Multidimensional poverty Analysis Abstract

In recent years, both in social science and policy circles, there has been a growing consensus on the multidimensional nature of poverty. However, the operationalization of the concept has not followed this development, as most studies are still primarily based on income. In this article, it is propose to measure the concept of poverty using both monetary and non-monetary indicators. To this end, a latent class measurement model is used, allowing to take account of the multidimensionality of the data and the discrete nature of most available poverty indicators. The proposed measurement instrument allows for poverty to manifest itself in different ways or forms for different subgroups in the population. Furthermore, the occurrence of multiple deprivations, rather than a `negative' score on only one indicator, is taken into account. In addition, special attention is paid to the feasibility of constructing a multidimensional poverty measure which can be used to study poverty dynamics with longitudinal panel data. A figures on the size and the social distribution of the `poor' population in an area. These figures indicate that the results of multidimensional measurement procedure are both plausible and substantively interpretable.

Introduction Most research on poverty analysis in the past are made using a one aspect mostly on economic poverty However, over this few years interest in multidimensional poverty analysis had gained acceptance not only among academics, but also as a broader policy debate. There were seems to be no dispute that deprivations exist in multiple domains, and are often correlated. In spite of this agreement at the conceptual level, yet clashes were often loud about how best to measure these deprivations. Two polar approaches have emerged.

On the one hand, people like Alkire and Foster (2011) propose using scalar indices to combine information on various dimensions of poverty in a single number. Countries such as Mexico in 2009 and Colombia in 2011 and international institutions such as the UNDP in 2010 have chosen to adopt such multidimensional poverty indices to assess progress. The big attraction of these indices is not just that they consider multiple indicators, but that they take into account, to some extent, how the dimensions relate to each other e.g. whether income poverty and poor health afflict the same people or not. While on the other hand, Ravallion (2011) advocates a dashboard approach this approach makes use of the best available data for each dimension. This approach avoids imposing arbitrary weights to each dimension. The weakness of the approach is it ignores the inter-connections between dimensions. The really interesting thing about studying the many dimensions of poverty is how they interrelate; how

people are exposed to which deprivations, or combinations of deprivations, and to what extent, which was taken care of by Alkires work.

According to the 2009 UN MDG report, in 1990, the baseline year for the MDGs, 57% of the population of Africa was living in extreme poverty, earning less than $1.25 a day in purchasing power parities and 2005 prices. By 2005, the poverty rate had dropped to 51 percent. More recent data are not yet available, but projections suggest that the extreme poverty rate in Africa has continued to drop to about 46 percent in 2008. Indeed, there are limited or no such study that capture the multidimensionality of poverty have faces hence studying it in this multidimensional forms will provide a greater understanding of the problem. Multidimensional poverty problem is complex and changes faces

Do the results of poverty situation differ if the multidimensional approach were used??? Understanding the structure of the variables that contribute to multidimensional poverty is important in determine the effect of action in the individual level of poverty which variable best described the actual poverty situation of the farmers since they are the building block of any relationship Since many variables are to be considered it is obvious that more and more overlap is likely to be observed which tend to affect the description of the poverty situation.

Problem - Difficulty, Trouble, Crisis, Dilemma, Predicament Recognition- Acknowledgement, detection, Appreciation Identification- Discovery, Detection Classification- Organization, Sorting, Arrangement Assumption Statement, Postulation, Supposition
Insufficient income has for a long time been considered to be a good proxy for poverty in all its various facets. However, the lack of income is not a good proxy when some items are not offered, for example, schools or hospitals in remote areas of a country.

Asselin, L.-M. 2002. Composite Indicator of Multidimensional Poverty. Multidimensional Poverty Theory. Quebec: Institut de Mathmatique Gauss. Asselin, L.-M. and Anh, V. T. 2008. Multidimensional Poverty Measurement with Multiple Correspondence Analysis. In: Kakwani, N. and Silber, J. (eds.) Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. Palgrave Macmillan. Dharendra W. (2010), Asselin, L.-M. 2002, Asselin, L.-M. and Anh, V. T. 2008.