Country Brief India[1]

8/6/2019 Country Brief India[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/country-brief-india1 1/6

India OPHI Country Briefing 2010

Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI)

http://ophi.qeh.ox.ac.uk www.ophi.org.uk

Oxford Dept of International Development,

Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford

Country Briefing:Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) At a Glance

The MPI was constructed by OPHI for the UNDP’s 2010 Human Development Report (http://hdr.undp.org/en/).

Country Profile India-DHS-2005

Country: 3 India 42 Year: 2005 Survey: DHS

Region:

Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)

Year

2005

www.ophi.org.uk

India

July 2010

This Country Briefing presents the results of the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) and explains key findings

graphically. Further information as well as international comparisons are available at

www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/.

0.296

For more information on the MPI please see Alkire, Sabina & Maria Emma Santos. “Acute Multidimensional Poverty: a new index for

developing countries” OPHI Working Paper 38 and UNDP Research Paper Series.

Survey

DHS

Multidimensional Poverty

Index (MPI = H×A)

Average Intensity

Across the Poor (A)

Incidence of

Poverty (H)

South Asia

The MPI reflects both the incidence (H) of poverty – the proportion of the population that is multidimensionally poor – and the average intensity

(A) of their deprivation – the average proportion of indicators in which they are deprived. The MPI is calculated by multiplying the incidence of

poverty by the average intensity across the poor. A person is identified as poor if he or she is deprived in at least 30 percent of the weighted

indicators. The following table shows the multidimensional poverty rate (MPI) and its two components: incidence of poverty (H) and average

intensity of deprivation faced by the poor (A). The first and second columns of the table report the survey and year which was used to generate the

MPI results.

55.4% 53.5%

Citation: Alkire, Sabina & Maria Emma Santos. 2010. India Country Briefing. Oxford Poverty & Human Development

Initiative (OPHI) Multidimensional Poverty Index Country Briefing Series. Available at:

www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/mpi-country-briefings/.

India

http://ophi.qeh.ox.ac.uk/

http://www.ophi.org.uk/

http://www.ophi.org.uk/

http://ophi.qeh.ox.ac.uk/




Comparing the MPI with Other Poverty Measures

0.296

0.554

MPI (H) U$1.25 a U$2 a day National hpi109v Average Intensity of Deprivation (A) 0.535

55% 42% 76% 29% 28% 645.0

42%

Percentage of Income Poor ($2.00 a day) 76%

Percentage of Poor (National Poverty Line) 29%

Population* (in millions) 1164.70.612

37

Medium

Comparing the MPI with Other Poverty Measures

30 30

www.ophi.org.uk

Human Development Index

HDI rank (104 countries)

HDI category

Columnchart B. shows the percentage of people who are MPI poor (also called the incidence or headcount) in the 104 developing countries

analysed.The column denoting this country is dark, with other countries shown in light grey.The line across the column chart denotes the

percentage of people who are income poor according to the $1.25 a day poverty line in each country.

Column chart A. compares the poverty rate using the MPI with three other commonly used poverty measures. The height of the first column

denotes the percentage of people who are MPI poor (also called the incidence or headcount). The second and third columns denote the

percentages of people who are poor according to the $1.25 a day poverty line and $2.00 a day poverty line, respectively. The final column denotes

the percentage of people who are poor according to the national poverty line. The table on the right hand side reports various descriptive statistics

of the country.

Multidimensional Poverty Index

Summary

Number of MPI Poor People (in millions)

Percentage of Income Poor ($1.25 a day)

Percentage of MPI Poor (H)

* Human Development Report 2009, Statistical Annex L

55%

42%

76%

29%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

MPI (H) U$1.25 a day U$2 a day National Poverty Line

A. Comparative poverty measuresProportion

Poverty Measure

Proportion

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N i g e r

E t h i o p i a

M a l i

C e n t r a l A f r i c a n R e p u b l i c

B u r u n d i

L i b e r i a

B u r k i n a F a s o

G u i n e a

S i e r r a L e o n e

R w a n d a

M o z a m b i q u e

A n g o l a

C o m o r o s

D R C o n g o

M a l a w i

B e n i n

M a d a g a s c a r

S e n e g a l

T a n z a n i a

N e p a l

Z a m b i a

N i g e r i a

C h a d

M a u r i t a n i a

G a m b i a

K e n y a

B a n g l a d e s h

H a i t i

R e p u b l i c o f C o n g o

I n d i a

C a m e r o o n

T o g o

C a m b o d i a

Y e m e n

C o t e d ' I v o i r e

P a k i s t a n

L e s o t h o L a o

S w a z i l a n d

N i c a r a g u a

N a m i b i a

B o l i v i a

G a b o n

H o n d u r a s

G h a n a

D j i b o u t i

M o r o c c o

G u a t e m a l a

I n d o n e s i a

P e r u

T a j i k i s t a n

M o n g o l i a

V i e t N a m

G u y a n a

P a r a g u a y

P h i l i p p i n e s

C h i n a

D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c

C o l o m b i a

B r a z i l

T u r k e y

S u r i n a m e

E s t o n i a

E g y p t

T r i n i d a d a n d T o b a g o

A z e r b a i j a n

S r i L a n k a

K y r g y z s t a n

M e x i c o

S o u t h A f r i c a

A r g e n t i n a

T u n i s i a

J o r d a n

U z b e k i s t a n

A r m e n i a

E c u a d o r

M o l d o v a

U k r a i n e

M a c e d o n i a

U r u g u a y

T h a i l a n d

C r o a t i a

R u s s i a n F e d e r a t i o n

A l b a n i a

B o s n i a a n d H e r z e g o v i n a

G e o r g i a

H u n g a r y

K a z a k h s t a n

L a t v i a

B e l a r u s

C z e c h R e p u b l i c

S l o v a k i a

S l o v e n i a

Percentage of Poor People

Percentage of MPI Poor Percentage of Income Poor (living on less than $1.25 a day)

B. Headcounts of MPI poor and $1.25/day Poor




Incidence of Deprivation in Each of the MPI Indicators

Composition of the MPI

www.ophi.org.uk

The MPI can be broken down to see directly how much each indicator contributes to multidimensional poverty. The following figure shows the

composition of MPI using a pie-chart. Each piece of the pie represents the percentage contribution of each indicator to the overall MPI of the

country. The larger the contribution, the bigger is the weighted share of the indicator to the overall poverty.

The MPI uses 10 indicators to measure poverty in three dimensions: education, health and living standard. The bar chart to the left reports the

proportion of the population that is poor and deprived in each indicator. We do not include the deprivation of non-poor people. The spider

diagram to the right compares the proportions of the population that are poor and deprived across different indicators. At the same time it

compares the performance of rural areas and urban areas with that of the national aggregate. Patterns of deprivation may differ in rural and urban

areas.

Schooling

Child Enrolment

Child Mortality

Nutrition

Electricity

Sanitation

Drinking Water

Floor

Cooking Fuel

AssetsSchooling

Child Enrolment

Child Mortality

Nutrition

Electricity

Sanitation

Drinking Water

Floor

Cooking Fuel

Assets C o n t r i b u t i o n o f i n d i c a t o r s t o t h e M P I

Education

Health

Livingstandard

Assets, 38.1%

Cooking Fuel, 52.2%

Floor, 40.0%

Drink. Water, 12%

Sanitation, 49.3%

Electricity, 28.7%

Nutrition, 38.9%

Child Mortality, 23%

C. Enrolment, 25.0%

Schooling, 17.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

L i v i n g S t a n d a r d

H e a l t h

E d u c a t i o n

Percentage of the Population who are MPI poor and deprived in each

Schooling

ChildEnrolment

ChildMortality

Nutrition

Electricity

Sanitation

Drinking Water

Floor

Cooking Fuel

Assets

National Urban Rural

D. Percentage of the Population MPI poor and DeprivedC. Deprivations in each Indicator




Decomposition of MPI by Region

Intensity of Multidimensional Poverty

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

per 0.554 0.393 0.305 0.197 0.102 0.036 0.018 0.000

0.446 0.607 0.695 0.803 0.898 0.964 0.982 1.000

30%-40% 40%-50% 50%-60% 60%-70% 80%-90% 90%-100 30%-40%

0.160 0.088 0.108 0.095 0.066 0.018 0.018

www.ophi.org.uk

Recall that i) a person is considered poor if they are deprived in at least 30% of the weighted indicators and ii) the intensity of poverty denotes the

proportion of indicators in which they are deprived. A person who is deprived in 100% of the indicators has a greater intensity of poverty than

someone deprived in 40%. The following figures show the percentage of people who experience different intensities of poverty. The pie chart to

the left breaks the poor population into seven groups based on the intensity of their poverty. It shows the proportion of poor people whose

intensity (the percentage of indicators in which they are deprived) falls into each group. The column chart to the right, reports the proportion of

the population in a country that is poor in that percentage of indicators or more. For example, the number over the 40% bar represents the

percentage of people who are deprived in 40% or more indicators.

E. Contribution of Indicators to the MPI at the national level, for urban areas, and for rural areas

The MPI can be decomposed by different population subgroups, then broken down by dimension, to show how the composition of poverty

differs between different regions or groups. In the column chart to the left, the height of each of the three bars shows the level of MPI at the

national level, for urban areas, and for rural areas, respectively. Inside each bar, different colours represent the contribution of different indicators

to the overall MPI. In the column chart to the right the colours inside each bar denote the percentage contribution of each indicator to the overall

MPI, and all bars add up to 100%. This enables an immediate visual comparison of the composition of poverty across regions.

Assets Assets

Assets

Cooking Fuel

Cooking Fuel

Cooking Fuel

Floor

Floor

FloorDrinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking WaterSanitation

Sanitation

SanitationElectricity

Electricity

Electricity Nutrition

Nutrition

NutritionChild Mortality

Child Mortality

Child Mortality

Child Enrolment

Child Enrolment

Child Enrolment

Schooling

Schooling

Schooling

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400


M P I V a l u e

30%-40%

40%-50%

50%-60%

60%-70%

80%-90%

90%-100%

55.4%

39.3%

30.5%

19.7%

10.2%

3.6%1.8%

0.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

P e r c e n t a g e o f M P I P o o r

Intensity of Poverty

G. Percentage of people deprived in X% or

more of the MPI weighted indicators

7.1% 6.5% 7.2%

9.8%8.3%

10.0%

7.5%

4.0%

8.0%

2.3%

1.5%

2.4%

9.2%

8.4%

9.4%

5.4%

2.5%

5.8%

21.9%

25.3%

21.4%

12.8%

16.1%

12.3%

14.1%18.5%

13.4%

9.9% 9.0% 10.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


F. Intensity of Deprivation Among MPI Poor




Comparison of Multidimensional Poverty Between Madhya Pradesh and DR CongoUsually we compare countries, but because of India’s size it can be informative to compare a country with a state.Here we compare Madhya Pradesh (MP), an Indian state, with DR Congo (DRC), an African country. Thepopulation of DRC is 62.5 million and the population of MP is 69.97 million, thus they have a similar population.Furthermore, their Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is nearly the same at 0.39. The percentage of people whoare multidimensionally poor is slightly higher in DRC, while in MP, poor people experience a higher average

intensity of poverty – they are poorer in more dimensions in the same time.

We are also interested to know how the shape of poverty differs. In MP, malnutrition contributes more tomultidimensional poverty than any other indicator; in DRC it is child enrolment. Also, a lack of electricity anddrinking water are more acute in DRC than that in MP. Thus, these two regions have similar overall poverty but theanalysis shows us a different story.

It is these kinds of stories that the MPI can help us to seek and analyse in order to understand and respond tohuman suffering more powerfully. However, we should consider the fact that people of MP do not suffer from thesame level of horrific violence that people in DRC do, but it is still useful to compare indicators for which we havedata.

Country Madhya Pradesh DR Congo

Population 2007 (millions) 69.97 62.50

Percentage of MPI Poor 69.45 73.18

MPI 0.389 0.393

Average Intensity 0.560 0.537

The Contribution of Indicators to MPI

Years of Schooling Years of Schooling

Child enrolment Child enrolment

Mortality (any age) Mortality (any age)

NutritionNutrition

Electricity

Electricity

SanitationSanitation

Drinking WaterDrinking Water

Floor Floor

Cooking Fuel Cooking Fuel

Asset Ownership Asset Ownership

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Madhya Pradesh DR Congo

P r o p o r t i o n o f p e o

p l e M P I P o o r

Breakdown of Multidimensional Poverty across Hindu Castes and Tribes The table below shows the breakdown of MPI across four social groups among Hindus in India. It can be seen that81.4 percent of the Scheduled Tribes are poor, compared with 33.3 percent for the general population. The intensity of poverty is also very high among Scheduled Tribes, who are deprived in 59.2 percent of weighted indicators onaverage.

States MPI Percentage of

MPI Poor AverageIntensity

Scheduled Caste 0.361 65.8% 54.8%

Scheduled Tribe 0.482 81.4% 59.2%

Other Backward Class 0.305 58.3% 52.3%

General 0.157 33.3% 47.2%

www.ophi.org.uk




www.ophi.org.uk

Decomposition of Multidimensional Poverty across Indian States1

The following table decomposes multidimensional poverty across twenty-eight Indian states.2 We see that 81percent of people are multidimensionally poor in Bihar - more than any other state. Also, poverty in Bihar and Jharkand is most intense – poor people are deprived in 60 percent of the MPI’s weighted indicators. Uttar Pradeshis the home of largest number of poor people – 21 percent of India’s poor people live there. West Bengal is home to

the third largest number of poor people. On the other hand, the multidimensional poverty is lowest for Kerala. Thetop five states home only 4.5 percent of the poor, whereas, the five poorest states home more than 50 percent of thepoor people.

MPIRank

StatesPopulation

(in millions)2007

MPI Proportion

of Poor AverageIntensity

Contributionto OverallPoverty

Number of MPI Poor3

(in millions)

1 Kerala 35.0 0.065 15.9% 40.9% 0.6% 5.6

2 Goa 1.6 0.094 21.7% 43.4% 0.0% 0.4

3 Punjab 27.1 0.120 26.2% 46.0% 1.0% 7.1

4 Himachal Pradesh 6.7 0.131 31.0% 42.3% 0.3% 2.15 Tamil Nadu 68.0 0.141 32.4% 43.6% 2.6% 22.0

6 Uttaranchal 9.6 0.189 40.3% 46.9% 0.5% 3.9

7 Maharashtra 108.7 0.193 40.1% 48.1% 6.0% 43.6

8 Haryana 24.1 0.199 41.6% 47.9% 1.3% 10.0

9 Gujarat 57.3 0.205 41.5% 49.2% 3.4% 23.8

10 Jammu And Kashmir 12.2 0.209 43.8% 47.7% 0.7% 5.4

11 Andhra Pradesh 83.9 0.211 44.7% 47.1% 5.1% 37.5

12 Karnataka 58.6 0.223 46.1% 48.3% 4.2% 27.0

13 Eastern Indian States4 44.2 0.303 57.6% 52.5% 4.0% 25.5

14 West Bengal 89.5 0.317 58.3% 54.3% 8.5% 52.2

15 Orissa 40.7 0.345 64.0% 54.0% 4.3% 26.0

16 Rajasthan 65.4 0.351 64.2% 54.7% 7.0% 41.9

17 Uttar Pradesh 192.6 0.386 69.9% 55.2% 21.3% 134.7

18 Chhattisgarh 23.9 0.387 71.9% 53.9% 2.9% 17.2

19 Madhya Pradesh 70.0 0.389 69.5% 56.0% 8.5% 48.6

20 Jharkhand 30.5 0.463 77.0% 60.2% 4.2% 23.5

21 Bihar 95.0 0.499 81.4% 61.3% 13.5% 77.3

India 1,164.7 0.296 55.4% 53.5% - 645.0

1 The decompositions were performed by Suman Seth, OPHI. 2 Our calculation and total population of the poor includes Delhi but in this table we focus on Indian states.

3 Note that the estimation of the number of state-wise poor population is based on the actual population in 2007, as these are thefigures we have used for international comparisons across 104 countries. However, the proportion of MPI poor population is

estimated using the DHS dataset 2005-6 which has a slightly different distribution of population across states. Therefore, thetotal number of poor people in the last column may not sum up exactly to 645 million; however it is a lower bound. 4 Eastern Indian states include Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura.

Country Brief India[1]

Documents

Transcript of Country Brief India[1]