Measuring literacy: some extensions of the Basu-Foster framework

Subramanian, S.

doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2002.11.003

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is unlike in the existing papers such as, for instance, Basu and Foster [2]; Dutta [6]; and Subramanian [14].…”

Section: The Domain and The Measurementioning

confidence: 77%

“…The second part is what makes it 'strong.' Most standard measures of literacy (Basu and Foster [2], Dutta [6], and Gibson [7] for instance) do not satisfy this; the only exception is Subramanian [14]. What this part of the axiom says is that, if there are no isolated illiterates in a society, then the literacy of that society is equal to the standard literacy rate.…”

Section: Characterizing E -Literacy Mappingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fortunately, there is now some literature on 'effective' measures of literacy, which try to take account of the externalities of literacy, by allowing for the fact that it is worse to be an isolated illiterate than a proximate illiterate (Almeyda-Duran [1]; Basu and Foster [2]; Basu, Narayan and Ravallion [3]; Chakravarty and Majumder [4]; Dutta [6]; Gibson [7]; Iversen and PalmerJones [8]; Lee [10]; Maddox [11]; Mitra [12]; Subramanian [14]; and Valenti [16]) 2 . These measures can, however, be subjected to two important criticisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A new and easy-to-use measure of literacy, its axiomatic properties and an application

Basu

Lee

2008

Soc Choice Welf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. It can be argued that just as there are different kinds of literacy, there are different kinds of illiteracy. A 'proximate illiterate,' i.e. an illiterate who has easy access to a literate person, is clearly better off than someone without such access. The existing literature that takes account of these differences (1) defines an illiterate person to be a proximate illiterate if he or she lives in a household with at least one literate person and (2) derives new measures of literacy which typically exceed the standard literacy rate. The latter risks generating policy complacency. The aim of this paper is to suggest a measure of literacy that is not limited by (1) and (2). The measure is axiomatically characterized and its use is illustrated with a numerical exercise for the provinces of South Africa.

show abstract

“…This is unlike in the existing papers such as, for instance, Basu and Foster [2]; Dutta [6]; and Subramanian [14].…”

Section: The Domain and The Measurementioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Characterizing E -Literacy Mappingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A new and easy-to-use measure of literacy, its axiomatic properties and an application

Basu

Lee

2008

Soc Choice Welf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indranil Dutta [3], S. Subramanian [11], and Paola Valenti [12]) have given measures for which the extent of the externality depends on the rate of literacy within each household. In almost every case, the proposed measure of literacy is bounded below by the standard literacy rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subramanian has already derived the measure of literacy (1 − I)R from different motivations [11]. He provides an interesting characterization of (1 − I)R as a function of R and a measure of efficiency loss I/(1−R) satisfying certain properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking the effective literacy rate

Lee

2008

Mathematical Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in BENCHMARKING THE EFFECTIVE LITERACY RATE TRAVIS LEEAbstract. By now the importance of literacy in the process of development is widely accepted. However, unlike measuring welfare or inequality, the problem of literacy measurement remains largely unexamined. Alternatives to the standard literacy rate, R, equal to the number of literate adults as a percentage of the adult population, are not well known, but this measure has its deficiencies. In particular, several authors have identified the externality accruing to proximate illiterates, that is, illiterate people with access to a literate person. The standard literacy rate ignores this externality; measures of effective literacy are sensitive to it. The present note offers two effective literacy rates (measures) and a set of axioms characterizing each. Nearly all measures of effective literacy appearing in the literature are greater than or equal to R. In fact, the best known of these, the Basu-Foster measure L * , is strictly greater in virtually every case (see Basu and Foster [1]). Although the inequality L * ≥ R is an unintended consequence of their construction, it amounts to setting a benchmark for the effective literacy rate. This notes examines Basu and Foster's framework and offers an alternative benchmark.

show abstract

Group Differential for Attainment and Failure Indicators

Nathan

Mishra

2013

J of Intl Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study revisits the properties of group differential (GD) measures and extends it to include monotonicity and policy sensitivity axioms. Imposing level sensitivity, which indicates that a given gap is worse off at higher (lower) level of attainment (failure), the study concurs that 'simple difference' and 'simple ratio' are the most basic GD measures for attainment and failure indicators, respectively. It proposes two new measures, one each for attainment and failure, which have certain advantages from a policy implication perspective. An empirical illustration has been provided by taking two indicators from Millennium Development Goals for different regions of the world. 1 There are attainment indicators such as literacy rate and immunisation rate, and failure indicators such as infant mortality rate (IMR), maternal mortality rate and death rate. An attainment indicator can be converted as failure by taking its additive inverse, like when literacy rate is replaced with illiteracy rate.

show abstract

Measuring literacy: some extensions of the Basu-Foster framework

Cited by 24 publications

References 5 publications

A new and easy-to-use measure of literacy, its axiomatic properties and an application

A new and easy-to-use measure of literacy, its axiomatic properties and an application

Benchmarking the effective literacy rate

Group Differential for Attainment and Failure Indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About