Post on 31-Mar-2015
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
ics U
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Inequality and Poverty
June 2005 June 2005
Public Economics: University of Barcelona Public Economics: University of Barcelona
Frank CowellFrank Cowell
http://darp.lse.ac.uk/ubhttp://darp.lse.ac.uk/ub
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Issues to be addressed
Builds on lecture 2 Builds on lecture 2 ““Distributional Equity, Social Welfare” Distributional Equity, Social Welfare”
Extension of ranking criteriaExtension of ranking criteria Parade diagramsParade diagrams Generalised Lorenz curveGeneralised Lorenz curve
Extend SWF analysis to inequalityExtend SWF analysis to inequality Examine structure of inequalityExamine structure of inequality Link with the analysis of povertyLink with the analysis of poverty
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Major Themes
Contrast three main approaches to the subjectContrast three main approaches to the subject intuitiveintuitive via SWF via SWF via analysis of structurevia analysis of structure
Structure of the populationStructure of the population Composition of inequality and povertyComposition of inequality and poverty Implications for measuresImplications for measures
The use of axiomatisationThe use of axiomatisation Capture what is “reasonable”?Capture what is “reasonable”? Find a common set of axioms for related problemsFind a common set of axioms for related problems
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measurement
Inequality and decomposition
Poverty measures
Poverty rankings
Inequality and Poverty
Relationship with welfare rankings
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Inequality rankings
Begin by using welfare analysis of previous Begin by using welfare analysis of previous lecturelecture
Seek inequality rankingSeek inequality ranking We take as a basis the second-order distributional We take as a basis the second-order distributional
rankingranking ……but introduce a small modificationbut introduce a small modification
The 2nd-order dominance concept was originally The 2nd-order dominance concept was originally expressed in a more restrictive form.expressed in a more restrictive form.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Yet another important relationship
The The shareshare of the proportion of the proportion qq of distribution of distribution FF is is given by given by L(F;q) := C(F;q) / (F)Yields Lorenz dominance, or the “shares” rankingYields Lorenz dominance, or the “shares” ranking
For given , G Lorenz-dominates FW(G) > W(F) for all WW2
The Atkinson (1970) result:The Atkinson (1970) result:
G Lorenz-dominates Fmeans: for every q, L(G;q) L(F;q), for some q, L(G;q) > L(F;q)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
The Lorenz diagram
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
pro
por
tion
of
inco
me
proportion of population
L(G;.)
L(F;.)
L(.; q)
q
Lorenz curve for FLorenz curve for F
practical example, UK
practical example, UK
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
original income+ cash benefits
gross income- direct taxes
disposable income- indirect taxes
post-tax income+ non-cash benefits
final income
Official concepts of income: UK
What distributional ranking would we expect to apply to these 5 concepts?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Proportion of population
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
co
me
Original Income
Gross Income
Disposable Income
After Tax Income
Final Income
(Equality Line)
Impact of Taxes and Benefits. UK 2000/1. Lorenz Curve
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Assessment of example
We might have guessed the outcome…We might have guessed the outcome… In most countries:In most countries:
Income tax progressiveIncome tax progressive So are public expendituresSo are public expenditures But indirect tax is regressiveBut indirect tax is regressive
So Lorenz-dominance is not surprising.So Lorenz-dominance is not surprising. But what happens if we look at the situation over time?But what happens if we look at the situation over time?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Proportion of population
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
co
me
1993
2000-1
(Equality Line)
“Final income” – Lorenz
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Proportion of population
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
co
me
1993
2000-1
(Equality Line)
“Original income” – Lorenz
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Lorenz curves intersect
Is 1993 more equal?
Or 2000-1?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Inequality ranking: Summary Second-order (GL)-dominance is equivalent to Second-order (GL)-dominance is equivalent to
ranking by cumulations. ranking by cumulations. From the welfare lectureFrom the welfare lecture
Lorenz dominance equivalent to ranking by shares. Lorenz dominance equivalent to ranking by shares. Special case of GL-dominance normalised by Special case of GL-dominance normalised by
means.means. Where Lorenz-curves intersect unambiguous Where Lorenz-curves intersect unambiguous
inequality orderings are not possible.inequality orderings are not possible. This makes inequality measures especially interesting.This makes inequality measures especially interesting.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measurement
Inequality and decomposition
Poverty measures
Poverty rankings
Inequality and Poverty
Three ways of approaching an index
•Intuition•Social welfare•Distance
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
An intuitive approach
Lorenz comparisons (second-order dominance) may be Lorenz comparisons (second-order dominance) may be indecisiveindecisive
But we may want to “force a solution”But we may want to “force a solution” The problem is essentially one of aggregation of The problem is essentially one of aggregation of
informationinformation Why worry about aggregation?Why worry about aggregation?
It may make sense to use a very simple approachIt may make sense to use a very simple approach Go for something that you can “see”Go for something that you can “see”
Go back to the Lorenz diagramGo back to the Lorenz diagram
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5
prop
ortion of in
come
proportion of population
Gini CoefficientGini Coefficient
The best-known inequality measure?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Equivalent ways of writing the Gini:Equivalent ways of writing the Gini:1.1. Normalised area above Lorenz curveNormalised area above Lorenz curve
The Gini coefficient
2.2. Normalised difference between income pairs. Normalised difference between income pairs.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Intuitive approach: difficulties
Essentially arbitraryEssentially arbitrary Does not mean that Gini is a bad indexDoes not mean that Gini is a bad index But what is the basis for it?But what is the basis for it?
What is the relationship with social welfare?What is the relationship with social welfare? The Gini index also has some “structural” problemsThe Gini index also has some “structural” problems
We will see this in the next sectionWe will see this in the next section
What is the relationship with social welfare?What is the relationship with social welfare? Examine the welfare-inequality relationship directlyExamine the welfare-inequality relationship directly
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measurement
Inequality and decomposition
Poverty measures
Poverty rankings
Inequality and Poverty
Three ways of approaching an index
•Intuition•Social welfare•Distance
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
SWF and inequality
Issues to be addressed:Issues to be addressed: the derivation of an indexthe derivation of an index the nature of inequality aversionthe nature of inequality aversion the structure of the SWFthe structure of the SWF
Begin with the SWF Begin with the SWF WW Examine contours in Irene-Janet spaceExamine contours in Irene-Janet space
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Equally-Distributed Equivalent Income
O xi
xj
The Irene &Janet diagram A given distribution Distributions with same mean
Contours of the SWF
•E
(F) (F)
•F
Construct an equal distribution E such that W(E) = W(F) EDE income
Social waste from inequality
Curvature of contour indicates society’s willingness to tolerate “efficiency loss” in pursuit of greater equality
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Atkinson assumed an additive social welfare Atkinson assumed an additive social welfare function that satisfied the other basic axioms.function that satisfied the other basic axioms.
(F)I(F) = 1 – ——
(F)Mean incomeMean income
Ede incomeEde income
Welfare-based inequality
x1 - – 1 u(x) = ————, 1 –
Introduced an extra assumption: Iso-elastic Introduced an extra assumption: Iso-elastic welfare.welfare.
From the concept of social waste Atkinson From the concept of social waste Atkinson (1970) suggested an inequality measure:(1970) suggested an inequality measure:
W(F) = u(x) dF(x)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
The Atkinson Index Given scale-invariance, additive separability of welfareGiven scale-invariance, additive separability of welfare Inequality takes the form:Inequality takes the form:
Given the Harsanyi argument…Given the Harsanyi argument… index of inequality aversion index of inequality aversion based on risk aversion.based on risk aversion.
More generally see it as a stament of social valuesMore generally see it as a stament of social values Examine the effect of different values of Examine the effect of different values of
relationship between relationship between uu((xx) and ) and xx relationship between relationship between uu′′((xx) and ) and xx
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Social utility and relative income
1 2 3 4 5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
U
x /
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Relationship between welfare weight and income
0 1 2 3 4 50
1
2
3
4
=1/2
=0
=1
U'
x /
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measurement
Inequality and decomposition
Poverty measures
Poverty rankings
Inequality and Poverty
Three ways of approaching an index
•Intuition•Social welfare•Distance
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
A further look at inequality
The Atkinson SWF route provides a coherent approach The Atkinson SWF route provides a coherent approach to inequality.to inequality.
But do we need to approach via social welfareBut do we need to approach via social welfare An indirect approachAn indirect approach Maybe introduces unnecessary assumptions,Maybe introduces unnecessary assumptions,
Alternative route: “distance” and inequalityAlternative route: “distance” and inequality Consider a generalisation of the Irene-Janet diagramConsider a generalisation of the Irene-Janet diagram
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
The 3-Person income distribution
0 Irene's income
Jan
et's
inco
me
Karen's income
ix
kx
xj
ray of
equali
ty
Income DistributionsWith Given Total
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Inequality contours
0
ix
kx
xj
Set of distributions for given total
Set of distributions for a higher (given) total Perfect equality
Inequality contours for original levelInequality contours for higher level
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
A distance interpretation
Can see inequality as a deviation from the normCan see inequality as a deviation from the norm The norm in this case is perfect equalityThe norm in this case is perfect equality Two key questions…Two key questions… ……what distance concept to use?what distance concept to use? How are inequality contours on one level “hooked up” How are inequality contours on one level “hooked up”
to those on another?to those on another?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Another class of indices Consider the Consider the Generalised EntropyGeneralised Entropy class of inequality class of inequality
measures:measures:
The parameter The parameter is an indicator sensitivity of each is an indicator sensitivity of each member of the class.member of the class. large and positive gives a “top -sensitive” measurelarge and positive gives a “top -sensitive” measure negative gives a “bottom-sensitive” measurenegative gives a “bottom-sensitive” measure
Related to the Atkinson classRelated to the Atkinson class
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Inequality and a distance concept The Generalised Entropy class can also be written:The Generalised Entropy class can also be written:
Which can be written in terms of income shares Which can be written in terms of income shares ss
Using the distance criterion Using the distance criterion ss11−−/ [1/ [1−−] …] … Can be interpreted as weighted distance of each income shares from an equal shareCan be interpreted as weighted distance of each income shares from an equal share
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
The Generalised Entropy Class
GE class is richGE class is rich Includes two indices from Henri Theil:Includes two indices from Henri Theil:
= 1: = 1: [ [ xx / / ((FF)] log ()] log (xx / / ((FF)) d)) dFF((xx))
= 0: = 0: – – log ( log (xx / / ((FF)) d)) dFF((xx)) For For < 1 it is ordinally equivalent to Atkinson class < 1 it is ordinally equivalent to Atkinson class
= 1 = 1 – – .. For For = 2 it is ordinally equivalent to (normalised) = 2 it is ordinally equivalent to (normalised)
variance.variance.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Inequality contours
Each family of contours related to a different concept Each family of contours related to a different concept of distanceof distance
Some are very obvious…Some are very obvious… ……others a bit more subtleothers a bit more subtle Start with an obvious oneStart with an obvious one
the Euclidian casethe Euclidian case
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
GE contours: 2
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
GE contours: 225
− −
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
GE contours: a limiting case
−∞
Total priority to the poorestTotal priority to the poorest
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
GE contours: another limiting case
Total priority to the richestTotal priority to the richest
+∞
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
By contrast: Gini contours
Not additively separableNot additively separable
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Distance: a generalisation
The responsibility approach gives a reference income The responsibility approach gives a reference income distributiondistribution Exact version depends on balance of compensation rulesExact version depends on balance of compensation rules And on income function.And on income function.
Redefine inequality measurementRedefine inequality measurement not based on perfect equality as a normnot based on perfect equality as a norm use the norm income distribution from the responsibility use the norm income distribution from the responsibility
approachapproach
Devooght (2004) bases this on Cowell (1985)Devooght (2004) bases this on Cowell (1985) Cowell approach based on Theil’s conditional entropyCowell approach based on Theil’s conditional entropy Instead of looking at distance going from perfect equality to Instead of looking at distance going from perfect equality to
actual distribution...actual distribution... Start from the reference distributionStart from the reference distribution
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measurement
Inequality and decomposition
Poverty measures
Poverty rankings
Inequality and Poverty
Structural issues
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Why decomposition?
Resolve questions in decomposition and population Resolve questions in decomposition and population heterogeneity:heterogeneity: Incomplete informationIncomplete information International comparisonsInternational comparisons Inequality accountingInequality accounting
Gives us a handle on axiomatising inequality measuresGives us a handle on axiomatising inequality measures Decomposability imposes structure.Decomposability imposes structure. Like separability in demand analysisLike separability in demand analysis
first, some terminology
first, some terminology
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
A partition
population share
subgroupinequality
income share
j
sj
Ij
(ii)
(i)
(iii)
(iv)
• The populationThe population• Attribute 1Attribute 1
• One subgroupOne subgroup
• Attribute 2Attribute 2
(1)(2)
(3) (4)(5) (6)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
What type of decomposition?
Distinguish three types of decomposition by subgroupDistinguish three types of decomposition by subgroup In increasing order of generality these are:In increasing order of generality these are:
Inequality accountingInequality accounting Additive decomposabilityAdditive decomposability General consistencyGeneral consistency
Which type is a matter of judgmentWhich type is a matter of judgment More on this belowMore on this below Each type induces a class of inequality measuresEach type induces a class of inequality measures The “stronger” the decomposition requirement…The “stronger” the decomposition requirement… ……the “narrower” the class of inequality measuresthe “narrower” the class of inequality measures
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
adding-up propertyadding-up property
weight functionweight function
1:Inequality accounting
This is the most restrictive form This is the most restrictive form of decomposition:of decomposition: accounting equationaccounting equation
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
2:Additive Decomposability
As type 1, but no adding-up As type 1, but no adding-up constraint:constraint:
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
population sharespopulation shares
3:General Consistency
The weakest version:The weakest version:
income sharesincome shares
increasing in each subgroup’s inequalityincreasing in each subgroup’s inequality
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
A class of decomposable indices
Given scale-invariance and additive decomposability,Given scale-invariance and additive decomposability, Inequality takes the Inequality takes the Generalised EntropyGeneralised Entropy form: form:
Just as we had earlier in the lecture.Just as we had earlier in the lecture. Now we have a formal argument for this family.Now we have a formal argument for this family. The weight The weight jj on inequality in group on inequality in group jj is is jj = = jj
ssjj11−−
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
What type of decomposition? Assume scale independence…Assume scale independence… Inequality accounting:Inequality accounting:
Theil indices only (Theil indices only ( Here Here jj = = jj or or jj = = ssjj
Additive decomposability:Additive decomposability: Generalised Entropy IndicesGeneralised Entropy Indices
General consistency:General consistency: moments, moments, Atkinson, ...Atkinson, ...
But is there something missing here?But is there something missing here? We pursue this laterWe pursue this later
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
What type of partition?
GeneralGeneral The approach considered so farThe approach considered so far Any characteristic used as basis of partitionAny characteristic used as basis of partition Age, gender, region, incomeAge, gender, region, income Induces specific class of inequality measuresInduces specific class of inequality measures ... but excludes one very important measure... but excludes one very important measure
Non-overlapping in incomesNon-overlapping in incomes A weaker versionA weaker version Partition just on the basis of incomePartition just on the basis of income Allows one to include the "missing" inequality measureAllows one to include the "missing" inequality measure
Distinction between them is crucial for one special Distinction between them is crucial for one special inequality measureinequality measure
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Different (equivalent) Different (equivalent) ways of writing the Gini:ways of writing the Gini:
Normalised area under Normalised area under the Lorenz curvethe Lorenz curve
The Gini coefficient
Normalised pairwise differencesNormalised pairwise differences
A ranking-weighted averageA ranking-weighted average
But ranking depends on reference distributionBut ranking depends on reference distribution
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
prop
ortion of in
come
proportion of population
Gini CoefficientGini Coefficient
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Partitioning by income...
x*
N1 N2
0
x**N1
x'x
Case 2: effect on Gini differs in subgroup and population
x'x
Case 1: effect on Gini is same in subgroup and population
Non-overlapping income groups
Overlapping income groups
Consider a transfer:Case 1
Consider a transfer:Case 2
x
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Non-overlapping decomposition
Can be particularly valuable in empirical applicationsCan be particularly valuable in empirical applications Useful for rich/middle/poor breakdownsUseful for rich/middle/poor breakdowns Especially where data problems in tailsEspecially where data problems in tails
Misrecorded dataMisrecorded data Incomplete dataIncomplete data Volatile data componentsVolatile data components
Example: Example: Piketty-SaezPiketty-Saez on US (QJE 2003) on US (QJE 2003) Look at behaviour of Capital gains in top income shareLook at behaviour of Capital gains in top income share Should this affect conclusions about trend in inequality?Should this affect conclusions about trend in inequality?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Top income shares in US
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1913
1917
1921
1925
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
P90–100
P99–100CG excl
P99–100CG Incl
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Choosing an inequality measure
Do you want an index that accords with Do you want an index that accords with intuition?intuition? If so, what’s the basis for the intuition?If so, what’s the basis for the intuition?
Is decomposability essential?Is decomposability essential? If so, what type of decomposability?If so, what type of decomposability?
Do you need a welfare interpretation?Do you need a welfare interpretation? If so, what welfare principles to apply?If so, what welfare principles to apply?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measurement
Inequality and decomposition
Poverty measures
Poverty rankings
Inequality and Poverty
…Identification and measurement
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty analysis – overview
Basic ideasBasic ideas Income – similar to inequality problem?Income – similar to inequality problem?
Consumption, expenditure or income?Consumption, expenditure or income? Time periodTime period RiskRisk
Income receiver – as beforeIncome receiver – as before Relation to decompositionRelation to decomposition
Development of specific measuresDevelopment of specific measures Relation to inequalityRelation to inequality What axiomatisation?What axiomatisation?
Use of ranking techniquesUse of ranking techniques Relation to welfare rankingsRelation to welfare rankings
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty measurement
How to break down the basic issues.How to break down the basic issues. Sen (1979): Two main types of issues Sen (1979): Two main types of issues
Identification problemIdentification problem Aggregation problemAggregation problem
Jenkins and Lambert (1997)Jenkins and Lambert (1997): “3Is”: “3Is” IdentificationIdentification IntensityIntensity InequalityInequality
Present approach:Present approach: Fundamental partitionFundamental partition Individual identificationIndividual identification Aggregation of informationAggregation of information
population
non-poor
poor
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty and partition
Depends on definition of poverty lineDepends on definition of poverty line Exogeneity of partition?Exogeneity of partition? Asymmetric treatment of informationAsymmetric treatment of information
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Counting the poor
Use the concept of individual poverty evaluationUse the concept of individual poverty evaluation Simplest version is (0,1)Simplest version is (0,1)
(non-poor, poor)(non-poor, poor) headcountheadcount
Perhaps make it depend on incomePerhaps make it depend on income poverty deficitpoverty deficit
Or on the whole distribution?Or on the whole distribution?
Convenient to work with Convenient to work with poverty gapspoverty gaps
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
The poverty line and poverty gaps
xx*
0
pov
erty
eva
luat
ion
incomexi xj
gi
gj
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty evaluation
g
0
poverty evalu
ation
poverty gap
x = 0
Non-PoorNon-Poor PoorPoor
gi
A
gj
B
the “head-count”
the “poverty deficit” sensitivity to inequality amongst the poor
Income equalisation amongst the poor
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Brazil 1985: How Much Poverty?
Rural Belo Horizonte poverty lineRural Belo Horizonte poverty line
Brasilia poverty lineBrasilia poverty line
compromise poverty linecompromise poverty line
A highly skewed distribution
A “conservative” x*
A “generous” x*
An “intermediate” x*
The censored income distribution
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 $220 $240 $260 $280 $300
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
The distribution of poverty gaps
$0 $20 $40 $60 gaps
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
ASP
Additively Separable Poverty measures Additively Separable Poverty measures ASP approach simplifies ASP approach simplifies poverty evaluation poverty evaluation Depends on own income and the poverty line.Depends on own income and the poverty line.
