Advertisement

Regional and Sectoral Distributions of Poverty in Lebanon, 2004

  • Valérie BérengerEmail author
  • Florent Bresson
  • Paul Makdissi
  • Myra Yazbeck
Chapter
Part of the Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being book series (EIAP, volume 9)

Abstract

In this chapter, we investigate the geographical and sectoral profiles of poverty in Lebanon using data from the country’s 2004 National Survey of Households Living Conditions (NSHLC). With this objective in mind, we have adopted both unidimensional monetary approaches and multidimensional approaches to poverty. In the case of multidimensional approaches we focus on four dimensions of poverty: expenditure, education, housing conditions, and access to basic services. The poverty measures are estimated according to standard monetary FGT indices and their extension, based on Alkire and Foster’s method, in the multidimensional case. The robustness of rankings (by mohafaza and by occupational sector) resulting from these measures is then tested using stochastic dominance procedures. Our findings suggest that caution should be exercised when the conclusions drawn from typical poverty profiles depend on the researchers’ arbitrary decisions. Also, they shed light on the limitations of conducting an analysis that is solely based on the monetary dimension of poverty, as it may not necessarily corroborate the results provided by multidimensional analysis.

Keywords

Poverty Line Stochastic Dominance Poverty Measure Multidimensional Poverty Poverty Index 
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.

References

  1. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A. (1987). On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica, 55(4), 749–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A., & Bourguignon, F. R., (1982). The comparison of multi-dimensioned distributions of economic status. Review of Economic Studies, 49(2), 183–201.Google Scholar
  4. Bibi, S., Makdissi, P., & Yazbeck, M. (2012). Equivalence scales and housing deprivation orderings: An example using lebanese data. Applied Economics, 44(7), 853–866.Google Scholar
  5. Blackorby, C., & Donaldson, D. (1978). Measures of relative equality and their meaning in terms of social welfare. Journal of Economic Theory, 18, 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. (2002). Multi-dimensional poverty orderings, Working Paper 2002–22, DELTA.Google Scholar
  7. Bourguignon, F., & Chakravarty, S. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality 1(1), 25–49.Google Scholar
  8. Chakravarty, S. (1983). A new index of poverty. Mathematical Social Sciences, 6, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakravarty, S., Mukherjee, D., & Ranade, R. (1998). On the family of subgroup and factor decomposable measures of multidimensional poverty. In D. Slottje, (ed.), Research on Economic Inequality, vol. 8. JAI Press, New York, pp. 175–194.Google Scholar
  10. Chakravarty, S., & Silber, J. (2008). Measuring multidimensional poverty: The axiomatic approach. In N. Kakwani, & J. Silber, (eds.), Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, Chapter 11, pp. 192–209.Google Scholar
  11. Chambaz, C., & Maurin, E. (1998). Atkinson and Bourguignon’s dominance criteria: Extended and applied to the measurement of poverty in France. Review of Income and Wealth, 44(4), 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, S., Hemming, R., & Ulph, D. (1981). On indices for the measurement of poverty. The Economic Journal, 91, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson, R., & Duclos, J.-Y. (2000). Statistical inference for stochastic dominance and for the measurement of poverty and inequality. Econometrica, 68(6), 1435–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duclos, J.-Y., & Makdissi, P. (2004). Restricted and unrestricted dominance for welfare. Inequality and poverty orderings. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 6, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duclos, J.-Y., & Makdissi, P. (2005). Sequential stochastic dominance and the robustness of poverty orderings, Review of Income et Wealth, vol. 51(1), 63–87.Google Scholar
  16. Duclos, J. –. Y., Sahn, D., & Younger, S. (2006). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. The Economic Journal, 116(514), 943–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laity, H., Abu-Ismail, K., & Hamdam, K. (2008). Poverty, growth and income distribution in lebanon, international poverty center country study no. 13.Google Scholar
  18. Femise (2011). Towards a new Med region: achieving fundamental transitions, annual report, Femise.Google Scholar
  19. Fishburn, P., & Willig, R. (1984). Transfer principles in income redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 25, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52(3), 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foster, J., & Shorrocks, A. (1987). Transfer sensitive inequality measures. Review of economic studies, 54(3), 485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kakwani, N. (1980). On a class of poverty measures. Econometrica, 48(2), 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolm, S.-C. (1976). Unequal inequalities I. Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 416–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foster, V., Tre, J. -P., & Wodon, Q. (2001). Energy prices, energy efficiency, and fuel poverty, Mimeo, World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Makdissi, P., Wondon, Q. (2006). Environmental regulation and economic growth under education Externalities. Journal of Economic Development, 31(1), 45–51.Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Social Affairs & the United Nations Development Programme. (1998). Mapping of living conditions in Lebanon. Beirut: MOSA & UNDP.Google Scholar
  27. Ministry of Social Affairs, the Central Administration of Statistics, & the United Nations Development Program (2006). Living conditions of households-the national survey of household living conditions, 2004, Beirut.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Social Affairs & the United Nations Development Programme. (2007). Development of mapping of living conditions in Lebanon, 1995–2004: A comparison with the results of “mapping of living conditions in Lebanon, 1998. Beirut: MOSA & UNDP.Google Scholar
  29. Quizilbash, M. (2006), Philosophical account of vagueness, fuzzy poverty measures and multidimensionality. In G. Betti., & A. Lemmi., (eds.), Fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement, Springer, New York, Chapter 1, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
  30. Sen, A. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44(2), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen, A. K. (1997). On economic inequality, expanded edition, Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Tsui, K.-Y. (2002). Multidimensional poverty indices. Social Choice and Welfare, 19(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UNDP (2009). NHDR Lebanon 2008–2009, Toward a citizen’s State, Technical report, UNDP.Google Scholar
  34. UNDP (2010). Human Development Report: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development New york, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. UNDP and Ministry of Social Affairs of Lebanon (2007). Development of mapping of living conditions in Lebanon, 1995–2004, “Capacity building for poverty reduction” Joint project between MoSA and UNDP.Google Scholar
  36. Watts, H. (1968). An economic definition of poverty. In D. P. Moynihan (Ed.), On understanding poverty. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. Zheng, B. (1999). On the power of poverty orderings. Social Choice and Welfare, 16(3), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valérie Bérenger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Florent Bresson
    • 2
  • Paul Makdissi
    • 3
  • Myra Yazbeck
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Nice-Sophia AntipolisNiceFrance
  2. 2.University of OrléansOrléansFrance
  3. 3.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations