Advertisement

The Journal of Economic Inequality

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 115–122 | Cite as

Region-specific versus country-specific poverty lines in analysis of poverty

  • Magne MogstadEmail author
  • Audun Langørgen
  • Rolf Aaberge
Article

Abstract

An analysis of poverty based on a country-specific income poverty line suffers from disregarding regional differences in prices and needs within a country and may, therefore, produce results that give a misleading picture of the extent of poverty as well as the geographic and demographic composition of the poor. To account for differences in prices and needs, this paper introduces an alternative method for identifying the poor based on a set of region-specific poverty lines. Applying Norwegian household register data for 2001 we find that the national level of poverty is only slightly affected by the change in definition of poverty line. However, the geographic as well as the demographic poverty profiles are shown to depend heavily on whether the method for identifying the poor relies on region- or country-specific thresholds. As expected, the results demonstrate that an analysis of poverty based on a country-specific threshold produces downward biased poverty rates in urban areas and upward biased poverty rates in rural areas. Moreover, when region-specific poverty thresholds form the basis of the poverty analysis, we find that the poverty rates among young singles and non-western immigrants are significantly higher than what is suggested by previous empirical evidence based on a joint country-specific poverty line.

Key words

measurement of poverty poverty line heterogeneity in prices and needs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen, A., Epland, J., Wennemo, T., Aaberge, R.: Business cycles and poverty: A study based on Norwegian register data, 1979–2000. Tidsskr. velferdsforsk. (2), (2003) [In Norwegian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Expert Group on Household Income Statistics: Final Report and Recommendations. Ottawa, Canada (2001).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Formby, J.P.: Regional poverty and inequality in the United States. In: Neill, J. (ed.) Poverty and Inequality: The Political Economy of Redistribution. W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Mich. (1997).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forster, M., Pearson, M.: Income distribution and poverty in the OECD-area. OECD Econ. Stud. 34, 7–39 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gustavsson, Pedersen (eds.): Poverty and Low Income in the Nordic Countries. Ashgate, Aldershot (2000).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O' Higgins, M., Jenkins, S.: Poverty in the European community: 1975, 1980, 1985. In: Teekens, R., van Praag, B. (eds.) Analysing Poverty in the European Community. Eurostat News Special Edition. European Communities, Luxembourg (1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Langsether, Å., Medby, P.: Rent index and statistics. Rapporter 10, (2004) NOVA [In Norwegian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mogstad, M., Langørgen, A., Aaberge, R.: Region-specific versus country-specific poverty lines in analysis of poverty. Discuss. Pap. 408, (2005) Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ringen, S.: Direct and indirect measures of poverty. J. Soc. Policy 17(3), 351–365 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sen, A.: Issues in the measurement of poverty. Scand. J. Econ. 81, 285–307 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sen, A.: Poor, relatively speaking. In: Sen, A. (ed.) Resources, Values and Development, 1st edn. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1984).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sen, A.: Inequality Reexamined. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1992).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Praag, B., Hagenaars, A.: Poverty in Europe. Rev. Income Wealth 28(1), 17–28 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wodon, Q.: Regional poverty lines, poverty profiles, and targeting. Appl. Econ. Lett. 6(12), 809–813 (1999) December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research DepartmentStatistics NorwayOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations