ABELL, N., D. W. SPRINGER and A. KAMATA (2009) Developing and
validating rapid assessment instruments, New York ; Oxford, Oxford
Brown, T. A. (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research,
New York, NY ; London, New York, NY ; London : Guilford Press.
(Chapter 2: The common Factor Model and Exploratory Factor Analysis)
CHIAPPERO-MARTINETTI, E. and J. M. ROCHE (2009) “Operationalization of
the capability approach, from theory to practice: a review of
techniques and empirical applications” in CHIAPPERO-MARTINETTI, E.
(Ed.) Debating Global Society: Reach and Limits of the Capability
Approach. Milan, Fondazione Feltrinelli.
Gallo, Cesar and J.M. Roche (2011) ‘Multidimensional Poverty in
Venezuela during 1997 – 2010: A proposal of a national adapted measure
for monitoring purposes’ in Serie Documentos de Trabajo, Banco Central
HAMILTON, L. C. (2009) Statistics with Stata : updated for version 10,
Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole. (Chapter 12: Principal Components, Factor,
and Cluster Analysis)
HEATH, A. and J. MARTIN (1997) Chapter 3: Why Are There so Few Formal
Measuring Instruments in Social and Political Research? IN LYBERG, L.
(Ed.) Survey measurement and process quality. New York ; Chichester,
Klasen, S. (2000). Measuring Poverty and Deprivation in South Africa.
Review of Income and Wealth. Vol. 46, pp. 33-58.
Roche, J.M. (2008). Monitoring Inequality among Social Groups: A
Methodology Combining Fuzzy Set Theory and Principal Component
Analysis. Journal of Human Development. Vol. 9 (3)
Rutstein, S. and K. Johnson, 2004. The DHS Wealth Index, DHS
Comparative Reports No. 6, Calverton, MD: ORC Macro.
The list below is not comprehensive, but covers some of the key research issues that have been identified by OPHI researchers. Please watchPart 2 of the video to get a further explanation by Sabina Alkire.
Research Issues: Data for MPI
Can we improve international data for MPI calculations?
Should we ‘call for’ a survey having a specific set of dimensions and indicators? And which?
Research Issues: General data
Data Constraints: Most criticisms address these (why don’t you include _____?).
58:55 Question asked to reflect on your own multidimensional poverty measure
60:17 Link between MPI and the capability approach, and a discussion on the practical implementation of the capability approach – how the AF methodology allows for diversity with valued functionings (a k cut-off larger than union)
66:21 The capability approach’s relation to human development (and the HDR), they have the same objective
70:14 The capability approach’s relation to other conceptual framworks (MDGs, human rights, human security, happiness)
03:10 Introduction to the components of MPI: surveys used, dimensions and weights chosen, and data restrictions on international comparable survey data
05:20 Explanation of the health dimension – variables and deprivation cut-offs
06:37 Explanation of the educational dimension – variables and deprivation cut-offs
07:58 Explanation of the living standard dimension – variables and deprivation cut-offs
11:54 Data constraints, a call for better data, and a note that MPI is not appropriate for national policy
15:46 Explanation of the equally (nested) weights in MPI – same as HDI, pasted robustness check, (most importantly) they are easy to communicate (Atkinson)
18:35 Identification (z-cut and k-cut offs); the debate/choice of the poverty cut-off (k).
21:48 Aggregation and limitation to the adjusted headcount (M0), as MPI is based on ordinal data.
23:10 Examples from qualitative work done on the global MPI.
26:10 Present the MPI 2010 results, comparison to $1.25/day, introduction to the many research questions relating to construction of a multidimensional poverty measure and MPI work within the topic (see lecture on Ongoing Debates and Research Topics).