Measuring chronic multidimensional poverty

Alkire, Sabina; Apablaza, Mauricio; Chakravarty, Satya R.; Yalonetzky, Gastón

doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.05.020

Cited by 64 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, future research can explore the temporal nature of poverty within the U.S., adopting approaches similar to those used by Alkire et al. ().…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income Poverty and Multiple Deprivations in a High‐Income Country: The Case of the United States*

Mitra

Brucker

2016

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The objective of this study is to develop a measure of multiple deprivations for the United States that is similar to those used on the international stage as multidimensional poverty. The latter is understood broadly as a deprivation of well‐being across multiple dimensions rather than purely as a lack of income or other financial resources. Methods Using Current Population Survey and American Community Survey data, this study develops a measure of the joint distribution of multiple deprivations in the United States, in other words, a measure of the extent to which different deprivations are experienced by the same individuals. Results The experience of multiple deprivations affects 15 percent of Americans. An estimated 17.1 million Americans, 5.5 percent of the population, experience multiple deprivations while they are not income poor. The odds of experiencing multiple deprivations are significantly higher for Hispanics, immigrants, and persons with disabilities. Conclusions Income poverty is not a reliable proxy to measure multiple deprivations. Further measurement efforts are needed on overlapping multiple deprivations in the United States as such measures can be used in policy evaluation and monitoring.

show abstract

“…In addition, future research can explore the temporal nature of poverty within the U.S., adopting approaches similar to those used by Alkire et al. ().…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income Poverty and Multiple Deprivations in a High‐Income Country: The Case of the United States*

Mitra

Brucker

2016

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The multidimensional approach is an alternative to the monetary-centred approach to poverty and conceptualises poverty in both economic and comprehensive real-life terms. Although there is a danger of conflating poverty with the concept of other dimensions, studies have shown that poverty and well-being are not a single concept and therefore a multidimensional approach is needed for effective policy implementation (Alkire, Apablaza, Chakravarty, & Yalonetzky, 2017;Alkire & Foster, 2007;Axford, 2009;Leu, Chen, & Chen, 2016;Sen, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensional poverty status of householders with disabilities in South Korea

Park

Nam

2019

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated poverty among householders with disabilities using multidimensional poverty indices to verify their poverty status and expand the scope of the research on poverty. Using the dimensional poverty rate, headcount ratio and adjusted headcount ratio, the study indicates that the poverty rate is higher for householders with disabilities than it is for non‐disabled householders, as is also the headcount ratio and the adjusted headcount ratio. Given the low correlation between the monetary and non‐monetary dimensions of poverty, comprehensive diagnosis in the form of multidimensional poverty assessments should be carried out to provide adequate social services for householders with disabilities. Key Practitioner Message: • Monetary poverty does not directly influence the level of poverty in other dimensions; • The householder with disabilities is associated with higher multidimensional poverty; • Various aspects of life as well as income support should be considered in policy‐making for the problem of poverty.

show abstract

“… In the context of panel data over multiple periods and multiple dimensions, Alkire et al . () consider an approach where an additional cut‐off (triple cut‐off) is adopted to increase the sensitivity of the poverty measure to unequal distributions. We discuss this in more detail in Footnote 4. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Our measure can be extended to include the “triple cut‐off” found in Alkire et al . (), though in this application we focus on properties associated with the more familiar dual cut‐off framework of AF. An alternative approach in the static multidimensional framework can be found in Permanyer (); there the “Strong Focus” axiom maintained in the multidimensional poverty measurement literature is relaxed, allowing the welfare of non‐poor households to enter the poverty measure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating Between Dimensionality and Duration in Multidimensional Measures of Poverty: Methodology with an Application to China

Nicholas

Ray

Sinha

2017

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a multidimensional poverty measure that is sensitive to the within‐individual distribution of deprivations across dimensions and time. Our measure combines features from a static multidimensional measure (Alkire and Foster, ) and a time‐dependent unidimensional measure (Foster, ). The proposed measure separately identifies—and can therefore be decomposed according to—the proportion of the poverty score attributable to: (i) the concentration of deprivations within periods; (ii) the concentration of deprivations within dimensions. In doing so it allows for a poverty ranking that is robust to assumptions about the trade‐off between the two components. Previous measures have not allowed for the features proposed here due to the inability to calculate the exact contribution of each dimension to overall poverty. We overcome this by adapting to our measure the Shapley decomposition proposed in Shorrocks () (based on Shapley, ). The measure is applied to data from China, 2000‐2011.

show abstract

Measuring chronic multidimensional poverty

Cited by 64 publications

References 33 publications

Income Poverty and Multiple Deprivations in a High‐Income Country: The Case of the United States*

Income Poverty and Multiple Deprivations in a High‐Income Country: The Case of the United States*

Multidimensional poverty status of householders with disabilities in South Korea

Differentiating Between Dimensionality and Duration in Multidimensional Measures of Poverty: Methodology with an Application to China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About