reducing inequalities and poverty: insights from multidimensional measurement sabina alkire 16...
TRANSCRIPT
Reducing inequalities and poverty:
Insights from Multidimensional Measurement
Sabina Alkire 16 October 2012, 4th OECD Forum, New Delhi
2
Motivation
Measurement: usually income or consumption data.
Trends: reflect trends in nutrition, services, education?
No: direct and lagged relationships are more complex
Hence additional indicators required to study change.
3
Why Multidimensional Measures?
Unidimensional measures such as MDGs are essential: consumption poverty, primary school attendance, malnutrition, immunization, housing, drinking water, etc.
Value-added of multidimensional measures
1) joint distribution of deprivations (what one person experiences)
a) focus on poorest of the poor
b) address interconnected deprivations efficiently
2) signal trade-offs explicitly: open to scrutiny
3) provide an overview plus an associated consistent dashboard
4
Why not?
Won’t an ‘overview’ index lose vital detail and information?
Aren’t weights contentious and problematic?
How to contextualise the measure?
5
Why not?
Won’t an ‘overview’ index lose vital detail and information?
AF methodology: can be broken down by dimension, group.
Aren’t weights contentious and problematic?
How to contextualise the measure?
6
Why not?
Won’t an ‘overview’ index lose vital detail and information?
AF methodology: can be broken down by dimension, group.
Aren’t weights contentious and problematic?
Weights are set anyway: budgets, policies, human resources.
Sen: the need to set weights is no embarrassment
Measures should be made robust to a range of plausible weights
How to contextualise the measure?
7
Why not?
Won’t an ‘overview’ index lose vital detail and information?
AF methodology: can be broken down by dimension, group.
Aren’t weights contentious and problematic?
Weights are set anyway: budgets, policies, human resources.
Sen: the need to set weights is no embarrassment
Measures should be made robust to a range of plausible weights
How to contextualise the measure?
The dimensions, cutoffs and weights can be tailor-made.
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
The MPI implements an Alkire and Foster (2011) M0 measure that can use ordinal data. It was introduced by Alkire and Santos (2010) and UNDP (2010) for 100+ countries
A person is identified as poor in two steps:
1) A person is identified as deprived or not in 10 indicators
2) A person is identified as poor if their deprivation score >33%
How is MPI Computed?
The MPI uses the Adjusted Headcount Ratio M0:
H is the percent of people who are identified as poor, it shows the incidence of multidimensional poverty.
A is the average proportion of weighted deprivations people suffer at the same time. It shows the intensity of people’s poverty – the joint distribution of their deprivations.
.
Formula: MPI = H × A
Useful Properties
10
Subgroup Consistency and Decomposability
Enables the measure to be broken down by regions or social groups.
Dimensional Breakdown
Means that the measure can be immediately broken down into its component indicators. - Essential for policy
Dimensional Monotonicity
Gives incentives a) to reduce the headcount and
b) the intensity of poverty among the poor.
Changes in the Global MPI
from 2011 MPI Update
Alkire, Roche, Seth 2011
Changes over time in MPI for 10 countries
• MPI fell for all 10 countries
• Survey intervals: 3 to 6 years.
Mu
ltid
imen
sion
al
Pove
rty
Ind
ex
(MP
I)
How and How much? Ghana, Nigeria, and Ethiopia
Let us Take a Step Back in Time
Ghana2003
Nigeria2003
Ethiopia2000
Ethiopia: 2000-2005 (Reduced A more than H)
Ghana2008
Nigeria2008
Ethiopia2005
Ghana2003
Nigeria2003
Ethiopia2000
Nigeria 2003-2008 (Reduced H more than A)
Ghana2008
Nigeria2008
Ethiopia2005
Ghana2003
Nigeria2003
Ethiopia2000
Ghana 2003-2008 (Reduced A and H Uniformly)
Ghana2008
Nigeria2008
Ethiopia2005
Ghana2003
Nigeria2003
Ethiopia2000
Pathways to Poverty Reduction
Ghana Nigeria Ethiopia-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Assets
Cooking Fuel
Flooring
Safe Drink-ing Water
Improved Sanitation
Electricity
Nutrition
Child Mortality
School Atten-danceYears of Schooling
An
nu
ali
zed A
bso
lute
Ch
an
ge
in t
he P
erc
en
tage W
ho i
s P
oor
an
d
Depri
ved i
n..
.
Performance of Sub-national Regions
Ethiopia’s Regional Changes Over Time
Addis Ababa
Harari
Nigeria’s Regional Changes Over Time
South South
North Central
Looking Inside the Regions of Nigeria…
North Cen-tral
North East
North West
South East
South South
South West
-8.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
AssetsCooking FuelFlooringSafe Drinking WaterImproved San-itationElectricityNutritionChild Mortal-ityYears of SchoolingSchool At-tendanceA
nnuali
zed A
bso
lute
Change i
n
the P
erc
enta
ge W
ho i
s P
oor
and
Depri
ved i
n..
.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Nigeria: Indicator Standard Errors
An Indian ExampleAlmost MPI 1999-2006
Alkire and Seth In Progress
25
India: Almost-MPI over time
We use two rounds of National Family Health Surveys for trend analysis
NFHS-2 conducted in 1998-99
NFHS-3 conducted in 2005-06
Less information is available in the NFHS-2 dataset; so we have generated two strictly comparable measures, with small changes in mortality, nutrition, and housing.
26
How did MPI decrease for India?
1999 2006 Change
MPI-I 0.299 0.250 -0.049*
Headcount 56.5% 48.3% -8.2%*
Intensity 52.9% 51.7% -1.2%
27
How did MPI decrease for India?
