The Measurement of Multidimensional Poverty

By François Bourguignon, Satya R. Chakravarty. 2003

1,585 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/668fb5122446e52473d456d8cc6c21176a78c828

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Evolution of the Development Doctrine, 1950-2005 (2006, neutral): “Until now the theoretical and empirical work on multi-dimensional welfare has been focused on and limited to the measurement of multi-dimensional poverty as opposed to the even broader concept of human development (Bourguignon and Chakravarty 2003; Tsui 2002; Duclos et al. 2006).”
Income and Beyond: Multidimensional Poverty in Six Latin American Countries (2013, methodology): “The family of multidimensional poverty indices proposed by Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003) aggregates shortfalls across dimensions for each individual using a constant elasticity of substitution function that allows for different degrees of substitutions to be incorporated, and then aggregates ac”
Setting weights in multidimensional indices of well-being (2008, methodology): “Furthermore, in the related literature on the measurement of multidimensional poverty and deprivation, this class of indices has been suggested by Anand and Sen (1997) and is a special case of the class proposed by Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003).”
The Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) Poverty Measures: Twenty-Five Years Later (2010, background): “Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003) take as a fundamental starting point that “a multidimensional approach to poverty defines poverty as a shortfall from a threshold on each dimension of an individual’s well being” (p. 27).”
Asset-Based Measurement of Poverty (2010, positive): “…from integrating income and net worth into a single measure of economic resources and maintain the distinction between these two dimensions in poverty analysis, for instance by applying multidimensional indices such as those discussed by Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003) and Atkinson (2003).”
Robust Multidimensional Poverty Comparisons (2006, neutral): “Specific examples of bivariate poverty measures that lead to a variety of such functions, including the three in Figure 1, can be found in Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003).”
Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement (2011, background): “Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003) propose the use of dimension-specific lines – which are called deprivation cutoffs in Alkire and Foster (2007) – as the basis for determining who is deprived and in which dimension.”
The Evolution of World Inequality in Well-Being (2009, neutral): “W 1 I (Z) (S ) =W (Z) (9) The mean composite well-being index across the countries of the world is denoted by (S ).”
The Normative Approach to the Measurement of Multidimensional Inequality (2004, background): “See, for example, Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003) and Tsui (2002). Multidimensional poverty raises many of the same issues that have been explored in the multidimensional inequality literature.”
Disability and Poverty in Developing Countries: A Multidimensional Study (2013, methodology): “Differences in economic well being across disability status are assessed for each dimension and across dimensions using multidimensional poverty measures developed by Alkire and Foster (2011) and Bourguignon and Chakravarty (2003).”
Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty Among Women in Sub-Saharan Africa (2013, neutral): “Some of these approaches are axiomatic and are extensions of the one-dimensional poverty indices (Tsui 2002; Atkinson 2003; Bourguignon and Chakravarty 2003).”
Fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement (2006, background): “…following up and refining the arguments and formulations put forward by precursors of this approach (Townsend 1979; Sen 1985; Desai and Shah 1988; Bourguignon and Chakravarty 2003), but also several important public statistical agencies which welcome the above-mentioned theoretical arguments and…”