Syndicate content

Add new comment

James Foster says that once one adopts the position that poverty is multidimensional, adding up the multiple dimensions “comes with the territory.” Is that right? We all agree that poverty is not just about lack of command over commodities. The issue is NOT whether poverty is multidimensional but whether one should add up the multiple dimensions using weights that seem to drop from the sky, with barely a hint of justification, and weights that may well be deemed inappropriate in every specific country for which this MPI is measured. For example, it is incredibly difficult to say (as the MPI does implicitly) that a child’s life is worth so much in terms of material goods. I would want to be very careful about making such a judgment and building it into global poverty comparisons such as done by the MPI. Thankfully, for many policy purposes we do not need to do so. But when we do we should not take on the task so lightly. James and other commentators have pointed to the fact that consumption-poverty measurement also requires assumptions. That is not in dispute. However, I can’t imagine that anyone seriously thinks that adding up expenditures across commodities (or incomes by their sources) to measure economic welfare is as problematic as adding up child deaths and consumption deprivations. We know from economic theory under exactly what conditions the market price-weighted aggregate of consumption, appropriately normalized, measures economic welfare. We have much less idea about adding up child deaths and consumption-poverty. Adding up the multiple dimensions using weights with no obvious foundation does not “come with the territory.” We can be multidimensional about poverty without creating a one-dimensional index. In fact international poverty measurement has long been multidimensional, as has policy making for fighting poverty at country level. We can do much better for sure, particularly on the measurement of each dimension, but I remain unconvinced that creating this “multidimensional poverty index” has got us any further.