1 / 15

Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty 16 June 2008

OPHI Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative Department of International Development Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford www.ophi.org.uk. Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty 16 June 2008. India: Dataset. National Family Health survey 2005/6 dataset N= 79,380

erek
Download Presentation

Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty 16 June 2008

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. OPHIOxford Poverty & Human Development InitiativeDepartment of International DevelopmentQueen Elizabeth House, University of Oxfordwww.ophi.org.uk Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty 16 June 2008

  2. India: Dataset National Family Health survey 2005/6 dataset N=79,380 We are using the data for rural areas only (N=43,789) Here we are comparing M0 with BPL status, which is available only for rural populations. Later we will compare a different M0 (with empowerment) with national income poverty.

  3. India: Comparisons Comparison Indicators: • Income Poverty Line (drawn from NSS dataset) • Whether or not respondent possesses a ‘Below the Poverty Line (BPL)’ card. (available for rural only) BPL: 13 dimensions, 5 responses 0-4. Aggregate across domains (total score out of 52) and set a poverty cutoff across that by area. 2 criticisms of BPL (2002 BPL Census – proxy targeting): 1) data quality subject to corruption 2) construction of index arbitrary (cardinal, = wts) Jalan & Murgai 07, Sundaram 03 EPW Misclassification of 49% (AP, 75%)

  4. India: Comparison M0 and BPL

  5. Indicators & Cutoffs (from BPL)

  6. % of Households Deprived

  7. H and M0 for different k values

  8. M0 Example: • With equal weights • With k = 4 • Compared to BPL and Income Poverty • Decomposed by State • Decomposed (after k applied) by Dimension

  9. Also, Raj. & HP – BPL quex is accurate AP: Murgai found 75% error in non-poor

  10. Statewise Decomposition – examplesHP: All relatively close (rank -3)AP: BPL>>M0 (rank -12)Rajasthan: M0>>BPL (rank +19)(BPL, not decomposable)

More Related