Social Indicators Research

, Volume 112, Issue 2, pp 417–446 | Cite as

Selecting a Targeting Method to Identify BPL Households in India

Article

Abstract

This paper proposes how to select a methodology to target multidimensionally poor households, and how to update that targeting exercise periodically. We present this methodology in the context of discussions regarding the selection of a targeting methodology in India. In 1992, 1997, and 2002 the Indian government identified households that are below the poverty line (BPL) and in updating the 2002 methodology, alternative methods have been proposed and vigorously debated. A fourth BPL method was published and a corresponding Socio Economic Caste Census (SECC), implemented. Using the third National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), this paper illustrates how a BPL targeting method using SECC variables might be calibrated to a multidimensional poverty measure. This paper compares the fit between a benchmark measure of multidimensional poverty and several plausible targeting methods to determine which method(s) approximate it—as well as related measures—most closely. We find a ten-item binary scoring method, which uses variables already available in the SECC questionnaire, provides a strong proxy. The emphasis of this paper is to illustrate how a particular targeting method can be justified, rather than to advocate any particular solution.

Keywords

Multidimensional poverty Below the poverty line (BPL) Socio Economic Caste Census Targeting methods Binary scoring Poverty in India 

References

  1. Ahluwalia, M. S. (2011). Prospects and policy challenges in the twelfth plan. Economic and Political Weekly, 46, 88–105.Google Scholar
  2. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. Working paper no. 38, Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  4. Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2008). Determining BPL status: Some methodological improvements. Indian Journal of Human Development, 2, 407–424.Google Scholar
  5. Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2009). Measuring multidimensional poverty in India: A new proposal. Working paper no. 15, Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  6. Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2013). Identifying BPL households in India: A comparison of methods. Economic and Political Weekly, 48, 49–57.Google Scholar
  7. Angulo, R. C., Diaz, B. Y., & Pardo, R. (2011). Multidimensional poverty index (MPI-Colombia) 19972010. Department of Planning (Departamento Nacional de Planeación), Colombia.Google Scholar
  8. Atkinson, A. B., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2002). Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkinson, A. B., & Micklewright, J. (1983). On the reliability of income data in the family expenditure survey 1970–1977. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 146, 33–61.Google Scholar
  10. Consejo Nacional de Evaluacion de la Politica de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL). (2011). Coneval presents 2010 poverty levels for each Mexican municipality. Mexico D. F., Press release no. 15. http://web.coneval.gob.mx/Informes/COMUNICADOS_DE_PRENSA/Press%20release%20municipal%20poverty%t20levels%202010.pdf. Accessed on 14 February, 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Datta, K. L. (2009). Breach of faith. Economic and Political Weekly, 44, 632–633.Google Scholar
  12. Drèze, J., & Khera, R. (2010). The BPL census and a possible alternative. Economic and Political Weekly, 45, 54–63.Google Scholar
  13. Ferreira, F. H. G., & Lugo, M. A. (2012). Multidimensional poverty analysis: Looking for a middle ground. Policy research working paper no. 5964. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  14. Foster, J. E. (2007). A report on Mexican multidimensional poverty measurement. Working paper no. 40, Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  15. Glewwe, P., & Kanaan, O. (1989). Targeting assistance to the poor: A multivariate approach using household survey data. Policy, planning and research working paper no. 225. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Government of India. (2006a). Report of the XI plan working group on poverty elimination programmes. New Delhi: Planning Commission.Google Scholar
  17. Government of India (2006b). Social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community of India. New Delhi: Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, Cabinet Secretariat.Google Scholar
  18. Government of India (2007). Report on conditions of work and promotion of livelihoods in the unorganized sector. New Delhi: National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector.Google Scholar
  19. Government of India. (2008). Eleventh plan (2007–2012): inclusive growth (Vol. 1). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Government of India (2009). Report of the expert group to review the methodology for estimation of poverty. New Delhi: Planning Commission.Google Scholar
  21. Government of India. (2011). Socio economic & caste census 2011 in rural India. Ministry of Rural Development, July 25. http://rural.nic.in/sites/BPL-census-2011.asp Accessed on October, 29, 2011.
  22. Grosh, M., & Baker, J. (1995). Proxy means tests for targeting social programs-simulation and speculation. Living standards measurement study working paper no. 118. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  23. Grosh, M., & Glewwe, P. (Eds.). (2000). Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: Lessons from 15 years of the living standards measurement study. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  24. Hasan, Z. (2009). Politics of inclusion: Castes, minorities, and affirmative action . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hirway, I. (2003). Identification of BPL households for poverty alleviation programmes. Economic and Political Weekly, 38, 4803–4808.Google Scholar
  26. Jain, S. K. (2004). Identification of the poor: Flaws in government surveys. Economic and Political Weekly, 39, 4981–4984.Google Scholar
  27. Jalan, J., & Murgai, R. (2007). An effective “targeting shortcut”? An assessment of the 2002 below-poverty line census method. Mimeo. New Delhi: World Bank.Google Scholar
  28. Khera, R. (2008). Access to the targeted public distribution system in Rajathan. Economic and Political Weekly, 43, 51–56.Google Scholar
  29. Mehrotra, S., & Mander, H. (2009). How to identify the poor? A proposal. Economic and Political Weekly, 44, 37–44.Google Scholar
  30. Mukherjee, N. (2005). Political corruption in India’s below the poverty line (BPL) exercise: Grassroots’ perspectives on BPL in perpetuating poverty and social exclusion. New Delhi: Development Tracks in Research, Training & Consultancy.Google Scholar
  31. Narayan, A., & Yoshida, N. (2005). Proxy means test for targeting welfare benefits in Sri Lanka. Report no. SASPR-7. South Asia Region. Prem working paper series. The World Bank.Google Scholar
  32. Olken, B. A. (2006). Corruption and the costs of redistribution: Micro evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 853–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roy, I. (2011). “New” list for “old”: (Re-) constructing the poor in the BPL census. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(22), 82–91.Google Scholar
  34. Royal Government of Bhutan, Gross National Happiness Commission (2011). Eleventh roundtable meeting - turning vision into reality: The development challenges facing Bhutan. Thimphu, Bhutan. Google Scholar
  35. Saxena, N. C. (2009). Report of the expert group to advise the Ministry of Rural Development on the methodology for conducting the below poverty line (BPL) census for 11th five-year plan. New Delhi: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.Google Scholar
  36. Sen, A. K. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sen, A. K. (1996). On the foundations of welfare economics: Utility, capability and practical reason. In F. Farina, F. Hahn, & S. Vannucci (Eds.), Ethics, rationality and economic behaviour (pp. 50–65). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sen, A. K. (2004). Capabilities, lists and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharan, M. R. (2011). Identifying BPL households: A comparison of competing approaches. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(26–27), 256–262.Google Scholar
  41. Sundaram, K. (2003). On identification of households below poverty line in BPL census 2002: Some comments on proposed methodology. Economic and Political Weekly, 38, 896–901.Google Scholar
  42. Thomas, B. K., Muradian, R., de Groot, G., & de Ruijter, A. (2009). Multidimensional poverty and identification of poor households: A case from Kerala, India. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), Queen Elizabeth House (QEH), Oxford Department of International Development (ODID)University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations