Key and missing components of y g pmultidimensional poverty measurement

S bi AlkiSabina Alkire,

Bonn , 21 November 2011

I i l k h ‘Th MDG d B d’ DIE/PEGN BMZInternational workshop ‘The MDGs and Beyond’ DIE/PEGNet BMZ

Motivation for the MDGsMotivation for the MDGs“We will spare no effort to p

free our fellow men, women, and children,

from the abject and dehumanizing g

conditions of extreme poverty, to which more p y,than a billion of them are now subjected.”are now subjected.

Kofi Annan

Three Assumptionsp– Why: That post-MDGs will share the ethical motivation of

the MDGs, to reduce abject human suffering.

– Purpose: That post-2015 MDGs aim to create momentum –political & financial, and be a focal point for research, advocacy, and collective action to reduce suffering.

– How: The ‘tools’ of post-MDGs (data, indicators, measures, processes, reports) must catalyse and sustain results – cost

/effectively. Reports/measures are not ends in themselves.

M‘Growth’

Measurement Inputs

Measures DataInputs

ProcessesThis presentation:

Some on dataSome on measures

Missing data . Missing g

A key constraint in 2015?DataWork

Violence A key constraint in 2015?EmpowermentRelationships

– The MDGs focus on living standards, health, education, gender and the environmental conditions. We ignore well-known weaknesses in existing indicators.

– The number of proposed ‘ninth’ MDGs is not infinite.p p

– Proposals mainly fall into four categories, as above.

– Sources of proposals include poor people, experts, MDG Reports, PRSP documents, and research.

5– .

The Voices of the Poor found that poor people call these part of poverty.

Material Well-being (Work)

Fr d f Ch i & A ti n (E)Freedom of Choice & Action (E)

Security (Safety from Violence)

Social Well-being (Connectedness)

P h l i l W ll b iPsychological Well-beingBodily Wellbeingy g

Mental Wellbeing

The Sen-Stiglitz-Fitoussi Commission Q li f Lif ll fQuality of Life – all from same survey

S bj i ll b i• Subjective well-being• Health• Education• The Balance of Time• Political Voice & Governance• Social Connections• Social Connections• Environmental Conditions• Personal Security• Economic security including Worky g

BUT… Data on these dimensions are missinggfrom MDG surveys & other hh surveys

Most MDG data come from 4 survey instruments:

• Violence is nearly invisible. (Domestic V in some DHS)• Formal employment is covered in LSMS surveys but notFormal employment is covered in LSMS surveys but not

Informal employment or quality of work usually; DHS/MICS are weak.DHS/MICS are weak.

• Voice/Empowerment is systematically absent.Sh H ili i d I l i b• Shame Humiliation and Isolation are absent.

We might wish to look ahead as data will constrain 2015 baselineWe might wish to look ahead as data will constrain 2015 baseline

8

What’s needed: see interconnectionsWhat s needed: see interconnections

Dimensions Health Educa-tion Income Safety from

Violence Work Empow.

I di id l 1 NP P NP P P PIndividual 1 NP P NP P P P

Individual 2 NP NP P NP P NP

Individual 3 P P P NP NP NP

Individual 4 P P P P P P

5-8 min surveysurvey

modules

]

Motivation

• Intrinsic and instrumental value.• At least 5 countries identified ‘decent work’ as a ninth

MDG, or as a high priority target along the MDGs• Of 19 composite indices of poverty and well-being, 14 p p y g

included work-related indicators• Informal work is predominate among poor & among p g p g

women, so important to grasp. – 2 million people die each year from work-related accidents,

illnesses or wounds in formal work sites (WHO 2010)– 268 million non-fatal accidents cause three lost days of work

per injured worker;160 million cases of work-related illnesses.per injured worker;160 million cases of work related illnesses.All on formal worksites (informal higher).

11

Motivation• Safety from violence is clearly valued for its own sake.

• Recognition of its importance:− 19 countries stressed security from violence in their PRSP or plan− Two countries developed a 9th MDG around security− At least 17 more place violence as a pillar of their national strategy− At least 17 more place violence as a pillar of their national strategy

alongside meeting the MDGs.• An estimated 90 percent of all violence-related deaths occur in

d ddlow- and middle-income countries (Krug et al., 2002).• Fragile and failed states, and countries in conflict, are

disproportionately failing in progress on the MDGs. d sp opo t o ate y a g p og ess o the MDGs.• For every war death, more than 3 people die of crime &

homocide (WHO Burden of Disease 2004; 2008 update)

Shame, humiliation and isolation

• The stigma of poverty is a recurring theme among the poor• Can result in increasing isolation from services and support• Can undermine social relationships and provoke psycho-social

l di l lf i l l i h lmaladies: low self-esteem, poor interpersonal relations, school-related difficulties, delinquency, social phobia, etc.

• May fuel horizontal inequalities and spill over into conflict.• May discourage use of public services by poor

Missing Dimensions: Empowerment

Arab Spring – most potent indication

• Moving out of poverty 2009 found that 77.5% of those who exit

i h i ‘poverty cite their ‘own initiative’ as the most important reason forimportant reason for moving out of poverty.

•

New Goals

need new Data

ButBut…Focus is key

](data needed anyway)

Multidimensional MeasuresMeasures u t d e s o a easu esDashboards

Multdimensional

Reports & AnalysisWhat is useful in these multidimensional measures?multidimensional measures?

1. They show who is deprived in what at the same time. The MDGs do not.

Who is poor?Who is poor?

A l d ll f hA person is multidimensionally poor if they are deprived in 33% of the dimensions.

33%33%

Endah’s MPIThe MPI is built from each person’s own

profile of poverty, and keeps this information so we can zoom back to it later.

Seeing the Interconnections: Measures gMultidimensional MeasuresDashboards

Multdimensional

Reports & Analysis

What is useful in these dmultidimensional measures?

1 They show who is deprived in what at the same time1. They show who is deprived in what at the same time. The MDGs do not.

2 Th i i b h f ld l2. They give an overview, an above-the-fold, at-a-glance view of the trends – nationally and by regions.

The MPI Headcount Ratios and the $1.25/day Povertyy y103 of our 109 Countries in

2011 have $1.25 data; only 71 have ; y$1.25 poverty data within 3 years of MPI. $1.25 data ranges from 1992-

f2008; MPI from 2000-2010.

Niger

Ethiopia

Mali

tral African

 Republic

Burundi

Liberia

Burkina Faso

Guinea

Rwanda

Mozam

bique

Sierra Leone

Comoros

DR Congo

Uganda

Malaw

iBenin

Timor‐Leste

Senegal

Madagascar

Tanzania

Nepal

Zambia

Chad

Cote d'Ivoire

Gam

bia

Bangladesh

Haiti

Togo

Nigeria

India

Cameroon

Yemen

Cambodia

Pakistan

Kenya

Lao

Swaziland

Republic of Congo

Gabon

Lesotho

o Tome and Principe

Honduras

Ghana

Djibouti

Nicaragua

Bhutan

Guatemala

Indonesia

Bolivia

Peru

Viet Nam

Tajikistan

Mongolia

Iraq

Philippines

South Africa

Paraguay

China

Morocco

Estonia

Turkey

Egypt

Syrian

 Arab Republic

Colombia

Sri Lanka

Azerbaijan

Maldives

Kyrgyzstan

Dom

inican

 Republic

Hungary

Croatia

Mexico

Argentina

Brazil

Jordan

Uzbekistan

Ecuador

Ukraine

Macedonia

Moldova

Uruguay

Thailand

Latvia

Montenegro

Albania

Russian Federation

Arm

enia

Serbia

nia and Herzegovina

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Belarus

Slovenia

CenSa

S

Bosn

Some MPI 2011 ‘Fast Facts’

• Extent: 32% of people in 109 countries are poor• R i n 50% f MPI p p pl li i S th• Region: 50% of MPI poor people live in South

Asia and 29% in SS Africa.• MICS: 69% of MPI poor live in Middle Income

Countries. • Rural: 83% of MPI poor live in Rural areas.• Range: MPI headcount in MICs ranges from 0-Range: MPI headcount in MICs ranges from 0

77%; MPI headcount in LICS: 5-92%.• Disparity: National aggregates hide disparities b• Disparity: National aggregates hide disparities by

region and ethnic group.

