Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Daniele Malerba
(German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS))
Francesco Burchi (German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS))
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Papers
- Stream:
- Interrogating development through stories and experiences
- Location:
- Christodoulou Meeting Rooms East, Room 15
- Sessions:
- Thursday 20 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
The panel aims at: (a) presenting new indicators of multidimensional poverty; (b) shedding light on the relationships between income and multidimensional poverty; (c) assessing global trends in multidimensional poverty, also across key groups; (d) explore the role of different policies and factors.
Long Abstract:
The first Sustainable Development Goal of the 2030 Agenda calls for ending "poverty in all its forms everywhere", therefore recognizing the multidimensional nature of poverty. Despite this, poverty is usually still measured in monetary terms. Some scholars argue that an income-based measure of poverty can sufficiently capture poverty in other dimensions. However, this assumption can be criticized and has not been adequately tested, especially in cross-country studies. Further empirical evidence is therefore required, especially considering its policy relevance.
This panel intends to provide new insights into the measurement of multidimensional poverty and its assessment in low- and middle-income countries. More in detail, it intends to: (a) host proposals for new indicators of multidimensional poverty, which are grounded on a solid theoretical framework and are methodologically sound; (b) present and discuss evidence on the - static and dynamic - relationships between income and multidimensional poverty across, as well as within, countries; (c) assess global trends in multidimensional poverty, both overall and across key groups, such as men and women, young and adults, rural and urban people; (d) examine the role of different explanatory factors/policies, such as economic growth, social expenditures, and employment policies in alleviating multidimensional poverty.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Thursday 20 June, 2019, -Paper short abstract:
The paper proposes a new indicator of multidimensional poverty, the Global Correlation Sensitive Poverty Index (G-CSPI), computed for about 550 surveys across over 100 countries. It also compares the G-CSPI with the 1.90$ poverty measure, showing that the latter is not a good proxy for the former.
Paper long abstract:
The Agenda 2030 clearly recognizes that poverty is more than just lack of a sufficient amount of income. However, some scholars argue that an income-based measure of poverty can sufficiently capture poverty in other dimensions. Unfortunately, the available international indicators of multidimensional poverty suffer from several weaknesses and cannot be directly compared with monetary measures of poverty. This paper provides two main contributions to the literature on poverty measurement. First, it proposes a theoretically and methodologically sound indicator of multidimensional poverty, called the Global Correlation Sensitive Poverty Index (G-CSPI), which addresses most of the problems present in other poverty indicators. This index encompasses three dimensions: decent work, education and health (proxied by access to drinkable water and adequate sanitation). Thanks to the massive I2D2 database of harmonized household surveys, the G-CSPI was calculated for more than 500 surveys: the results show that it is stable and robust. Second, for the first time we were able to conduct a comparative analysis between income and multidimensional poverty relying on the same dataset for the calculation of the two. Building on recent data for 92 countries, our analysis shows that the headcount ratio of extreme monetary poverty (USD 1.90) is highly correlated with that of the G-CSPI, but that the relationship is clearly non-linear. This way we provided the first empirical evidence of the fact that income poverty is not a sufficiently good proxy for multidimensional poverty.
Paper short abstract:
The paper assesses trends in multidimensional, and income, poverty in developing countries since 2000. The analysis is based on a novel indicator, the G-CSPI, and a newly developed database. The paper also explores urban-rural differences, and the claims of a feminization of poverty.
Paper long abstract:
The 2030 Agenda has provided two new impulses in the struggles for poverty alleviation. First, poverty is no longer viewed only in monetary terms, but rather as a multidimensional phenomenon. Second, it is demanded that poverty is reduced for different social groups, addressing horizontal inequalities.
Against this background, the paper aims at: (1) analyzing trends in multidimensional poverty in developing countries; (2) exploring rural-urban differences; (3) examining whether a feminization of poverty has occurred. The analysis relies on a new indicator of multidimensional poverty, the Global Correlation Sensitive Poverty Index (G-CSPI), which incorporates 3 dimensions: education, decent employment and health. This indicator presents several methodological advantages compared to existing measures.
The results show that both income and multidimensional poverty have fallen between 2000 and 2012. However, the decline is larger in the multidimensional space as compared to the income one. There is also significant heterogeneity in the results across regions, pointing to the existence of poverty traps.
The findings also underline that poverty is predominantly a rural phenomenon. The large difference between urban and rural areas has remained nearly constant over time.
Finally, we find almost no gender bias in 2000. This contrasts with claims in the literature. Moreover, we estimate that multidimensional poverty has declined more among men than women, indicating a process of feminization of poverty, triggered mainly by the employment dimension. As most of the existing studies concluded that there was no evidence of the feminization of poverty, this finding is new in the literature.