Towards a Multidimensional Poverty Index for Germany

Suppa, Nicolai

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2583764

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It consists of two core concepts: functionings and capabilities. While functionings refer to the various things a person succeeds in 'doing or being' (e.g., being healthy or participating in the social life), capabilities represent the set of all functionings an individual can choose from (Hick, 2016;Suppa, 2018). The capability approach advocates for an evaluation at the capability space and emphasises the capabilities a person has, irrespective of whether they choose to exercise these or not (Hick, 2016).…”

Section: Capability Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaving No One Behind: An Individual-Level Approach to Measuring Multidimensional Poverty in Botswana

Lekobane

2021

Soc Indic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Leave No One Behind principle is at the core of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and acknowledges that poverty is multidimensional and should be examined at individual level. Notwithstanding this, most empirical studies use the household as the unit of analysis for multidimensional poverty measurement. However, estimation of poverty levels at household-level underestimates poverty levels of the society and does not capture intra-household inequalities. The objective of this study is two-fold: (1) developing a country-specific individual-level multidimensional poverty measure; and (2) providing estimates of multidimensional poverty for Botswana. This study contributes to the limited literature on individual-level multidimensional poverty measurement. Empirically, this study offers the first attempt to estimate a nationally relevant and context-specific multidimensional poverty index for Botswana using the individual as a unit of analysis. The results reveal that an estimated 46.2% of individuals are considered multidimensionally poor based on individual-level analysis. This figure is higher than the household-level estimate of 36.5%, which indicates that using the household as a unit of analysis leads to underestimating poverty levels in the society. The results show that on average, the multidimensionally poor are deprived in 47.4% of all indicators under consideration. This finding indicates that multidimensional poverty intensity is also a considerable concern in Botswana. These findings warrant policy interventions.

show abstract

Section: Capability Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaving No One Behind: An Individual-Level Approach to Measuring Multidimensional Poverty in Botswana

Lekobane

2021

Soc Indic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different definitions of poverty have been submitted by authors and an overall definition is yet to exist. According to the World Bank (2000), “poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being where well-being is viewed as having control or command over commodities such as adequate income or consumption of basic amenities.” Suppa (2016) views poverty as insufficient income, consumption expenditure or lack of essential goods. Its occurrence is observed where necessities for well-being are in substandard measures to maintain a subsistence level of living.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of off-farm income on multi-dimensional poverty among rural farm households in Nigeria

Adeoye

Seini

Sarpong

et al. 2019

IJSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of the different components of off-farm income on multi-dimensional poverty. Furthermore, the study aims to measure multi-dimensional poverty and also identify the determinants of multi-dimensional poverty in Nigeria. The paper reveals the different contributions of the dimensions of education, health and living standard. Design/methodology/approach The study focuses on rural farm households in Nigeria. Data are obtained from the Nigeria General Household Survey, 2013. The survey covers both urban and rural areas of the 36 states of Nigeria. Owing to the interest of this study in the rural farm household’s sub-sector, a nationally representative sample of 836 rural farm households are selected for the study after the data merging process. Rural farm households in this paper earn 50 percent of their total income from crop and livestock production. The paper employs the Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) to measure multi-dimensional poverty across the six different geographical zones of Nigeria. The probit regression model is used to estimate and analyze the effect of off-farm income components on multi-dimensional poverty and also to identify the determinants of multi-dimensional poverty. Findings The results of the study show that among the off-farm income components, the non-farm wage income and non-farm self-employment income have negative association with multi-dimensional poverty. Findings show that multi-dimensional poverty is high in Nigeria with deprivations in health contributing the most. Northern Regions have a higher estimate. Results reveal that sex, age, number of adults, formal credit access, access to extension services and location characteristics are key determinants of multi-dimensional poverty. The MPI for Nigeria averaged 47 percent. Across regions, deprivation in the health dimension contributes about 44 percent to multi-dimensional poverty. Deprivation in living standards contributes 40.5 percent, while deprivation in education contributes 15.5 percent to multi-dimensional poverty. Research limitations/implications Due to the nature of the data used, the health indicators (nutrition and child mortality) are absent but proxies are used instead. Future research could introduce gender dimensions. Practical implications Improving the involvement of rural farm households in non-farm self-employment sector could improve their livelihoods and prevent migration to urban centers, especially among the youths. Social implications Improving the quality of health, education and living standards will lead to lower poverty levels in Nigeria. Farmers can best reduce their multi-dimensional poverty by engaging in more off-farm jobs. Originality/value This paper provides information to policy makers on the effect of different components of income from the off-farm sector on multi-dimensional poverty alongside with the determinants of multi-dimensional poverty at a national level for the rural farm households. By using MPI, the contribution of the different dimensions used in computing the MPI across the six geographical regions within the country is revealed. This provides policy makers with more information for development purposes.

show abstract

“…Noble et al (2006Noble et al ( , 2010 andNoble & Wright (2013) also used Grade 7 as the threshold. 11 Disability was also included in recent local(Frame et al, 2016;Omotoso & Koch 2017) and international (e.g Suppa, 2015;Hanandita & Tampubolon, 2016;Martinez Jr & Perales, 2017). studies.http://repository.uwc.ac.za…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001–16

Fransman

2018

Development Southern Africa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses the Census 2001 and 2011 as well as Community Survey 2007 and 2016 data to derive a multidimensional poverty index in South Africa for each year, before assessing the changes in non-money-metric, multidimensional poverty over time. Both the incidence and intensity of multidimensional poverty decreased continuously, and these declines were more rapid than that of money-metric poverty. The decrease in multidimensional poverty between 2001 and 2016 was most rapid for female Africans residing in rural areas in Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces. Multidimensional poverty was most serious in numerous district councils in these two provinces, despite the fact that poverty decline was also most rapid in these district councils. The results of the multidimensional poverty index decomposition indicated that Africans contributed more than 95% to multidimensional poverty, while unemployment, years of schooling and disability were the three indicators contributing most to poverty.

show abstract

Towards a Multidimensional Poverty Index for Germany

Cited by 18 publications

References 44 publications

Leaving No One Behind: An Individual-Level Approach to Measuring Multidimensional Poverty in Botswana

Leaving No One Behind: An Individual-Level Approach to Measuring Multidimensional Poverty in Botswana

Effect of off-farm income on multi-dimensional poverty among rural farm households in Nigeria

Multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001–16

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About