Advertisement

The Journal of Economic Inequality

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 289–314 | Cite as

Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement

  • Sabina Alkire
  • James Foster
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Multidimensional measures provide an alternative lens through which poverty may be viewed and understood. In recent work we have attempted to offer a practical approach to identifying the poor and measuring aggregate poverty (Alkire and Foster, J Public Econ, 2011). As this is quite a departure from traditional unidimensional and multidimensional poverty measurement—particularly with respect to the identification step—further elaboration may be warranted. In this paper we elucidate the strengths, limitations, and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement in order to clarify the debate and catalyse further research. We begin with general definitions of unidimensional and multidimensional methodologies for measuring poverty. We provide an intuitive description of our measurement approach, including a ‘dual cutoff’ identification step that views poverty as the state of being multiply deprived, and an aggregation step based on the traditional FGT measures. We briefly discuss five characteristics of our methodology that are easily overlooked or mistaken and conclude with some brief remarks on the way forward.

Keywords

Poverty measurement Multidimensional poverty Deprivation FGT measures Decomposability Joint distribution Axiom 

JEL Classification

I3 I32 D63 O1 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alkire, S.: Valuing Freedoms. Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Oxford University Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alkire, S.: Choosing dimensions: the capability approach and multidimensional poverty. In: Kakwani, N., Silber, J. (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Poverty, pp. 89–119. Macmillan, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alkire, S.: Multidimensional poverty and its discontents. (OPHI working paper series, 44) (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alkire, S., Foster, J.: Counting and multidimensional poverty measures. (OPHI working paper series, 7) (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alkire, S., Foster, J.E.: Designing the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index. (OPHI working paper series, 37) (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alkire, S., Foster, J.E.: An axiomatic approach to identification and measurement of multidimensional poverty. (OPHI Research in Progress, 21a) (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alkire, S., Foster, J.E.: Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. J. Public Econ. 95(7–8), 476–487 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alkire, S., Santos, M.E.: Acute multidimensional poverty: a new index for developing countries. OPHI working paper series, 38 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alkire, S., Seth, S.: Determining BPL status: some methodological improvements. Indian J. Hum. Dev. 2(2), 407–24 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alkire, S., Seth, S.: Decomposing India’s MPI by state and caste: examples and comparisons. OPHI Research in Progress (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alkire, S., Santos, M.E., Seth, S., Yalonetzky, G.: Is the Multidimensional Poverty Index robust to different weights? OPHI Research in Progress (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anand, S., Sen, A.: Concepts of Human Development and Poverty: A Multidimensional Perspective. UNDP, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson, G.: The empirical assessment of multidimensional welfare, inequality and poverty: sample weighted multivariate generalizations of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov two sample tests for stochastic dominance. J. Econ. Inequality Springer 6(1), 73–87 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Apablaza, M., Ocampo, J.P., Yalonetzky, G.: Decomposing changes in multidimensional poverty for 10 countries. mimeo. (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica 55(4), 749–764 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atkinson, A.: Poverty and Social Security. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atkinson, A.B.: Multidimensional deprivation: contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. J. Econ. Inequality 1(1), 51–65 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bennett, C., Singh, S.: Multidimensional poverty: measurement, estimation and inference. Econ. Rev. (2010, in press)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bossert, W., Chakravarty, S.R., D’Ambrosio, D.: Multidimensional poverty and material deprivation. Working Papers 129, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bourguignon, F., Chakravarty, S.R.: The measurement of multidimensional poverty. J. Econ. Inequality 1(1), 25–49 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brandolini, A., D’Alessio, G.: Measuring Well-Being in the Functioning Space. Banco d’Italia Reseach Department, Rome (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chakravarty, S.R., D’Ambrosio, C.: The measurement of social exclusion. Rev. Income Wealth 53(3), 377–398 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chakravarty, S.R., Silber, J.: Measuring multidimensional poverty: the axiomatic approach. In: Kakwani, N., Silber, J. (eds.) Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. Macmillan, Basingstoke (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chakravarty, S., Mukherjee, D., Renade, R.R.: On the family of subgroup and factor decomposable measures of multidimensional poverty. Res. Econ. Inequality 8, 175–194 (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Decancq, K., Lugo, M.A.: Weights of multidimensional indices of well-being: an overview. Econ. Rev. (2011, in press)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deutsch, J., Silber, J.: Measuring multidimensional poverty. An empirical comparison of various approaches. Rev. Income Wealth 51, 145–174 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duclos, J.-Y., Sahn, D.E., Younger, S.D.: Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. Econ. J. 116(514), 943–968 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Foster, J.E.: Poverty indices, in poverty, inequality and development. In: de Janvry, A., Kanbur, R. (eds.) Essays in Honor of Erik Thorbecke. Academic, Dordrecht (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foster, J.E., Sen, A.K.: After a quarter century. In: Sen, A.K. (ed.) On Economic Inequality. Clarendon, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Foster, J., Shorrocks, A.: Poverty orderings and welfare dominance. Soc. Choice Welf. 5(2–3), 179–198 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Foster, J., Greer, J., Thorbecke, E.: A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica 52(3), 761–766 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Foster, J.E., McGillivray, M., Seth, S.: Rank robustness of composite indices. OPHI working paper series, 26 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Foster, J.E., McGillivray, M., Seth, S.: Composite indices: rank robustness, statistical association, and redundancy, mimeo (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kakwani, N., Silber, J.: The Many Dimensions of Poverty. MacMillan, Basingstoke (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kakwani, N., Silber, J.: Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. Macmillan, Basingstoke (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lasso de la Vega, C.: Counting poverty orderings and deprivation curves. Res. Econ. Inequality 18, 153–172 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 42.
    Ravallion, M.: Poverty Comparisons. Harwood, Switzerland (1994)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ravallion, M.: Mashup indices of development. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 5432 (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ravallion, M.: On multidimensional indices of poverty. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers, 5580 (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rippin, N.: Poverty Severity in a Multidimensional Framework: The Issue of Inequality Between Dimensions. Courant Research Centre (CRC) Discussion Paper No. 47 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sen, A.K.: Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica 44(2), 219–231 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sen, A.K.: In: Hawthorn, G. (ed.) The Standard of Living: The Tanner Lectures, pp. xiv, 125. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sen, A.: Social progress index: some methodological issues. First Report to UNDP/Latin America Bureau, mimeo (1989)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sen, A.K.: Inequality Re-examined. Sage, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J.-P.: Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thorbecke, E.: Multidimensional poverty: conceptual and measurement issues. In: Kakwani, N., Silber, J. (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Poverty. MacMillan, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tsui, K.: Multidimensional poverty indices. Soc. Choice Welf. 19(1), 69–93 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    UNDP: Human Development Report 1997: Human Development to Eradicate Poverty. Oxford University Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    UNDP: Human Development Report 2010: the Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. Macmillan, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    World Bank: World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Oxford University Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yalonetzky, G.: Conditions for the most robust poverty comparisons using the Alkire-Foster family of measures. mimeo, (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yalonetzky, G.: A note on the standard errors of the members of the Alkire-Foster family and its components. (OPHI Research in Progress 25) (2011)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yalonetzky, G.: Stochastic dominance with ordinal variables: conditions and a test. Econ. Rev. (2011, in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, Oxford Department of International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.The Institute for International Economic Policy, The Elliott SchoolThe George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options