Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Social Indicators Research
Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research 2/2013

01.06.2013

A Multidimensional Approach: Poverty Measurement & Beyond

verfasst von: Sabina Alkire, Maria Emma Santos

Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research | Ausgabe 2/2013

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Excerpt

Poverty has probably always been understood as a multidimensional problem, yet traditionally it has been measured with one dimension: income.1 The assumption was that the income level could capture fairly well whether people were able to achieve certain minimum thresholds in a variety of dimensions such as nutrition, clothing and housing.2 …
Nächster Artikel Tracking Poverty Reduction in Bhutan: Income Deprivation Alongside Deprivation in Other Sources of Happiness

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
Fußnoten
1
Here we refer to income in a general way. It may actually be income, or consumption, or expenditure.
 
2
Interestingly, however, the dominant method to compute the income poverty line estimates the cost of a food basket which provides with the minimum amount of calorie intake for a representative adult and incorporates the non-food items by expanding this cost by the inverse of the Engel coefficient, estimated for the group of people whose income is just above the cost of the basic food basket. The Engel coefficient is given by the ratio of expenditure in food items to total expenditure. Thus there is not an estimation of the resources needed item-per-item.
 
3
On axiomatic approaches see Chakravarty et al. (1998), Tsui (2002), Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003), Chakravarty and D’Ambrosio (2006), Chakravarty and Silber (2008), Bossert, Chakravarty and D’Ambrosio (2009), and Alkire and Foster (2011a). On information theory, see Maasoumi and Lugo (2008). On fuzzy sets, see Lemmi and Betti (2006) and Chiappero-Martinetti and Roche (2009) and on latent variable see Kakwani and Silber (2008) and Asselin (2009). Atkinson (2003) offers an excellent analysis of counting approaches versus social welfare approaches.
 
4
The presentation of the AF methodology in this section follows closely AF (2011a). See AF (2011b) for a more pedagogical presentation.
 
5
Other multidimensional approaches have been proposed which first aggregate the individual i’s achievements across indicators and compare this with an overall poverty threshold in the space of the well-being metric, which can be a function of the dimension specific poverty thresholds. See Maasoumi and Lugo (2008) for an example.
 
6
Weights can equivalently be defined in a relative way, adding up to 1 (or 100 %).
 
7
Note that the indicator’s weight is not raised to the power α.
 
8
If weights were defined adding up to 1 rather than to d, then expression (1) must not contain d in the denominator. Analogous modifications apply to the subsequent formulas.
 
9
Robust here refers to the fact that the M 0 measure does not change under any monotonic transformation of the scale of any of the indicators and the corresponding deprivation cutoff.
 
10
AF (2011a) offer a detailed presentation of the axioms satisfied by their family of poverty measures.
 
11
Also note that censored headcount ratios are not the proportion of the poor deprived in a certain indicator. That is an interesting but different statistic, which can be obtained by dividing the censored headcount ratio by H.
 
12
In the case of union identification—when any deprivation is sufficient to identify a person as poor—the raw and censored headcount ratios coincide.
 
13
See Yalonetzky (2011) for the development of standard errors for the AF family of measures.
 
14
See AF (2011a) for a formal characterization of the M 0 measure as a measure of unfreedom.
 
15
Within his Integrated Method to Measure Poverty, which combines the income approach with the UBN one, Boltvinik (1992) proposed alternative weighting structures for the UBN indicators as well as assigning a ‘cardinal’ scale to ordinal indicators in order to compute normalised gaps and incorporate the depth of deprivation. Further research is needed on the legitimate use of information from ordinal data which is lost with dichotomization.
 
16
This transformation was introduced by Atkinson and Bourguignon (1982) and Boland and Proschan (1988). It has been considered by Tsui (2002) for multidimensional poverty measures. AF (2007, 2011a) rename the transformation in a more general way as association increasing rearrangement, since the term ‘correlation’ refers only to a specific type of association.
 
17
It is worth noting that the substitutability, complementarity or independence relationship between indicators is defined in the multidimensional measurement literature in terms of the second cross partial derivative of the poverty measure with respect to any two dimensions being positive, negative or zero, respectively. This corresponds to the Auspitz-Lieben-Edgeworth-Pareto (ALEP) definition, and differs from Hick’s definition traditionally used in the demand theory (which relates to the properties of the indifference contours) (Atkinson 2003, p. 55). See Kannai (1980) for critiques of the ALEP definition.
 
18
BC (2003) provide a formal definition of this transfer in the multidimensional context.
 
Literatur
Alkire, S. (2008). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The many dimensions of poverty. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Alkire, S. (2011). Multidimensional poverty and its discontents. In Measure for measure: How well do we measure development? Proceedings of the 8th AFD-EUDN conference.
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2007) Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement, OPHI Working Paper No 7.
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2011a). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 476–487.CrossRef
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011b). Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 289–314.CrossRef
Alkire, S., Foster, J. E., & Santos, M. E. (2011a). Where did identification go? Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 501–505.CrossRef
Alkire, S., Santos, M. E., Seth, S., & Yalonetzky, G. (2010). Is the Multidimensional Poverty Index robust to different weights?. No: OPHI Research in Progress. 22a.
Asselin, L. M. (2009). Analysis of multidimensional poverty. Theory and case studies. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York: IDRC.CrossRef
Atkinson, A. B. (2003). Multidimensional deprivation: Contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, 51–65.CrossRef
Atkinson, A. B., & Bourguignon, F. (1982). The comparison of multi-dimensional distribution of economic status. The Review of Economic Studies, 49, 183–201.CrossRef
Azevedo, V., & Robles, M. (2013). Multidimensional targeting: Identifying beneficiaries of conditional cash transfer programs. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11205-013-0255-5.
Battiston, D., Cruces, G., Lopez-Calva, L. F., Lugo, M. A., & Santos, M. E. (2013). Income and beyond: Multidimensional poverty in Six Latin American Countries. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11205-013-0249-3.
Boland, P., & Proschan, F. (1988). Multivariate arrangement increasing functions with application in probability and statistics. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 25, 286–298.CrossRef
Boltvinik, J. (1992). El método de medición integrada de la pobreza. Una propuesta para su desarrollo. Comercio Exterior, 42, 354–365.
Bossert, W., Chakravarty, S. R., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2009). Multidimensional Poverty and Material Deprivation. ECINEQ Working Paper 129.
Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. R. R. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, 25–49.CrossRef
Chakravarty, S. R., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2006). The measurement of social exclusion. Review of Income and Wealth, 52, 377–398.CrossRef
Chakravarty, S. R., Mukherjee, D., & Ranade, R. R. (1998). On the family of subgroup and factor decomposability measures of multidimensional poverty. In D. J. Slottje (Ed.), Research on economic inequality (Vol. 8, pp. 175–194). Stanford, CT and London: JAI Press.
Chakravarty, S. R., & Silber, J. (2008). Measuring multidimensional poverty: The axiomatic approach. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement. New York: UNDP. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chiappero-Martinetti, E., & Roche, J. M. (2009). Operationalization of the capability approach, from theory to practice: A review of techniques and empirical applications. In E. Chiappero-Martinetti (Ed.), Debating global society: Reach and limits of the capability approach. Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli: Milan.
Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation. (1976). What now—another development. The 1975 Report on Development and International Cooperation. Motala Grafiska, Sweden.
Feres, J. C., & Mancero, X. (2001). El método de las necesidades básicas insatisfechas (NBI) y sus aplicaciones a América Latina, Series Estudios Estadísticos y Prospectivos. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL.
Foster, J. E., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty indice. Econometrica, 52, 761–766.CrossRef
Gordon, D., Nandy, S., Pantazis, C., Pemberto, S., & Townsend, P. (2003). Child poverty in the developing world. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Herrera, A. O., Scolnik, H. D., Chichilnisky, G., Gallopin, G. C., Hardoy, J. E., Masovich, D., Oteiza, E., de Romero Brest, G. L., Suarez, C. E., & Talavera, L. (1976). Catastrophe or new society? A Latin America World Model, IDRC-064e. Ottawa.
Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INDEC). (1984). La Pobreza en la Argentina, Indicadoresde Necesidades Básicas Insatisfechas a partir de los datos del censo nacional de Población y Vivienda 1980. Presidencia de la Nación. Secretaría de planificación.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (1976). Employment, growth and basic needs: A one world problem. Geneva.
Kakwani, N., & Silber, J. (2008). Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Kannai, Y. (1980). The ALEP definition of complementarity and least concave utility functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 22, 115–117.CrossRef
Lemmi, A., & Betti, G. (2006). Fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement. Economic studies in inequality, social exclusion and well-being. New York: Springer.
Maasoumi, E., & Lugo, M. A. (2008). The information basis of multivariate poverty assessments. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement. New York: UNDP. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mitra, S. (2013). Towards a multidimensional measure of governance. Social Indicators Research, this issue.
Pattanaik, P., & Xu, Y. (1990). On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 56, 383–390.
Robeyns, I. (2005). Selecting capabilities for quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research, 74, 191–215.CrossRef
Santos, M. E. (2013). Tracking poverty reduction in Bhutan: Income deprivation alongside deprivation in other sources of happiness. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11205-013-0248-4.
Sen, A. K. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44, 219–231.CrossRef
Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality reexamined. New York, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.
Streeten, P., Burki, J. S., ul Haq, M., Hicks, N., & Stewart, F. (1981). First things first: Meeting basic human needs in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Trani, J.-F., Biggeri, M., & Mauro, V. (2013). The multidimensionality of child poverty: An empirical investigation of children of Afghanistan. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11205-013-0253-7.
Tsui, K. (2002). Multidimensional poverty indices. Social Choice and Welfare, 19, 69–93.CrossRef
UNDP. (2010). Human Development Report 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. Macmillan, New York.
UNEP/UNCTAD. (1974). The Cocoyoc declaration. International Organization, 29(3) International Responses to Technology (1975), pp. 893–901.
Metadaten
Titel
A Multidimensional Approach: Poverty Measurement & Beyond
verfasst von
Sabina Alkire
Maria Emma Santos
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2013
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Social Indicators Research / Ausgabe 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0257-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2013

Social Indicators Research 2/2013 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Tracking Poverty Reduction in Bhutan: Income Deprivation Alongside Deprivation in Other Sources of Happiness

OriginalPaper

Monitoring Progress in Child Poverty Reduction: Methodological Insights and Illustration to the Case Study of Bangladesh

OriginalPaper

Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty Among Women in Sub-Saharan Africa

OriginalPaper

Towards a Multidimensional Measure of Governance

OriginalPaper

Income and Beyond: Multidimensional Poverty in Six Latin American Countries

OriginalPaper

Multidimensional Targeting: Identifying Beneficiaries of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise