Inequality Among the MPI Poor, and Regional Disparity in Multidimensional Poverty: Levels and Trends

Transcription

1 OPHI OXFORD POVERTY & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Inequality Among the MPI Poor, and Regional Disparity in Multidimensional Poverty: s and Trends Sabina Alkire and Suman Seth June 2014 Poverty reduction is not necessarily uniform across all poor people in a country, or across population subgroups; an improvement overall may yet leave the poorest of the poor behind. Here we use a new measure to analyse inequality among poor people in 90 countries, and find the highest levels are to be found in 15 Sub-Saharan African countries; in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan; and in Yemen and Somalia. This brief focuses on the distributional issues among the poor. We apply a new measure VI to assess inequality in changed in 34 countries the poor. To introduce V I reduced inequality among the poor. 90 countries and 780 sub-national regions within 69 countries.. Results show D sub-national disparity. In those that did not reduce I is sensitive to people who have populations with very severe intensities. Photo by Bouba Housseini/OPHI subnational disparity in MPIs

2 MPI 2014 Inequality Among the MPI Poor, and Regional Disparity in Multidimensional Poverty: s and Trends Figure 1: Distribution of Intensities in Egypt and Suriname Egypt 2008 Suriname %-69.9% 70%-79.9% 80%-89.9% 60%-69.9% 70%-79.9% 80%-89.9% 90%-100% 50%-59.9% 50%-59.9% 40%-49.9% % 40%-49.9% % I MOTIVATION among V I accurately incidence intensity inequality I V D eradicate poverty OUR NEW MEASURE: VARIANCE (V I ) I 1 When all poor people have the I such analysis can add. WHAT V I MAKES VISIBLE - COMPARING EGYPT AND SURINAME V I I INEQUALITY (V I ) AMONG THE MPI POOR BY COUNTRY 2

3 I INEQUALITY (V I ) WITHIN SUB-NATIONAL REGIONS - SPOTTING POCKETS OF POVERTY V I Alkire and Seth (V I V I V I Figure 2: The Relationship between the MPI and Inequality among the Poor across Countries Inequality among the Poor Philippines Nicaragua Congo Bhutan Sao Tome Honduras Turkey Bolivia Zimbabwe Lesotho Suriname Iraq Mongolia Vanuatu Brazil Maldives Djibouti Ghana Lao Nepal Pakistan Liberia India Afghanistan Burundi Gambia Central African Republic Sierra Leone Cote d'ivoire Democratic Republic of Congo Bangladesh Uganda Haiti Kenya Tanzania Madagascar Rwanda Malawi Cambodia Namibia Nigeria Yemen Cameroon Mauritania Benin Senegal Burkina Faso Ethiopia Niger Mali Somalia Guinea Global MPI Value 3

4 MPI 2014 Inequality Among the MPI Poor, and Regional Disparity in Multidimensional Poverty: s and Trends TRENDS IN INEQUALITY (V I ) AMONG THE POOR OVER TIME V I over V I. In order to provide a clearer picture, we present the HORIZONTAL INEQUALITY - DISPARITY IN MPI POVERTY ACROSS SUB-NATIONAL REGIONS (V D ) D Table 1: Comparison between Haiti 2006 and Haiti 2012 Figure 3: Distribution of Deprivation Scores in Haiti over Time Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) *** Incidence (H) 60.6% 49.4% -11.2%*** Intensity (A) 55.3% 50.3% -5.0%*** Inequality among the Poor (V I ) *** ***-Statistically significant at α = 1% 3 The V D regional V D Haiti Haiti 2012 Percentage of MPI Poor Intensity Percentage of MPI Poor Intensity 4

5 Alkire and Seth Table 2: Countries with Similar s of MPI but Different s of Inequality among the Poor and Different s of Disparity across Regional MPIs Country Year MPI A H Inequality Among The Poor V I Disparity Between MPIs V D Number of Regions Yemen % 52.5% India % 53.7% Togo % 49.8% Bangladesh % 51.2% Source: Seth and Alkire (2014) V D D increased. CONCLUSION I D I and V D Figure 4: s in Disparity in MPIs across Sub-national Regions in Egypt and Mozambique over Time in MPI Lower Egypt - Urban Urban Governorates Egypt Upper Egypt - Urban Lower Egypt - Rural Frontier Governorates Upper Egypt - Rural MPI in 2005 in MPI Maputo City Mozambique Maputo Province Inhambane Gaza Manica Sofala Zambezia Cabo Delgado MPI in 2003 Tete Niassa Nampula 5

6 MPI 2014 Inequality Among the MPI Poor, and Regional Disparity in Multidimensional Poverty: s and Trends Table 3: in MPI, H, A, V I, and V D over Time for 34 Countries MPI H Country Time Period Armenia ** 0.8% -0.1% ** Bangladesh *** 67.1% -2.5% *** Benin *** 79.1% -1.4% *** Bolivia *** 36.3% -3.2% *** Cambodia *** 59.2% -2.7% *** Cameroon *** 53.8% -1.1% *** Colombia *** 9.0% -0.7% *** Dominican Rep *** 9.3% -0.8% *** Egypt *** 8.2% -0.8% *** Ethiopia *** 93.6% -0.8% *** Gabon *** 35.4% -1.5% *** Ghana *** 58.7% -3.4% *** Guyana * 12.7% -0.5% * Haiti *** 60.6% -1.9% *** India *** 57.3% -1.2% *** Indonesia *** 20.8% -1.1% *** Jordan % -0.3% Kenya *** 60.1% -1.5% *** Lesotho *** 50.8% -1.7% *** Madagascar *** 67.0% 1.3% *** Malawi *** 72.1% -0.9% *** Mozambique *** 82.3% -1.5% *** Namibia *** 41.3% -1.1% *** Nepal *** 64.7% -4.1% *** Niger *** 93.5% -0.6% *** Nigeria *** 63.5% -1.8% *** Pakistan *** 49.4% -0.7% *** Peru *** 19.5% -1.3% *** Rwanda *** 82.9% -3.4% *** Senegal % -0.1% Tanzania *** 65.6% -2.3% *** Uganda *** 77.9% -2.2% *** Zambia *** 72.0% -1.2% *** Zimbabwe *** 39.7% -1.2% *** ***-Statistically significant at α = 1% **-Statistically significant at α = 5%, and *-Statistically significant at α = 10%. The computed numbers in this table are based on harmonized datasets in order to preserve strict comparability over time and thus may vary from the global MPI figures and the corresponding numbers for inequality among the poor and subnational disparity reported earlier in Figures 1, 2 and 4 and in Table 2. 6

7 Alkire and Seth A V I V D 35.4% -0.1% *** 54.3% -0.7% *** *** % -0.5% *** % -0.9% *** *** *** 50.5% -0.9% *** *** % -0.2% % -0.4% *** *** *** 43.1% -0.7% *** *** *** 41.4% -0.2% ** *** 72.3% -1.0% *** *** ** 45.5% -0.2% *** *** *** 52.5% -0.9% *** *** % 0.0% ** ** 55.3% -0.8% *** *** *** 53.1% -0.2% *** *** 45.9% -0.6% *** *** % -0.4% % -0.3% * * *** 46.8% -0.4% *** *** % 0.1% *** % -0.4% *** *** ** 61.3% -0.7% *** *** % -0.2% * ** *** 54.0% -1.0% *** *** ** 74.4% -0.9% *** % -0.1% ** % -0.3% ** % -0.4% ** ** *** 55.6% -1.1% *** *** % -0.4% * ** * 56.6% -0.9% *** % -0.5% *** ** % -0.7% *** *** % -0.4% *** *** *** 7

8 Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI) Oxford Department of International Development (ODID) Queen Elizabeth House (QEH) University of Oxford, Mansfield Road Oxford OX1 3TB UK Telephone: +44 (0) Website: OPHI gratefully acknowledges support from research councils, non-governmental and governmental organisations, and private benefactors. For a list of our funders and donors, please visit our website:. NOTES 1. I et al 3. D et al Photo by Vanita Leah Falcao/OPHI REFERENCES OXFORD POVERTY & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE