Measuring and Monitoring Poverty and Well-Being: A New Approach for the Synthesis of Multidimensionality

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to introduce a new approach for the synthesis and analysis of multidimensional poverty and well-being indicators. Our general perspective is inspired by the theoretical foundations of the capability approach and sustainable human development paradigm. The new synthesis of indicators aims at monitoring outcomes of units of interest. Its defining features include: full sensitiveness, continuity, flexibility in substitution between dimensions, and the straightforward interpretation of the results. All these properties are obtained through a transparent and accountable process that is fully open to public scrutiny and reason (as suggested by Amartya Sen). The main contribution of this approach is that the degree of substitutability between dimensions can be directly linked to the general level of well-being of a person, which addresses the so-called “inescapable arbitrariness” issue discussed by Anand and Sen (Concepts of human development and poverty: a multidimensional perspective. Human Development Papers. UNDP, New York, 1997). The new synthesis proposed opens up new possibilities for different types of applications, including monitoring and evaluating development programmes.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Change history

  • 10 January 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For simplicity, and without loss of generality, achievements are assumed to be bounded between 0 (worst possible achievement in a dimension) and 1 (best possible achievement in a dimension).

  2. 2.

    This is a long process to be accomplished with a great deal of agreement (Clark and Qizilbash 2002).

  3. 3.

    Capability is defined as the various combinations of functionings (beings and doings) that the person can achieve (Sen 1992). In other words, capabilities are people’s real freedom to enjoy being and doing they value and have reason to value (Sen 1980, 1985b, 1992). Notice that assessments from a capability approach perspective takes note of what “a person can do in line with his or her conception of the good” (Sen 1985a: 206) and recognizes people as responsible persons (Sen 1999). If a functioning is an achievement, whereas a capability is the opportunity and the ability to achieve, functionings are, in a sense, more directly related to living conditions, since they reflect different aspects of everyday life.

  4. 4.

    This is similar to the idea of equality of opportunity (Roemer 1998).

  5. 5.

    For counting indexes the function also formally depends on the choice of cut-offs.

  6. 6.

    See for example the special issue in Social Indicators Research including Trani et al. (2013) as well as.

  7. 7.

    A reduction in the income of any person currently below the poverty line will leave the headcount unchanged, ceteris paribus (Sen 1981: 11).

  8. 8.

    Clark and Hulme (2010) underline that headcount measures say nothing about the extent or magnitude of income shortfalls below the poverty line, leaving aside the very real issue of where to draw the poverty line.

  9. 9.

    The theory of fuzzy sets and fuzzy categories is a potential tool for dealing with shortcoming of cutoffs (see e.g. Zimmermann 2001).

  10. 10.

    In this respect Anand and Sen (1997: 6) write: “Since any choice of weights should be open to questioning and debating in public discussions, it is crucial that the judgments that are implicit in such weighting be made as clear and comprehensible as possible, and thus be open to public scrutiny”.

  11. 11.

    According to Qizilbash one solution is to distinguish more categories e.g. from the lowest admissible critical minimal level to the highest admissible critical minimal level (Qizilbash 2003; Clark and Hulme 2010).

  12. 12.

    In order to avoid these difficulties, Mauro et al. (2017) propose a procedure for harmonisation and alignment of variables based on public scrutiny of specially designed survey questions. This procedure is appropriate for our class of indicators and will help facilitate the interpretation of our results.

  13. 13.

    For α = 1, there is perfect substitutability between the sub-indexes, and as α increases from 1 the elasticity of substitution decreases monotonically from ∞ to 0.

  14. 14.

    The hypothesis of g(·) > 1 is required to imply the convexity of the curves to the origin.

  15. 15.

    The choice of μ for measuring the level of individual well-being used to characterise the heterogeneity structure is not purely arbitrary. A sensitivity analysis using different measures (e.g. an iterative method leading to a sufficient degree of convergence after 3–4 iterations) showed no significant differences in the final measurements, so that a simple function as the arithmetic mean seems the most natural choice in absence of additional information on the structure of substitutability rates.

  16. 16.

    When α = 0 the function is not defined for μ < 0, but since all variables are assumed to be bounded between 0 and 1, their arithmetic mean is non-negative, so that the function is defined in the domain.

References

  1. Aaberge, R., & Brandolini, A. (2014). Multidimensional poverty and inequality. Temi di discussione (working papers), Banca D’Italia, Number 976—Sept.

  2. Alkire, S. (2008). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The many dimensions of poverty. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2010). Designing the inequality-adjusted human development index. OPHI working paper series, 37.

  4. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 476–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2013). A multidimensional approach: Poverty measurement & beyond. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anand, S., & Sen, A. K. (1997). Concepts of human development and poverty: A multidimensional perspective. Human Development Papers. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Anand, S., & Sen, A. K. (2000). The income component of the human development index. Journal of Human Development, 1(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Biggeri, M., & Mauro, V. (2010). Comparing human development patterns across countries: Is it possible to reconcile multidimensional measures and intuitive appeal? Working paper, no. 15/2010, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Università di Firenze.

