Abstract
This paper assesses the Alkire and Foster (AF) approach to measure multidimensional poverty and proposes a ‘dimensional’ approach with economic resources, inner capabilities, and relational resources to account for its conceptual deficits. By measuring poverty in the United States using data from General Social Survey, it shows that, compared to the AF approach, the two-step process of the dimensional approach can provide greater insights into the form and structure of poverty, helping to analyze issues more comprehensively and inform policy decisions better. The relevance of the specific poverty dimensions and indicators and their operationalization are discussed and carried further.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This would not be the case with intersections since they require the multidimensional poor to be deprived across all indicators. The tradeoffs of deprivation can be even more important in case of unions, however, as the poor or non-poor status would be substitutable across all indicators. In fact, this would be the case of perfect substitution.
It is not entirely new for poverty measurement, however. Wagle (2005, 2008a, b, 2009), for example, applies this approach to measure poverty in Nepal and the United States, where the dimensions are treated separately and then aggregated to identify the multidimensional poverty status. While he uses factor analysis and fuzzy set approaches to ascertain poverty status and the degree of poverty across dimensions, the latter in particular is methodologically close to the AF approach.
Sen’s (1992: 39) consistent line of writing has been that “relevant functionings can vary from such elementary things as being adequately nourished, being in good health, avoiding escapable morbidity or premature mortality, etc., to more complex achievements such as being happy, having self-respect, taking part in the life of the community, and so on.”
While the data are available for three more rounds of the survey since 2004, this particular dataset is chosen for its comprehensive focus especially on the sociopolitical characteristics of families. In fact, the survey includes several topical modules in addition to regular portions of the questionnaire in each round and the rounds since 2004 have focused on modules other than sociopolitical activities making it impossible to examine this form of poverty for later years.
While educational attainment and degree are both education variables, there are important differences in their measurement (r = 0.85). These differences can be for a number of reasons including inconsistencies in measurement or meanings and the formal degrees received (such as high school diploma) versus the years of schooling. The use of multiple education indicators may increase the weight assigned to the role of education in measuring inner capabilities. But their use will help more fully capture educational attainment.
Occupations associated with this score include select sales workers, private household cooks, industrial machinery repairers, glaziers, food batch-makers, select machine operators, truck drivers, and construction trade helpers. Immediately below these are such occupations as garbage collectors, taxi drivers, mining occupations, carpenter apprentices, ground-keepers and gardeners, and elevator operators. While these occupations may provide large economic payoffs, their prestige levels are relatively low that the occupants are likely to deprive of the self-respect they need to function with a decent social status and recognition.
This is using equal weights which are reasonable within the dimension itself. Also, this procedure does not apply to identifying poverty in economic resources given the involvement of a single indicator.
This does not include the headcount ratios for economic resources due to its single-indicator measurement.
The headcount ratio for Asians is actually higher than the national average from the AF approach, something that may have depended on the role of relational resources via the two-step process.
References
Adato, M., Carter, M., & May, J. (2006). Exploring poverty traps and social exclusion in South Africa using qualitative and quantitative data. Journal of Development Studies, 42(2), 226−247.
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2007). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Oxford University Poverty and Human Development Initiative Working Paper #7.
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011a). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 476–487.
Alkire, Sabina., & Foster, J. (2011b). Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 289–314.
Alkire, S., & Santos, M. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. UNDP Human Development Research Paper # 2010/11.
Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1997). Concepts of human development and poverty: A multidimensional perspective. UNDP Human Development Papers.
Atkinson, A. B. (2003). Multidimensional deprivation: Contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1(1), 51–65.
Barry, B. (2002). Social exclusion, social inclusion, and the distribution of income. In J. Hills, J. Le Grand, & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding social exclusion (pp. 13–29). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2011). Disentangling the circularity in Sen’s capability approach: An analysis of the co-evolution of functioning achievement and resources. Social Indicators Research, 103, 327–355.
Borjas, G. (2006). Wage trends among disadvantaged minorities. In R. M. Blank, S. H. Danziger, & R. F. Schoeni (Eds.), Working and poor: How economic ad policy changes are affecting low-wage workers (pp. 59–86). New Work, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1(1), 25–49.
Castel, R. (2000). The roads to disaffiliation: Insecure work and vulnerable relationships. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(3), 519–535.
Chakravarty, S., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2006). The measurement of social exclusion. Review of Income and Wealth, 53(3), 377–398.
Dahl, E., Flotten, T., & Lorentzen, T. (2008). Poverty dynamics and social exclusion: An analysis of Norwegian panel data. Journal of Social Policy, 37(2), 231−249.
De Haan, A., & Maxwell, S. (1998). Poverty and social exclusion in north and south. IDS Bulletin, 29(1), 1–9.
Duclos, J.-Y., Sahn, D., & Younger, S. (2006). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. Economic Journal, 116(514), 943–968.
Gore, C., Figueiredo, J. B., & Rodgers, G. (1995). Introduction: Markets, citizenship, and social exclusion. In G. Rodgers, C. Gore, & J. Figueiredo (Eds.), Social exclusion: Rhetoric, reality, responses (pp. 1–40). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
Hich, R. (2012). The capability approach: Insights for a new poverty focus. International Social Policy, 41(2), 291–308.
Kenworthy, L. (1999). Do social-welfare policies reduce poverty? A cross-national assessment. Social Forces, 77(3), 1119–1139.
Ravallion, M. (2011). On multidimensional indices of poverty. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper # 5580.
Rippin, N. (2010). Poverty severity in a multidimensional framework: The issue of inequality between dimensions. Courant Research Centre Discussion Paper # 47.
Room, G. (Ed.). (1995). Beyond the threshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press.
Sen, A. K. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44, 219–231.
Sen, A. K. (1981). Poverty and famines. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. K. (1987). Commodities and capabilities (Hennipman Lecture, University of Amsterdam, 1982). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. K. (1993). Capability and well-being. In A. Sen & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Helsinki: United Nations University.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knoff.
Sen, A. K. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and security. Social Development Papers # 1, Asian Development Bank.
Silver, H. (1995). Reconceptualizing social disadvantage: Three paradigms of social exclusion. In G. Rodgers & J. B. Figueiredo (Eds.), Social exclusion: Rhetoric, reality, responses (pp. 57–80). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
Stewart, Q. T. (2006). Reinvigorating relative deprivation: A new measure for classic concept. Social Science Research, 35, 779–802.
Tsui, K. (2002). Multidimensional poverty indices. Social Choice and Welfare, 19, 69–93.
UNDP. (1990). Human development report 1990. New York: Oxford University Press.
UNDP. (1997). Human development report 1997. New York: Oxford University Press.
UNDP. (2010). Human development report 2010. New York: Palgrave.
UNDP. (2011). Human development report 2011. New York: Palgrave.
Wagle, U. (2005). Multidimensional poverty measurement with economic well-being, capability, and social inclusion: A case from Kathmandu, Nepal. Journal of Human Development, 6(3), 301–328.
Wagle, U. (2008a). Multidimensional poverty measurement: Concepts and applications. New York: Springer.
Wagle, U. (2008b). Multidimensional poverty: An alternative measurement approach for the United States? Social Science Research, 37(2), 559–580.
Wagle, U. (2009). Capability deprivation and income poverty in the United States, 1994 and 2004: Measurement outcomes and demographic profiles. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 509–533.
Wilson, W. J. (2009). More than just race: Being black and poor in the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagle, U.R. The Counting-Based Measurement of Multidimensional Poverty: The Focus on Economic Resources, Inner Capabilities, and Relational Resources in the United States. Soc Indic Res 115, 223–240 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0216-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0216-4