Results of the survey on methods
of poverty measurement in official
statistics in the UNECE region
– general review
SEMINAR ON POVERTY MEASUREMENT
GENEVA, MAY 2015
Anna Bieńkuńska
Task Force on Poverty Measurement, CSO of Poland
UNECE Questionnaire on Methods of Poverty
Measurement in Official Statistics
In January 2014, the Bureau of the Conference of European
Statisticians established the Task Force on Poverty
Measurement to develop guidelines and provide
recommendations for improving international comparability
and availability of statistics on poverty and the related
metadata.
The Task Force has prepared this survey to ensure that its
work takes into account the methodology and policy
concerns in the countries.
UNECE Questionnaire on Methods of Poverty
Measurement in Official Statistics
Answers received from 44 countries, including:
o37 countries of UNECE region (37 of 56)
o7 countries outside the UNECE region (Australia,
China, Columbia, Japan, Mongolia, New Zeland,
Mexico)
Methods of poverty
measurement
Monetary poverty
•Among countries which took part in the survey,
the largest group includes countries where
both, absolute and relative poverty are being
measured.
•The least number of countries apply only
the
absolute
approach
to
poverty
measurement.
Absolute poverty
•Generally, levels of poverty thresholds allow to meet the basic needs
of the households
•Among the countries surveyed, there are applied various methods
of determining the poverty thresholds (basic needs method, food
expenditure rate method, combination of different methods).
•Most of the countries assess a range of the absolute poverty on a basis
of income, however several countries use the level
of expenditures/consumption to calculate it. The assessment
of the poverty range on a basis of expenditures is applied in the
countries where there are also conducted the income surveys (i.e.
Poland, Italy)
Relative poverty
•The most common relative poverty threshold is 60% of median
equivalised income (however some countries apply the threshold
of 60% of median expenditures).
•In several countries, the relative poverty threshold is established
at the level of 50% of median equivalent income.
•Very rarely, measurement of the relative poverty is conducted
on a basis of both, income and expenditures. Moreover, sometimes
poverty thresholds are established with a use of mean rather than
median income/expenditures.
Indicators of welfare/wealth
•Most of the countries use the categories of income
•Applied categories of income are not fully comparable, i.e.:
omonetary income vs. monetary income+income in kind,
odifferent methods of data collection (surveys vs. administrative
records, assessments considering the macroeconomic data).
•Expenditures/consumption – monetary+non-monetary
Equivalence scales
•The most commonly used are the normative scales:
oModified OECD equivalence scale (1-0.5-0.3)
oOriginal OECD equivalence scale (1-0.7-0.5)
oSquare root scale (√n )
• In some countries, there are applied the ‘national’
equivalence scales (i.e. in Israel, Sweden, Ireland,
Georgia)–sometimes together with the abovementioned scales.
Subjective poverty
Results of the exercise indicate that undersanding, defining and,
in result, measuring of subjective poverty in different countries is very
diversified:
• Several countries treat the questions of the ability to meet various needs,
included in the indicators of deprivation, as the indicators of subjective poverty.
• In some countries, a basis for the assessment of subjective poverty are
the questions of considering him/herself as poor by individuals.
• Moreover, there are assessments based on the questions regarding the income
which is necessary to make the ends meet.
•…
Other measures of poverty
(including multidimensional poverty)
Similarly to the subjective poverty, there are many different approaches
to the measurement of non-income poverty (including the multidimensional
poverty):
• Very common measures are the indicators of the material deprivation based on both,
international (i.e. Eurostat) or domestic solutions.
• In some countries there are also applying the indicators which measure not only the
level of satisfaction of material needs but also consider the non-material aspects.
• Furthermore, there are assesed the aggregate indicators which consider the
overlapping of different poverty and social exclusion forms (i.e. the at-risk-of-poverty
or social exclusion rate in the EU member states or multidimensional poverty in
Mexico).
Summary
Results of the survey indicate that,
in context of international comparisons, it is
necessary to work out the common view
on both, operational definitions of different
poverty forms as well as applied
methodological solutions.
Issues for the discussion
•Poverty and social exclusion – dillema of defining (in a context
of multidimensional poverty).
•Absolute and/or relative poverty – should refer to the situation in particular
countries, group of countries or should be common for all of the UNECE member
states?
•Choice of the indicator of welfare and its definition.
•Which equivalence scales should be applied? Does ‘comparable’ mean always
‘the same’?
•Is it possible and necessary to prepare a common list of the indicators
of deprivation for all of the UNECE member states?
•…?