Tag Archives: decomposability

Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement (Revised and Updated)

This paper proposes a new methodology for multidimensional poverty measurement consisting of an identification method ρk that extends the traditional intersection and union approaches, and a class of poverty measures Mα. Our identification step employs two forms of cutoff: one within each dimension to determine whether a person is deprived in that dimension, and a second across dimensions that identifies the poor by ‘counting’ the dimensions in which a person is deprived. The aggregation step employs the FGT measures, appropriately adjusted to account for multidimensionality. The axioms are presented as joint restrictions on identification and the measures, and the methodology satisfies a range of desirable properties including decomposability. The identification method is particularly well suited for use with ordinal data, as is the first of our measures, the adjusted headcount ratio. We present some dominance results and an interpretation of the adjusted headcount ratio as a measure of unfreedom. Examples from the US and Indonesia illustrate our methodology.

Citation: Alkire, S. and Foster, J. (2009). “Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement (revised and updated).” OPHI Working Paper 32, University of Oxford.

Measuring Multidimensional Poverty in India: A New Proposal

This paper focuses on the methodology by which India’s 2002 Below the Poverty Line (BPL) census data identify the poor and construct a BPL headcount. Using the BPL 2002 methodology it identifies which rural families would have been considered BPL if NFHS (National Family Health Survey) data had been used rather than BPL census data. It compares these to poor families that would be identified using the same variables with the Alkire and Foster multidimensional poverty methodology. It finds that up to 12 per cent of the poor sample population and 33 per cent of the extreme poor could be misclassified as non-poor by the pseudo-BPL method. The paper also develops a sample Index of Deprivation that responds to criticisms regarding BPL data. We compare these results with income poverty and with pseudo-BPL status for sample respondents and disaggregate the index by state and break it down by dimension.

Citation: Alkire, S. and Seth, S. (2008). “Measuring Multidimensional Poverty in India: A New Proposal.” OPHI Working Paper 15, University of Oxford.

Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement (Short Version)

This paper proposes a new methodology for multidimensional poverty measurement consisting of an identification method ρk that extends traditional approaches, and a class of poverty measures Ma that satisfies several desirable properties including decomposability. Our identification step employs two forms of cutoff: one within each dimension and a second across dimensions that identifies the poor by counting their deprivations. We aggregate using Foster-Greer-Thorbecke measures adjusted for multidimensionality. Our adjusted headcount ratio is well suited for use with ordinal data. Examples from Indonesia and the US illustrate our methodology.

Citation: Alkire, S. & Foster, J. (revised in 2009) Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement (short version). OPHI Working Paper 7.5, University of Oxford.

Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement

This paper proposes a new methodology for multidimensional poverty measurement consisting of an identification method ρκ that extends traditional approaches, and a class of poverty measures Mα that satisfies several desirable properties including decomposability. Our identification step employs two forms of cutoff: one within each dimension and a second across dimensions that identifies the poor by counting their deprivations. We aggregate using Foster-Greer-Thorbecke measures adjusted for multidimensionality. Our adjusted headcount ratio is well suited for use with ordinal data. Examples from Indonesia and the US illustrate our methodology.

Citation: Alkire, S. & Foster, J. (2007, revised in 2008). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. OPHI Working Paper 7, University of Oxford.