National MPINational MPI(109 Countries)

22

Sub-national MPI (66 countries)Sub national MPI (66 countries)(highest disaggregation available)

23

TunisiaMorocco

TunisiaMorocco

PakistJordan

Iraq

MauritaniaMauritania

United Arab Emirates

Egypt

Guinea

Chad

Gambia

Senegal

Mali Niger

Mauritania

DjiboutiGuinea

Chad

Gambia

Senegal

Mali Niger

Mauritania

DjiboutiBurkina Faso

Yemen

BeninCote d'Ivoire Togo

CameroonCentral African Republic

Liberia

Nigeria

Uganda

EthiopiaSierra Leone

Gambia

SomaliaBeninCote d'Ivoire Togo

CameroonCentral African Republic

Liberia

Nigeria

Uganda

EthiopiaSierra Leone

Gambia

Somalia

S T d i iGabon

Republic of Congo

Ghana

DR CongoTanzania

KenyaGabon

Republic of Congo

Ghana

DR CongoTanzania

KenyaBurundi

Sao Tome and Principe

Angola

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Malawi

Mozambique

Angola

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Malawi

Mozambique

Namibia

ZimbabweMadagascar

Namibia

ZimbabweMadagascar

24

SwazilandSouth Africa

Lesotho

SwazilandSouth Africa

Lesotho

B li

Dominican RepublicMexico

B li

Dominican RepublicMexico

Belize

Haiti

Guatemala

G

Trinidad and Tobago

Belize

Haiti

Guatemala

G

Trinidad and Tobago

Honduras

NicaraguaGuyana

SurinameColombia

NicaraguaGuyana

SurinameColombia

Peru

Ecuador

Peru

Ecuador

Brazil

Bolivia

Brazil

Bolivia

ParaguayParaguay

UruguayUruguay

25

ArgentinaArgentina

Nutrition (CH)Child Mortality (CH)

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Nepal

India

Pakistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Nepal

India

Pakistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Nepal

India

Pakistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Nepal

India

Pakistan

Nutrition (CH)

MyanmarMyanmar MyanmarMyanmar

Sri LankaSri Lanka Sri LankaSri Lanka

S f D i ki W (CH)S h l A d (CH)

Nepal

Pakistan

Nepal

Pakistan

Nepal

Pakistan

Nepal

Pakistan

Safe Drinking Water (CH)School Attendance (CH)

Myanmar

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Myanmar

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Myanmar

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Myanmar

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

26Sri LankaSri Lanka Sri LankaSri Lanka

Seeing the Interconnections: Measures gMultidimensional MeasuresDashboards

Multdimensional

Reports & Analysis

What is useful in these dmultidimensional measures?

1 They show who is deprived in what at the same time1. They show who is deprived in what at the same time. The MDGs do not.

2 Th i i b h f ld l i f2. They give an overview, an above-the-fold, at-a-glance view of the trends – nationally and often by region.

3. Alkire Foster measures can be broken down by region and by indicator, to show how change happened.

Ghana, Nigeria, and Ethiopia2003-8 2003-8 2000-52003 8 2003 8 2000 5

70%

75%

MPI = A x H

Poorest Countries,Highest MPI Niger

65%

ty (A

)

Nigeria

Ethiopia

Mozambique

55%

60%

of P

over

t

Indonesia

Nigeria

ChinaAngola

50%

Bre

adth

IndonesiaDR Congo

UgandaBrazil

40%

45%

Ave

rage

Upper-Middle IncomeLower Middle Income

IndiaSouth Africa

BangladeshGabon

NamibiaGhana

35%

Lower-Middle IncomeHigh IncomeLow Income

Kyrgyzstan

Turkey

Ukraine

Tajikistan

30%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of People Considered Poor (H)

Pathways to Poverty Reduction

2

Ghana Nigeria Ethiopia

1

2

Assets

Cooking

0

Cha

nge

nt

gFuel

Floor

-2

-1

bsol

ute

Cd

Hea

coun Water

Sanitation

-3

ualiz

ed A

bC

enso

red

Electricity

Nutrition

-4Ann

u C

Mortality

Child

-6

-5Child Enrolment

Schooling

Changes in MPI by sub-national region

0.5

1ty

(A

)

0-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1%

Int

ensi

ty

-0.5

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

atio

n in

%

-1

lute

Var

ia

-2

-1.5

nual

Abs

ol

-2.5

2

Ann

u

Annual Absolute Variation in % Headcount Ratio (H)Annual Absolute Variation in % Headcount Ratio (H)

Nigeria Ghana Ethiopia

Regions of Nigeria: How MPI changed

2

South East

South West South

North Central

North West

North East

1

2

Schooling

Attendance

0

hang

e nt

Attendance

Child Mortality

-2

-1

bsol

ute

Ch

d H

eaco

un Nutrition

Electricity

-3

2

ualiz

ed A

bC

enso

red

Improved Sanitation

Water

-4Ann

u C

Flooring

Cooking

-6

-5Cooking Flue

Assets

0,7

0,6

Upper confidence

0 4

0,5 interval

0 3

0,4Lower confidence interval

0,2

0,3

Point estimate

0,1Nigeria: Which of the 10 indicators h t ti ti ll i ifi t?

0

changes are statistically significant?

MPI Data UpdatesMPI Data Updates (best estimates)

• In 2012, between 30 and 50 new and updated datasets will be available and more than one third ofdatasets will be available and more than one third of the MPI countries’ data will date from 2010.

• By 2014, the MPI will probably have been calculated for over 100 new and updated datasets.for over 100 new and updated datasets.

33

Seeing the Interconnections: Measures gMultidimensional MeasuresDashboards

Multdimensional

Reports & Analysis What is useful in these multidimensional measures?

1. They show who is deprived in what at the same time. The MDGs can not (And it matters). The MDGs ca ot ( d t atte s).

2. They give an overview, an above-the-fold, at-a-glance view of the trends nationally and often by regionthe trends – nationally and often by region.

3. Alkire Foster measures can be broken down by region and by i di h h h h dindicator, to show how change happened.

4. The indicators, dimensions, cutoffs are flexible. You , ,choose them for your own purpose.

1. (data permitting)

Uses? Colombia launched an official national MPI to monitor progress towards their plan using the Alkire-Foster methodprogress towards their plan using the Alkire Foster method.

Poverty committee: monitoring poverty reduction▪ Leaders

– Counselor for the Presidency– National Planning Department

▪ Permanent members– Ministry of Health– Ministry of Labory– Ministry of Housing– Ministry of Agriculture– Ministry of Educations y o duca o– Ministry of Finance

No Deputies permittedNo Deputies permitted.

MANDATORY PRESENCEThe President of Colombia

35

Mexico’s AF measure shows extreme & moderate povertyextreme & moderate poverty

WithoutWith deprivations

Vulnerable people by

Ideal Situation

Without

DepE i

EWL

Vulnerable people by social deprivations

$1,921.7 U$1,202.8 R

privaMULTIDIMENSIONALLY POOR

Economic wellbeing line

EXTREME Multidimensional

Moderate MultidimensionalPoverty

Vulnerable people by

income

MWL

$1,202.8 R

$874.6 U$613.8 R

tion

MULTIDIMENSIONALLY POOR

Minimum MultidimensionalPoverty

03

income

5 24 16

sMinimum

wellbeing line

Social RightsDeprivations

035 24 16

Deprivations

Bhutan’s national MPI adjusts the i iglobal MPI using better national

indicators – with participatory inputindicators with participatory input.

