Testing the Expert Based Weights Used in the UK’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Against Three Preference-Based Methods
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), used widely in England, is an important tool for social need and inequality identification. It summarises deprivation across seven dimensions (income, employment, health, education, housing and services, environment, and crime) to measure an area’s multidimensional deprivation. The IMD aggregates the dimensions that are differentially weighted using expert judgement. In this paper, we test how close these weights are to society’s preferences about the relative importance of each dimension to overall deprivation. There is not agreement in the literature on how to do this. This paper, therefore, develops and compares three empirical methods for estimating preference-based weights. We find the weights are similar across the methods, and between our empirical methods and the current IMD, but our findings suggest a change to two of the weights.
KeywordsMultidimensional index weights Deprivation Preferences
JEL ClassificationC43 C83 D12 I32
The paper has benefitted from helpful comments and suggestions from Koen Decancq, Rainer Schulz, and participants at the Weighting in Multidimensional Measures workshop at OPHI, Oxford, the Overseas Development Workshop at ODI, London, seminar participants at Universiteit Antwerpen, and conference participants at New Directions in Welfare III, Paris. Any errors or omissions, of course, remain the responsibility of the authors. The project was funded by the Department of the Communities and Local Government. The Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates funds HERU. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and not those of the funding bodies.
- Adler, M. D., & Dolan, P. (2008). Introducing a “different lives” approach to the valuation of health and well-being. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 203. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/203.
- Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. In OPHI working papers, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
- Birdsall, N., & Roodman, D. (2003). The commitment to development index: A scorecard of rich-country policies. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
- Department for Education and Skills (2004). Departmental Report 2004 (Skills DfEa, Ed):Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
- Dibben, C., Atherton, I., Cox, M., Watson, V., Ryan M., & Sutton, M. (2007). Investigating the impact of changing the weights that underpin the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004. In Working paper Department of Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
- Fleurbaey, M., Schokkaert, E., & Decancq, K. (2009). What good is happiness? CORE discussion papers, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
- Fusco, A., Guio, A.-C., & Marlier, E. (2013). Building a material deprivation index in a multinational context: Lessons from the EU experience. In V. Bérenger & F. Bresson (Eds.), Poverty and social exclusion around the Mediterranean Sea, Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being (Vol. 9). London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Gordon, D., Adelman, L., Ashworth, K., Bradshaw, J., Levitas, R., Middleton, S., et al. (2000). Poverty and social exclusion in Britain (Vol. 41). York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
- Greene, W. H. (2011). Econometric analysis (Seventh ed.). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Harrison, G., & Rutström, E. (2008). Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In C. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Kanninen, B. J. (Ed.). (2007). Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies: A common sense approach to theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in economics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Noble, M., Smith, G. A. N., Penhale, B., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Owen, T., et al. (2000). Measuring multiple deprivation at the local level: the indices of deprivation 2000. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.Google Scholar
- Noble, M., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Smith, G. A. N., McLennan, D., Anttila, C., et al. (2004). Indices of deprivation 2004, Report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.Google Scholar
- OPHI Oxford Poverty and Human development Initiative (2012). Value judgements in multidimensional poverty indices. Report of the OPHI research workshop.Google Scholar
- Smith, T., Noble, M., Noble, S., Wright, G., McLennan, D., & Plunkett, E. (2015). The English indices of deprivation 2015. Technical Report, Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
- Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J-P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.Google Scholar
- Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- United Nations Development Programme. (1999). Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar