DOCSLIB.ORG

How Are Inequality and Poverty Linked?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Are Inequality and Poverty Linked? How are Inequality and Poverty Linked? Abigail McKnight Associate Director Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics UN expert meeting: New Research on Inequality and Its Impacts 12 th and 13 th September 2018 Motivation • There is a well documented upward trend in inequality in high and middle income countries since 1970s; although not everywhere, and trends are not uniform across countries and vary across different measures • A growing concern about potential harmful effects of inequality on societies, including the role inequality played in the lead up to the financial crisis • Recent shift in thinking away from the assumption that policy can successfully target poverty reduction (including in rich and middle income countries) without addressing income inequalities • Big players - World Bank, United Nations, World Economic Forum, OECD, Oxfam, etc – setting twin goals and outlining recommendations that policy needs to simultaneously tackle poverty and inequality in rich as well as poor countries • … but knowledge and evidence gaps on the nature of the relationship between economic inequality and poverty Measurement issues • Measures of income inequality and poverty are summary statistics often calculated from the same distribution (household income), therefore we would expect these measures will be linked in a ‘mathematical/mechanical’ sense • The strength of the relationship between inequality and poverty will depend on the extent to which any inequality measure is sensitive to dispersion of income in the lower half of the income distribution • Theoretically it is possible to have: (1) no relative income poverty (income < 60% median income) but high inequality (high concentration of income among a small group of very rich households); high relative income poverty but low inequality (very low dispersion of income above the median) but in practise this is rarely observed 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1961 1962 UK Poverty and Income Inequality Trends Trends Inequality Income and Poverty UK 1963 Top 1% income share-adults (RHS) 1% share-adults income Top (BHC) (RHS) coefficient Gini ratio (BHC) 90/10 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1961 1980 <60% median (AHC) (RHS) (AHC) median <60% ratio (BHC) 50/10 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 - 1986 2015/16 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Top 1% income share-married couples & single adults single & couples 1% share-married income Top ratio (BHC) 90/50 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 (RHS) 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1961 1962 UK Poverty and Income Inequality Trends Trends Inequality Income and Poverty UK 1963 Top 1% income share-married couples & single adults single & couples 1% share-married income Top (BHC) (RHS) coefficient Gini ratio (BHC) 90/10 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 (RHS) 1978 1979 1961 1980 Top 1% income share-adults (RHS) 1% share-adults income Top (RHS) (AHC) median <60% ratio (BHC) 50/10 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 - 1986 2015/16 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 <60% median (BHC) (RHS) median <60% ratio (BHC) 90/50 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Relationship between UK poverty and income inequality (Gini) Before housing costs After housing costs 0.25 0.30 y = 0.7261x - 0.0496 y = 0.5735x - 0.0132 0.25 0.20 R² = 0.6862 R² = 0.8819 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 Poverty rate (<60% median) (<60% rate Poverty Poverty rate (<60% median) (<60% rate Poverty 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Inequality (Gini) Inequality (Gini) Relationship between poverty and income inequality (decile ratios) – before housing costs 0.25 0.25 0.20 y = 0.2432x - 0.3061 0.20 y = 0.165x - 0.1528 R² = 0.9246 R² = 0.7022 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 Poverty rate (<60% median) (<60% rate Poverty median) (<60% rate Poverty 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Inequality (50/10 ratio) Inequality (90/50 ratio) Relationship between poverty and income inequality (decile ratios) – after housing costs 0.30 0.30 0.25 y = 0.161x - 0.1518 0.25 y = 0.2308x - 0.2636 R² = 0.8772 R² = 0.8926 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 Poverty rate (<60% median) (<60% rate Poverty median) (<60% rate Poverty 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Inequality (50/10 ratio) Inequality (90/50 ratio) Relationship between poverty and top 1% share – before housing costs 0.250 19901992 1989 1988 1991 0.200 1993 19961997 1998 1994 1999 20012000 2007 1987 1995 2002 2006 2003 2005 2004 2009 1972 1986 2010 2011 2014 2012 2013 0.150 1971 1963 1985 197419811973 1969 19781979 1970 19671966 19621965 1975 19831984 1976 1982 1968 1964 1977 y = 0.0057x + 0.1039 0.100 R² = 0.3308 Poverty (<60% median) (<60% Poverty 0.050 0.000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Top 1% income share (%) Levels of income inequality and relative income poverty are strongly correlated across countries Inequality and relative income poverty risk in 2014 for 26 European countries 25 25 greecespainlatviaestonia latviaestoniagreecespain 20 italy portugallithuania 20 italy lithuaniaportugal germanypolandunitedkingdom germanyunitedkingdompoland belgiummaltaluxembourgireland belgiumluxembourgmaltaireland 15 sweden hungary cyprus 15 swedenhungarycyprus austriafrance franceaustria finlandslovakiadenmark denmarkfinlandslovakia norway netherlands norwaynetherlands 10 czechrepublic 10 czechrepublic Relative poverty risk (%) risk poverty Relative iceland (%) risk poverty Relative iceland 5 r=0.87*** r=0.95*** 5 20 25 30 35 40 2 3 4 5 6 Gini P90:P10 25 25 greecespain estonia latvia latviaestonia greecespain 20 italy portugallithuania 20 lithuania italyportugal germanypolandunitedkingdom belgium maltaluxembourgireland luxembourgmaltaunitedkingdomgermanypoland 15 sweden hungary irelandbelgium austria cyprus 15 swedenhungary france francecyprusaustria denmarkslovakiafinland finlanddenmarkslovakia norway netherlands norwaynetherlands 10 czechrepublic 10 czechrepublic Relative poverty risk (%) risk poverty Relative iceland (%) risk poverty Relative iceland r=0.81*** r=0.94*** 5 5 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 P90:P50 P50:P10 Eleni Karagiannaki (2017) “The Empirical relationship between income poverty and income inequality in rich and middle income countries”, LIPpaper 3, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics …so are changes in inequality and changes in poverty – European countries 1996-2014 Eleni Karagiannaki (2017) “The Empirical relationship between income poverty and income inequality in rich and middle income countries”, LIPpaper 3, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics Relationship between income inequality and material deprivation and multidimensional poverty • We also examined the link between the way a country's most deprived individuals experience disadvantage across multiple dimensions of life and its level of income inequality. • By expanding the definition of disadvantage beyond income poverty, we sought to overcome some of the criticisms that might be levelled at a mechanical link between strictly income-based measures of poverty and inequality. • We used three measures of material deprivation and multidimensional poverty, and focused our analysis on European countries. • The main findings are that broader multidimensional poverty measures are also positively linked to income inequality, but (over a short period) changes in them are not. Lin Yang and Polly Vizard (2017) “Multidimensional poverty and income inequality in the EU” LIPpaper 4, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics What drives the relationship between inequality and poverty – review of mechanisms • Social aspects: Public opinion and shifts in cultural and social norms – underestimating inequality/perceptions of reasons for ‘success’ and ‘failure’ • Spatial aspects of inequality and poverty – segregation/public expenditure and investment • Political aspects: the relationship between riches and access to political power and decision making, political representation, legal frameworks and voting • Crime and the legal system: crime, punishment and unequal access to justice Public opinion and shifts in cultural and social norms • Standard models predict that an increase in inequality will lead to an increase in demand for redistribution and as a result inequality and poverty will fall (Meltzer and Richard, 1981). However, empirical evidence is mixed. Why? Current income alone doesn’t shape individuals’ redistributive preferences – expectations of upward mobility. Evidence shows that people underestimate the level of inequality and overestimate the level of social mobility. This is important because there is a positive (negative) correlation between people’s perceived level of inequality (social mobility) and the demand for redistribution. People’s knowledge of inequality, the tax and benefit system and redistribution is limited (Orton and Rowlingson, 2007) ‘Failure attribution argument’ – redistributive preferences are influenced by beliefs on why individuals are poor or rich (hard work/lazy/luck/etc).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Offshoring Domestic Jobs
    Offshoring Domestic Jobs Hartmut Egger Udo Kreickemeier Jens Wrona CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 4083 CATEGORY 8: TRADE POLICY JANUARY 2013 An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded • from the SSRN website: www.SSRN.com • from the RePEc website: www.RePEc.org • from the CESifo website: www.CESifoT -group.org/wp T CESifo Working Paper No. 4083 Offshoring Domestic Jobs Abstract We set up a two-country general equilibrium model, in which heterogeneous firms from one country (the source country) can offshore routine tasks to a low-wage host country. The most productive firms self-select into offshoring, and the impact on welfare in the source country can be positive or negative, depending on the share of firms engaged in offshoring. Each firm is run by an entrepreneur, and inequality between entrepreneurs and workers as well as intra- group inequality among entrepreneurs is higher with offshoring than in autarky. All results hold in a model extension with firm-level rent sharing, which results in aggregate unemployment. In this extended model, offshoring furthermore has non-monotonic effects on unemployment and intra-group inequality among workers. The paper also offers a calibration exercise to quantify the effects of offshoring. JEL-Code: F120, F160, F230. Keywords: offshoring, heterogeneous firms, income inequality. Hartmut Egger University of Bayreuth Department of Law and Economics Universitätsstr. 30 Germany – 95447 Bayreuth [email protected] Udo Kreickemeier Jens Wrona University of Tübingen University of Tübingen Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences Mohlstr. 36 Mohlstr. 36 Germany - 72074 Tübingen Germany - 72074 Tübingen [email protected] [email protected] January 8, 2013 We are grateful to Eric Bond, Jonathan Eaton, Gino Gancia, Gene Grossman, James Harrigan, Samuel Kortum, Marc Muendler, IanWooton, and to participants at the European Trade Study Group Meeting in Leuven, the Midwest International Trade Meetings in St.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen-Focused Results Orientation in Citizen- Centered Reform
    Public Disclosure Authorized HANDBOOK ON PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS (IN SIX VOLUMES) Public Disclosure Authorized VOLUME 3: BRINGING CIVILITY IN Public Disclosure Authorized GOVERNANCE Edited by Anwar Shah Public Disclosure Authorized CONTENTS Handbook Series At A Glance Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Contributors to this Volume OVERVIEW by Anwar Shah Chapter 1: Public Expenditure Incidence Analysis by Giuseppe C. Ruggeri Introduction ..................................................................................1 General Issues ................................................................................2 The Concept of Incidence ...........................................................2 The Government Universe .........................................................5 What is Included in Government Expenditures ......................5 Disaggregation by Level of Government .................................6 The Database .............................................................................7 The Unit of Analysis ...................................................................8 Individuals, Households and Families ...................................8 Adjustment for Size ..............................................................10 Grouping by Age and by Income Levels ...............................11 The Concept of Income .............................................................12 2 Bringing Civility in Governance Annual versus Lifetime Analysis .............................................16 The Allocation
    [Show full text]
  • Inequality Measurement Development Issues No
    Development Strategy and Policy Analysis Unit w Development Policy and Analysis Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs Inequality Measurement Development Issues No. 2 21 October 2015 Comprehending the impact of policy changes on the distribu- tion of income first requires a good portrayal of that distribution. Summary There are various ways to accomplish this, including graphical and mathematical approaches that range from simplistic to more There are many measures of inequality that, when intricate methods. All of these can be used to provide a complete combined, provide nuance and depth to our understanding picture of the concentration of income, to compare and rank of how income is distributed. Choosing which measure to different income distributions, and to examine the implications use requires understanding the strengths and weaknesses of alternative policy options. of each, and how they can complement each other to An inequality measure is often a function that ascribes a value provide a complete picture. to a specific distribution of income in a way that allows direct and objective comparisons across different distributions. To do this, inequality measures should have certain properties and behave in a certain way given certain events. For example, moving $1 from the ratio of the area between the two curves (Lorenz curve and a richer person to a poorer person should lead to a lower level of 45-degree line) to the area beneath the 45-degree line. In the inequality. No single measure can satisfy all properties though, so figure above, it is equal to A/(A+B). A higher Gini coefficient the choice of one measure over others involves trade-offs.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Nevada, Reno the Effects of Fiscal Reforms On
    University of Nevada, Reno The Effects of Fiscal Reforms on Economic Growth in Chinese Provinces: 1985-2007 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Economics by Xingchen Wang Dr. Mehmet Tosun/Thesis Advisor May, 2010 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by XINGCHEN WANG entitled The Effects of Fiscal Reforms on Economic Growth in Chinese Provinces: 1985-2007 be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Mehmet Tosun, Advisor Elliott Parker, Committee Member Jiangnan Zhu, Graduate School Representative Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Associate Dean, Graduate School May, 2010 i Abstract Fiscal reforms have played an important role in China’s development for the last thirty years. This paper mainly examines the effects of fiscal decentralization on China’s provincial growth. Through constructing indicators for revenue and expenditure decentralization respectively, regression results indicate that they are both positively affecting economic growth in Chinese provinces. Along with the rapid development, the inequality issue has drawn much concern that fiscal reforms have indirectly hindered China’s even regional growth. Another model is set up to support this conclusion. However, as a distinct form of inequality, poverty has been largely alleviated in this process. Especially in the reform era of China, the absolute number of poverty population has declined dramatically. ii Acknowledgement I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Professor Mehmet Tosun, with whose patient guidance I could have worked out this thesis. He has offered me valuable suggestions and ideas with his profound knowledge in Economics and rich research experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Cycle of Poverty in Young Families
    POLICY REPORT | APRIL 2015 Breaking the Cycle of Poverty in Young Families TwO-GEneration Policy RecommEnd ations The two-generation approach is a poverty reduction strategy meeting the unique needs of both parents and children simultaneously, which differs from other models that provide service provision to parents or their children separately. The focus of this two-generation research was specifically young families, which are defined as out-of-school, out-of-work youth 15–24 with dependent children under the age of 6. Families in poverty can best be served by addressing parental needs for education, workforce training, and parental skills, while also addressing child development essentials. The recent economic downturn has tremendously impacted communities and families in the United States, especially young families. Over 1.4 million youth ages 15–24 are out-of-school, out-of-work and raising dependent children. When youth are out of the education system, lack early work experience, and cannot find employment, it is unlikely that they will have the means to support themselves.1 Too often, this traps their families in a cycle of poverty for generations. With generous support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and ASCEND at the Aspen Institute, the National Human Services Assembly (NHSA), an association of America’s leading human service nonprofit organizations, set out to identify policy and administrative barriers to two- generation strategies. The NHSA engaged its member organizations and local affiliates to better understand their two-generation programs, challenges to success, and strategies for overcoming. It also convened advo- cates, experts, and local providers together to determine the appropriate government strategies to break the cycle of poverty in young families.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty Reduction Strategies for the US
    Poverty Reduction Strategies for the US August 2008 Mary Jo Bane Harvard Kennedy School Prepared for the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation “Defining Poverty Reduction Strategies” Project Contact Information: Mary Jo Bane Thornton Bradshaw Professor of Public Policy and Management Littauer 320 Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Mailbox 20 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-9703 617-496-0811 (Fax) Email: [email protected] Strategy #1: Construct the infrastructure for practical, well-managed poverty alleviation initiatives, including appropriate measures for assessing success and learning from experience. This strategy recognizes that “poverty” is a complex set of problems, and that poverty alleviation can only be accomplished by a portfolio of policies and programs tailored to specific aspects of the problem. It recognizes that poverty alleviation efforts must reflect the best practices in public management, including the specification of concrete goals, the assessment of the strategies and the ability to learn and improve. In this context, the current official measure of poverty is nearly useless either for figuring out what the problems are, for assessing whether any progress has been made in addressing the problems or for stimulating systematic and creative approaches to trying out and evaluating solutions to different variants of poverty problems. This strategy sets the stage for problem solving efforts at the community as well as the national level to identify specific problems that can be tackled, to create