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
Abs
olut
e Cha
nge
in C
H R
atio
Indicator (Statistical Significance) [Initial CH Ratio]
28
Absolute Reduction in Acute Poverty Across Large States
-0.110 -0.090 -0.070 -0.050 -0.030 -0.010
Andhra Pradesh (*) [0.296]Kerala (*) [0.14]Tamil Nadu (*) [0.194]Maharashtra (*) [0.23]Orissa (*) [0.38]Karnataka (*) [0.253]Gujarat (*) [0.246]West Bengal (*) [0.336]Jammu & Kashmir (*) [0.214]Eastern States (*) [0.319]Himachal Pradesh (*) [0.149]Uttar Pradesh (*) [0.344]Rajasthan (*) [0.34]Madhya Pradesh () [0.358]Haryana () [0.187]Punjab (*) [0.114]Bihar () [0.443]
Absolute Change (99-06) in MPI-I
Sta
tes
(Sig
nif
ica
nce
) [M
PI-I
in
19
99
]
We combined Bihar and Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattishgarh, and Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
Significant reduction in all states except
Bihar, MP and Haryana.
29
Change in MPI by casteM0-99 M0-06 Change H-99 H-06 Change A-99 A-06 Change
Scheduled Tribe 0.454 0.411 -0.043 79.7% 73.2% -6.5% 56.9% 56.1% -0.8%Scheduled Caste 0.378 0.308 -0.070 68.7% 58.3% -10.4% 55.0% 52.8% -2.2%OBCs 0.298 0.258 -0.040 57.4% 50.8% -6.5% 52.0% 50.7% -1.2%None Above 0.228 0.163 -0.065 45.0% 32.7% -12.3% 50.7% 49.8% -0.9%
Disparity Increases
MPI Poverty decreased least among the poorest. The STs (8.5% population share) are the poorest, but the change is lowest for them and for OBCs, who have a higher pop share. STs saw almost no reduction of mortality or
undernutrition.
MPI Poverty decreased most for SC and ‘None’.
30
Change in MPI by CasteM0-99 M0-06 Change H-99 H-06 Change A-99 A-06 Change
Scheduled Tribe 0.454 0.411 -0.043 79.7% 73.2% -6.5% 56.9% 56.1% -0.8%Scheduled Caste 0.378 0.308 -0.070 68.7% 58.3% -10.4% 55.0% 52.8% -2.2%OBCs 0.298 0.258 -0.040 57.4% 50.8% -6.5% 52.0% 50.7% -1.2%None Above 0.228 0.163 -0.065 45.0% 32.7% -12.3% 50.7% 49.8% -0.9%
Change in Censored
Headcount Ratio
-16%
-13%
-10%
-7%
-4%
-1%
2%
Scheduled Tribe Scheduled Caste Other Backward Castes None Above
Least change in Mortality and Nutrition among ST
Deprivation Score
Ultra Poor: Changing Both Deprivation and Poverty Cutoffs
50%
Deprived
33%
No Deprivations
MPI POORMPI z Cutoffs
Ultra z Cutoffs Not Severe
k cutoffs
SeverelyPoorUltra Poor
32
Inequality Among the PoorIndia 1999-2006 Alkire and Seth
YearM0 H (MPI)
High Intensity
High Depth
Intense & Deep
1999 0.299 56.5% 30.6% 37.9% 15.8%% of MPI poor
54.2% 67.1% 28.0%
2006 0.250 48.3% 24.7% 31.7% 12.5%% of MPI poor
51.1% 65.6% 25.9%
Change in MPI -.049 -8.2% -5.9% -6.2% -3.3%
33
Multidimensional Poverty Reduction in India, 1999-2006
• Multidimensional poverty declined across India, with an 8% fall in the percentage of poor.
• But disparity among the poor may have increased
• Progress has been slowest for STs, for hh with uneducated head of household, for Bihar MP and Rajasthan, and for Muslims.
• Subgroup decomposable indicators of inequality among the poor may be constructed, and their precise trends tracked.
• We are unable to update these results: new data are unavailable for India since 2005/6.
Why MPI post-2015, & National MPIs?1. Birds-eye view – trends can be unpacked
a. by region, ethnicity, rural/urban, etc
b. by indicator, to show compositionc. by ‘intensity,’ to show inequality
among poor2. New Insights:
a. focuses on the multiply deprived b. shows joint distribution of
deprivation. 3. Incentives to reduce headcount and intensity.4. Flexible: you choose indicators/cutoffs/values5. Robust to wide range of weights and cutoffs
35
Ultra-poverty Deprivation CutoffsSubset of MPI poor that are most deprived in each dimension
Indicator Acute Deprivation Cut-off ‘Ultra’ Cutoff
Nutrition Any adult or child in the household with nutritional information is
undernourished (2SD below z score or 18.5 kg/m2 BMI)3SD or 17 BMI
Child mortality Any child has died in the household
Years of schooling No household member has completed five years of schooling No SchoolingSchool attendance Any school-aged child is not attending school up to class 8
Electricity The household has no electricity
Sanitation The household´s sanitation facility is not improved or it is shared with
other householdsAnything except
bush/field
Drinking waterThe household does not have access to safe drinking water or safe water
is more than 30 minutes walk round trip Unprotected well
and 45 MinutesHouse The house is kachha, or semi-pucca and owns <1 acre or < 0.5 irrigated kaccha & no land
Cooking fuel The household cooks with dung, wood or charcoal.Wood, grass, Crops, dung
AssetsThe household does not own more than one of: radio, TV, telephone, bike,
motorbike or refrigerator, and does not own a car or truckeven one