IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v152y2020i3d10.1007_s11205-020-02467-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Choice of Metric Matter for Identifying Areas for Policy Priority? An Empirical Assessment Using Child Undernutrition in India

Author

Listed:
  • Sunil Rajpal

    (IIHMR University)

  • Rockli Kim

    (Korea University
    Korea University
    Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies)

  • Lathan Liou

    (University of Cambridge)

  • William Joe

    (Institute of Economic Growth)

  • S. V. Subramanian

    (Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies
    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

Abstract

Ratio-based prevalence and absolute headcounts are the two most commonly accepted metrics to measure the burden of various socioeconomic phenomenon. However, ratio-based prevalence, calculated as the number of cases with certain conditions relative to the total population, is by far the most widely used to rank burden and consequently for targeting, across different populations, often defined in terms of geographical areas. In this regard, targeting areas exclusively based on prevalence-based metric poses certain fundamental difficulties with some serious policy implications. Drawing the data from the National Family Health Survey 2015–2016, and Census 2011, this paper takes four indicators of child undernutrition in India as an example to examine two contextual questions: first, does the choice of metric matter for targeting areas for reducing child undernutrition in India? and second; which metric should be used to facilitate comparisons and targeting across variable populations? Our findings suggest a moderate correlation between prevalence estimates and absolute headcounts implying that choice of metric does matter when targeting child undernutrition. Huge variations were observed between prevalence-based and absolute count-based ranking of the districts. In fact, in various cases, districts with the highest absolute number of undernourished children were ranked as relatively lower-burden districts based on prevalence. A simple comparison between the two approaches—when applied to targeting undernourished children in India—indicates that prevalence-based prioritization may miss high-burden areas where substantially higher number of undernourished children are concentrated. For developing populous countries like India, which is already grappling with high levels of maternal and child malnutrition and poor health infrastructure along with intrinsic socioeconomic inequalities, it is critical to adopt an appropriate metric for effective targeting and prioritization.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunil Rajpal & Rockli Kim & Lathan Liou & William Joe & S. V. Subramanian, 2020. "Does the Choice of Metric Matter for Identifying Areas for Policy Priority? An Empirical Assessment Using Child Undernutrition in India," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 823-841, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:152:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11205-020-02467-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-020-02467-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-020-02467-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-020-02467-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Subramanian, 2005. "Headcount Poverty Comparisons," One Pager 18, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    2. Arriaga, Eduardo E, 1970. "A New Approach to the Measurements of Urbanization," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(2), pages 206-218, January.
    3. Kanbur Ravi, 2001. "Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: The Nature of Disagreements," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, April.
    4. Broome, John, 1996. "The Welfare Economics of Population," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 177-193, April.
    5. S. Subramanian & Diganta Mukherjee, 2018. "On Intermediate Headcount Indices Of Poverty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 443-451, October.
    6. Satya Chakravarty & Ravi Kanbur & Diganta Mukherjee, 2006. "Population growth and poverty measurement," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 471-483, June.
    7. Roger S. Bivand & David W. S. Wong, 2018. "Comparing implementations of global and local indicators of spatial association," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 27(3), pages 716-748, September.
    8. Sen, Amartya K, 1976. "Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(2), pages 219-231, March.
    9. Claudio Zoli, 2009. "Variable population welfare and poverty orderings satisfying replication properties," Working Papers 69/2009, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    10. Diganta Mukherjee, 2008. "Poverty measures incorporating variable rate of alleviation due to population growth," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 97-107, June.
    11. Hassoun, Nicole & Subramanian, S., 2012. "An aspect of variable population poverty comparisons," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 238-241.
    12. Subramanian, S., 2002. "Counting the poor: an elementary difficulty in the measurement of proverty," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 277-285, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Subramanian & Diganta Mukherjee, 2018. "On Intermediate Headcount Indices Of Poverty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 443-451, October.
    2. Sreenivasan Subramanian, 2012. "Variable Populations and the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2012-053, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Nicole Hassoun, 2010. "Another Mere Addition Paradox?: Some Reflections on Variable Population Poverty Measurement," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2010-120, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    4. Diganta Mukherjee, 2008. "Poverty measures incorporating variable rate of alleviation due to population growth," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 97-107, June.
    5. Subramanian, Sreenivasan, 2012. "Variable Populations and the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality," WIDER Working Paper Series 053, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Hassoun, Nicole & Subramanian, S., 2012. "An aspect of variable population poverty comparisons," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 238-241.
    7. Hassoun, Nicole & S. Subramanian, 2010. "On Some Problems of Variable Population Poverty Comparisons," WIDER Working Paper Series 071, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    8. Subramanian S., 2017. "On Comprehensively Intermediate Measures of Inequality and Poverty, with an Illustrative Application to Global Data," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Nicole Hassoun & Sreenivasan Subramanian, 2010. "On Some Problems of Variable Population Poverty Comparisons," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2010-071, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Walter Bossert & Susumu Cato & Kohei Kamaga, 2022. "Generalized Poverty-gap Orderings," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 189-215, November.
    11. Satya Chakravarty & Ravi Kanbur & Diganta Mukherjee, 2006. "Population growth and poverty measurement," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 471-483, June.
    12. Higgins, Sean & Lustig, Nora, 2016. "Can a poverty-reducing and progressive tax and transfer system hurt the poor?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 63-75.
    13. Cockburn, John & Duclos, Jean-Yves & Zabsonré, Agnès, 2014. "Is global social welfare increasing? A critical-level enquiry," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 151-162.
    14. Markus Jäntti & Ravi Kanbur & Milla Nyyssölä & Jukka Pirttilä, 2014. "Poverty and Welfare Measurement on the Basis of Prospect Theory," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(1), pages 182-205, March.
    15. James E. Foster & Joel Greer & Erik Thorbecke, 2010. "The Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) Poverty Measures: Twenty-Five Years Later," Working Papers 2010-14, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    16. Sreenivasan Subramanian, 2004. "Indicators of Inequality and Poverty," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Claudio Zoli, 2009. "Variable population welfare and poverty orderings satisfying replication properties," Working Papers 69/2009, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    18. John COCKBURN & Jean-Yves DUCLOS & Agnès ZABSONRÉ, 2011. "Is the value of humanity increasing? A critical-level enquiry," Working Papers I13, FERDI.
    19. Haider A. Khan, 2004. "On Mortality and Poverty: An Axiomatic Approach With A Modified Index," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-281, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    20. Sean Higgins & Nora Lustig, 2015. "Can Poverty-Reducing and Progressive Tax and Transfer System Hurt the Poor?," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1333, Tulane University, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:152:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11205-020-02467-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.