  9. Biggeri, M., & Mehrotra, R. (2011). Child poverty as capability deprivation: How to choose dimensions of child well-being and poverty? In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach, Chap. 3. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, 25–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bradshaw, J. P., Hoelscher, P., & Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child well-being in the European Union. Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 133–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brandolini, A., & D’Alessio, G. (2009). Measuring well-being in the functioning space. In E. M. Chiappero (Ed.), Debating global society: Reach and limits of the capability approach. Milan: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chakravarty, S. R., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2006). The measurement of social exclusion. Review of Income and Wealth, 52(3), 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clark, D. A., & Hulme, D. (2010). Poverty, time and vagueness: Integrating the core poverty and chronic poverty frameworks. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(2), 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2002). Development, common foes and shared values. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 463–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). Core poverty, vagueness and adaptation: A new methodology and some results for South Africa. Journal of Development Studies, 44(4), 519–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Comim, F., Alkire, S., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Decancq, K. (2016). Measuring multidimensional inequality in the OECD member countries with a distribution-sensitive Better Life Index. Social Indicators Research, 1–30. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1289-2.

  19. Decancq, M., Fleurbaey, E., & Schokkaert, E. (2015). Happiness, equivalent incomes and respect for preferences. Economica, 82(1), 1082–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Decancq, K., & Lugo, M. A. (2010). Weights in multidimensional indices of well-being: An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32(1), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Decancq, K., & Schokkaert, E. (2016). Beyond GDP: Using equivalent incomes to measure well-being in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 21–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52(3), 761–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gaertner, W., & Xu, Y. (2008). A new class of measures of the standard of living based on functionings. Economic Theory, 35(2), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jayaraj, D., & Subramanian, S. (2006). Horizontal and vertical inequality: Some interconnections and indicators. Social Indicator Research, 75(1), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanbur, R., & Squire, L. (1999). The evolution of thinking about poverty: Exploring the interactions. Mimeographed document. Washington, DC: World Development Report Office, World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F., & Choi, H. J. (2011). The HDI 2010: New controversies, old critiques. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(2), 249–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maggino, F. (2009). La misurazione dei fenomeni sociali attraverso indicatori statistici. Aspetti metodologici. Working paper, Università di Firenze.

  28. Maggino, F. (2017a). Developing indicators and managing the complexity. In F. Maggino (Ed.) Complexity in society. From indicators construction to their synthesis, social indicators research series. Springer (forthcoming).

  29. Maggino, F. (2017b). Dealing with syntheses in a system of indicators. In F. Maggino (Ed.) Complexity in society. From indicators construction to their synthesis, social indicators research series. Springer (forthcoming).

  30. Mauro, V., Biggeri, & M., Maggino, F. (2017) The key role of harmonisation and alignment of domains in the synthesis of indicators (forthcoming).

  31. Menon, M., Perali, F., & Sierminska, E. (2016). An asset-based indicator of well-being for a unified means testing tool: Money metric or counting approach? WP series, Department of Economics, University of Verona, 2.

  32. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (EC/JRC), Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E. (OECD) (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and userguide. OECD, statistics working paper.

  33. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pradhan, M., & Ravallion, M. (2000). Measuring poverty using qualitative perceptions of consumption adequacy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(3), 462–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Qizilbash, M. (2003). Vague language and precise measurement: The case of poverty. Journal of Economic Methodology, 10(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ravallion, M. (1998). Poverty lines in theory and practice. LSMS working paper 133. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

  38. Roemer, J. E. (1998). Theories of distributive justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sen, A. K. (1980). Equality of what. In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The tanner lectures on human value (pp. 195–220). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sen, A. K. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlements and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sen, A. K. (1985a). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sen, A. K. (1985b). Commodities and capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sen, A. K. (1987). The standard of living. In G. Hawthorn (Ed.), The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sen, A. K. (1989). Economic methodology, heterogeneity and relevance. Social Research, 56(2), 299–329.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Stewart, F. (2002). Horizontal inequality: A neglected dimension of development. Working paper 81, Oxford Queen Elizabeth House.

  49. Trani, J. F., Biggeri, M., & Mauro, V. (2013). The multidimensionality of child poverty: Evidence from Afghanistan. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 391–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. UNDP. (1990). Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. UNDP. (2013). Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zimmermann, H. J. (2001). Fuzzy set theory and its applications (4th ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This is part of a long term research project on Human development measurement started in 2009. Consequently, the authors would like to thank many different people and institutions. Financial support from the Europe Aid project “Umanamente” in the early phase of the research project with Oxfam Italy (2009/2010) is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are also grateful to Caterina Arciprete, Enrica Chiappero Martinetti, David A. Clark, Flavio Comim, Pasquale De Muro, Marco Fattore, Alex Apsan Frediani, Maria Laura Di Tommaso, Andrea Ferrannini, Richard Jolly, Martina Mennon, Federico Perali, Gustav Ranis for their comments. This paper has also benefited from comments received from participants at the following events: the conference on “Twenty Years of Human Development: The Past and the Future of the Human Development Index”, St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, UK, 28–29, January 2010; the PRIN project events between 2011 and 2013 financed by MIUR; the workshop on “Capabitaly” in Rome 7 April 2014; the conference of AIQUAV in Florence, December 2015; and finally the Cambridge Capability Conference, at the Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, 13–14 June 2016. The authors have also benefited from continuous interactions with academics participating in the Italian colloquia on the Capability Approach. The usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Biggeri.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1548-2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mauro, V., Biggeri, M. & Maggino, F. Measuring and Monitoring Poverty and Well-Being: A New Approach for the Synthesis of Multidimensionality. Soc Indic Res 135, 75–89 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1484-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Measurement
  • Multidimensional well-being
  • Multidimensional poverty
  • Composite Multidimensional Index
  • Sustainable human development
  • Capability approach