A possibility?1. Create an internationally comparable measure with

some post 2015 MDGs as a ‘bell weather’ indicatorsome post-2015 MDGs, as a bell-weather indicator alongside the detailed single indicator dashboard.

2. Encourage countries/groups to make ‘National MPIs’ reflecting their own priorities, goals & values. (we already do this for income poverty)

I ’ h h k? N h i ll I i f iblIsn’t this too much work? Not technically. It is feasible.

Example: Colombia’s measure & report was made in 4 monthsExample: Colombia s measure & report was made in 4 months by 3 persons under the age of 33 who do not have PhDs.

Concluding Remarks:

1. MDG measures need to anticipate the data requirements especially for a ‘baseline’ in 2015requirements – especially for a baseline in 2015.

2 It is possible to include brief 5-min modules on:2. It is possible to include brief 5 min modules on: work, violence, empowerment, and relationships.

3. The value-added of a multidimensional measure is that it reveals coupled deprivations. MDGs don’t.

‘S i i ’ li i dd l i l MDG• ‘Synergistic’ policies address multiple MDGs; traps. • You can go inside a country to regions / groups

4. Consider an international MPI, and support for national MPIs if they will actually be used.

2 Dimensions and Indicators of MPI2. Dimensions and Indicators of MPI

3 Methodology: Aggregation3. Methodology: Aggregation

We construct the MPI using the Alkire & Foster M0:

H i h f l h I h

Formula: MPI = M0 = H × A

• H is the percentage of people who are poor. It shows the incidence of multidimensional poverty.

• A is the average proportion of weighted deprivations g p p g ppeople suffer at the same time. It shows the intensity of people’s poverty.p p p y

Policy implications...Country A: Country B:

Policy oriented to the poorest of the poorPoverty reduction policy

MultidimensionalHeadcount

(H)

Intensity of Deprivations

(A)

Multidimensional Poverty Index(MPI = H * A)

MultidimensionalHeadcount

(H)

Intensityof Deprivations

(A)

Multidimensional Poverty Index(MPI = H * A)

MultidimensionalHeadcount

(H)

Intensity of Deprivations

(A)

Multidimensional Poverty Index(MPI = H * A)

MultidimensionalHeadcount

(H)

Intensity of Deprivations

(A)

Multidimensional Poverty Index(MPI = H * A)

y p p(without inequaliy focus)

70.00

75.00

58.00

59.00

60.00

0.40

0.41

0.42

Before

(H) (A) (MPI = H A)

70.00

75.00

58.00

59.00

60.00

0.40

0.41

0.42

Before

(H) (A) (MPI = H A)

70.00

75.00

58.00

59.00

60.00

0.40

0.41

0.42

Before

(H) (A) (MPI = H A)

70.00

75.00

58.00

59.00

60.00

0.40

0.41

0.42

Before

(H) (A) (MPI H A)

65.00

55.00

56.00

57.00

0.36

0.37

0.38

0.39

65.00

55.00

56.00

57.00

0.36

0.37

0.38

0.39

65.00

55.00

56.00

57.00

0.36

0.37

0.38

0.39

65.00

55.00

56.00

57.00

0.36

0.37

0.38

0.39

55.00

60.00

52.00

53.00

54.00

0 32

0.33

0.34

0.35

55.00

60.00

52.00

53.00

54.00

0 32

0.33

0.34

0.35

55.00

60.00

52.00

53.00

54.00

0 32

0.33

0.34

0.35 After

55.00

60.00

52.00

53.00

54.00

0.32

0.33

0.34

0.35

After

50.00 50.00

51.00

0.30

0.31

0.32

50.00 50.00

51.00

0.30

0.31

0.32

50.00 50.00

51.00

0.30

0.31

0.32

50.00 50.00

51.00

0.30

0.31

0.32

Country B reduced the intensity of deprivation among the poor more. The final index reflects this.

(MPI satisfies Dimensional Monotonicity)