Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement

Abstract

Multidimensional measures provide an alternative lens through which poverty may be viewed and understood. In recent work we have attempted to offer a practical approach to identifying the poor and measuring aggregate poverty (Alkire and Foster 2011). As this is quite a departure from traditional unidimensional and multidimensional poverty measurement -particularly with respect to the identification step -further elaboration may be warranted. In this paper we elucidate the strengths, limitations, and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement in order to clarify the debate and catalyse further research. We begin with general definitions of unidimensional and multidimensional methodologies for measuring poverty. We provide an intuitive description of our measurement approach, including a 'dual cutoff' identification step that views poverty as the state of being multiply deprived, and an aggregation step based on the traditional FGT measures. We briefly discuss five characteristics of our methodology that are easily overlooked or mistaken and conclude with some brief remarks on the way forward.Keywords: poverty measurement, multidimensional poverty, deprivation, FGT measures, decomposability, joint distribution, axioms. This publication is copyright, however it may be reproduced without fee for teaching or non-profit purposes, but not for resale. Formal permission is required for all such uses, and will normally be granted immediately. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from OPHI and may be subject to a fee. JEL classification: I3, I32, D63, O1

What next for children's services? Can policy at a local or national level have any significant impact on the outcomes for children and their families?

“…Moreover, there is no OECD country that devotes 10% or more of gross domestic product to social transfers that has a child poverty rate higher than 10% (UNICEF, 2007). Clearly there is a need to exercise caution when using the term poverty, which has been subject to a number of definitions (Alkire & Foster, 2011). In particular, it is necessary to consider the multi-dimensional factors that impact upon the lives of families as emphasised within the Millennium Development Goals.…”

“…In particular, it is necessary to consider the multi-dimensional factors that impact upon the lives of families as emphasised within the Millennium Development Goals. As Alkire and Foster (2011) have argued, a simplistic focus upon quantitative factors associated with income and consumption needs to be considered alongside those qualitative variable that include the perceptions of individuals around personal and family security and competence in areas such as literacy and educational attainment. For many families at risk, their own ability to control those factors that shape their lives appear limited and they find themselves increasingly disenfranchised by the pertaining socioeconomic and political climate of the day.…”

Where did identification go?

“…Ravallion's question misleads because our subindices are not independent -as marginal dashboard entries are -but instead rely on the joint distribution through the identification step [3, (4.2)]. 3 Moreover, only the aggregate index fully embodies the concept of poverty, satisfies desirable properties and conveys overall direction of change. This is vital: policymakers demand a summary statistic to show how overall poverty has changed.…”

Intertemporal deprivation in rural china: income and nutrition

“…1 Despite the advances, there remains quite a fundamental point of difference in the literature. In one camp are those, such as Alkire and Foster (2011b), who argue for the value of identifying the poor by considering the joint distribution of deprivations, and of using a methodology which can indicate changes over time in a unified and internally consistent framework. In the other camp are those such as Ravallion (2011), who, citing difficulties in choosing which dimensions to include, and how they should be weighted, argues that we should ".…”