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Measuring Poverty and Inequality: a Comparative Analysis of the Main Indicators
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Martín-Legendre, Juan Ignacio Article The challenge of measuring poverty and inequality: a comparative analysis of the main indicators European Journal of Government and Economics (EJGE) Provided in Cooperation with: Universidade da Coruña Suggested Citation: Martín-Legendre, Juan Ignacio (2018) : The challenge of measuring poverty and inequality: a comparative analysis of the main indicators, European Journal of Government and Economics (EJGE), ISSN 2254-7088, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 24-43, http://dx.doi.org/10.17979/ejge.2018.7.1.4331 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/217762 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty Reduction Strategies from an HIV/AIDS Perspective
    APRIL 2005 • LISA ARREHAG AND MIRJA SJÖBLOM POM Working Paper 2005:6 Poverty Reduction Strategies from an HIV/AIDS Perspective Foreword The Department for Policy and Methodology within Sida (POM) is responsible for leading and coordinating Sida’s work on policy and meth- odological development and for providing support and advice to the field organisation and Sida’s departments on policy and methodological issues relating to development cooperation. It links together analysis, methodo- logical development, internal competence and capacity development and advisory support. The department undertakes analyses and serves as a source of knowl- edge on issues pertaining to poverty and its causes. Learning and exchanges of experiences and knowledge are essential to all aspects of development cooperation. This series of Working Papers aims to serve as an instrument for dissemination of knowledge and opin- ions and for fostering discussion. The views and conclusions expressed in the Working Papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily coincide with those of Sida. HIV/AIDS has fundamental implications on virtually all aspects of social and economic development in the worst affected countries and constitutes one of the most difficult obstacles to human development facing the world today. The present study provides a review and analysis of poverty reduction strategies (PRS) from eight countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, from an HIV/AIDS perspective. It examines the extent and manner in which HIV/AIDS is taken into account in these strategies with regard to the three main perspectives; prevention, treat- ment and consequences. It is our hope that the study will stimulate reflection and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • TRENDS in INCOME INEQUALITY: GLOBAL, INTER-COUNTRY, and WITHIN COUNTRIES Zia Qureshi1 Over the Last Three Decades, Inequality Be
    TRENDS IN INCOME INEQUALITY: GLOBAL, INTER-COUNTRY, AND WITHIN COUNTRIES Zia Qureshi1 Over the last three decades, inequality between countries has decreased while inequality within countries has increased. Global inequality, which is the sum of inequality between and within countries, has declined modestly but remains high. Latest estimates put the Gini coefficient of global income distribution at around 0.7. Global inequality rose for much of the period between the Industrial Revolution and the early part of the twentieth century (Figure 1). Both between-country and within-country inequalities widened. The dominant contribution to the rise in global inequality during this period came from rising inequality between countries. Gaps in national mean incomes widened as the economies of Western Europe and North America, spurred by the Industrial Revolution, increasingly pulled away from the rest of the world. Global inequality continued to rise for much of the post-war period in the twentieth century but at a slower pace. Inequality between countries widened further and then stabilized. However, within-country inequality declined in the industrialized economies, starting with the impact of the wars and depressions on higher incomes and then helped by rising demand for labor as economic growth strengthened, improved education, more progressive fiscal regimes and the creation of welfare states. Global inequality peaked around 1980 and has since shown a modest decline. This decline reflects the balance of two opposing trends. First, inter-country inequality reversed course and has been declining as economic growth picked up in the developing world (Figure 2). Average per capita economic growth in developing and emerging economies has exceeded that of advanced economies for most of the period since the early 1980s, allowing their mean incomes to begin to converge toward those of advanced economies (Figure 3).
    [Show full text]
  • How Unequal Were the Latins? the “Strange” Case of Portugal, 1550-1770
    How unequal were the Latins? The “strange” case of Portugal, 1550-1770 Jaime Reis* Álvaro Santos Pereira** Conceição Andrade Martins* *Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa ** Simon Fraser University For help and advice, the authors wish to express their gratitude to Maria Antónia Pires de Almeida, Inês Amorim, Raquel Berredo, Leonor Freire Costa, Rui Esperança, Carlos Faísca, João Ferrão, João Fialho, António Castro Henriques, Bruno Lopes, Filomena Melo, Esteban Niccolini, Susana Pereira, Amélia Polónia, Isabel dos Guimarães Sá and Ana Margarida Silva. Address for correspondence: [email protected] 1 1. Introduction Latin countries are perceived by much of the literature nowadays as having always been more unequal economically than others with similar levels of income. In part, this view is accounted for by contemporary economic inequalities, which show that Latin countries both in Europe and in the Americas exhibit comparatively higher degrees of income or wealth disparity (Lopez and Perry, 2008). At the same time, it has been supported by the work of Engerman and others on the different paths of long term development in the New World (Engerman and Sokoloff, 1997, Engerman, Haber and Sokoloff, 2000). Their claim is that differing patterns of inequality go back a very long way and are in fact evident already in the earliest colonial period. Over time they became more firmly entrenched and ultimately were a powerful determinant of macro divergence between, respectively, Latin America, and Canada and the USA. This colonial legacy has thus become a central part of the conventional wisdom which explains the economic differences displayed by post colonial societies (Frankema, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty
    Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement Also by Nanak Kakwani and Jacques Silber: Nanak Kakwani and Jacques Silber (editors) THE MANY DIMENSIONS OF POVERTY Also by Nanak Kakwani: Nanak Kakwani (author) INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY Methods of Estimation and Policy Applications Nanak Kakwani (author) ANALYZING REDISTRIBUTION POLICIES A Study Using Australian Data Also by Jacques Silber: Jacques Silber (editor) HANDBOOK ON INCOME INEQUALITY MEASUREMENT Y. Flückiger and Jacques Silber (authors) THE MEASUREMENT OF SEGREGATION IN THE LABOR FORCE Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement Edited by Nanak Kakwani University of Sydney Former Director, International Poverty Centre, Brazil and Jacques Silber Bar-Ilan University, Israel UNDP financial support to the International Poverty Centre for holding the International Conference on ‘The Many Dimensions of Poverty’ and the preparation of the papers in this volume is gratefully acknowledged. © United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2008 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2008 978-0-230-00489-4 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty and Inequality Prof. Dr. Awudu Abdulai Department of Food Economics and Consumption Studies
    Poverty and Inequality Prof. Dr. Awudu Abdulai Department of Food Economics and Consumption studies Poverty and Inequality Poverty is the inability to achieve a minimum standard of living Inequality refers to the unequal distribution of material or immaterial resources in a society and as a result, different opportunities to participate in the society Poverty is not only a question of the absolute income, but also the relative income. For example: Although people in Germany earn higher incomes than those in Burkina Faso, there are still poor people in Germany and non-poor people in Burkina Faso -> Different places apply different standards -> The poor are socially disadvantaged compared to other members of a society in which they belong Measuring Poverty How to measure the standard of living? What is a "minimum standard of living"? How can poverty be expressed in an index? Ahead of the measurement of poverty there is the identification of poor households: ◦ Households are classified as poor or non-poor, depending on whether the household income is below a given poverty line or not. ◦ Poverty lines are cut-off points separating the poor from the non- poor. ◦ They can be monetary (e.g. a certain level of consumption) or non- monetary (e.g. a certain level of literacy). ◦ The use of multiple lines can help in distinguishing different levels of poverty. Determining the poverty line Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in a year. The largest component of these expenses is typically the rent required to live in an apartment.
    [Show full text]