The Journal of Economic Inequality

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 425–447 | Cite as

Alternative weighting structures for multidimensional poverty assessment

  • Danilo CavapozziEmail author
  • Wei Han
  • Raffaele Miniaci


A multidimensional poverty assessment requires a weighting scheme to aggregate the well-being dimensions considered. We use Alkire and Foster’s J. Public Econ. 95, 476–487 (2011a) framework to discuss the channels through which a change of the weighting structure affects the outcomes of the analysis in terms of overall poverty assessment, its dimensional and subgroup decomposability and policy evaluation. We exploit the Survey on Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe to evaluate how alternative weighting structures affect the measurement of poverty for the population of over-50s in ten European countries. Further, we show that in our empirical exercise the results based on hedonic weights estimated on the basis of life satisfaction self-assessments are robust to the presence of heterogeneous response styles across respondents.


Anchoring vignettes Life satisfaction Multidimensional poverty measurement Weighting schemes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aaberge, R., Peluso, E.: A counting approach for measuring multidimensional deprivation. Discussion paper, Statistics Norway Research Department, 700 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. Alkire, S., Foster, J.: Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. J. Public Econ. 95, 476–487 (2011a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alkire, S., Foster, J.: Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. J. Econ. Inequal. 9, 289–314 (2011b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelini, V., Cavapozzi, D., Corazzini, L., Paccagnella, O.: Age, health and life satisfaction among older Europeans. Soc. Indic. Res. 105, 293–308 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelini, V., Cavapozzi, D., Corazzini, L., Paccagnella, O.: Do Danes and Italians rate life satisfaction in the same way? Using vignettes to correct for individual-specific scale biases. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 76(5), 643–666 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchflower, D.G., Oswald, A.J.: Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Soc. Sci. Medicine 66, 1733–1749 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Börsch-Supan, A., Brugiavini, A., Jürges, H., Kapteyn, A., Mackenbach, J., Siegrist J., Weber, G.: First results from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (2004-2007). Starting the longitudinal dimension. Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging (MEA), Mannheim (2008)Google Scholar
  8. Bourguignon, F., Chakravarty, S.R.: The measurement of multidimensional poverty. J. Econ. Inequal. 1, 25–49 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosmans, K., Lauwers, L., Ooghe, E.: Prioritarian poverty comparisons with cardinal and ordinal attributes. Discussion paper, Center for Economic Studies. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 13.10 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. Bossert, W., Chakravarty, S.R., D’Ambrosio, C.: Multidimensional poverty and material deprivation with discrete data. Rev. Income Wealth 59(1), 29–43 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavapozzi, D., Han, W., Miniaci, R.: Alternative weighting structures for multidimensional poverty assessment. University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management) Research Report 13018-EEF (2013)Google Scholar
  12. Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F.: Multidimensional poverty measurement with individual preferences. Discussion paper, pp 058–2014. Princeton University William S. Dietrich II Economic Theory Center Working Paper (2014)Google Scholar
  13. Decancq, K., Lugo, M.A.: Weights in multidimensional indices of well-being: An overview. Econom. Rev. 32, 7–34 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desai, M., Shah, A.: An econometric approach to the measurement of poverty. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 40, 505–522 (1988)Google Scholar
  15. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., White, M.: Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J. Econ. Psychol. 29, 94–122 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eurostat: Measuring material deprivation in the EU — Indicators for the whole population and child-specific indicators. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Fleurbaey, M., Schokkaert, E., Decancq, K.: What good is happiness?. Université Catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE) Discussion Paper 2009/17 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. Foster, J.E., Greer, J., Thorbecke, E.: A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econom. 52, 761–766 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frey, B.S., Stutzer, A.: What can economists learn from happiness research? J. Econ. Lit. 40, 402–435 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kapteyn, A., Smith, J.P., Van Soest, A.H.O.: Comparing life satisfaction. RAND Working Paper WR-623-1 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. King, G., Murray, C., Salomon, J., Tandon, A.: Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98, 567–583 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kingdon, G.G., Knight, J.: Subjective well-being poverty vs. income poverty and capabilities poverty? J. Devel. Stud. 42(7), 1199–1224 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nussbaum, M.C.: Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  24. Nussbaum, M.C.: Who is the happy warrior? Philosophy poses questions to psychology. J. Leg. Stud. 37(S2), S81–S113 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paruolo, P., Saltelli, A., Saisana, M.: Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science? J. Roy. Statistical Society A 176(2), 1–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. Prince, M.J., Reischies, F., Beekman, A.T., Fuhrer, R., Jonker, C., Kivela, S.L., Lawlor, B.A., Lobo, A., Magnusson, H., Fichter, M., van Oyen, H., Roelands, M., Skoog, I., Turrina, C., Copeland, J.R.: Development of the EURO-D scale - a European Union initiative to compare symptoms of depression in 14 European centres. Br. J. Psychiatry 174, 330–338 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de Ree, J., Alessie, R.: Life satisfaction and age: Dealing with underidentification in age-period-cohort models. Soc. Sci. Medicine 73, 177–182 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rippin, N.: Considerations of efficiency and distributive justice in multidimensional poverty measurement. Doctoral Thesis. University of Göttingen (2013)Google Scholar
  29. Ruger, J.P.: Health and Social Justice. Oxford University Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  30. Schokkaert, E.: Capabilities and satisfaction with life. J. Hum. Dev. 8, 415–430 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen, A.: Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econom. 44, 219–31 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sen, A.: Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam, North-Holland (1985)Google Scholar
  33. Sen, A.: Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Fem. Econ. 10, 77–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nation Development Programme: Human Development Report 2011, Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. United Nations Development Programme, New York (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCa’ Foscari University of VeniceVeneziaItaly
  2. 2.NetsparTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Blavatnik School of GovernmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  5. 5.IEFEBocconi UniversityMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations