Multidimensional Poverty Reduction in India 1998/99 to 2005/06: Where and How?
description
Transcript of Multidimensional Poverty Reduction in India 1998/99 to 2005/06: Where and How?
Multidimensional Poverty Reduction in India 1998/99 to 2005/06: Where and How?
Sabina Alkire and Suman Seth
The Development Studies Association Annual ConferenceInstitute of Education, London
3 November 2012
Motivation
Poverty measurement has been traditionally based on Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (PCE)
Non-poor by PCE does not necessarily imply non-deprived in other indicators, such as– Basic services like health, education, sanitation, clean
drinking water (Ahluwalia 2011)– Nutrition (National Family Health Survey 2005/06;
HUNGaMA Survey Report, 2011)
2
Motivation
Reduction in income poverty did not necessarily translate into improvement in other social indicators
3
PCE/Income poverty 1994-2005 45.3% to 37.2 % 0.74 % p.a.
Pop. with no education 1999-2006 36.3% to 33.7% 0.37 % p.a.
Women under-nutrition 1999-2006 35.3% to 32.3% 0.43 % p.a
Child under-nutrition 1999-2006 48.0% to 47.0% 0.15 % p.a.
Source: Tendulkar (2009) and National Family Health Survey (NFHS)
Motivation
Need for understanding the joint distribution of deprivations and distinguish those who are multiply deprived from those who are not
Need for a complementary measure that can capture direct deprivations
4
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
The method is an adaptation of Alkire and Foster (2011) which can deal with the binary or categorical data and was introduced by Alkire and Santos (2010) and UNDP (2010)
A person is identified as poor using a counting approach in two steps1) A person is identified as deprived or not in each dimension using a set of deprivation cutoff (z)2) Based on the deprivation profile, a person is identified as poor or not
Terms: deprived and poor are not synonymous
How is MPI Computed?The MPI uses the Adjusted Headcount Ratio:
H is the percent of people who are identified as poor, it shows the incidence of multidimensional poverty.
A is the average proportion of weighted deprivations people suffer at the same time. It shows the intensity of people’s poverty – the joint distribution of their deprivations.
A person is identified as poor if deprived in 1/3 of ten weighted indicators (k = 1/3).
Formula: MPI = H × A
Useful Properties
7
The MPI can be broken down into the headcount ratio (H) and the average deprivation score (intensity) among the poor (A) to understand how poverty has been reduced over time
Population subgroup decomposition
Breakdown of overall poverty by dimensions to understand their contribution
Data for Analysis over Time
8
We use two rounds of National Family Health Surveys for trend analysisNFHS-2 conducted in 1998-99NFHS-3 conducted in 2005-06
Not all ten MPI indicators are available in the NFHS-2 dataset
Indicators for Comparison over Time
9
Indicators Deprivation cutoff1. Years of Schooling Deprived if no household member has completed five years of schooling2. Child School Attendance
Deprived if any school-aged child (6-14) in the household is not attending school up to class 8
3. Child Mortality Deprived if any child has died in the household (only among ever-married women)
4. Nutrition Deprived if any ever-married adult woman or child under 36 months in the household with nutritional information is undernourished
5. Access to Electricity Deprived if the household has no electricity6. Access to Improved Sanitation
Deprived if the household´s sanitation facility is not improved or it is shared with other households
7. Access to Safe Drinking Water
Deprived if the household does not have access to safe drinking water or safe water is more than 30 minutes walk round trip
8. Housing and Land Deprived if the household lives in kaccha house or lives in semi-pucca house but owns less than one acre of unirrigated or less than 0.5 acre of irrigated land
9. Type of Cooking Fuel Deprived if the household cooks with dung, wood or charcoal
10. Asset Ownership Deprived if the household does not own more than one of: radio, TV, telephone, bike, motorbike or refrigerator, and does not own a car or truck
An Almost MPI for India (MPI-I)
10
Based on the indicators and dimensions we create a poverty index similar to the global MPI
We refer it as MPI-I
It takes a lower value than the global MPI for India because of the changes in indicators.
11
How Did Uncensored Deprivation in Indicators Change Over Time (raw)?
-16.0%-12.0%-8.0%-4.0%0.0%
Indicator (Statistical Significance) [1999 RH Ratio]
Significant reduction in all deprivations except attendance. Highest reductions in housing, sanitation, water and electricity deprivations.
12
Change in MD Poverty Nationally for Different Poverty Cut-offs
Poverty Cutoff (k) 1999 2006 ChangeM0 0.364 0.319 -0.045*
Union (>0) H 92.9% 89.1% -3.8%*A 39.2% 35.9% -3.4%*
M0 0.341 0.292 -0.049*One-fifth (0.2) H 73.4% 65.1% -8.3%*
A 46.5% 44.8% -1.6%
One-third (0.33)M0 0.299 0.250 -0.049*H 56.5% 48.3% -8.1%*A 52.9% 51.7% -1.2%
Half (0.5)M0 0.197 0.153 -0.045*H 30.6% 23.6% -7.1%*A 64.5% 64.7% 0.3%
How has Acute Poverty Decreased Nationally?
13
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
Abso
lute C
hang
e in
CH
Ratio
Indicator (Statistical Significance) [Initial CH Ratio]
12.10%
1.80%
15.00%
16.50%
6.80%
11.50%
7.40%
12.20%
8.40%
8.30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Change in MPI-I
Assets
Cooking fuel
Housing
Water
Sanita tion
Electricity
Nutrition
Mortality
Attendance
Schooling
Absolute Reduction in Acute Poverty Across Large States
14
-0.110 -0.090 -0.070 -0.050 -0.030 -0.010
Andhra Pradesh (*) [0.296]Kerala (*) [0.14]Tamil Nadu (*) [0.194]Maharashtra (*) [0.23]Orissa (*) [0.38]Karnataka (*) [0.253]Gujarat (*) [0.246]West Bengal (*) [0.336]Jammu & Kashmir (*) [0.214]Eastern States (*) [0.319]Himachal Pradesh (*) [0.149]Uttar Pradesh (*) [0.344]Rajasthan (*) [0.34]Madhya Pradesh () [0.358]Haryana () [0.187]Punjab (*) [0.114]Bihar () [0.443]
Absolute Change (99-06) in MPI-I
Stat
es (S
igni
fica
nce)
[MPI-
I in
199
9]
We combined Bihar and Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattishgarh, and Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
Significant reduction in all states except
Bihar, MP and Haryana.
Improvement in Poverty: H or A?
15
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Himachal Pradesh
Maharashtra
Andhra Pradesh
GujaratKarnataka
Jammu & Kashmir
Punjab
Orissa
Eastern States
Haryana
West Bengal
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Bihar
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
-70.0% -60.0% -50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0%
Perc
enta
ge C
ahng
e e in
Inte
nsity
of P
over
ty (A
)
Percentage Change in Headcount Ratio (H)
Performance consistently strongest in
Kerala, TN, & AP.
Comparison with Change in Income Poverty (p.a.)
16
Acute Poverty Across Castes/Tribes
17
M0-99 M0-06 Change H-99 H-06 Change A-99 A-06 ChangeScheduled Tribe 0.454 0.411 -0.043 79.7% 73.2% -6.5% 56.9% 56.1% -0.8%Scheduled Caste 0.378 0.308 -0.070 68.7% 58.3% -10.4% 55.0% 52.8% -2.2%OBCs 0.298 0.258 -0.040 57.4% 50.8% -6.5% 52.0% 50.7% -1.2%None Above 0.228 0.163 -0.065 45.0% 32.7% -12.3% 50.7% 49.8% -0.9%
Disparity Increases
MPI Poverty decreased least among the poorest. The STs (8.5% population share) are the poorest, but the change
is lowest for them and for OBCs, who have a higher pop share.
MPI Poverty decreased most for SC and ‘None’.
Distribution of Poor (k = 1/3) Across Castes
We see the % of ‘None’ decreased most, and that of SC, ST increased a bit and OBC increased quite a bit.
18
Change in Population Share
STs12.6%
SCs22.2%
OBCs33.1%
General32.0%
1999
STs12.9%
SCs23.0%
OBCs42.3%
General21.8%
2006
Poverty for k = 50% Subset of poor for k = 1/3: each person’s intensity > 50%
19
Deprivation Score
50%
Deprived
33%
No Deprivations
Poor by k = 1/3MPI-I z Cutoffs
Poor by k = 1/2
k cutoffs
Poverty for k = 1/2 Across States
20
1999 2006
RegionsHeadcount
Ratio (k = 1/3)Headcount
Ratio (k = 1/2)
Share of k = 1/2 Poor to k = 1/3
PoorHeadcount
Ratio (k = 1/3)Headcount
Ratio (k = 1/2)
Share of k = 1/2 Poor to k
= 1/3 PoorKerala 33.3% 8.6% 0.26 10.6% 1.8% 0.17Himachal Pradesh 35.3% 7.7% 0.22 23.3% 4.7% 0.20Tamil Nadu 42.3% 15.2% 0.36 26.8% 6.6% 0.25Maharashtra 46.4% 21.5% 0.46 32.1% 11.8% 0.37Jammu 43.8% 19.6% 0.45 33.7% 13.0% 0.39Haryana 39.7% 15.9% 0.40 33.9% 13.1% 0.39Punjab 24.7% 9.0% 0.37 19.0% 7.4% 0.39Andhra Pradesh 56.4% 31.7% 0.56 41.1% 16.4% 0.40Karnataka 50.3% 24.7% 0.49 38.1% 15.3% 0.40Gujarat 47.6% 26.2% 0.55 35.9% 16.0% 0.44Orissa 70.5% 39.4% 0.56 58.1% 30.3% 0.52Eastern States 61.1% 32.8% 0.54 51.1% 27.0% 0.53West Bengal 60.3% 35.2% 0.58 52.7% 27.8% 0.53Uttar Pradesh 64.3% 36.1% 0.56 58.9% 31.3% 0.53Rajasthan 63.5% 36.2% 0.57 58.1% 31.4% 0.54Madhya Pradesh 66.6% 38.5% 0.58 61.9% 34.0% 0.55Bihar 76.1% 49.5% 0.65 73.6% 48.4% 0.66India 56.5% 30.6% 0.54 48.3% 23.6% 0.49
Poverty for k = 1/2 Across other Subgroups
21
1999 2006
Regions
HeadcountRatio (k =
1/3)Headcount
Ratio (k = 1/2)
Share of k = 1/2 Poor to k = 1/3
PoorHeadcount
Ratio (k = 1/3)Headcount
Ratio (k = 1/2)
Share of k = 1/2 Poor to k
= 1/3 PoorRural 68.0% 38.2% 0.56 60.2% 31.9% 0.53Urban 24.7% 9.9% 0.40 21.3% 8.3% 0.39Scheduled Tribe 68.7% 51.5% 0.75 58.3% 45.5% 0.78Scheduled Caste 79.7% 40.5% 0.51 73.2% 31.2% 0.43OBCs 57.4% 30.1% 0.52 50.8% 25.2% 0.49None Obove 45.0% 21.9% 0.49 32.7% 14.7% 0.45Hindu 57.5% 31.2% 0.54 48.4% 24.1% 0.50Muslim 59.1% 33.9% 0.57 54.8% 32.5% 0.59Christian 40.6% 17.4% 0.43 32.8% 14.8% 0.45Sikh 24.8% 8.2% 0.33 16.9% 5.7% 0.33Other Religion 43.4% 21.8% 0.50 42.2% 20.6% 0.49No Education 78.0% 50.4% 0.65 71.3% 43.2% 0.611-5 Years 60.7% 30.7% 0.51 50.4% 23.1% 0.466-10 Years 40.6% 14.9% 0.37 33.3% 11.5% 0.3511-12 Years 25.2% 8.0% 0.32 20.8% 6.5% 0.31More Than 12 Years 12.8% 3.3% 0.26 9.7% 2.0% 0.21India 56.5% 30.6% 0.54 48.3% 23.6% 0.49
Deprivation Score
Ultra Poor: Changing Both Deprivation and Poverty Cutoffs
50%
Deprived
33%
No Deprivations
Poor by k = 1/3MPI z Cutoffs
Ultra z Cutoffs
k cutoffs
Poor by k = 1/2
Ultra Poor
Ultra-poverty Deprivation CutoffsSubset of MPI poor that are most deprived in each dimension
23
Indicator Acute Deprivation Cut-off ‘Ultra’ Cutoff
Nutrition Any adult or child in the household with nutritional information is
undernourished (2SD below z score or 18.5 kg/m2 BMI) 3SD or 17 BMI
Child mortality Any child has died in the household
Years of schooling No household member has completed five years of schooling No SchoolingSchool attendance Any school-aged child is not attending school up to class 8
Electricity The household has no electricity
Sanitation The household´s sanitation facility is not improved or it is shared with
other households Uses bush/field
Drinking waterThe household does not have access to safe drinking water or safe water
is more than 30 minutes walk round trip Unprotected and 45 Minutes
House The house is kachha, or semi-pucca and owns <1 acre or < 0.5 irrigated kaccha & no land
Cooking fuel The household cooks with dung, wood or charcoal.Wood, grass, Crops, dung
AssetsThe household does not own more than one of: radio, TV, telephone, bike,
motorbike or refrigerator, and does not own a car or truck even one
Deprivation in Ultra-Poverty Indicators(Raw Headcount Ratios)
24
` MPI-I-99 Ultra-99 MPI-I-06 Ultra-06Schooling 21.8% 10.5% 18.3% 9.5%Attendance Unchanged 20.5% 20.5% 21.2% 21.2%Mortality Unchanged 27.3% 27.3% 23.3% 23.3%Nutrition 40.8% 20.4% 36.8% 17.9%Electricity Unchanged 39.2% 39.2% 32.8% 32.8%Sanitation 81.1% 70.3% 69.8% 56.7%Water 23.2% 6.7% 15.8% 6.2%Housing 49.5% 13.0% 35.2% 6.0%Cooking Fuel 76.3% 73.7% 74.1% 71.7%Assets 55.3% 28.7% 48.7% 20.7%
Total Change in Deprivations of Ultra Poor across time (raw)
25
-14.0%
-10.0%
-6.0%
-2.0%
2.0%
Indicator [1999 RH Ratio]
Ultra & k = 1/3 is 37.9%
Deprivation Score
Ultra Poor in 1999
50%
Deprived
33%
No Deprivations
Poor by k = 1/3 is 56.4%MPI z Cutoffs
Ultra z Cutoffs
k cutoffs
Poor by k =1/2 is 30.6%Ultra & k = 1/2 is 15.8%
3.7%
22.1%
36.4%
Only 7.1% of the population did not have any deprivations at all
Ultra and k = 1/3 is 31.7%
Deprivation Score
Ultra Poor in 2006
50%
Deprived
33%
No Deprivations
Poor by k = 1/3 is 48.3%MPI z Cutoffs
Ultra z Cutoffs
k cutoffs
Poor by k =1/2 is 23.6%Ultra & k = 1/2 is 12.5%
5.5%
19.2%
40.8%
10.9%
Summary
28
MPI-I 99 Ultra 99Poverty Cutoff
M0 H A Poverty Cutoff
M0 H A
Union 0.364 92.9% 39.2% Union 0.260 87.5% 29.7%20.0% 0.341 73.4% 46.5% 20.0% 0.223 55.8% 39.9%
33.3% 0.299 56.5% 52.9% 33.3% 0.178 37.9% 46.9%50.0% 0.197 30.6% 64.5% 50.0% 0.095 15.8% 59.8%
MPI-I 06 Ultra 06Poverty Cutoff
M0 H A Poverty Cutoff
M0 H A
Union 0.319 89.1% 35.9% Union 0.228 82.4% 27.6%20.0% 0.292 65.1% 44.8% 20.0% 0.188 48.5% 38.8%33.3% 0.250 48.3% 51.7% 33.3% 0.146 31.7% 46.0%50.0% 0.158 24.7% 64.1% 50.0% 0.074 12.5% 59.3%
Conclusion – i (of ii)We have compared multidimensional poverty MPI-I
across a seven year period, matching the global MPI indicators as closely as possible
Multidimensional poverty declined across India, with an 8% fall in the % of poor (or 1.17% p.a.).
But disparity among the poor has increased Progress has been slowest for STs, for hh with
uneducated head of household, for Bihar MP and Rajasthan, and for Muslims.
29
Conclusion – iiWe also looked at two subsets of the MD poor:
those with severe intensity (k = 1/2), and those with high depths of deprivations (ultra).
They are not the same: most ultra poor are not poor for k = 1/2.
Still 12.5 percent of the population experienced ultra poverty and also poverty for k= 1/2
We are unable to update these results: needed data are unavailable for India since 2005/6.
30