1 / 15

The MPI

The Multidimensional Poverty Index: Achievements , Conceptual , and Empirical Issues Caroline Dotter Stephan Klasen Universität Göttingen Milorad Kovacevic HDRO HDRO Workshop March 4, 2013. 1. The MPI. Measuring acute multidimensional poverty ; Based on dual cut -off approach (1/3);

tom
Télécharger la présentation

The MPI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Multidimensional Poverty Index: Achievements, Conceptual, andEmpiricalIssuesCaroline DotterStephan KlasenUniversität GöttingenMilorad KovacevicHDROHDRO WorkshopMarch 4, 2013 1

  2. The MPI • Measuringacute multidimensional poverty; • Based on dual cut-off approach (1/3); • Dimensions: Health (mortalityandnutrition), Education (yearsandenrolement), Standard ofliving (house, water, sanitation, electricity, cookfuel, assets); • MPI = Headcount * Intensity; • Data used: DHS, MICS, WHS • Calculatedforsome 110 countries (increasinglyavailableformorethan 1 period);

  3. In praiseof an MPI-type Indicator • Direct multidimensional complement/competitorto $ a dayindicator; • Similarbreadthandcoverage • Couldpossiblycalculateandmonitor global poverty; • Also based on capabilityapproach (asisthe HDI); • Actionableandpolicy-relevant atthe national (and sub-national level); advantagelargelyunexploitedby UNDP; • Consistentwithreasonablesetofpovertymeasurementaxioms (in contrastto HPI); • Based on highqualityandcomparabledata, with potential tomeasurepovertyover time;

  4. ConceptualIssues • Dual cut-off navigatesbetweenunionandintersectionapproach • But leadsto formal andinterpretationalproblems: deprivationsentirelyignoredbelowthecut-off seemsproblematic; • Union approachconceptuallytobepreferred? • Neglectofinequality in thespreadofdimensionsacrossthepopulation, whichis also problematic; • ProposalbyRippin: In thepovertyidentificationstep, usesquareofweighteddeprivationshareaspoveretyindicator (andaddthoseup in aggregationstep); • Other proposals in theliterature; • Useofintensity in the MPI: • cannotcomparewith $ a dayheadcount • littlevariation in intensity (heavilydrivenbysecondcut-off); • useheadcountasheadlineindicatorwithintensity-inequality sensitive measureascomplementaryindicator?

  5. EmpiricalIssues • WHS limitingandproblematic (andnowsuperfluous?); suggestionto just use MICS and DHS; • Standard ofliving: • Unclearinterpretationofelectricityaccess (unequaluse!), cookingfuel (depends on cookingsituation), andsanitation (needsdifferacross rural/urban, regions); • Quite large influence on overall MPI; • 3 indicatorswouldsuffice (andcaptureothersas well): floor, assets, anddrinkingwater; • Enrolments: • Onechild not enrolled, householddeprived; • Problem oflateenrolments; • Adjust time windowtoallowforlateenrolments (e.g. allowfor 2 yearslateenrolment);

  6. EmpiricalIssues • Mortality: • Onlyconsiderrecentchilddeaths (MICS: onlyconsiderdeathsofwomenwhogavebirths in last 10 years?); • Nutrition: • BMI ofadultsandchildhoodundernutritioncut-offs not directlycomparable; • BMI andunderweightsubjecttobias due tonutritiontransition; • Focus on childrenbeyond 6 months? • Proposal: Just focus on childhoodundernutritionandstunting; • Education: • Cut-off (onepersonwith 5 yearsenoughfor non-deprivation) andimpliesperfecteconomiesofscale (asymmetry); • Proposal: deprivediflessthan 50% ofadultshave 5 years+

  7. EmpiricalIssues • Asymmetriccut-offs in health, enrolment, nutrition, education: • Hassystematicinfluence on impactofhouseholdsize on MPI; • Not clearthatasymmetriesarejustified; • Definecut-offswithrespecttohhsize (e.g. 20% ofchildrenareundernourished); • Ineligiblepopulation: • Nochildren (in school-goingageorwith nutritional measurement); • Presumed non-deprived in MPI (seriousproblemandbias!); • Makesseverepovertynear-impossibleforhhwithouteligiblepopulation; • A seriousproblemof differential importanceacross countries;

  8. All solutionsproblematic: • Non-deprivationassumption; • Droppingobservations; • Usingotherindicatorfrom same dimension; • Proposal: Hybrid approach: Useindicatorfrom same dimensionifoneindicatorismissing, andadjustoverall MPI cut-off ifbotharemissing (canbeeasilyimplemented); • Advantage: Keeps all observations in, usesinformationtomaximumextent; likelytogenerate least bias; • Disadvantage: Decompositoionnolongerpossible;

  9. ImplementingtheProposals • A reducedand (more robust) MPI? • 3 standardoflivingindicators; • Nutrition: stunting (>6mts) • Mortality: onlyrecentdeaths; • Enrolment: allowforlateenrolment; • Cut-offsmore uniform (>20% affected in nutrition, enrolment, mortality, <50% with 5 years+ education); • Hybrid approachforineligiblepopulation; • Implementapproachusing DHS for Armenia, Ethiopia, andIndia; • Changesincidence (mainly due toeducationcut-off), but also correlatesofpoverty (e.g. hhsize);

  10. Conclusion • MPI hasbeen a goodstarttodevelopinternationallycomparable multidimensional povertyindicator; • But thereare open issuesandproblems, andrefinementsatconceptualandempiricallevelwarranted • Conceptuallevel: Union approach, incorporatinginequality, headcounttheheadlineindicator? • Empiricallevel: Changestoindicators, cut-offs, datasetsused, andassumptionsaboutineligiblepopulation; • Most issuescanbereadilyaddressedandareworthaddressing.

More Related