Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 773–807

Conditions for the most robust multidimensional poverty comparisons using counting measures and ordinal variables

Article

Abstract

A natural concern with multivariate poverty measures, as well as with other composite indices, is the robustness of their ordinal comparisons to changes in the indices’ parameter values. Applying multivariate stochastic dominance techniques, this paper derives the distributional conditions under which a multidimensional poverty comparison based on the popular counting measures, and ordinal variables, is fully robust to any values of the indices’ parameters. As the paper shows, the conditions are relevant to most of the multidimensional poverty indices in the literature, including the Alkire–Foster family, upon which the UNDP’s “Multidimensional Poverty Index” (MPI) is based. The conditions are illustrated with an example from the EU-SILC data set.

References

  1. Alkire S, Foster J (2011) Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. J Public Econ 95(7–8):476–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkire S, Meinzen-Dick R, Peterman A, Quisumbing A, Seymour G, Vaz A (2013) The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. OPHI Working Paper 58Google Scholar
  3. Alkire S, Roche JM (2011) Beyond headcount: measures that reflect the breadth and components of child poverty. In: Global child poverty and well-being: measurement, concepts, policy and action. The Policy, BristolGoogle Scholar
  4. Alkire S, Santos ME (2010) Acute multidimensional poverty: a new index for developing countries. OPHI Working Paper 38Google Scholar
  5. Alkire S, Seth S (2013) Selecting a targeting method to identify BPL households in India. Soc Indic Res 112(2):417–446Google Scholar
  6. Anderson G (2008) The empirical assessment of multidimensional welfare, inequality and poverty: sample weighted multivariate generalizations of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov two sample test for stochastic dominance. J Econ Inequal 6(1):73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkinson A (2003) Multidimensional deprivation: contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. J Econ Inequal 1:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson A, Bourguignon F (1982) The comparison of multi-dimensioned distributions of economic status. Rev Econ Stud XLIX:183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Battiston D, Cruces G, Lopez-Calva LF, Lugo MA, Santos ME (2013) Income and beyond: multidimensional poverty in six Latin American countries. Soc Indic Res 112(2):291–314Google Scholar
  10. Bossert W, Chakravarty S, D’Ambrosio C (2009) Measuring multidimensional poverty: the generalized counting approach. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  11. Bossert W, Chakravarty S, D’Ambrosio C (2013) Multidimensional poverty and material deprivation with discrete data. Rev Income Wealth 59(1):29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourguignon F, Chakravarty S (2003) The measurement of multidimensional poverty. J Econ Inequal 1:25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chakravarty S, D’Ambrosio C (2006) The measurement of social exclusion. Rev Income Wealth 52(3):377–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decanq K, Lugo MA (2013) Weights in multidimensional indices of well-being: an overview. Econom Rev 1:7–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duclos J-Y, Sahn D, Younger S (2006) Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. Econ J 116(514):943–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duclos JY, Sahn D, Younger S (2007) Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons with discrete indicators of well-being. In: Inequality and poverty re-examined. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 185–208Google Scholar
  17. EUROSTAT (2007) Description of SILC user database variables: cross-sectional and longitudinal. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  18. Foster J, Horowitz A, Mendez F (2012) An axiomatic approach to the measurement of corruption: theory and applications. World Bank Econ Rev. doi:10.1093/wber/lhs008
  19. Gorman W (1968) Conditions for additive separability. Econometrica 36(3–4):605–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guenther R, Lee J (1988) Partial differential equations of mathematical physics and integral equations. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hadar J, Russell W (1974) Stochastic dominance in choice under uncertainty. In: Essays on economic behaviour under uncertainty. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Kannai Y (1980) The alep definition of complementarity and least concave utility functions. J Econ Theory 22(1):115–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lasso de la Vega C (2010) Counting poverty orderings and deprivation curves. In: Bishop J (ed) Research on economic inequality, vol 18, chap 7. Emerald, pp 153–172Google Scholar
  24. Merz J, Rathjen T (2012) Intensity of time and income interdependent multidimensional poverty: well-being gap and minimum 2dgap—German evidence. Paper presented at the 32 IARIW Conference, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Ravallion M (2010) Mashup indices of development. Policy Research Working Paper 5432Google Scholar
  26. Rippin N (2012) Integrating inter-personal inequality in counting poverty indices: the correlation sensitive poverty index. Paper presented at the 32nd IARIW conference, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Sen A (2001) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Silber J, Yalonetzky G (2013) Poverty and social exclusion. New methods of analysis, Chap. 2. Routledge Advances in Social Economics, Routledge, pp 9–37Google Scholar
  30. Ura K, Alkire S, Zangmo T, Wangdi K (2012) A short guide to gross national happiness index. The Centre for Bhutan Studies, ThimphuGoogle Scholar
  31. Yalonetzky G (2013) Stochastic dominance with ordinal variables: conditions and a test. Econom Rev 32(1):126–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leeds University Business SchoolLeeds UK
  2. 2.OPHIOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations