Abstract
If the absolute number of poor people goes up, but the fraction of people in poverty comes down, has poverty gone up or gone down? The economist’s instinct, framed by population replication axioms that undergird standard measures of poverty, is to say that in this case poverty has gone down. But this goes against the instinct of those who work directly with the poor, for whom the absolute numbers notion makes more sense as they cope with more poor on the streets or in the soup kitchens. This paper attempts to put these two conceptions of poverty into a common framework. Specifically, it presents an axiomatic development of a family of poverty measures without a population replication axiom. This family has an intuitive link to standard measures, but it also allows one or other of “the absolute numbers” or the “fraction in poverty” conception to be given greater weight by the choice of relevant parameters. We hope that this family will prove useful in empirical and policy work, where it is important to give both views of poverty—the economist’s and the practitioner’s—their due.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aczel J (1966) Lectures on functional equations and their applications. Academic, London
Arriaga EE (1970) A new approach to the measurement of urbanization. Econ Dev Cult Change 18:206–218
Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1980) Ethical indices for the measurement of poverty. Econometrica 48:1053–1060
Blackorby C, Primont D, Russell RR (1978) Duality, separability and functional structure: theory and economic applications. North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Broome J (1996) The welfare economics of population. Oxf Econ Pap 48:177–193
Chakravarty SR (1983) A new index of poverty. Math Soc Sci 6:307–313
Chakravarty SR (1990) Ethical social index numbers. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Chakravarty SR (1997) On Shorrocks’ reinvestigation of the Sen poverty index. Econometrica 65:1241–1242
Cowell FA (1988) Poverty measures, inequality and decomposability. In: Bos D, Rose M, Seidl C (eds) Welfare and efficiency in public economics, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Donaldson D, Weymark JA (1986) Properties of fixed-population poverty indices. Int Econ Rev 27:667–688
Dutta B (2002) Inequality, poverty and welfare. In: Arrow KJ, Sen AK, Suzumura K (eds) Handbook of social choice, vol 1. North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Foster JE, Shorrocks AF(1991) Subgroup consistent poverty indices. Econometrica 59:687–709
Foster JE, Greer J, Thorbecke E (1984) A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica 42:761–766
Kakwani NC (1980) On a class of poverty measures. Econometrica 48:437–446
Kanbur R (2001) Economic policy, distribution and poverty: the nature of disagreements. World Dev 30:477–486
Kundu A, Smith TE (1982) An impossibility theorem on poverty indices. Int Econ Rev 24:423–434
Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK
Sen AK (1976) Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica 44:219–231
Shorrocks AF (1995) Revisiting the Sen poverty index. Econometrica 63:1225–1230
Subramanian S (2002) Counting the poor: an elementary difficulty in the measurement of poverty. Econ Philos 18:277–285
Thon D (1983) A poverty measure. Indian Econ J 30:55–70
Watts H (1968) An economic definition of poverty. In: Moynihan DP (ed) On understanding poverty. Basic Books, New York
Zheng B (1997) Aggregate poverty measures. J Econ Surv 11:123–162
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chakravarty, S.R., Kanbur, R. & Mukherjee, D. Population growth and poverty measurement. Soc Choice Welfare 26, 471–483 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0081-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0081-7