Alternative weighting structures for multidimensional poverty assessment

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aaberge, R., Peluso, E.: A counting approach for measuring multidimensional deprivation. Discussion paper, Statistics Norway Research Department, 700 (2012)

  2. Alkire, S., Foster, J.: Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. J. Public Econ. 95, 476–487 (2011a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alkire, S., Foster, J.: Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. J. Econ. Inequal. 9, 289–314 (2011b)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blanchflower, D.G., Oswald, A.J.: Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Soc. Sci. Medicine 66, 1733–1749 (2008)

    Article  Google 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)

  8. Bourguignon, F., Chakravarty, S.R.: The measurement of multidimensional poverty. J. Econ. Inequal. 1, 25–49 (2003)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

  13. Decancq, K., Lugo, M.A.: Weights in multidimensional indices of well-being: An overview. Econom. Rev. 32, 7–34 (2013)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

  18. Foster, J.E., Greer, J., Thorbecke, E.: A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econom. 52, 761–766 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frey, B.S., Stutzer, A.: What can economists learn from happiness research? J. Econ. Lit. 40, 402–435 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kapteyn, A., Smith, J.P., Van Soest, A.H.O.: Comparing life satisfaction. RAND Working Paper WR-623-1 (2009)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rippin, N.: Considerations of efficiency and distributive justice in multidimensional poverty measurement. Doctoral Thesis. University of Göttingen (2013)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sen, A.: Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econom. 44, 219–31 (1976)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danilo Cavapozzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cavapozzi, D., Han, W. & Miniaci, R. Alternative weighting structures for multidimensional poverty assessment. J Econ Inequal 13, 425–447 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-015-9301-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Anchoring vignettes
  • Life satisfaction
  • Multidimensional poverty measurement
  • Weighting schemes