pp((xx, , x*x*)) Assumes decomposability amongst the poorAssumes decomposability amongst the poor Overall poverty is an additively separable functionOverall poverty is an additively separable function
P = P = pp((xx, , x*x*) d) dFF((xx))
Analogy with decomposable inequality measuresAnalogy with decomposable inequality measures
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
A class of poverty indices
ASP leads to several classes of measuresASP leads to several classes of measures Make poverty evaluation depends on poverty gap.Make poverty evaluation depends on poverty gap. Normalise by poverty lineNormalise by poverty line Foster-Greer-Foster-Greer-ThorbeckeThorbecke class class
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a=0
a=1
a=1.5
a=2
a=2.5
Poverty evaluation functions
p(x,x*)
x*-x
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Empirical robustness
Does it matter which poverty criterion you use?Does it matter which poverty criterion you use? Look at two key measures from the ASP classLook at two key measures from the ASP class
Head-count ratioHead-count ratio Poverty deficit (or average poverty gap)Poverty deficit (or average poverty gap)
Use two standard poverty linesUse two standard poverty lines $1.08 per day at 1993 PPP$1.08 per day at 1993 PPP $2.15 per day at 1993 PPP$2.15 per day at 1993 PPP
How do different regions of the world compare?How do different regions of the world compare? What’s been happening over time?What’s been happening over time? Use World-Bank analysisUse World-Bank analysis
Chen-Ravallion “How have the world’s poorest fared since the early Chen-Ravallion “How have the world’s poorest fared since the early 1980s?” 1980s?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series 3341World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series 3341
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty rates by region 1981
China 63.80 1 88.10 3 23.41 1 50.82 1
East Asia 57.70 2 84.80 4 20.58 2 47.20 3
India 54.40 3 89.60 1 17.27 3 47.22 2
South Asia 51.50 4 89.10 2 16.06 5 45.78 4
Sub-Saharan Africa 41.60 5 73.30 5 17.03 4 38.54 5
All regions 40.40 6 66.70 6 13.92 6 35.02 6
Latin America and Caribbean 9.70 7 26.90 8 2.75 7 10.66 7
Middle East and North Africa 5.10 8 28.90 7 1.00 8 8.81 8
Eastern Europe and Central Asia 0.70 9 4.70 9 0.17 9 1.39 9
Headcount Poverty gap$1.08 $2.15 $1.08 $2.15
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty rates by region 2001
Sub-Saharan Africa 46.90 1 76.60 3 20.29 1 41.42 1India 34.70 2 79.90 1 7.08 2 34.43 2South Asia 31.30 3 77.20 2 6.37 3 32.35 3All regions 21.10 4 52.90 4 5.96 4 21.21 4
China 16.60 5 46.70 6 3.94 5 18.44 5East Asia 14.90 6 47.40 5 3.35 7 17.78 6Latin America and Caribbean 9.50 7 24.50 7 3.36 6 10.20 7Eastern Europe and Central Asia 3.70 8 19.70 9 0.79 8 5.94 9Middle East and North Africa 2.40 9 23.20 8 0.45 9 6.14 8
Headcount Poverty gap$1.08 $2.15 $1.08 $2.15
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: East Asia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Headcount at $1.08 per day
Headcount at $2.15 per day
Poverty gap at $1.08 per day
Poverty gap at $2.15 per day
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: South Asia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Headcount at $1.08 per day
Headcount at $2.15 per day
Poverty gap at $1.08 per day
Poverty gap at $2.15 per day
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: Latin America, Caribbean
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Headcount at $1.08 per day
Headcount at $2.15 per day
Poverty gap at $1.08 per day
Poverty gap at $2.15 per day
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: Middle East and N.Africa
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Headcount at $1.08 per day
Headcount at $2.15 per day
Poverty gap at $1.08 per day
Poverty gap at $2.15 per day
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: Sub-Saharan Africa
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Headcount at $1.08 per day
Headcount at $2.15 per day
Poverty gap at $1.08 per day
Poverty gap at $2.15 per day
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: Eastern Europe and Central Asia
0
5
10
15
20
25
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Headcount at $1.08 per day
Headcount at $2.15 per day
Poverty gap at $1.08 per day
Poverty gap at $2.15 per day
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Empirical robustness (2) Does it matter which poverty criterion you use?Does it matter which poverty criterion you use? An example from SpainAn example from Spain Data are from ECHPData are from ECHP OECD equivalence scale OECD equivalence scale Poverty line is 60% of 1993 median incomePoverty line is 60% of 1993 median income Does it matter which FGT index you use?Does it matter which FGT index you use?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty in Spaion 1993—2000
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
FGT(1) FGT(2) FGT(3) FGT(4) FGT(5)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Overview...Inequality rankings
Inequality measurement
Inequality and decomposition
Poverty measures
Poverty rankings
Inequality and Poverty
Another look at ranking issues
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
An extension of poverty analysis
Finally consider some generalisationsFinally consider some generalisations What if we do not know the poverty line?What if we do not know the poverty line? Can we find a counterpart to second order dominance Can we find a counterpart to second order dominance
in welfare analysis?in welfare analysis? What if we try to construct poverty indices from first What if we try to construct poverty indices from first
principles?principles?
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty rankings (1)
Atkinson (1987)Atkinson (1987) connects poverty and welfare. connects poverty and welfare. Based results on the portfolio literature concerning Based results on the portfolio literature concerning
“below-target returns” “below-target returns” Theorem Theorem
Given a bounded range of poverty lines (Given a bounded range of poverty lines (xx**minmin, x, x**
maxmax)) and poverty measures of the ASP form and poverty measures of the ASP form a necessary and sufficient condition for poverty to be a necessary and sufficient condition for poverty to be
lower in distribution lower in distribution FF than in distribution than in distribution GG is that the is that the poverty deficit be no greater in poverty deficit be no greater in FF than in than in GG for all for all xx** ≤ ≤ xx**
maxmax..
Equivalent to requiring that the second-order Equivalent to requiring that the second-order dominance condition hold for all dominance condition hold for all xx**. .
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty rankings (2)
Foster and Shorrocks (Foster and Shorrocks (1988a1988a, 1988b) have a similar , 1988b) have a similar approach to orderings by approach to orderings by PP, ,
But concentrate on the FGT index’s particular But concentrate on the FGT index’s particular functional form:functional form:
Theorem: Poverty rankings are equivalent to Theorem: Poverty rankings are equivalent to first-order welfare dominance for first-order welfare dominance for aa = 0 = 0 second-degree welfare dominance for second-degree welfare dominance for aa = 1 = 1 (third-order welfare dominance for (third-order welfare dominance for aa = 2.) = 2.)
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty concepts Given poverty line Given poverty line zz
a reference pointa reference point
Poverty gapPoverty gap fundamental income differencefundamental income difference
Foster et al (1984) poverty index againFoster et al (1984) poverty index again
Cumulative poverty gapCumulative poverty gap
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
TIP / Poverty profile
i/n
p(x,z)/n
G(x,z)
0
Cumulative gaps versus Cumulative gaps versus population proportionspopulation proportions
Proportion of poorProportion of poor TIP curveTIP curve
Cumulative gaps versus Cumulative gaps versus population proportionspopulation proportions
Proportion of poorProportion of poor TIP curveTIP curve
TIP curves have same interpretation as GLC
TIP dominance implies unambiguously greater poverty
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: Axiomatic approach
Characterise an ordinal poverty index Characterise an ordinal poverty index PP((xx , ,zz)) See Ebert and See Ebert and MoyesMoyes (JPET 2002) (JPET 2002)
Use some of the standard axioms we introduced for Use some of the standard axioms we introduced for analysing social welfareanalysing social welfare
Apply them to Apply them to nn+1 incomes – those of the +1 incomes – those of the nn individuals individuals and the poverty lineand the poverty line
Show that Show that given just these axioms…given just these axioms… ……you are bound to get a certain type of poverty measure.you are bound to get a certain type of poverty measure.
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Poverty: The key axioms
Standard ones from lecture 2Standard ones from lecture 2 anonymityanonymity independenceindependence monotonicitymonotonicity
income increments reduce povertyincome increments reduce poverty Strengthen two other axiomsStrengthen two other axioms
scale invariancescale invariance translation invariancetranslation invariance
Also need continuityAlso need continuity Plus a focus axiomPlus a focus axiom
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
A closer look at the axioms
Let Let DD denote the set of ordered income vectors denote the set of ordered income vectors The focus axiom is The focus axiom is
Scale invariance now becomesScale invariance now becomes
Independence means:Independence means:
Define the number of the poor asDefine the number of the poor as
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Ebert-Moyes (2002)
Gives two types of FGT measuresGives two types of FGT measures ““relative” versionrelative” version ““absolute” versionabsolute” version
Additivity follows from the independence axiom Additivity follows from the independence axiom
Frank C
owell:
Frank C
owell: U
B P
ublic Econom
icsU
B P
ublic Econom
ics
Brief conclusion
Framework of distributional analysis covers a number Framework of distributional analysis covers a number of related problems:of related problems: Social WelfareSocial Welfare InequalityInequality PovertyPoverty
Commonality of approach can yield important insightsCommonality of approach can yield important insights Ranking principles provide basis for broad judgments Ranking principles provide basis for broad judgments
May be indecisiveMay be indecisive specific indices could be usedspecific indices could be used
Poverty trends will often be robust to choice of poverty Poverty trends will often be robust to choice of poverty indexindex
Poverty indexes can be constructed from scratch using Poverty indexes can be constructed from scratch using standard axiomsstandard axioms