IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ldr/wpaper/61.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How not to present poverty research results: The South African case

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Meth

    (SALDRU, School of Economics, University of Cape Town)

Abstract

Because of their vital role in charting progress (or the lack thereof) in the pursuit of the povert y reduction, statistics are of obvious importance. In South Africa, these leave much to be desired.Disagreements among academics on the severity of poverty, the result of the failure of Statistics South Africa to conduct the appropriate surveys, are the inevitable result. Far from losing money (or sleep) as a result, some in the profession resort to further research, some of it quite highly paid, to squeeze new results out of old, often unreliable data. This could have serious consequences for the poor – policy failure caused by faulty monitoring can easily damage the vulnerable. Regardless of the reliability or otherwise of their findings, it is argued in the present paper that researchers would do well to offer them in a way that minimises the possibility of their being misinterpreted and/or misrepresented, and that maximises the likelihood that the non-specialist reader will be able to understand them. It is common practice to give poverty estimates in the form of the (FGT) ratios suggested by Foster, Greer and Thorbecke (1984), often without accompanying estimates of the absolute magnitudes involved. This, the present paper claims, allows overly optimistic conclusions to be drawn, making possible the concealment of rising misery behind a veil of aggregate improvement. Commencing with a glance in the abstract at the FGT ratios, the paper concludes that in order for poverty statistics not to convey a misleading impression of changes in the phenomenon they seek to represent, the ratios have to be augmented with sufficient information of concurrent changes in the income distribution. Most poverty studies look at changes in inequality. Often, however, the inequality results are not linked directly to the changes in poverty. As far as income poverty is concerned, the present piece of research suggests that doing so is the only appropriate way to present results. Having sketched a conceptual foundation, the paper looks at the regurgitation by government, without comment, of poverty statistics that directly contradict each other. After that, the strange case of an undeserved accolade government awards its anti-poverty policies, is found to be based upon a misinterpretation of their own findings by the authors of a recent poverty and inequality study (Bhorat and van der Westhuizen, 2008). A new set of poverty and inequality estimates (Leibbrandt et al, 2010), although it does not conform to the mode of presentation suggested above as necessary, points (as do the Bhorat and van der Westhuizen findings) to the strong likelihood that although the poverty headcount ratio may have fallen since the advent of democracy in the country, the poverty headcount is likely to have risen by several million between 1993 and 2008. An appendix at the end of the paper offers a little speculation on what poverty levels might have been had the AIDS epidemic not killed so many people.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Meth, 2011. "How not to present poverty research results: The South African case," SALDRU Working Papers 61, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
  • Handle: RePEc:ldr:wpaper:61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://opensaldru.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11090/82/2011_61.pdf?sequence=1
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sabina Alkire and Maria Emma Santos, "undated". "Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for Developing Countries," OPHI Working Papers ophiwp038, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    2. Servaas van der Berg & Ronelle Burger & Rulof Burger & Megan Louw & Derek Yu, 2005. "Trends in poverty and inequality since the political transition," Working Papers 01/2005, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    3. Xu, K. & Osberg, L., 1999. "An Anatomy of the Sen and Sen-Shorrocks-Thon Indices: Multiplicative Decomposability and its Subgroup Decompositions," Department of Economics at Dalhousie University working papers archive 99-05, Dalhousie, Department of Economics.
    4. Charles Meth, 2007. "Flogging a dead horse: Attempts by van der Berg et al to measure changes in poverty and inequality," SALDRU Working Papers 9, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    5. Murray Leibbrandt & Ingrid Woolard & Arden Finn & Jonathan Argent, 2010. "Trends in South African Income Distribution and Poverty since the Fall of Apartheid," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 101, OECD Publishing.
    6. Ingrid Woolard & Murray Leibbrandt, 2010. "The Evolution and Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers in South Africa," SALDRU Working Papers 51, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    7. Servaas Van der berg & Megan Louw & Derek Yu, 2008. "Post-Transition Poverty Trends Based On An Alternative Data Source," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 76(1), pages 58-76, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ldr:wpaper:61. 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: (Alison Siljeur). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sauctza.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.