A quality-index of poverty measures
The multitude of available poverty measures can confuse a policy maker who wants to evaluate a poverty-reduction policy. We proposes a rule for ranking poverty measures by use of the food-gap, calculated as the cost-difference between a household’s normative food basket, derived from a healthy diet, and the actually chosen food basket. The rationale for this indicator is based on the fact, that (1) basic food needs reflect an ultimate necessity, (2) food expenditure is highly divisibility, thus allowing for efficient marginal substitution between competing necessities when the household’s economic hardship increases. For these reasons we believe this to be an objective indicator for the sacrifice in the standard of living of a family under economic stress. A household is identified as ‘truly’ poor or non-poor by a given poverty measure if the diagnoses coincide and vice versa. The ranking is obtained by a gain-function, which adds up congruent and deducts contradicting outcomes for each poverty measure. We calculate four types of gain-functions –of headcounts, food-gaps, FGT-like powered food-gaps and an augmented version of the latter. The poverty measures include expenditure-based, income-based, relative, absolute, mixed measures and a multidimensional measure of social deprivation. The most qualitative measure is found to be Ravallion’s Food Energy Intake and Share measure, though it suffers from a possible bias, since it includes the food-norm in its design. The 60%-median income measure from all sources ranks highest among the unbiased measures. The absolute poverty measure yields the worst performance.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jones, Andrew & O'Donnell, Owen, 1995.
"Equivalence scales and the costs of disability,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 273-289, February.
- Gottlieb, Daniel & Manor, Roy, 2005. "On the Choice of a Policy-oriented Poverty Measure: The Case of Israel 1997-2002," MPRA Paper 3842, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Asghar Zaidi & Tania Burchardt, 2005. "Comparing Incomes When Needs Differ: Equivalization For The Extra Costs Of Disability In The U.K," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 51(1), pages 89-114, 03.
- Martin Ravallion & Michael Lokshin, 2006. "Testing Poverty Lines," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 52(3), pages 399-421, 09.
- Yitzhaki, Shlomo, 2002. "Do we need a separate poverty measurement?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 61-85, March.
- Sabina Alkire and James Foster, 2009.
"Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement,"
OPHI Working Papers
ophiwp007, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
- Alkire, Sabina & Foster, James, 2011. "Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 476-487, August.
- Alkire, Sabina & Foster, James, 2011. "Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 476-487.
- Sen, Amartya, 1997. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198292975, December.
- Sanjay G. Reddy & Sujata Visaria & Muhammad Asali, 2006.
"Inter-country Comparisons of Poverty Based on a Capability Approach: An Empirical Exercise,"
27, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
- Sanjay Reddy & Sujata Visaria & Muhammad Asali, 2006. "Inter-country Comparisons of Poverty Based on Capability Approach: An Empirical Exercise," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2006-038, Boston University - Department of Economics.
- Richard ANKER, 2006. "Poverty lines around the world: A new methodology and internationally comparable estimates," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 145(4), pages 279-307, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inq:inqwps:ecineq2011-239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Maria Ana Lugo)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.