Robust Multidimensional Poverty Comparisons

Duclos, Jean–Yves; Sahn, David E.; Younger, Stephen D.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.395441

Cited by 86 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a consequence of this difference in focus, the sequential poverty dominance results we obtain are different from those in Atkinson (1992), Jenkins and Lambert (1993), Chambaz and Maurin (1998), Zoli (2000) and Duclos et al (2003). They are expressed in terms of distributions of poverty gaps and of absolute poverty gap profile (APGP) curves, introduced by Spencer and Fisher (1992), Jenkins and Lambert (1997) and Shorrocks (1995Shorrocks ( , 1998.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…This additional requirement has been derived also in Duclos, et al (2003) and used to supplement the SPD conditions in order to account for dominance criteria that are consistent with discontinuous poverty indices like the headcount ratio or those introduced in Bourguignon and Fields (1997). Note that this condition is enough, when required to hold for all ordered poverty lines in [0,z], to induce the analogue of BD for comparisons based on first order dominance as obtained in Proposition 6 letting j = 1, which is equivalent to SPGD(1) (and therefore will imply SPGD(2)) checked for all poverty lines considered.…”

Section: Proposition 7 Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sequential procedures for poverty gap dominance

Zoli

Lambert

2011

Soc Choice Welf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poverty evaluations differ from welfare evaluations in one significant aspect, the existence of a threshold or reference point, the poverty line. It is therefore possible to build up normative evaluation models in which comparisons are made taking distances from this reference point and not only from the origin to be ethically relevant. This is the case in our model of poverty comparisons over heterogeneous populations, which focuses upon poverty gaps and not incomes. When poverty lines differ for the different groups in the population we show that choosing poverty gaps instead of incomes as the relevant indicator brings in normatively appealing classes of poverty indices not previously accommodated. For these indices poverty comparisons over heterogeneous populations are implemented through sequential poverty gap curves (or poverty gap distributions) dominance. These novel conditions are logically related to those suggested in Atkinson and Bourguignon (1987) for welfare comparisons, and can also be grounded firmly upon those of Bourguignon (1989). The proportion of poor individuals in the society or their average poverty gap play a role in our comparisons that was neglected in the existing poverty dominance criteria for heterogeneous populations. Various intermediate poverty dominance conditions and a generalization of the poverty gap approach are also investigated.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Proposition 7 Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential procedures for poverty gap dominance

Zoli

Lambert

2011

Soc Choice Welf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Duclos et al. () highlight the importance of analyzing the relationships between the different dimensions of poverty rather than simply constructing composite indicators.…”

Section: Broader Implications Of the Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐asset Deprivation and Pro‐poor Growth in Cameroon

Mpenya

Epo

Baye

2016

Review Development Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes pro-poor growth of multiple dimensions of household well-being by sector of activity in Cameroon. It uses (1) a polychoric principal component analysis to construct indicators of household asset endowments, (2) the growth incidence curve to analyze the pro-poorness of the different assets, and (3) a Shapley value framework decomposition to account for changes in deprivation in terms of within-sector growth and changes in within-sector inequality. Data is sourced from the second and third Cameroon household consumption surveys. Results show that: (a) pro-poor growth is not observed for all assets and households at the bottom of the distribution of the different assets experienced an increase in inequality; (b) for all asset endowments, overall deprivation worsened between 2001 and 2007; (c) whereas the growth component mitigated the worsening incidence, depth and severity of human asset deprivation, both growth and redistribution components accounted for the worsening physical, financial and social asset deprivations; (d) while the tertiary sectors of activity benefited some human asset poverty reduction, all sectors suffered from worsening financial and social asset deprivation. These results have implications for promoting growth and improving the allocation of household assets.

show abstract

“…We have considered the previous studies to justify our indicators. Duclos et al (2006) extended it to a multidimensional poverty context. 8 See Appendix I for further details.…”

Section: Appendix Vmentioning

confidence: 99%