/
Multidimensional Poverty Measurement Multidimensional Poverty Measurement

Multidimensional Poverty Measurement - PowerPoint Presentation

natalia-silvester
natalia-silvester . @natalia-silvester
Follow
440 views
Uploaded On 2015-10-07

Multidimensional Poverty Measurement - PPT Presentation

in Europe An Application of the Adjusted Headcount Approach Christopher T Whelan Brian Nolan and Bertrand Maître School of Sociology and Geary Institute University College Dublin amp School of Sociology amp Social Policy Queens University Belfast ID: 152580

deprivation amp poverty country amp deprivation country poverty var silc social 2009 adjusted approach head count multidimensional ratio cut matrix poor foster

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Multidimensional Poverty Measurement" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Multidimensional Poverty Measurement in Europe: An Application of the Adjusted Headcount Approach

Christopher, T. Whelan*, Brian Nolan** and Bertrand Maître****School of Sociology and Geary Institute, University College Dublin & School of Sociology & Social Policy, Queen’s University Belfast** College of Human Sciences, University College Dublin *** Economic and Social Research Institute, DublinSlide2

IntroductionIncreasing focus on multidimensional approaches to poverty & social exclusionVariety of increasingly sophisticated analytic strategies

Application of the Alkire & Foster multidimensional headcount approachFramed in a development rather than a rich country contextApply to EU-SILC 2009 DataSlide3

The Alkire & Foster ApproachFramework for multidimensional poverty, counting poor & measure of extent of poverty (Bourguignon & Chakravarty

, 2003)Axiomatic propertiesLimitations of counting approach – union & intersectionAlkire & Foster dual cut-off approachDeprivation cut off for individual dimensions

Poverty cut-of for number of dimensions – “breadth” of deprivationSlide4

The Alkire & Foster Approach (ii)Transition between identification and aggregation can be understood as involving a progression of matrices

The achievement matrix Y shows the outcome for - n persons on d dimensionsThe deprivation matrix replaces each entry in Y that is below the deprivation cut-off with 0.The censored deprivation matrix multiplies each row in the deprivation matrix by the identification function. If the person is multi-dimensionally poor i.e. above the cut-off point the row remains unchanged.If not it is replaced with 0s. Information on non-poor has no effect of measurement Slide5

The Adjusted Head Count RatioThe Adjusted Head Count Ratio (AHCR) is the mean of the censored deprivation matrix.AHCR has a potential range of values going from 0 to 1.Where no one in the population experiences any deprivation it has a value of 0. Where everyone is deprived on all dimensions it takes on a value of 1.The headcount H is the proportion of people who are multi-dimensionally poor

The intensity A is the average deprivation share among the poorH*A=AHCRAHCR properties includes decomposability in terms of dimensions & sub-groupsSlide6

Data and MeasuresEU-SILC 2009, 28 countriesDimensions of deprivation: Basic (absence of meal, clothes, leisure activity, home heating, etc)

Consumption (PC, car, internet) Health HRP (health status, restricted activities, chronic illness) Neighbourhood environment (presence of litters, pollution, crime/violence etc...)Cronbach’s alpha 0.85 (basic) to 0.64 (neighbourhood env)Use of prevalence weights and normalised score-0(no deprivation) to 1 (deprived all items).At Risk of Poverty (60% median income)

Macro variables Gini & Gross Income

P

er capita Slide7

Multidimensional Poverty by Country, EU-SILC 2009 Slide8

Decomposition of the Adjusted Head Count Ratio by Dimension by Country, EU-SILC 2009 (%)Slide9

Adjusted Head Count Ratio by Social Class and Country, EU-SILC 2009

Higher Professional & ManagerialLower Professional & ManagerialIntermediate & Lower Supv

Small Employer & Self-employ

Farmers

Lower services &

Clerical & technical

Routine & Never Worked

Norway

.011

.011

.016

.032

.020

.052

.074

Netherlands

.026

.053

.048

.056

.050

.069

.121

Denmark

.025

.030

.041

.042

.049

.050

.086

Germany

.034

.040.086.098.135.137.195UK.035.054.099.101.116.137.199Ireland.032.022.071.062.040.128.180Italy.025.038.053.092.098.113.136Greece.033.042.080.142.187.185.181Czech Republic.052.066.092.050.052.119.174Estonia.054.088.107.056.094.135.190Hungary.101.166.214.139.199.272.339Bulgaria.135.177.246.195.309.313.371Slide10

Adjusted Head Count Ratio by Social Class and Country, EU-SILC 2009Slide11

Mean Adjusted Head Count Social Exclusion Ratio by Age Group by Country EU-SILC 2009Slide12

Multilevel Analysis of Multidimensional Poverty, EU-SILC 2009

Hierarchical multilevel regressions (AHCR dep variable)Empty model (ICC:10.8%)Households & HRP characteristics (social class, education...) *Reduc in,

country var

(1.9%),

indiv

var

(10.6%), tot

var

(9.2%)

Macro-economic variables (GNDH & GINI)

*

GINI not sig

*

Reduc

in,

country

var

(67.9%),

indiv

var

(0%), tot

var

(16.8%)

Interaction of b. with GNDH

*

more pronounced effects of socio-eco disadvantages at lower level of GNDH

* Reduc in, country var (71.0%), indiv var(11.7%), tot var (18.2%) Slide13

Conclusion (i)Limitations of union & intersection approaches

AHCR approach provides a middle groundCensoring centralIdentifies a non-trivial minority as poor in each country.Size of poor group varies systematically with average income per capita but is not related to Gini

Main source of variation head count rather than intensity

In less affluent countries basic & consumption deprivation play a more prominent role while in more affluent countries health & income poverty dominateSlide14

Conclusion (ii)Systematic variation by socio-economic group. Impact of social class is stronger in low income countries. Age group effects vary by country

Limitations of EU Poverty Target Approach. Diversity of profiles captured by EU measureEmploying the Alkire & Foster Approach makes it possible that the implications of crucial choices in relation to dimensions, thresholds and weighting can be assessed in a consistent and transparent fashion.