Multidimensional and Fuzzy Measures of Poverty and Inequality in Turkey at National and Regional Level

  • Gianni BettiEmail author
  • Güllü Çalik
  • Murat Karakaş
Part of the Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being book series (EIAP, volume 9)


This chapter provides a step-by-step account of how fuzzy measures of both non-monetary deprivation and monetary poverty can be constructed using survey data such as that from the EU-SILC (European Union-Statistics on Income and Living Conditions). In the case of non-monetary deprivation, meaning dimensions or groupings of initial items of deprivation are identified using explanatory and confirmatory factor analyses, and a weighting system is applied to ensure the aggregation of individual items into the dimension they represent. An application of the proposed methodology is conducted using EU-SILC 2007 data from Turkey: estimates are provided at national level and also disaggregated at regional (NUTS1) level.


Lorenz Curve Poverty Measurement Fuzzy Measure Multidimensional Poverty Equivalised Income 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This paper has been partly funded by the Italian PRIN research project n. 2007 HEWTBE-003, and partially funded by the European Commission 7th Framework Project FP7-SSH-2007-1 n. 217565–SAMPLE. The authors are grateful to Dr. Enver Tasti, Dr. Francesca Gagliardi, Dr. Giulio Tarditi and Dr. Janet Donovan for their support and helpful comments.


  1. Anand S. and Sen A.K. (1997), Concepts of human development and poverty: a multidimensional perspective. Human Development Papers, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A. B. (2003). Multidimensional deprivation: contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A. B., & Bourguignon, F. (1982). The comparison of multidimensional distributions of economic status. Review of Economic Studies, 49, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, A. B., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2002). Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ballini, F., Betti, G., Çalik, G., Daşkiran, Z., Karakaş, M. (2009). The Siena micro-simulation model (SM2) for the tax-benefit system in Turkey, Working Paper n. 81, Dipartimento di Metodi Quantitativi, Università di Siena.Google Scholar
  6. Betti, G., Cheli, B., Lemmi, A., & Verma, V. (2006). Multidimensional and longitudinal poverty: an integrated fuzzy approach. In A. Lemmi & G. Betti (Eds.), Fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement (pp. 115–137). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betti, G., Verma, V., (1999). Measuring the degree of poverty in a dynamic and comparative context: a multi-dimensional approach using fuzzy set theory, Proceedings, ICCS-VI (Vol 11, pp 289–301) Lahore, Pakistan.Google Scholar
  8. Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. R. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cerioli, A., & Zani, S. (1990). A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty. In C. Dagum & M. Zenga (Eds.), Income and wealth distribution, inequality and poverty (pp. 272–284). Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakravarty, S. R., Mukherjee, D., & Ranade, R. (1998). On the family of subgroup and factor decomposable measures of multidimensional poverty. Research on Economic Inequality, 8, 175–194.Google Scholar
  11. Cheli, B. (1995). Totally Fuzzy and Relative Measures of Poverty in Dynamics Context. Metron, 53, 183–205.Google Scholar
  12. Cheli, B., & Betti, G. (1999). Totally fuzzy and relative measures of poverty dynamics in an Italian pseudo panel, 1985–1994. Metron, 57, 83–104.Google Scholar
  13. Cheli, B., & Lemmi, A. (1995). A totally fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimensional analysis of poverty. Economic Notes, 24, 115–134.Google Scholar
  14. Chiappero, Martinetti E. (1994). A new approach to evaluation of well-being and poverty by fuzzy set theory. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 53, 367–388.Google Scholar
  15. Chiappero, Martinetti E. (2006). Capability approach and fuzzy set theory: Description, aggregation and inference issues. In A. Lemmi & G. Betti (Eds.), Fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement (pp. 93–113). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Duclos, J.-Y., Sahn, D., & Younger, S. D. (2001). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. Canada: Université Laval.Google Scholar
  17. Eurostat (2002). Income, poverty and social exclusion: 2nd Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  18. Eurostat (2009). Description of SILC user database variables: cross-sectional and longitudinal. Version 2007. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  19. Filippone, A., Cheli, B., and D’Agostino A. (2001). Addressing the interpretation and the aggregation problems in totally fuzzy and relative poverty measures, ISER Working Paper Series number 2001–22, University of Essex.Google Scholar
  20. Klasen, S. (2000). Measuring poverty and deprivation in South Africa. Review of Income and Wealth, 46, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolm, S. C. (1977). Multidimensional egalitarianism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maasoumi, E. (1986). The measurement and decomposition of multidimensional inequality. Econometrica, 54, 771–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Smeeding, T., Saunders, P., Coder, J., Jenkins, S. P., Fritzell, J., Hagenaars, A., et al. (1993). Poverty, inequality and family living standards impacts across seven nations: The effect of non-cash subsidies for health, education and housing. Review of Income and Wealth, 39, 229–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  26. Tsui, K. (1985). Multidimensional generalisation of the relative and absolute inequality indices: the Atkinson-Kolm-Sen approach. Journal of Economic Theory, 67, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. TurkStat (2007). Income and living conditions survey 2007. Ankara:Turkish Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Vero, J., & Werquin, P. (1997). Reexamining the measurement of poverty: How do young people in the stage of being integrated in the Labour Force Manage (in French). Economie et Statistique, 8–10, 143–156.Google Scholar
  29. Whelan, C. T., Layte, R., Maitre, B., & Nolan, B. (2001). Income, deprivation and economic strain: an analysis of the European community household panel. European Sociological Review, 17, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of SienaSienaItaly
  2. 2.TURKSTATAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations