2004
DOI: 10.1007/s10888-004-3227-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Poverty dynamics corrected for measurement error

Abstract: 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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
57
0
5

Year Published

2006
2006
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
4
57
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…As far as we are aware there are no analytical results concerning the effects of measurement error or omitted variables for transition probabilities. There are some papers that try to account for measurement error when measuring transitions in the labour market; for example Magnac and Visser [22] and Poterba and Summers [27,28] use auxiliary information on error rates to estimate transitions between labour market states and Breen and Moisio [8] use latent class Markov models to correct for measurement error in estimating poverty transitions. The former require auxiliary data from which the truth can be ascertained, the latter requires observations on multiple transitions to identify the measurement error; these data are unlikely to be available in studies of intergenerational mobility.…”
Section: Intergenerational Mobility Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As far as we are aware there are no analytical results concerning the effects of measurement error or omitted variables for transition probabilities. There are some papers that try to account for measurement error when measuring transitions in the labour market; for example Magnac and Visser [22] and Poterba and Summers [27,28] use auxiliary information on error rates to estimate transitions between labour market states and Breen and Moisio [8] use latent class Markov models to correct for measurement error in estimating poverty transitions. The former require auxiliary data from which the truth can be ascertained, the latter requires observations on multiple transitions to identify the measurement error; these data are unlikely to be available in studies of intergenerational mobility.…”
Section: Intergenerational Mobility Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three types of mobility are distinguished in the literature: absolute mobility, relative mobility and positional mobility. 8 Absolute mobility measures are invariant to the addition of the same positive constant to both fathers' and sons' earnings and thus value movement per se. Relative mobility focuses on measures that are invariant to the multiplication of fathers' and sons' earnings by positive constants; in linear regression models this is captured by the notion of regression to the mean.…”
Section: Evaluating the Consequences Of Misspecification For The Measmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the total net yearly household income in the ECHP is provided with a time lag of one year, the household income is recalculated by combining income information measured in year T'1 (though referring to the current year T) with household composition information of the current year T (for a discussion, see Debels and Vandecasteele 2008). The recent literature on poverty measurement shows that there is reason to assume that there is an overestimation of poverty mobility rates due to measurement error (Rendtel et al 1998;Breen and Moisio 2004;Whelan and Maître 2006). Especially the number of poverty exits seems to be overestimated and this implies that the poverty length in this article would generally be underestimated.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fundamental distinction between the JR and the EDE approaches comes down to whether we measure poverty on the vertical or on the horizontal axis of Figure 1 -if we think of g 1 and g 2 as the poverty gaps of one individual across two periods. The JR approach roughly 7 expresses chronic poverty as P α (Γ 1 (g)) and transient poverty as the difference P α (g) − P α (Γ 1 (g)), both of which can be seen on the vertical axis of Figure 1. The EDE approach defines chronic poverty as Γ 1 (g) and transient poverty as the difference Γ α (g) − Γ 1 (g), both of which can be measured on the horizontal axis of Figure 1.…”
Section: Graphical Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%