Skip to main content

Child Wellbeing in Egypt: a Weighted Multidimensional Almost Dominance Approach


In Multidimensional Almost First/Second Order Dominance (MAFOD and MASOD), the total number of deprived dimensions (T) is used, i.e. equal weight is given to each dimension. However, deprivation in some dimensions could be more crucial than deprivation in other dimensions. We propose the use of a weighted sum of deprived dimensions. Three different weighting techniques (MFW: most favorable weighting, FBW: frequency based weighting and NW: normative weighting) are chosen to calculate this weighted sum, hence three different weighted Multidimensional First Order Dominance (MFOD) are obtained. These three weighted MFODs and their associated MAFOD/MASODs are evaluated using: the percentage of indeterminate cells and the almost-dominance percentage. These percentages are compared with their counterparts of MFOD, MAFOD/MASOD of the T technique. In addition, the weighted MAFOD/MASODs are compared to the bootstrap dominance comparison technique of Arndt et al. (World Development, 40(11), 2290–2301, 2012) in terms of the indeterminate cells percentages. Using Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 2014, weighted MAFOD/MASOD analyses are performed to compare the Egyptian children welfare among governorates and among aggregate regions. Results provide evidence that the weighting techniques affect the dominance analysis, but barely affect the ranking of the regions or governments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  1. If dimensions are substitutes, the marginal utility of one attribute decreases as the quantity of the other increases. If attributes are complements, an increase in the amount of one raises the marginal utility of the other, (Njong 2010).

  2. Net domination is the difference between row and column average domination.

  3. In a three dimensional scenario, if 1 denotes deprived and 0 denotes not deprived, then the outcome (0,1,1) is worse than the outcome (0,0,1).

  4. Note if we used equal weight of 1/6 instead 1 (so that the weights would sum up to 1), the resulted ordering given to the multidimensional events would be the same as the ordering obtained by total sum; so equal weight returns same results as total sum.

  5. The Bristol indicators were originally developed by a team at the University of Bristol and presented in the report “The Distribution of Child Poverty in the Developing World”. These indicators are based on the “deprivation approach” to poverty.

  6. Tables 5, 6 ,7 contain only 54 deprivation events (not 64) since the percentages of deprivation in the remaining events are zero.

  7. The static case means that the dominance analysis is used on the data set only, i.e. without bootstrap, this terminology was given by Arndt et al. (2012).

  8. The frontier governorates poverty rates are not listed in this table, we considered the poverty rate for it above 30.


  • Ajakaiye, O., Jerome, A. T., Olaniyan, O., Mahrt, K., & Alaba, O. A. (2016). Spatial and temporal multidimensional poverty in Nigeria. In C. Arndt, A. McKay, & F. Tarp (Eds.), Growth and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 218–237). Oxford University Press.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, C., Distante, R., Hussain, M., Østerdal, L., Huong, P., & Ibraimo, M. (2012). Ordinal welfare comparisons with multiple discrete indicators: A first order dominance approach and application to child poverty. World Development, 40(11), 2290–2301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, C., Leyaro, V., Mahrt, K. (2014). Multi-dimensional poverty analysis for Tanzania: First order dominance approach with discrete indicators. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2(3), 244–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. B. (1987). On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica, 55(4), 749–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. B., & Bourguignon, F. (1982). The comparison of multi-dimensioned distributions of economic status. Review of Economic Studies, 49(2), 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decancq, K., Lugo, M. A. (2008). Setting weights in multidimensional indices of well-being and deprivation. OPHI working paper, ophiwp018, queen Elizabeth house, University of Oxford. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.

  • Duclos, J. Y., Sahn, D. E., & Younger, S. D. (2006). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. The Economic Journal, 116(514), 943–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Laithy, H., & Armanious, D. (2011). Towards a new definition of child poverty indicators in Egypt (sensitivity analysis), paper prepared for the Egyptian National Child Rights Observatory (ENCRO). Cairo, 2011.

  • El Sayed, T., & Zahran, A. R. (2018). Multidimensional almost dominance: Child wellbeing in Egypt. Social Indicators Research, 136(1), 283–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fare, R., & Karagiannis, G. (2014). Benefit-of-the-doubt aggregation and the diet problem. Omega, 47, 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadar, J., & Russell, W. (1969). Rules for ordering uncertain prospects. American Economic Review, 59, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leshno, M., Levy, H. (2002). Preferred by all" and preferred by "Most" decision makers: Almost stochastic dominance. Management Science, 48, 1074–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, M. (2012). Almost stochastic dominance and efficient investment sets. American Journal of Operations Research, 2, 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahrt, K., Masumbu, G. (2015). Estimating multidimensional poverty in Zambia. WIDER Working Paper Series 137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER). Accessed 1Nov 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nanivazo, M. (2015). First order dominance analysis: Child wellbeing in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Social Indicators Research, 122, 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Njong, A.M. (2010). Multidimensional Spatial Poverty Comparisons in Cameroon. Research PapersRP_198, African Economic Research Consortium. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.

  • Sayed, H., Hamed, R., Hosny, S., & Abdelhamid, A. H. (2017). Avoiding ranking contradictions in human development index using goal programming. Social Indicators Research, 138(2), 405–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., & Townsend, B. P. (1965). The poor and the poorest. A new analysis of the Ministry of Labour's family expenditure surveys of 1953–54 and 1960 (p. 2). London: G. Bell &Sons Ltd., York House.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (United Nation Development Programme) (1997): Egypt Human Development Report.

  • UNFPA (2018). “Localizing the targets of the sustainable development goals at governorate level”. Author: Baseera Accessed 2 July 2019.

Download references


The authors would like to show their gratitude to Alyaa Hegazy Abdelhamid for assistance with getting weights using the MFW technique and Samaa H. Hosny, Assistant Professor, FEPS, Cairo University for comments that greatly helped in the MFW weights.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. R. Zahran.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El Sayed, T., Zahran, A.R. Child Wellbeing in Egypt: a Weighted Multidimensional Almost Dominance Approach. Child Ind Res 13, 993–1022 (2020).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Stochastic dominance
  • Weighting techniques
  • Deprivation indicators