Advertisement

Bayesian inference for TIP curves: an application to child poverty in Germany

  • Edwin Fourrier-Nicolaï
  • Michel LubranoEmail author
Article

Abstract

TIP curves are cumulative poverty gap curves used for representing the three different aspects of poverty: incidence, intensity and inequality. The paper provides Bayesian inference for TIP curves, linking their expression to a parametric representation of the income distribution using a mixture of log-normal densities. We treat specifically the question of zero-inflated income data and survey weights, which are two important issues in survey analysis. The advantage of the Bayesian approach is that it takes into account all the information contained in the sample and that it provides small sample credible intervals and tests for TIP dominance. We apply our methodology to evaluate the evolution of child poverty in Germany after 2002, providing thus an update the portrait of child poverty in Germany given in Corak et al. (Rev. Income Wealth 54(4), 547–571, 2008).

Keywords

Bayesian inference Mixture model Survey weights Zero-inflated model Child poverty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

A first version of this paper was presented in May 2016 at the 10th Annual RCEA Bayesian Econometric Workshop in Rimini. Useful comments by participants are gratefully acknowledged. We are especially grateful to Denis de Crombrugghe, Christian Schluter, Luc Bauwens, the editor and an anonymous referee for a careful reading of a previous version of the paper and for their insightful suggestions. Of course usual disclaimers apply. This work has been carried out thanks to the support of the A*MIDEX project (No ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02) funded by the “Investissements d’Avenir” French Government program, managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR).

Supplementary material

10888_2019_9426_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
(PDF 80.1 KB)

References

  1. Anderson, G., Pittau, M.G., Zelli, R.: Poverty status probability: a new approach to measuring poverty and the progress of the poor. J. Econ. Inequal. 12(4), 469–488 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica 55(4), 749–764 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bane, M.J., Ellwood, D.T.: Slipping into and out of poverty: the dynamics of spells. J. Hum. Resour. 21(1), 1–23 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, G.F., Donald, S.G., Hsu, Y.-C.: Consistent tests for poverty dominance relations. J. Econ. 191(2), 360–373 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berihuete, A., Ramos, C., Sordo, M.: Welfare, inequality and poverty analysis with rtip: An approach based on stochastic dominance. R J. 10, 328–341 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradbury, B., Jenkins, S., Micklewright, J.: The dynamics of child poverty in seven industrialised nations. In: Bradbury, B., Jenkins, S.P., Micklewright, J. (eds.) The Dynamics of Child Poverty in Industrialised Countries, chapter 4, pp 92–132. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  7. Brent, R.P.: An algorithm with guaranteed convergence for finding a zero of a function. In: Algorithms for Minimization without Derivatives, chapter 4. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (1973)Google Scholar
  8. Bruckmeier, K., Wiemers, J.: A new targeting: a new take-up? Empir. Econ. 43(2), 565–580 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chotikapanich, D, Griffiths, W: Bayesian assessment of Lorenz and stochastic dominance in income distributions. In: Creedy, J, Kalb, G (eds.) Dynamics of Inequality and Poverty, volume 13 of Research on Economic Inequality, pages 297–321. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  10. Chotikapanich, D, Griffiths, W: Estimating income distributions using a mixture of gamma densities. In: Chotikapanich, D (ed.) Modeling Income Distributions and Lorenz Curves, volume 5 of Economic Studies in Equality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being, pp 285–302. Springer, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  11. Corak, M., Fertig, M., Tamm, M.: A portrait of child poverty in Germany. Rev. Income Wealth 54(4), 547–571 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowell, F.: Measuring Inequality. Oxford University Press, 3rd edn (2011)Google Scholar
  13. Cowell, F.A., Flachaire, E.: Statistical methods for distributional analysis. In: Atkinson, A.B., Bourguignon, F. (eds.) Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 2, chapter 6, pages 359–465. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2015)Google Scholar
  14. Davidson, R., Duclos, J.-Y.: Statistical inference for stochastic dominance and for the measurement of poverty and inequality. Econometrica 68(6), 1435–1464 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson, R., Duclos, J.-Y.: Testing for restricted stochastic dominance. Econ. Rev. 32(1), 84–125 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Del Rio, C., Ruiz-Castillo, J.: TIPS for poverty analysis. the case of Spain, 1980-81 to 1990-91. Investig. Econ. 25(1), 63–91 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. Flachaire, E., Nunez, O.: Estimation of the income distribution and detection of subpopulations: an explanatory model. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 51(7), 3368–3380 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foster, J., Shorrocks, A.: Poverty orderings. Econometrica 56(1), 173–177 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster, J., Greer, J., Thorbecke, E.: A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica 52(3), 761–766 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fruhwirth-Schnatter, S.: Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of classical and dynamic switching and mixture models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 96(453), 194–209 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fruhwirth-Schnatter, S.: Finite Mixture and Markov Switching Models. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  22. Gunawan, D., Panagiotelis, A., Griffiths, W., Chotikapanich, D.: Bayesian Weighted Inference from Surveys, Technical report, University of Melbourne (2017)Google Scholar
  23. Hill, M., Jenkins, S.: Poverty among British children: chronic or transitory?. In: Bradbury, B., Jenkins, S.P., Micklewright, J. (eds.) The Dynamics of Child Poverty in Industrialised Countries, chapter 7, pp 174–195. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  24. Jenkins, S., Lambert, P.: Three I’s of poverty curves, with an analysis of UK poverty trends. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 49(3), 317–327 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenkins, S., Lambert, P.: Ranking poverty gap distributions: Further TIPs for poverty analysis. In: Slottje, D. (ed.) Research on Economic Inequality, volume 8, pages 31–38. JAI Press Inc (1998a)Google Scholar
  26. Jenkins, S., Lambert, P.: Three I’s of poverty curves and poverty dominance: TIPs for poverty analysis. In: Slottje, D. (ed.) Research on Economic Inequality, volume 8, pages 39–56. JAI Press Inc (1998b)Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, S., Schluter, C., Wagner, G.: The dynamics of child poverty: Britain and Germany compared. Discussion paper 233, DIW (2000)Google Scholar
  28. Jenkins, S.P., Schluter, C.: Why are child poverty rates higher in Britain than in Germany? A longitudinal perspective. J. Hum. Resour. 38(2), 441–465 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konigs, S.: The dynamics of social assistance benefit receipt in Germany - state dependence before and after the ’Hartz reforms’. Technical Report 628, SOEP Papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research at DIW Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  30. Kuchler, B., Goebel, J.: Incidence and intensity of smoothed income poverty in European countries. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 13(4), 357–369 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lander, D., Gunawan, D., Griffiths, W., Chotikapanich, D.: Bayesian Assessment of Lorenz and Stochastic Dominance. Technical report, University of Melbourne (2017)Google Scholar
  32. Lubrano, M., Ndoye, A.A.J.: Income inequality decomposition using a finite mixture of log-normal distributions: A Bayesian approach. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 100, 830–846 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ndoye, A.A.J., Lubrano, M.: Tournaments and superstar models: A mixture of two Pareto distributions. In: Bishop, J.A., Rodriguez, J.G. (eds.) Economic Well-Being and Inequality: Papers from the Fifth ECINEQ Meeting, chapter 21, pp. 449–479. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2014)Google Scholar
  34. Nygård, M., Campbell-Barr, V., Krüger, N.: The financial crisis and recent family policy reforms in finland, Germany and the United Kingdom : Is there a connection? Journal of Comparative Social Work 8(2), 1–33 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. Pfeffermann, D.: The use of sampling weights for survey data analysis. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 5(3), 239–261 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodgers, J., Rodgers, J.: Chronic poverty in the United States. J. Hum. Resour. 28(1), 25–54 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Savitsky, T.D., Toth, D.: Bayesian estimation under informative sampling. Electronic Journal of Statistics 10, 1677–1708 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sen, A.: Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica 44(2), 219–231 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shorrocks, A.: Revisiting the Sen poverty index. Econometrica 63(5), 1225–1230 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Si, Y., Pillai, N.S., Gelman, A.: Bayesian nonparametric weighted sampling inference. Bayesian Anal. 10(3), 605–625 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sordo, M., Ramos, C.: Poverty comparisons when TIP curves intersect. Stat. Oper. Res. Trans. 35(1), 65–80 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. Thuysbaert, B.: Inference for the measurement of poverty in the presence of a stochastic weighting variable. J. Econ. Inequal. 6(1), 33–55 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu, K., Osberg, L.: A distribution free tests for deprivation dominance. Econ. Rev. 17, 415–429 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, EHESS, Centrale Marseille, AMSEAix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.School of EconomicsJiangxi University of Finance and Economics and AixMarseille Univ., CNRS, EHESS, Centrale Marseille, AMSEMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Amse-GreqamMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations