Advertisement

Poverty Dominance

Part of the Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being book series (EIAP, volume 2)

Abstract

To see how the material of Chapter 9 can be used practically to test for the robustness of poverty comparisons, we focus for simplicity on classes of additive poverty indices denoted as Πs(z +), where s stands again for the “ethical order” of the class and where z + will stand for the upper bound of the range of all of the poverty lines that can reasonably be envisaged. The additive poverty indices P(z) that are members of that class can be expressed as
$$ P(z) = \smallint _0^1 \pi (Q(p);z) dp, $$
(10.1)
where z is a poverty line and π(Q(p); z) is an indicator of the poverty status of someone with income Q(p).

Keywords

Poverty Line Dominance Condition Dual Approach Poverty Index Ethical Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

10.4 References

  1. Bishop, J., J. Formby, and L. Zeager (1996): “The Impact of Food Stamps on US Poverty in the 1980s: A Marginal Dominance Analysis,” Economica, 63, S141–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson, R. and J.-Y. Duclos (2000): “Statistical Inference for Stochastic Dominance and for the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality,” Econometrica, 68, 1435–54.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Del Rio, C. and J. Ruiz Castillo (2001): “Intermediate Inequality and Welfare: The Case of Spain, 1980–81 to 1990–91,” Review of Income and Wealth, 47, 221–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donaldson, D. and J. Weymark (1986): “Properties of fixed-Population Poverty Indices,” International Economic Review, 27, 667–688.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foster, J. and A. Shorrocks (1988b): “Poverty Orderings,” Econometrica, 56, 173–177.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. — (1988c): “Poverty Orderings and Welfare Dominance,” Social Choice Welfare, 5, 179–98.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Jenkins, S. and P. Lambert (1997): “Three’ I’s of Poverty Curves, with an Analysis of UK Poverty Trends,” Oxford Economic Papers, 49, 317–27.Google Scholar
  8. — (1998a): “Ranking Poverty Gap Distributions: Further TIPs for Poverty Analysis,” in Research on economic inequality. Volume 8. Stamford, Conn, ed. by D. J. Slottje, and London: JAJ Press, 31–38.Google Scholar
  9. — (1998b): ““Three’ I’s of Poverty” Curves and Poverty Dominance: Tips for Poverty Analysis,” in Research on economic inequality. Volume 8. Stamford, Conn, ed. by D. J. Slottje, and London: JAI Press, 39–56.Google Scholar
  10. Spencer, B. and S. Fisher (1992): “On Comparing Distributions of Poverty Gaps,” The Indian Journal of Statistics, 54, 114–26.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Zheng, B. (1999a): “On the Power of Poverty Orderings.” Social Choice and Welfare, 16, 349–71.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. — (2000a): “Minimum Distribution-Sensitivity, Poverty Aversion, and Poverty Orderings,” Journal of Economic Theory, 95, 116–37.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. — (2000b): “Poverty Orderings,” Journal of Economic Surveys, 14, 427–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. — (2001a): “Poverty Orderings: A Graphical Illustration,” Social Choice and Welfare, 18, 165–78.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Zheng, B., B. Cushing, and V. Chow (1995): “Statistical Tests of Changes in U.S. Poverty, 1975 to 1990,” Southern Economic Journal, 62, 334–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Personalised recommendations