Abstract
We propose a new approach to multidimensional poverty measurement. To aggregate and weight the different dimensions of poverty, we rely on the preferences of the concerned individuals rather than on an arbitrary weighting scheme selected by the analyst. We provide an axiomatic characterization of an approach in which multidimensional poverty measures add up individual indices of poverty based on their multidimensional outcomes and their preferences. We discuss two families of these individual indices of poverty: quantity metrics and money metrics. Members of the first family evaluate individual poverty by the fraction of the poverty line vector to which the individual is indifferent. The second family considers the ratio between the income to which the individual is indifferent, for some fixed price vector, and the money value of the poverty line vector. We illustrate our approach with Russian survey data between 1995 and 2005. We find that, compared to standard poverty indices, our preference-sensitive indices lead to considerable differences in the identification of the poor.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adler, M.D., Dolan, P., Kavetsos, G.: Would you choose to be happy? Tradeoffs between happiness and the other dimensions of life in a large population survey. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 139, 60–73 (2017)
Akay, A., Bargain, O., Jara, X.H.: Fair Welfare Comparisons with Heterogeneous Tastes: Subjective Versus Revealed Preferences IZA Discussion Paper No. 10908 (2017)
Alkire, S., Foster, J.: Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. J. Public Econ. 95, 476–487 (2011a)
Alkire, S., Foster, J.: Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. J. Econ. Inequal. 9, 289–314 (2011b)
Atkinson, A.B.: Multidimensional deprivation: contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. J. Econ. Inequal. 1, 51–65 (2003)
Atkinson, A.B., Bourguignon, F.: The comparison of multidimensioned distributions of economic status. Rev. Econ. Stud. 49, 183–201 (1982)
Benjamin, D.J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M., Rees-Jones, A.: What do you think would make you happier? What do you think you would choose? Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 2083–2110 (2012)
Benjamin, D.J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M., Rees-Jones, A.: Can marginal rates of substitution be inferred from happiness data? Evidence from residency choices. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 3498–3528 (2014)
Beegle, K., Himelein, K., Ravallion, M.: Frame-of-reference bias in subjective welfare. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81, 556–570 (2012)
Bosmans, K., Decancq, K., Ooghe, E.: Who is afraid of aggregating money metrics? Theor. Econ. 13(2), 467–484 (2018)
Bosmans, K., Ooghe, E., Lauwers, L.: Prioritarian poverty comparisons with cardinal and ordinal attributes. Scand. J. Econ. 120(3), 925–942 (2018)
Bossert, W., Chakravarty, S.R., D’ Ambrosio, C.: Multidimensional poverty and material deprivation with discrete data. Rev. Income Wealth 59, 29–43 (2013)
Bourguignon, F., Chakravarty, S.R.: The measurement of multi-dimensional poverty. J. Econ. Inequal. 1, 25–49 (2003)
Box, G.E.P., Cox, D.R.: An analysis of transformations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 26, 211–252 (1964)
Clark, A.E., Oswald, A.J.: A simple statistical method for measuring how life events affect happiness. Int. J. Epidemiol. 31, 1139–1144 (2002)
Deaton, A.: The distance function in consumer behaviour with applications to index numbers and optimal taxation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 46, 391–405 (1979)
Deaton, A., Muellbauer, J.: Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)
Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., Schokkaert, E.: Happiness, equivalent incomes, and respect for individual preferences. Economica 82, 1082–1106 (2015)
Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., Schokkaert, E.: Well-being inequality and preference heterogeneity. Economica 84, 210–238 (2017)
Decancq, K., Neumann, D.: Does the choice of well-being measure matter empirically? In: Adler, M. , Fleurbaey, M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy. Oxford University Press, London (2016)
Decancq, K., Nys, A.: Nonparametric well-being comparisons. CORE Discussion Paper 2018/21 (2018)
Decancq, K., Schokkaert, E.: Beyond GDP: using equivalent incomes to measure well-being in Europe. Soc. Indic. Res. 126, 21–55 (2016)
Dolan, P., Fujiwara, D.: Happiness-based policy analysis. In: Adler, M., Fleurbaey, M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy. Oxford University Press, London (2016)
Duclos, J.-Y., Sahn, D.E., Younger, S.D.: Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. Econ. J. 116, 943–968 (2006)
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., Frijters, P.: How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Econ. J. 114, 641–659 (2004)
Fleurbaey, M.: Two criteria for social decisions. J. Econ. Theory 134, 421–447 (2007)
Fleurbaey, M., Luchini, S., Muller, C., Schokkaert, E.: Equivalent income and fair evaluation of health care. Health Econ. 22, 711–729 (2013)
Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F.: Fair social orderings. Econ. Theory 34, 25–45 (2008)
Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F.: A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)
Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F.: Fairness and well-being measurement. Math. Soc. Sci. 90, 119–126 (2017)
Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F.: Inequality averse well-being measurement. Int. J. Econ. Theory 14, 35–50 (2018a)
Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F.: Fairness and well-being measurement with non-classical goods. Econ. Theory, forthcoming (2018b)
Fleurbaey, M., Tadenuma, K.: Universal social orderings. Rev. Econ. Stud. 81, 1071–1101 (2014)
Fleurbaey, M., Trannoy, A.: The impossibility of a Paretian egalitarian. Soc. Choice Welf. 21, 243–263 (2003)
Foster, J., Shorrocks, A.F.: Subgroup consistent poverty indices. Econometrica 59, 687–709 (1991)
Frijters, P., Geishecker, I., Haisken-DeNew, J.P., Shields, M.: Can the large swings in Russian life satisfaction be explained by ups and downs in real incomes? Scand. J. Econ. 108, 433–458 (2006)
Gevers, L., et al.: Walrasian social choice: some simple axiomatic approaches. In: Heller, W. (ed.) Social Choice and Public Decision Making. Essays in Honor of K.J. Arrow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)
Graham, C., Eggers, A., Sukhtankar, S.: Does happiness pay? An exploration based on panel data from Russia. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 55, 319–342 (2004)
Jenkins, S.P., Lambert, P.J.: Three is of poverty curves, with an analysis of UK poverty trends. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 49, 317–327 (1997)
Jones, A.M., Schurer, S.: How does heterogeneity shape the socioeconomic gradient in health satisfaction? J. Appl. Econ. 26, 549–579 (2011)
Layard, R., Mayraz, G., Nickell, S.: The marginal utility of income. J. Public Econ. 92, 1846–1857 (2008)
Maasoumi, E., Lugo, M.A.: The information basis of multivariate poverty assessments. In: Kakwani, N., Silber, J. (eds.) Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. Palgrave-Macmillan, London (2008)
Maasoumi, E., Racine, J.S.: A solution to aggregation and an application to multidimensional well-being frontiers. J. Econ. 191(2), 374–383 (2016)
Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., Koch-Schulte, S.: Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? New York N.Y.: Published for the World Bank. Oxford University Press, London (2000)
Pazner, E., Schmeidler, D.: Egalitarian equivalent allocations: a new concept of economic equity. Q. J. Econ. 92, 671–687 (1978)
Ravallion, M.: On multidimensional indices of poverty. J. Econ. Inequal. 9, 235–248 (2011)
Samuelson, P.A.: Reaffirming the existence of reasonable Bergson-Samuelson social welfare functions. Economica 44, 81–88 (1977)
Samuelson, P.A., Swamy, S.: Invariant economic index numbers and canonical duality: survey and synthesis. Am. Econ. Rev. 64, 566–593 (1974)
Sen, A.K.: Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica 44, 219–231 (1976)
Sprumont, Y., Zhou, L.: Pazner–Schmeidler rules in large societies. J. Math. Econ. 31, 321–339 (1999)
Tsui, K.Y.: Multidimensional poverty indices. Soc. Choice Welf. 19, 69–93 (2002)
van Doorslaer, E., Jones, A.M.: Inequalities in self-reported health: validation of a new approach to measurement. J. Health Econ. 22, 61–87 (2003)
Zheng, B.: Poverty orderings. J. Econ. Surv. 14, 427–466 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
We are grateful to the Associate Editor and two anonymous referees for their comments. We thank Esfandiar Maasoumi, Christophe Muller, and Erik Schokkaert for helpful discussions as well as audiences in Barcelona, Bari, Bonn, Brighton, Glasgow, Leuven, Louvain-la-neuve, Marseille, Moscow, New Orleans, Namur, Odense, Paris, Princeton, Sevilla, Verona, and Warwick. The research leading to these results has received funding from the Research Foundation -Flanders and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) /ERC grant agreement n ∘ 269831.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M. & Maniquet, F. Multidimensional poverty measurement with individual preferences. J Econ Inequal 17, 29–49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-019-09407-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-019-09407-9