Social Indicators Research

, Volume 112, Issue 2, pp 291–314 | Cite as

Income and Beyond: Multidimensional Poverty in Six Latin American Countries

  • Diego Battiston
  • Guillermo Cruces
  • Luis Felipe Lopez-Calva
  • Maria Ana Lugo
  • Maria Emma Santos
Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper studies multidimensional poverty for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico and Uruguay for the period 1992–2006. The approach overcomes the limitations of the two traditional methods of poverty analysis in Latin America (income-based and unmet basic needs) by combining income with five other dimensions: school attendance for children, education of the household head, sanitation, water and shelter. The results allow a fuller understanding of the evolution of poverty in the selected countries. Over the study period, El Salvador, Brazil, Mexico and Chile experienced significant reductions in multidimensional poverty. In contrast, in urban Uruguay there was a small reduction in multidimensional poverty, while in urban Argentina the estimates did not change significantly. El Salvador, Brazil and Mexico, and rural areas of Chile display significantly higher and more simultaneous deprivations than urban areas of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. In all countries, deprivation in access to proper sanitation and education of the household head are the highest contributors to overall multidimensional poverty.

Keywords

Multidimensional poverty measurement Counting approach Latin America Unsatisfied basic needs Rural and urban areas 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the United Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford. Santos thanks ANPCyT-PICT 1888 for research support. The authors are thankful for comments provided by Andrés Ham, by participants of OPHI Seminars Series in Trinity Term 2009, and of the third Meeting of the Society for the Study of Economic Inequality (ECINEQ), Buenos Aires, 21–23 July, 2009. The authors are also grateful for suggestions from two anonymous referees and thank Felix Stein for research assistance.

References

  1. Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkire, S. (2008). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The many dimensions of poverty (pp. 89–119). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2007). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. OPHI working paper 07, Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.Google Scholar
  4. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2009). Poverty and inequality measurement. In S. Deneulin & L. Shahani (Eds.), An introduction to the human development and capability approach (pp. 121–161). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. OPHI working paper no. 38. Oxford: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative.Google Scholar
  7. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2013). A multidimensional approach: Poverty measurement and beyond. Introduction to the special issue. Social indicators research. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0257-3.
  8. Altimir, O. (1982). The extent of poverty in Latin America. World Bank staff working papers no. 522. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Amarante, V., Arim, R., & Vigorito, A. (2010). Multidimensional poverty among children in Uruguay. Research on economic inequality Vol. 18: Studies in applied welfare analysis: Papers from the third ECINEQ meeting (pp. 31–253). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  10. Arim, R., & Vigorito, A. (2007). Un análisis multidimensional de la pobreza en Uruguay. 1991–2005, Serie Documentos de Trabajo DT 10/06. Uruguay: Instituto de Economía, Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
  11. Atkinson, A., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2002). Social indicators—The EU and social inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ballon, P., & Krishnakumar, J. (2008). Estimating basic capabilities: A structural equation model applied to Bolivia. World Development, 36(6), 992–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beccaria, L., & Minujin, A. (1985). Metodos Alternativos para Medir la Evolucion del Tamaño de la Pobreza, Documento de Trabajo No 6. Buenos Aires: INDEC.Google Scholar
  14. Betti, G., Cheli, B., Lemmi, A., & Verma, V. (2007). The fuzzy approach to multidimensional poverty: The case of Italy in the 1990s. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement (pp. 30–48). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Boltvinik, J. (1990). Pobreza y necesidades básicas, conceptos y métodos de medición. Proyecto Regional para la Superacion de la Pobreza. Caracas: PNUD.Google Scholar
  16. Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1(1), 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calvo, C. (2008). Vulnerability to mulidmensional poverty. World Development, 36, 1011–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CEDLAS. (2009). A guide to the SEDLAC-socio-economic database for Latin America and the Caribbean. Centro de Estudios Distributivos, Laborales y Sociales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. http://www.cedlas.org/sedlac.
  19. CEDLAS & World Bank. (2009). Socio-economic database for Latin America and the Caribbean (SEDLAC). http://www.cedlas.org/sedlac.
  20. Chiappero Martinetti, E. (2000). A multi-dimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen’s functioning theory. Rivista Internationale di Scienzie Sociali, CVIII, 207–231.Google Scholar
  21. Conconi, A., & Ham, A. (2007). Pobreza multidimensional relativa: Una aplicación a la Argentina. Documento de trabajo CEDLAS N. 57. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Argentina: CEDLAS.Google Scholar
  22. Cruces, G., & Gasparini, L. (2008). Programas sociales en Argentina: Alternativas para la ampliación de la cobertura. Documento de trabajo CEDLAS N. 77. Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina: CEDLAS.Google Scholar
  23. Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation. (1976). What now—another development. The 1975 report on development and international cooperation. Sweden: Motala Grafiska.Google Scholar
  24. Decancq, K., & Lugo, M. A. (2012). Weights in multidimensional indices of well-being: An overview. Econometrics Review, 32(1), 7–34.Google Scholar
  25. Duclos, J.-Y., Sahn, D., & Younger, S. (2006). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. The Economic Journal, 116(514), 943–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Gasparini, L., Cruces, G., & Tornarolli, L. (2008). A turning point? Recent developments on inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nacional de La Plata, Argentina: CEDLAS.Google Scholar
  28. Herrera, A. O., Scolnik, H. D., Chichilnisky, G., Gallopin, G. C., et al. (1976). Catastrophe or new Society? A Latin America world model. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
  29. International Labour Organisation. (1976). Meeting basic needs: Strategies for eradicating mass poverty and unemployment: Conclusions of the World Employment Conference. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  30. Kaztman, R. (1989). La heterogeneidad de la pobreza. El caso de Montevideo. Revista de la CEPAL, 37, 141–152.Google Scholar
  31. Lemmi, A., Betti, G. (2006). Fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement. Economic studies in inequality, social exclusion and well-being. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. López-Calva, L. F., & Ortiz-Juárez, E. (2009). Medición multidimensional de la pobreza en México: Significancia estadística en la inclusión de dimensiones no monetarias. Estudios Económicos, special issue, 3–33.Google Scholar
  33. López-Calva, L. F., & Rodríguez-Chamussy, L. (2005). Muchos rostros, un solo espejo: Restricciones para la medición multidimensional de la pobreza en México. In M. Székely (Ed.), Números que mueven al mundo: La medición de la pobreza en México. Mexico City: Miguel Ángel Porrúa.Google Scholar
  34. Paes de Barros, R., De Carvalho, M., & Franco, S. (2006). Pobreza multidimensional no Brasil. Texto para discussão No. 1227. Brazil: IPEA.Google Scholar
  35. PNUD. (2009) Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano para Mercosur 2009–2010 “Innovar para incluir: jóvenes y desarrollo humano”. Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  36. Ravallion, M., Chen, S., & Sangraula, P. (2009). Dollar a day revisited. The World Bank Economic Review, 23, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Santos, M., Lugo, M., Lopez Calva, L. Cruces, G., & Battiston, D. (2010). Refining the basic needs approach: A multidimensional analysis of poverty in Latin America. Research on economic inequality Vol. 18: Studies in applied welfare analysis: Papers from the third ECINEQ meeting (pp. 1–29). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  38. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sen, A. K. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  41. Stewart, F. (1980). Country experience in providing for basic needs. In P. Streeten, F. Stewart, S. J. Burki, A. Berg, et al. (Eds.), Poverty and basic needs. World Bank working paper 33061 (pp. 9–12). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  42. Streeten, P., Burki, J. S., Haq, M. U., Hicks, N., & Stewart, F. (1981). First things first: Meeting basic human needs in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Székely, M. (2003). Lo que dicen los pobres. Cuadernos de desarrollo humano No. 13. México: Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.Google Scholar
  44. The Cocoyoc Declaration. (1974). Adopted by participants in the UNEP/UNCTAD symposium on patterns of resource use, environment and development strategies. International Organization, 29(3), 893–901.Google Scholar
  45. World Health Organization (WHO) & United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2000). Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report.Google Scholar
  46. World Bank. (2008). World Development Indicators. Poverty Data. A Supplement to World Development Indicators. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Battiston
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guillermo Cruces
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Luis Felipe Lopez-Calva
    • 5
  • Maria Ana Lugo
    • 6
    • 7
  • Maria Emma Santos
    • 3
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Centre for Economic Performance (CEP)London School of Economics (LSE)LondonUK
  2. 2.Centro de Estudios Distributivos Laborales y Sociales (CEDLAS) - Facultad de Ciencias Economicas (FCE)Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP)La PlataArgentina
  3. 3.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina
  4. 4.Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)BonnAlemania
  5. 5.Regional Bureau for Latin America and The CaribbeanUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)New YorkUSA
  6. 6.Economics DepartmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  7. 7.Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI), Queen Elizabeth House (QEH), Oxford Department of International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  8. 8.Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur (IIESS), Departamento de EconomíaUniversidad Nacional del Sur (UNS)Bahía BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations