global multidimensional poverty index (mpi) and national ... · -transforming our world (sdgs) 2015...

Global Multidimensional Poverty Index

(MPI)

and National MPIs for Public Policy

Dr. Christian Oldiges

OPHI

Co-Director of Metrics and Poverty

KEY FINDING: NEARLY HALF OF THE MPI POOR

PEOPLE ARE CHILDREN

Interviewed by students of Lady Doak College

Human lives are battered and diminished in

all kinds of different ways, and the first

task… is to acknowledge that deprivations

of very different kinds have to be accommodated

within a general overarching framework

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen (2000)

Poverty is Multidimensional

“A number can awaken consciences; it can

mobilize the reluctant, it can ignite action, it can

generate debate; it can even, in the best of

circumstances, end a pressing problem”

Numbers that Move the World

by Miguel Szekely (2005, 13).

Incite Action

Why MPI?

Poverty can take multiple forms across

many dimensions

‘The need for a multidimensional view of poverty and deprivation guides the search for an adequate indicator of human poverty’

S. Anand & Amartya Sen

‘Poverty measures should reflect the multi-dimensional nature of poverty.”

Ban Ki Moon, Dec 2014

“invites Member States, supported by the international community, to consider developing complementary measurements, including methodologies and indicators … that better reflect that multidimensionality.”

UNGA A/RES/69/238, Dec 2014

Fighting Multidimensional Poverty

requires Multidimensional Measures

Who says?The Protagonists:

People and communities

living with

and fighting

against poverty

in all its forms

-Transforming Our World (SDGs) 2015

Target 1.2: by 2030, reduce at least by half

the proportion of men, women and children

of all ages living in poverty in all its

dimensions according to national

definitions.

Preamble. We recognise that

eradicating poverty in all its

forms and dimensions,

including extreme poverty, is the

greatest global challenge and an

indispensable requirement for

sustainable development.

Who says?UN Member Countries via the SDG process

9

It is not just how many people are deprived,

but also how many households have a low

score on all or several of the dimensions. Do

those with low levels of education also suffer

from poor health? From the standpoint of

evaluating policy, the different dimensions

have to be examined in conjunction.

Who says?The World Bank in the Atkinson Commission

Recommendation 19: Complementary Indicators should include a

multidimensioned poverty indicator … implemented in terms

of the adjusted head count ratio, and its constituents of the head

count and average breadth of deprivation.

“Measures are like eyes

They help us to see things

They bring matters into focus.”

“Bhutan’s National MPI is not only a measure, it is a tool – a policy tool.”

The MPI in the Era of the SDGs

Target 1.2: by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion

of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty

in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

• The Global SDGs, adopted on 25 Sept 2015, address

poverty in all its forms and dimensions, opening official

space for Multidimensional Poverty Indices.

• The first SDG target (1.1) is to end $1.90/day monetary

poverty. The second target (1.2): to halve multidimensional

poverty. A number of countries are reporting global MPI.

MPIs and the SDGs

-Transforming Our World (SDGs) 2015

Target 1.2: by 2030, reduce at least by half the

proportion of men, women and children of all ages living

in poverty in all its dimensions according to national

definitions. (MPI is reported as Indicator 1.2.2 ).

Preamble. We recognise that

eradicating poverty in all its forms

and dimensions, including extreme

poverty, is the greatest global

challenge and an indispensable

requirement for sustainable

development.

The SDGs shift to a multidimensional view

15

Development and SDGs as a bowling strategy:

Priorities and interlinkages

MPI adds value to a dashboard such as this one:

A Dashboard: Across 101 countries and 5.2 billion people:

• 53% of the considered population lack clean cooking fuel

• 40.2% lack adequate sanitation by MDG definitions

• 26.5% live in houses where floors are dirt, sand, or natural

• 26.8% have someone in their household who is undernourished

• 21.8% lack electricity

• 16.9% of people live in houses where a child has died

• 25.1% lack safe water by MDG definitions

• 13.6% live in a household where a child is not attending school

up to class 8.

• 13.6% live in a household in which no member has completed

five years of schooling.

Measurement Observation: Dashboards aggregate vertically

Income Education Shelter Water

1. D ND ND ND

2. ND D ND ND

3. ND ND D ND

4. ND ND ND D


1. ND ND ND ND

2. ND ND ND ND

3. ND ND ND ND

4. D D D D

Joint Distribution I Joint Distribution II

ND: Not Deprived

D: Deprived

.25 .25 .25 .25.25 .25 .25 .25

The Dashboard










up to class 8.



The Dashboard










up to class 8.



Totals 13.2 billion

deprivations across

5.2 billion people.

Simple question:

How many people

have more than

one deprivation?

To answer this need to:Aggregate horizontally (‘Count’)


1 D ND ND ND

1 ND D ND ND

1 ND ND D ND

1 ND ND ND D


0 ND ND ND ND

0 ND ND ND ND

0 ND ND ND ND

4 D D D D

Joint Distribution I Joint Distribution II

ND: Not Deprived

D: Deprived

A counting method permits us to ‘zoom in’ on

the multiply deprived (MPI weights).

5.2 billion people

Union poor

k = 1%

3.9 billion

k = 20%

2.3 billion

k = 33%

1.6 billion

k = 50%

818 million

k=100%

16.1 million

K >= Poor people

Union 1% 3.9 billion

20% 2.3 billion

33% 1.6 billion

50% 818 million

100% 16.1 million

The Alkire Foster Method

(Warm-Up)

and Public Policy

Alkire Foster Methodology

1. Select Dimensions, Indicators and Weights

2. Set Deprivation cutoffs for each indicator

3. Apply to create profiles for each household from the same survey

4. Set a cross-dimensional poverty cutoff to identify who is poor

5. Compute the MPI, multidimensional poverty rate, intensity and profiles of composition; disaggregate by district, agegroup, etc.

.

Alkire, Sabina and James Foster, J. of Public Economics 2011

A F: Intuitive explanation!(to simplify we assume equal weights in this example)

Matrix of deprivation scores for 4 persons in 4 dimensions

Schooling Food Water Housing

y =

ND ND ND ND Marwan

D ND ND D Xavier

D D D D Chris

ND D ND NDKhalid

Who is deprived in what?

How poor? How many

deprivations?


y =

ND ND ND ND

D ND ND D

D D D D

ND D ND ND

0

2

4

1

Who is Poor?

Fix poverty cut-off k, identify as poor if ci >= 2

→Multidimensional Poverty Headcount (H)= 2/4 = ½ = 50%

[50% of the population are poor]


y =

ND ND ND ND

D ND ND D

D D D D

ND D ND ND

0

2

4

1

How poor are the poor?

Fix poverty cut-off k, identify as poor if ci >= 2

→ Intensity of deprivation among the poor A=(2/4+4/4)/2= 6/8=¾ = 75%

→ [on average the poor are deprived in 75% of the dimensions]


y =

ND ND ND ND 0

D ND ND D 2

D D D D 4

ND D ND ND1

.

2/4

4/4

.

The Multidimensional Poverty

IndexSchooling Food Water Housing

y =

ND ND ND ND 0

D ND ND D 2

D D D D 4

ND D ND ND1

.

2/4

4/4

.

Headcount Ratio (H) = 2/4

Average Intensity of Poverty (A)= 6/8 = 3 / 4

MPI = H x A

= (2/4)x(3/4) = 6/16

Public Policy Intervention


y =

ND ND ND ND 0

D ND ND D 2

D D D D 4

ND D ND ND1

.

2/4

4/4

.


Average Intensity of Poverty (A)= 6 / 8 = 3/4

MPI = H x A

= (2/4)x(3/4) = 6/16

INTERVENTION


y =

ND ND ND ND

D ND ND D

D D D D

ND D ND ND

.

2/4

3/4

.


Average Intensity of Poverty (A)= 5 / 8

MPI = H x A

= (2/4)x(5/8) = 5/16

INTERVENTION

Public Policy Intervention

0

2

3

1

What is new?

Intensity.

The MPI starts with each person, and constructs a

deprivation profile for each person.

Some people are identified as poor based on their joint deprivations.

The others are identified as non-poor.

• Most multidimensional poverty measures like HPI look at

deprivations one by one, not at the household level.

• Counting measures do look at coupled deprivations but only

provide a headcount, giving no incentive to target those who are

deprived in most things at the same time or to

reduce intensity.

MPI: Full Technical methodology published

Statistical methods include:Standard errors and confidence intervals for all statistics

Statistical inference for all comparisons

Validation for component indicators, alone and jointly

Robustness tests for cutoffs and weights

Axiomatic properties include:Subgroup decomposability and Subgroup consistency

Dimensional breakdown, Dimensional monotonicity

Ordinality, Symmetry, Scale and replication invariance, Normalization, Poverty and Deprivation Focus, Weak Monotonicity, and Weak Deprivation Re-arrangement

AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR FREE (!)

https://multidimensionalpoverty.org/Alkire Foster Seth Santos Roche Ballon OUP 2015

A person who is deprived in 1/3 or more of the weighted indicators is MPI poor.

14-year old Amutha, India

Amutha is poor: she and her family are deprived in more than 1/3 of the MPI weighted

indicators.

What is the global MPI?

34

What is new in 2018?

35

• In 2018, OPHI and UNDP undertook a joint revision of

the global MPI, drawing upon and subsuming the best of

the previous MPI by adjusting five of its ten indicators to

better align the global MPI with the SDGs.

• The results from this year cover 100+ countries, and is

disaggregated by over 1000 sub-national regions, as well as

by rural-urban areas and age groups, making it particularly

useful in identifying people who are left behind in multiple

SDGs.

The global MPI 2018

How do you calculate the MPI?

The MPI uses the Alkire & Foster (2011) Method:

1) Incidence or the headcount ratio (H ) ~ the percentage

of people who are poor.

2) Intensity of people’s deprivation (A) ~ the average

share of dimensions (proportion of weighted deprivations)

people suffer at the same time. It shows the joint distribution

of their deprivations.

Formula: MPI = M0 = H × A

Data: Surveys (MPI 2018)

Demographic & Health Surveys (DHS - 51)

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS - 43)

DHS-MICS (2)

Pan–Arab Project for Family Health (PAPFAM – 3)

6 national surveys covering China (CFPS), Ecuador (ECV), Jamaica

(JSLC), Mexico (ENSANUT) and South Africa (NIDS) are used, with

revision pending for Brazil (PNAD).

Data are 2006-2016/17.

This represents over 23% – nearly a quarter – of the population in the countries for which the 2018 MPI is calculated.

KEY FINDING: 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE LIVE IN

MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY IN THE 100+

COUNTRIES COVERED

KEY FINDING: 83% OF THE WORLD’S MPI POOR

LIVE IN SOUTH ASIA AND SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Europe and Central Asia

0.3%Latin …

Arab States5%

East Asia and the Pacific

9%South Asia

41%

Sub-Saharan Africa42%

KEY FINDING: SOME TWO-THIRDS OF THE WORLD’S

MPI POOR LIVE IN MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES

But Nearly 65% of people

in Low Income Countries are

poor compared to 18% on

average in middle- or high-

income countries.

INFORMING POLICY:

THE MPI SHOWS

THE SHAPE OF

POVERTY FOR EACH

GROUP – AND IT

VARIES.

KEY FINDING : 271 MILLION PEOPLE MOVED OUT OF

POVERTY IN INDIA

India cut the poverty rate from 55% to 28%

The poorest states reduced poverty fastest.

Yet India still has the largest

number of people living in

poverty in the world: 364 million

THE POOREST INDIAN STATES REDUCED POVERTY FASTEST

PRELIMINARY REPORT

ONLINE:

GLOBAL

MULTIDIMENSIONAL

POVERTY INDEX 2018The Most Detailed Picture to Date

of the World’s Poorest People

WWW.OPHI.ORG.UK

Global MPI in Member states of the

Commission

Jordan 2017-2018 DHS

Palestine, State of 2014 MICS

Tunisia 2011-2012 MICS

Libya 2014 PAPFAM

Algeria 2012-2013 MICS

Egypt 2014 DHS

Syria 2009 PAPFAM

Iraq 2018 MICS

Morocco 2011 PAPFAM

Yemen 2013 DHS

Mauritania 2015 MICS

Sudan 2014 MICS

MPI in the Region

H in the Region

Where do the Poor live?

39%

25%

12%

9%

6%4% 3%2%0%0%0%0%

Sudan

Yemen

Morocco

Egypt

Iraq

Mauritania

Syria

Algeria

Tunisia

Libya

Palestine, State of

Jordan

Where do the Poor live?

Country H (in %)

Number of Poor

(in 1,000)

Sudan 52.33 21,210

Yemen 47.70 13,475

Morocco 18.57 6,636

Egypt 5.16 5,038

Iraq 8.64 3,305

Mauritania 50.57 2,235

Syria 7.39 1,350

Algeria 2.10 868

Tunisia 1.32 153

Libya 2.00 127

Palestine, State of 0.96 47

Jordan 0.43 42

Poverty in the Broader Region Multidimensional Headcount Ratio (%)

Where do the Poor live in the

Boader Region?

Country H

Number of

Poor (in

1,000)

Sudan 52.33 21,210

Niger 90.47 19,431

Mali 78.09 14,479

Yemen 47.70 13,475

Chad 85.67 12,765

Morocco 18.57 6,636

Egypt 5.16 5,038

Iraq 8.64 3,305

Mauritania 50.57 2,235

Syria 7.39 1,350

Algeria 2.10 868

Tunisia 1.32 153

Libya 2.00 127

Palestine, State of 0.96 47

Jordan 0.43 42

Mauritania (Global MPI)

MPI in Action:

National MPIs for Policy

Context specific – National MPIs:

- Reflects national contexts and priorities

- They guide policies – like targeting and allocation, monitoring and coordination

- Useful for policy but can’t be compared internationally

National MPIs

• Nigeria 2018 (Human Development Report)

• Sierra Leone 2019 (official)

• Rwanda 2018 (report)

National MPI in Africa

Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone 2019

National MPIs for Policy

Policy makers are using their

national MPIs to:

1. Complement monetary poverty statistics

2. Track poverty over time (official statistics)

3. Allocate resources by sector and by region

4. Target marginalized regions, groups, or households

5. Coordinate policy across sectors and subnational levels

6. Adjust policies by what works (measure to manage)

7. Leave No One Behind see the poorest & track trends

8. Be Transparent so all stakeholders engage – NGOs,

private sector, all parts of government.

Most countries launch national monetary and

multidimensional poverty measures on the same day.

Example: Chile


national MPIs to:









• Private Sector etc., all parts of government.

Descomposición del IPM¿Por qué son pobres?

Ecuador


national MPIs to:










Does our allocation match our levels

of poverty by region? (Not yet)

Costa Rica: Does our allocation match our

levels of poverty by sector? (Not yet)

MPI: used to diagnose Mismatches between objectives & Programmes/allocations

Costa Rica: Because the 2015 MPI showed big

mismatches between policy

objectives and allocations,

President Solis issued a

Presidential Decree that MPI

must be part of allocation

formulae in the future.

The 2017 budget reflects the MPI

MPI: used to diagnose Mismatches between objectives & Programmes/allocations


national MPIs to:










Panama 2017: MPI rates vary nationally from 4.2% to

over 90% in two Indigenous Comarcas

Leave No One Behind

Dimensions CHINACompulsory Education (9 years)

Basic Medical Care

Safe Housing (includes water etc)

Adequate Food and Clothing

Sufficient income and livelihood.

Aim: end this poverty by 2020.


national MPIs to:










Poverty Roundtabl

e

ColombiaWe have new intersectoral articulations:

Social Inclusion and Productive

TableTo follow up the control panels for each of the

indicators

Design, identify and define programmes to meet the

objectives

9 Members

Different levels of articulation, with meetings weely, fortnightly, nad monthly

Specific Goals

Focus on double Inclusion

15 Members

Meet with the President

Review the control panel

PobrezaLínea Base

PND 2008

Dato

2011

Dato

2012Análisis Goal

MPI (Multidimensional Poverty) 34.7% 29.4% 27.0% 22.5%

▪ Educational achievement (≥15 yrs)

▪ Literacy (≥15 yrs)

58.8% 54.6% 53.1% 52.8%

14.2% 12.0% 12.1% 12.0%

▪ School attendance (6-16)

▪ No school lag (7-17)

▪ Access to child care services (0-5)

▪ Children not working (12-17)

5.4% 4.8% 4.1% 3.5%

33.4% 34.1% 33.3% 33.1%

12.1% 10.8% 9.4% 10.6%

5.5% 4.5% 3.7% 2.9%

▪ Long-term unemployment

▪ Formal employment

9.6% 9.1% 10.0% 9.3%

80.6% 80.4% 80.0% 74.7%

▪ Health insurance

▪ Access to health services

24.2% 19.0% 17.9% 0.5%

8.9% 8.2% 6.6% 2.4%

▪ Access to water source

▪ Adequate sewage system

▪ Adequate floors

▪ Adequate external walls

▪ No critical overcrowding

12.9% 12.0% 12.3% 10.9%

14.1% 14.5% 12.1% 11.3%

7.5% 6.3% 5.9% 5.6%

3.1% 3.2% 2.2% 2.1%

15.7% 14.2% 13.1% 8.4%

FUENTE: DANE

0%-10% avance 10%-25% avance >25% avance

A(1)

D(4)

B(2)

C(3)

E(5)

*** Change 2011-2012 est. significant

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

Colombia

2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Public policy• Free education(MinEducación)• Integral strategy for early childhood (ICBF)“De Cero a Siempre”

Alerts: -Educational achievement- Early childhood

Fuente: Prosperidad Social

2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Public policy •Free housing“100.000 ViviendasGratis” (Ministry of housing)

Alerts: -Housing conditions- Decrease on multidimensional poverty slows down


2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Public policy•Redesign of“Mas Familias en Acción“

(Social Prosperity)higher coverage in rural areas

Unemployment protection mechanism (Ministry Hunger)

Alerts: -Decrease on income poverty slows down- Rural urban gaps


2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Public policy•Cash transfer program to higher education“Jóvenes en Acción”(Social prosperity)

Alerts: -Social mobility-Youth inactivity and unemployment


2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Alerts: -Nutritional conditions of children-Lack of articulation in rural programs

Public policy•National System of food security•Food security differentiated programs


2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Public policy•Policies to consolidate protective floors for the poor and networks of protection for the vulnerable population

Alerts: -High vulnerability of people emerging from poverty


2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Alerts: -Gap growth continues: Colombia remains in the top 10 most unequal countries

Public policy:•Programs with emphasis on the rural , focus on the periphery and differentiation of family support programs•Strategy “De cero a siempre” becomes law


2010 20122011 20142013 2015 2016 2017

Alerts: -Implementation of the peace deal -2030 agenda


Inclusive Cabinet of Mexico

In order to built basic levels of social protection and guarantee social inclusion, EnriquePeña Nieto, President of Mexico, created the Cabinet Mexico Incluyente. Every Ministry atthe federal level undertakes a full commitment to reduce social inclusion gaps relatedwith the Mexican MPI. SEDESOL coordinates the Cabinet Mexico Incluyente.

• SEP

• (CDI, INEA)Education

• SALUD, SEGOBHealthcare

• SHCP-SALUD• (STPS-SEDESOL, IMSS, ISSSTE)

Social Security

• SEDESOL

• (SEMARNAT-CONAGUA, CDI,SEDATU, CFE, SENER, SCT, CNA)

Basic Services in Homes

• SEDATU

• (SEDESOL, INFONAVIT)

Housing, quality and spaces

• SEDESOL

• (SEP, SALUD, SAGARPA, DIF)Food Access

• ECONOMÍA (SEDESOL, CDI, SCT,

• SEMARNAT, SALUD-DIF, STPS, SEDATU,

• SAGARPA, SHCP, SRE)Income

Household food insecurity scale

Increase access to social security

Educational gap reduction

Increase Healthcare memberships

Floor, roof, walls, household overcrowding

Income above the Basic Food Basket

Potable water, power, drainage

Cabinet México Incluyente

FULL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE

FEDERAL GOVERMENT,

GOVERMENTS FROM ALL STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES

NEW PARADIGM: FROM THE

SECTORIAL GLANCE TO A

INTERSECTORIAL AND TRANSVERSAL

APPROACH


national MPIs to:








8. Be Transparent so NGOs, Private Sector, all levels of

government, engage.

Panama 2017: MPI rates vary nationally from 4.2% to

over 90% in two Indigenous Comarcas

Leave No One Behind

MODERATE POVERTY33.7%36.0 millions2.3 Deprivation

Social RightsDeprivations

We

llb

ein

g

Inco

me

Vulnerable people by

income


social deprivations

Mexico Total Population 2008: 44.2% poor

18.3%19.5 millions

33.0%35.2 millions2.0 Deprivation

average

03 2 1456

EXTREME POVERTY

average

average

10.5%11.2 millions3.9 Deprivation

4.5%4.8 millions

MODERATE POVERTY36.5 %2.5 millions3.1 Deprivation

Social RightsDeprivations

We

llb

ein

g

Inco

me


income


social deprivations

Mexico Indigenous population 2008: 75.7% poor

1.2%.1 millions

20.0 %1.4 millions2.8 Deprivation

average

03 2 1456

EXTREME POVERTY

average

average

39.2 %2.7 millions4.2 Deprivation

3.1%0.21 millions

Leaving No One Behind- Benin

.

Adja

Bariba

Dendi

Fon

Yoa and Lopka

Bétamaribe

Peulh

Yoruba

-0.035

-0.030

-0.025

-0.020

-0.015

-0.010

-0.005

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

An

nu

al A

bso

lute

Ch

an

ge

in M

PI

Multidimensional Poverty Index at initial year

Size of bubble is proportional to

the number of poor in first year of

the comparison.

Poorest ethnic

group saw no

change in

MPI. They are

being left

behind.

Leaving No One Behind - Kenya

Kalenjin

KambaKikuyu

Kisii

Luhya

Luo

Meru

Mijikenda/Swahili

Somali

-0.035

-0.030

-0.025

-0.020

-0.015

-0.010

-0.005

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

An

nu

al A

bso

lute

Ch

an

ge in

MP

I

Multidimensional Poverty Index at initial year

Size of bubble is proportional

to the number of poor in first

year of the comparison.

Poorest ethnic

group reduced MPI

the fastest.

Thank you www.ophi.org.uk

@ophi_oxford

@Oldiges_CH

ophi.oxford

#ophi

http://www.ophi.org.uk/

global multidimensional poverty index (mpi) and national ... · -transforming our world (sdgs) 2015...

Documents