%20SoPinSPReporting%20and%20Management_FINAL.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Poon, M. (2007). Scorecards as devices for consumer credit: The case of Fair, Isaac & Company Incorporated. Sociological Review, 55(s2), 284–306.

Ravallion, M., Chen, S., & Sangraula, P. (2009). Dollar-a-day revisited. World Bank Economic Review, 23(2), 163–184.CrossRef

Roodman, D. (2011). Due diligence: An impertinent inquiry into microfinance. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Rutstein, S.O., & Johnson, K. (2004). The DHS wealth index. DHS comparative reports no. 6, Calverton, MD: ORC Macro. http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR6/CR6.pdf. Retrieved 1 Feb 2010.

Sahn, D. E. (2000). Poverty comparisons over time and across countries in Africa. World Development, 28(12), 2123–2155.CrossRef

Sahn, D. E., & Stifel, D. (2003). Exploring alternative measures of welfare in the absence of expenditure data. Review of Income and Wealth, 49(4), 463–489.CrossRef

Schreiner, M. (2007). A simple poverty scorecard for the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Development, 63(2), 47–70.

Schreiner, M. (2008a). A simple poverty scorecard for Ecuador. http://microfinance.com/English/Papers/Scoring_Poverty_Ecuador_EN_2005.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Schreiner, M. (2008b). A simple poverty scorecard for Peru. http://microfinance.com/English/Papers/Scoring_Poverty_Peru_May_2008.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Schreiner, M. (2009). A simple poverty scorecard for Mexico. http://microfinance.com/English/Papers/Scoring_Poverty_Mexico_2008_EN.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Schreiner, M. (2010a). A simple poverty scorecard for Pakistan. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 45(3), 326–349.CrossRef

Schreiner, M. (2010b). How to transform coefficients from a regression on categorical indicators to non-negative integer points whose sum ranges from 0 to x. Memo to Dean Caire, 10 June.

Schreiner, M. (2012a). Serving poorer areas and poorer households with poverty scoring in Myanmar. http://microfinance.com/English/Papers/Scoring_Poverty_Myanmar_EN_2009_Targeting_Manual.pdf. Retrieved 23 Sept 2014.

Schreiner, M. (2012b). A simple poverty scorecard for Peru. http://microfinance.com/English/Papers/Scoring_Poverty_Peru_2010_EN.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Schreiner, M. (2014). How do the poverty scorecard and the PAT differ? http://microfinance.com/English/Papers/Scorecard_versus_PAT.pdf. Retrieved 4 March 2014.

Schreiner, M., & Sherraden, M. (2006). Can the poor save? Saving and asset accumulation in Individual Development Accounts. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Schreiner, M., Matul, M., Pawlak, E., & Sean, K. (2014) Poverty scorecards: Lessons from a microlender in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Poverty and Public Policy. (forthcoming)

Sharif, I. A. (2009). Building a targeting system for Bangladesh based on proxy-means testing. World Bank social protection discussion paper no. 0914, Washington, DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Safety-Nets-DP/0914.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Simanowitz, A., Nkuna, B., & Sukor, K. (2000). Overcoming the obstacles of identifying the poorest families. http://ww.w.sa-dhan.net/Adls/Microfinance/PerspectivePoverty/Povertyassessmentofpoorest.pdf. Retrieved 24 Sept 2014.

Stillwell, W. G., Barron, F. H., & Ward, E. (1983). Evaluating credit applications: A validation of multi-attribute utility-weight elicitation techniques. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 87–108.

Tarozzi, A. (2008). Can census data alone signal heterogeneity in the estimation of poverty maps? Journal of Development Economics, 95(2), 170–185.CrossRef

Tarozzi, A., & Deaton, A. (2007). Using census and survey data to estimate poverty and inequality for small areas. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(4), 773–792.CrossRef

USAID. (various years). Microenterprise results reporting, with methodology and statistical annexes, fiscal years 2007 to 2012. http://mrreporting.org/publications/. Retrieved 27 Feb 2014.

United States Congress. (2004). Microenterprise results and accountability act of 2004 (HR 3818 RDS), November 20. http://smith4nj.com/laws/108-484.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Wainer, H. (1976). Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don’t make no nevermind. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 223–227.CrossRef

Woller, G. (2002). The promise and peril of microfinance commercialization. Small Enterprise Development, 13(4), 12–21.CrossRef

Women’s World Banking. (2013) Gender performance indicators: How well are we serving women? New York. http://womensworldbanking.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Womens-World-Banking-Gender-Performance-Indicators.pdf. Retrieved 24 Sept 2014.

World Bank. (2012). Targeting poor and vulnerable households in Indonesia. http://aid.dfat.gov.au/countries/eastasia/indonesia/Documents/prsp-report-targeting-poor-ipm.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

World Bank. (2009). Poverty scorecard for Pakistan: A recommended approach for targeting the poor, Washington, DC.

Yaron, J. (1994). What makes rural finance institutions successful? The World Bank Research Observer, 9(9), 49–70.CrossRef

Zeller, M. (2004). Review of poverty assessment tools. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADH120.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Zeller, M., Alcaraz, V. G., & J. Johannsen. (2005). Developing and testing poverty-assessment tools: Results from accuracy tests in Peru. http://povertytools.org/other_documents/Peru%20Accuracy%20Report.pdf. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014.

Zeller, M., Sharma, M., Henry, C., & Lapenu, C. (2006). An operational method for assessing the poverty-outreach performance of development policies and projects: Results of case studies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. World Development, 34(3), 446–464.CrossRef

Titel: A Comparison of Two Simple, Low-Cost Ways for Local, Pro-Poor Organizations to Measure the Poverty of Their Participants
verfasst von: Mark Schreiner
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2015
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0789-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2015

Foot Voting in Spain: What Do Internal Migrations Say About Quality of Life in the Spanish Municipalities?

Further Examination of the Properties of the Workplace Well-Being Questionnaire (WWQ)

Predicting Consumption Expenditure for the Analysis of Health Care Financing Equity in Low Income Countries: a Comparison of Approaches

Economic Development and Socioeconomic Inequality of Well-Being: A Cross-Sectional Time-Series Analysis of Urban China, 2003–2011

Mapping and Understanding Ethnic Disparities in Length of Schooling: The Case of the Hui Minority and the Han Majority in Ningxia Autonomous Region, China

County-Level Determinants of Mental Health, 2002–2008

Premium Partner