Populations

Dataset

EPAR TECHNICAL REPORT #424
Landscape Review of Poverty Measures
Publication Date: 09/01/2022
Type: Research Brief
Abstract

Key Takeaways

  • A survey of poverty indicators surfaced 139 candidates, of which 36 were ultimately selected for inclusion in the study based on indicator construction, use, and timeliness.

  • The selected 36 poverty indicators relied primarily on 26 data sources, mainly household surveys and administrative government data.

  • Most indicators relied on household survey data and used multidimensional indices to comprehensively measure poverty, aside from poverty line and poverty gap measures which relied exclusively on income and consumption.

  • Indicators or indicator components were typically based on quantitative estimates of income or consumption, although an increasing number of measurements are instead classifying households according to deprivation of assets, food, or access to services and basic infrastructure.

  • Overall, critics find that an emphasis on poverty line measurements has led to an incomplete understanding of poverty’s prevalence and trends over the last several decades (UN Special Rapporteur, 2020).

  • No single indicator dominates on considerations of reliability, dimensions, depth or intensity, comparability, etc., but rather each measure involves tradeoffs.

  • If the goal is to increase the utility of commonly used indicators, including those considering multiple dimensions of poverty, then investments focused on expanding the coverage, frequency, or scope of nationally representative household surveys is a necessary first step.

  • Making cross-country comparisons using any poverty indicator runs the risk of using a common metric based on different data sources and collected in different years that may not fully reflect a household’s welfare. Indices which include multiple subcomponents may be more holistic, but even less reliable as the number of components requiring data increases.

 

Suggested citation:

Landscape Review of Poverty Measures. EPAR Technical Report #424 (2022). Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research

Landscape Review of Poverty Measures Report, Landscape Review of Poverty Measures Coding Spreadsheet
EPAR Research Brief #316
Pathways out of Poverty: Outcomes Associated with Poverty Alleviation in Developing Countries
Publication Date: 12/13/2015
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

The literature on poverty’s causes and cures in developing countries posits a variety of contributing factors. Most researchers acknowledge that a sustained exit from poverty is complex and no single causal pathway from poverty to non-poverty exists. In this review, we present a summary framework for categorizing the various theorized pathways out of poverty, and evaluate the empirical evidence for which interventions and resulting outcomes are most frequently and most strongly associated with poverty alleviation. We conducted a literature review on pathways out of poverty for low-income households in developing countries and identified and categorized general strategies and outcomes demonstrated to be empirically associated with poverty alleviation. We organized the general strategies into four asset groups that could be targeted to alleviate poverty: human, natural, built / financial, and social / political. Much of the literature presents positive results on poverty alleviation, but it is difficult to compare across studies because many of the studies were conducted in different countries and at different scales, and use a variety of outcome measures.

Research Brief, Results Coding Spreadsheet
EPAR Technical Report #302
Agribusiness Investment Clusters and Private Sector Accelerators
Publication Date: 04/29/2015
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

The review consists of a summary of the emergence of agribusiness clusters, SEZs and incubators since 1965 (with a focus on smallholder agriculture-based economies in Latin America, Africa, and Asia), followed by a series of brief case studies of example programs with particular relevance for guiding proposed clusters/incubators in the countries of Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nigeria and the Eastern Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Odisha. Summary conclusions draw upon published reports and primary analysis of case studies to highlight apparent determinants of success and failure in agribusiness investment clusters and incubators, including characteristics of the business environment (markets, policies) and characteristics of the organizational structure (clusters, accelerators) associated with positive smallholder outcomes. 

Full Report, Spreadsheet of Reviewed Cases