Changes in Access to Assets

  • Motiur Rahman
  • Noriatsu Matsui
  • Yukio Ikemoto


Over the last several decades economists have generally used income to measure wealth, welfare and other indicators of well-being. But income data have some limitations in both accuracy and measurement, especially in non-market economics, where people are generally engaged in economic activities outside the market. Incomes earned from the informal sector and self-employment are highly variable since income may be seasonal or temporary. Thus taking a snapshot of income at one point of time may give a less reliable measure of monthly or annual income. Problems of sampling bias, under-reporting of income and difficulties of assessing income from self-employment inside or outside household are also raised. This means that income data which are often unreliable or inaccurate do not provide a real picture of the well-being of people. In order to overcome these problems many economists have used expenditure and consumption data to measure well-being (Chen and Ravallion 2000; Ellis 2000). Although expenditure solves some of the problems faced in using income data such as seasonal variation, yet expenditure data are not completely free from measurement errors such as problems of measuring the value of bartered goods and measuring consumption expenditure on home products. However, despite having expenditure data with less error, the economists generally use income data to measure well-being.


Poor Household Economic Class Household Asset Asset Index Current Market Price 
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.


  1. Chen S, Ravallion M (2000) How did the World’s poorest fare in the 1990’s? World Bank, Washington, Policy Research Working Paper 2409Google Scholar
  2. Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihood and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Filmer D, Pritchet L (1998) Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. World Bank, Washington, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 1994Google Scholar
  4. Kolenikov S, Angeles G (2004) The use of discrete data in principal component analysis: theory, simulations, and applications to socioeconomic indices. Carolina Population Centre, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Working Paper of MEASURE/Evaluation Project, No. WP-04-85Google Scholar
  5. Morris S, Carletto C et al (2000) Validity of rapid estimates of household wealth and income for health surveys in rural Africa. J Epidemiol Community Health 54:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Moser C, Felton A (2009) The construction of an asset index: measuring asset accumulation in Ecuador. In: Addison T, Hulme D, Kanbur R (eds) Poverty dynamics: interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford (this work is our reference to the polychoric principal component analysis. The polychoric PCA is used since its coefficient shows how much information it provides the coefficient on any variable that is related to the other variables. See our chapter 4 and chapter 10)Google Scholar
  7. Olsson U (1979) Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation. Psychometrika 44:443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pearson K, Pearson ES (1922) On polychoric coefficients of correlation. Biometrica 14:127–156Google Scholar
  9. Ram R (1982) Composite indices of physical quality of life, basic fulfillment, and income: a principal component representation. J Dev Econ 11:227–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Motiur Rahman
    • 1
  • Noriatsu Matsui
    • 2
  • Yukio Ikemoto
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Statistical Research and TrainingUniversity of DhakaDhakaBangladesh
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsTeikyo UniversityHachioji, TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Institute for Advanced Studies on AsiaThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations