global studies paper

MondayJuly22-GlobalInequality-20190720.zip

Home >English homework help >Article writing homework help >global studies paper

Concepts of Inequality_UN report.pdf

Inequality—the state of not being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities1—is a concept very much at the heart of social justice theories. However, it is prone to confusion in public debate as it tends to mean different things to different people. Some distinctions are common though. Many authors distinguish “economic inequality”, mostly meaning “income inequality”, “monetary inequality” or, more broadly, inequality in “living conditions”. Others further distinguish a rights-based, legalistic approach to inequality—inequality of rights and asso- ciated obligations (e.g. when people are not equal before the law, or when people have unequal political power).

Concerning economic inequality, much of the discussion has boiled down to two views. One is chiefly concerned with the inequality of outcomes in the material dimensions of well-being and that may be the result of circumstances beyond one’s control (ethnicity, family background, gender, and so on) as well as talent and effort. This view takes an ex-post or achievement-oriented perspective. The second view is concerned with the inequality of opportunities, that is, it focuses only in the circumstances beyond one’s control, that affect one’s potential outcomes. This is an ex- ante or potential achievement perspective.

Inequality of outcomes Inequality of outcomes occurs when individuals do not possess the same level of material wealth or overall living economic conditions. Development theory has largely been concerned with inequalities in standards of living, such as inequalities in income/wealth, education, health, and nutrition. However, the lens through which economists gauge progress in these fronts has typically been income or consumption.

Historically, development theory was concerned with income inequalities, in so much as it affected or was affected by the eco- nomic growth of the average income of the nation. Distributional concerns were mostly put aside, as growth was thought to eventu- ally “lift all boats” (Kuznets curve). Slowly, studies began showing that growth had inconclusive effects on inequality, but income inequality was detrimental for economic growth. Further, as income inequality rose in many countries, a distributional bias in the growth process was made evident. Startling levels of poverty in the late 1990s pushed the income inequality debate to refocus

1 Adapted from Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.

on poverty reduction. Pro-poor growth approaches made their debut and growth and equity (through income redistribution) were seen as separate policy instruments, each capable of address- ing poverty. The central concern was in raising the incomes of poor households. By the early 2000s, it was clear that growth and inequality were not separable, and the previous decade’s focus on extreme poverty was seen as falling short (indeed, there was progress in extreme poverty, but income inequalities were rising in many developing countries). Inclusive growth approaches emerged, advocating broadly-shared well-being and the exten- sion of disproportionate benefits of growth to a wider share of the population (UNDP, 2013).

Inequality of opportunity In the late 1970s, Amartya Sen’s capability framework brought a new way of thinking about human well-being, its measurement, and inter-personal comparisons. He proposed that well-being should be defined and measured in terms of the beings and doings valued by people (functionings) (Alkire et al., 2015) and the freedom to choose and to act (capabilities). This approach emphasizes the freedom to choose one type of life rather than another. In this framework, equalizing income should not be the goal, because not all people convert income into well-being and freedom in the same way. What’s more, this relationship seems highly dependent on “contingent circumstances, both personal and social” (Sen, 1999: 70) that include the individual’s age, gender, family background and disability. It also depends on climatic conditions, societal conditions (health care, education systems, prevalence of crime, community relationships), customs and convention, among other factors. Hence, what should be

Development Issues are intended to clarify concepts used in the analytical work of the Division, provide references to current development issues and offer a common background for development policy discussions. This note was prepared by Helena Afonso, Marcelo LaFleur and Diana Alarcón in the Development Strategy and Policy Analysis Unit in the Development Policy and Analysis Division of UN/DESA. For more information, contact: [email protected]. The full archive is available at: www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/ 1

Development Strategy and Policy Analysis Unit w Development Policy and Analysis Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Concepts of Inequality Development Issues No. 1

Summary The understanding of inequality has evolved from the traditional outcome-oriented view, whereby income is used as a proxy for well-being. The opportunity-oriented perspective acknowledges that circumstances of birth are essential to life outcomes and that equality of opportunity requires a fair starting point for all.

21 October 2015

2 October 2015

equalized is not means of living, but the actual opportunities of living that give people the freedom to pursue a life of their own choosing.

Frances Stewart has made the case for going beyond a focus on individuals and examining as well the inequalities that arise between individuals due to the group(s) they identify with (cul- tural, gender, age, etc.) and that may be the cause of prejudice, discrimination, marginalization, or advantage—a phenomenon she named horizontal inequalities (Stewart, 2002).

To conclude, a society can be said to provide equal opportuni- ties when circumstances do not determine the differences in life outcomes (Ferreira et al., 2009). In practice, equality of oppor- tunity exists when policies compensate the individuals facing disadvantageous circumstances.

To sum up Economic inequality refers to how economic variables are dis- tributed—among individuals in a group, among groups in a population, or among countries. Development theory has largely been concerned with inequalities in standards of living, such as inequalities in income/wealth, education, health, and nutrition. Much of this discussion has boiled down to a debate between two perspectives: the first is primarily concerned with the inequal- ity of opportunities, such as unequal access to employment or education; and the second with the inequality of outcomes in various material dimensions of human well-being, such as the level of income, educational attainment, health status and so on.

Equality of opportunity exists when life outcomes depend only on factors for which persons can be considered responsible, and not on disadvantageous attributes outside of their control. It argues that gender, ethnicity, family background, etc. should not determine outcomes. In practical terms, it exists when individuals are compensated in some way for their disadvanta- geous circumstances.

Equality of outcome describes a state in which people have similar economic conditions. While inequality in terms of opportunity is defined on an ex-ante basis and is concerned with ensuring a common starting place, inequality of outcomes is con- cerned with the finish line and depends on both circumstances beyond one’s control as well as talent and effort.

References Alkire, S., Foster, J., Seth, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M., and Ballon, P. (2015).

‘Multidimensional Poverty Measurement and Analysis’, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 2 October 2015 from Oxford Scholarship Online: August 2015.

Ferreira, F. H. G., Vega, J. R. M., Paes de Barros, R., and Chanduvi, J. S. (2009), ‘Measuring Inequality of Opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean’, The World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan.

Sen, A. K. (1999), ‘Development as freedom’, Anchor Books. Stewart, F. (2002), ‘Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of

Development’, UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU/WIDER), WIDER Annual Lectures 5.

United Nations Development Programme (2013), ‘Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries’.

Hilal Elver, Why are there still so many hungry people in the world.pdf

Why are there still so many hungry people in the world? The world produces enough food to feed 10 billion people. Poverty and hunger prevail because of economics, not scarcity

Hilal Elver

Food security and malnutrition have not been eradicated by the millennium development goals. Photograph: Jorge Cabrera/Reuters

Thursday 19 February 2015 04.00 EST

T he greatest challenge for the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is to eradicate poverty and hunger while maintaining sustainable food security for all in a crowded and dramatically unequal world. Although the world has succeeded in reducing poverty in accordance with the millennium development goal (MDG) targets, food security and adequate nutrition have not been achieved.

The MDGs failed to treat food as a human right. Experience shows us that neither markets nor governments protect access to sufficient and nutritious food for everyone. Only accountability by those who produce food and regulate society can hope to achieve this protection, and this means that access to food needs to be treated as a human right, and not just as a policy goal or an outcome of a productive economy. Several constitutions and courts in Latin America have recently moved in this direction by making the right to food a legally enforceable right, but the international system, including the UN, still lags behind.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), almost 1 billion people suffer from chronic hunger and almost 2 billion are under- or overnourished.

Children are the most visible victims of nutritional deficiencies. Approximately 5 million children die each year because of poor nutrition. Access to adequate food during the first 1,000 days of life is vitally important for healthy future generations. Even a temporary lack of food during that crucial time has a negative effect on physical and intellectual development. I was shocked when told that in Haiti, even before the devastating earthquake that ruined the country, that small mud balls were being sold in the market to ease children’s hunger pangs.

Of the world’s hungry people, 98% live in developing countries. The root causes of food insecurity and malnutrition are poverty and inequity rather than shortages. FAO statistics confirm that the world produces enough food to feed the 7 billion people living today, and even the estimated 9-10 billion population in 2050. Global agriculture produces 17% more calories per person today than 30 years ago, despite a 70% increase in

population.

Despite this, for the 2 billion people making less than $2 a day – many of whom live in rural areas where resource-poor farmers cultivate small plots of land – most can’t afford to buy food. It is the economic system that is responsible for this prevalence of poverty and hunger. Recently, climate change has been added to the list of causes.

Smallholder farmers tell us that this is a lifestyle for them, not a business. When they have had to leave their land for financial reasons, they have never emotionally recovered. I have heard these stories in many places; not only in poor developing countries. It is a global phenomenon.

If the international community is serious about eliminating hunger, a shift is needed from a development model based on charity and aid to one based on human rights, reinforced by accountability mechanisms. Marginalised, disempowered and excluded groups previously locked out of development planning must have a place, including minorities, migrants, and poor, disabled, older and indigenous people. Non-discrimination and equality must underpin the entire SDG framework.

The role of women in development and food security is pivotal. Highlighting women’s rights in all other targets of the SDGs should be a priority. Of those suffering chronic hunger, 60% are women. This is especially ironic as women do most of the agricultural work in developing countries. Much of the work women do is unpaid and invisible, despite its indispensable role in feeding children and elderly people. Upholding women’s financial, educational and legal rights would be the best use of funds dedicated to eradicating hunger, poverty and child undernourishment.

Food security is dependent on the sustainability of food supply. A major effort is needed to avoid practices that exacerbate the negative impacts of food production and consumption on climate, water and ecosystems. The SDGs should make a healthy environment an internationally guaranteed human right.

The SDGs should encourage governments to work towards policy coherence: agricultural policies should be compatible with environmental sustainability and trade rules consistent with food security. This will not be easy to implement. It will require allowing national food markets in developing countries to compete successfully against cheap imported food. It means altering international trade rules to prevent interference with domestic policies in developing countries designed to eradicate hunger and poverty.

Placing human rights at the heart of the SDGs presupposes both a strong accountability framework and the will to enforce this. Transnational corporations can be part of the problem, tending to undermine the livelihood of locals, displacing them from their home and land, interfering with their access to natural resources, and causing environmental destruction. Responsibility for human rights violations must extend to the private sector. International law has traditionally been reluctant to do this. It is encouraging to note that some modest steps have been taken recently to encourage corporate responsibility, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and Maastricht Principles for Extraterritorial Obligations (pdf ). The SDGs could incorporate these documents in their policy guidelines, or adopt their own version.

The new goals should not be allowed to operate as easily ignored principles, but need to be given teeth. We can eradicate poverty, maintain food security and ensure the right to adequate and nutritious food for all. These fundamental aims were long ago set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and repeated in the International Covenant of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The task is huge, but the tools are there. The challenge is mainly a matter of fashioning political will strong enough to overcome entrenched interests in maintaining food insecurity.

• Hilal Elver is the UN special rapporteur on the right to food

Inequality Measurement_UN report.pdf

Comprehending the impact of policy changes on the distribu- tion of income first requires a good portrayal of that distribution. There are various ways to accomplish this, including graphical and mathematical approaches that range from simplistic to more intricate methods. All of these can be used to provide a complete picture of the concentration of income, to compare and rank different income distributions, and to examine the implications of alternative policy options.

An inequality measure is often a function that ascribes a value to a specific distribution of income in a way that allows direct and objective comparisons across different distributions. To do this, inequality measures should have certain properties and behave in a certain way given certain events. For example, moving $1 from a richer person to a poorer person should lead to a lower level of inequality. No single measure can satisfy all properties though, so the choice of one measure over others involves trade-offs. The fol- lowing measures differ with regards to the properties they satisfy and information they present. None can be considered superior, as all are useful given certain contexts. A well-balanced inequal- ity analysis should look at several of these measures.

Graphical representation of inequality

Lorenz curve It is one of the simplest representations of inequality. On the horizontal axis is the cumulative number of income recipients ranked from the poorest to the richest individual or household. The vertical axis displays the cumulative percentage of total income. The Lorenz curve reveals the percentage of income owned by x per cent of the population. It is usually shown in relation to a 45-degree line that represents perfect equality where each x percentile of the population receives the same x percentile of income. Thus the farther the Lorenz curve is in relation to the 45-degree line, the more unequal the distribution of income.

Indices

Gini index It is the most widely cited measure of inequality; it measures the extent to which the distribution within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The index is computed as

the ratio of the area between the two curves (Lorenz curve and 45-degree line) to the area beneath the 45-degree line. In the figure above, it is equal to A/(A+B). A higher Gini coefficient represents a more unequal distribution. According to World Bank data, between 1981 and 2013, the Gini index ranged between 0.3 and 0.6 worldwide. The coefficient allows direct comparison of two populations’ income distribution, regardless of their sizes. The Gini’s main limitation is that it is not easily decomposable or additive. Also, it does not respond in the same way to income transfers between people in opposite tails of the income distribution as it does to transfers in the middle of the distribution. Furthermore, very different income distributions can present the same Gini coefficient.

Atkinson’s inequality measure (or Atkinson’s index)

This is the most popular welfare-based measure of inequality. It presents the percentage of total income that a given society would have to forego in order to have more equal shares of income between its citizens. This measure depends on the degree of society aversion to inequality (a theoretical parameter decided by the researcher), where a higher value entails greater social utility or willingness by individuals to accept smaller incomes in exchange for a more equal distribution. An important feature of the Atkinson index is that it can be decomposed into within- and between-group inequality. Moreover, unlike other indices, it can provide welfare implications of alternative policies and allows the researcher to include some normative content to the analysis (Bellù, 2006).

Development Strategy and Policy Analysis Unit w Development Policy and Analysis Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Inequality Measurement Development Issues No. 2

Summary There are many measures of inequality that, when combined, provide nuance and depth to our understanding of how income is distributed. Choosing which measure to use requires understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each, and how they can complement each other to provide a complete picture.

21 October 2015

2 October 2015

Hoover index (also known as the Robin Hood index, Schutz index or Pietra ratio) It shows the proportion of all income which would have to be redistributed to achieve a state of perfect equality. In other words, the value of the index approximates the share of total income that has to be transferred from households above the mean to those below the mean to achieve equality in the distri- bution of incomes. Higher values indicate more inequality and that more redistribution is needed to achieve income equality. It can be graphically represented as the maximum vertical distance between the Lorenz curve and the 45-degree line that represents perfect equality of incomes.

Theil index and General Entropy (GE) measures The values of the GE class of measures vary between zero (perfect equality) and infinity (or one, if normalized). A key feature of these measures is that they are fully decomposable, i.e. inequal- ity may be broken down by population groups or income sources or using other dimensions, which can prove useful to policy makers. Another key feature is that researchers can choose a parameter α that assigns a weight to distances between incomes in different parts of the income distribution. For lower values of α, the measure is more sensitive to changes in the lower tail of the distribution and, for higher values, it is more sensitive to changes that affect the upper tail (Atkinson and Bourguignon, 2015). The most common values for α are 0, 1, and 2. When α=0, the index is called “Theil’s L” or the “mean log deviation” measure. When α=1, the index is called “Theil’s T” index or, more commonly, “Theil index”. When α=2, the index is called “coefficient of variation”. Similarly to the Gini coefficient, when income redistribution happens, change in the indices depends on the level of individual incomes involved in the redistribution and the population size (Bellù, 2006).

Ratios Ratios constitute the most basic inequality measures available. They are simple, direct, easy to understand, and they offer few data and computation challenges. Accordingly, they do not provide as much information as the complex measures described above.

Decile dispersion ratio (or inter-decile ratio) It is the ratio of the average income of the richest x per cent of the population to the average income of the poorest x per cent. It expresses the income (or income share) of the rich as a multiple of that of the poor. However, it is vulnerable to extreme values and outliers. Common decile ratios include: D9/D1: ratio of the income of the 10 per cent richest to that of the 10 per cent poor- est; D9/D5: ratio of the income of the 10 per cent richest to the income of those at the median of the earnings distribution; D5/ D1: ratio of the income of those at the median of the earnings distribution to the 10 per cent poorest. The Palma ratio and the 20/20 ratio are other examples of decile dispersion ratios.

Palma ratio It is the ratio of national income shares of the top 10 per cent of households to the bottom 40 per cent. It is based on economist José Gabriel Palma’s empirical observation that difference in the income distribution of different countries (or over time) is largely the result of changes in the ‘tails’ of the distribution (the poorest and the richest) as there tends to be relative stability in the share of income that goes to the ‘middle’ (Cobham, 2015).

20/20 ratio It compares the ratio of the average income of the richest 20 per cent of the population to the average income of the poor- est 20 per cent of the population. Used by the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report (called “income quintile ratio”).

References Bellù, L. G., and Liberati, P. (2006), ‘Policy Impacts on Inequality: Welfare

Based Measures of Inequality – The Atkinson Index’, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Bellù, L. G., and Liberati, P. (2006), ‘Describing Income Inequality: Theil Index and Entropy Class Indexes’, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Cobham, A., Schlogl, L., and Sumner, A. (2015), ‘Inequality and the Tails: The Palma Proposition and Ratio Revisited’, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Working Paper No. 143 (ST/ESA/2015/DWP/143).

‘Handbook of Income Distribution Volume 2’ First Edition (2015), edited by Anthony Atkinson and François Bourguignon, North-Holland (Elsevier).

United Nations Development Programme, ‘2014 Human Development Trends by Indicator’, available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/data.

World Bank, World Development Indicators. Accessed 13 October 2015.

Cumulative percentage of households Cu

m ul

at iv

e pe

rc en

ta ge

o f i

nc om

Robin Hood Index

Pe rfe

ct Dis

tri bu

tio n (

45 °) L

ine

Lo re

nz Cu

rv e

100%

Lorenz Curve and Robin Hood Index

Multidimensional Poverty_UN report.pdf

The measurement of poverty is composed of two fundamental steps, according to Amartya Sen (1976): determining who is poor (identification) and building an index to reflect the extent of poverty (aggregation). Both steps have been sources of debate over time among academics and practitioners. For a long time, unidimensional measures were used to distinguish poor from non-poor. More recently, new measures have been proposed to enrich the understanding of socio-economic conditions and to better reflect the evolving concept of poverty.

From unidimensional to multi- dimensional poverty Poverty measurement has primarily used income for the iden- tification of the poor since the early twentieth century. In the 1950s, economic growth and macroeconomic policies domi- nated the development discourse, which meant little attention was paid to the difficulties faced by poor people (ODI, 1978). Until the 1970s, the poor were statistically identified solely on the basis of household income, adjusted to family size, relative to a specified income poverty line. This threshold meant to give a monetary value to the “minimum necessaries for the main- tenance of merely physical efficiency” (i.e. food, rent, clothing, fuel, light, etc.) (Rowntree (1901), cited by Alkire et al. (2015)).

In the mid-1970s the ‘basic needs’ approach posited that devel- opment concerns should be focused on providing people their basic needs1, as opposed to merely increasing their income. This approach, together with others such as social exclusion2 and Sen’s capability approach3, called for looking at the actual satisfaction of basic needs (Alkire et al. 2015). As such, a list of basic needs should be determined, along with minimum levels of satisfaction, what Sen (1981) called the ‘direct method’ of poverty identifica- tion. Contrasting with the income method, the direct method

1 Depending on the interpretation, ‘basic needs’ can vary from a minimal list of human requirements for simple survival (e.g. food, clothing and shelter) to the belief that “human needs are not just physical but also psychological, not absolute but relative to what is enjoyed by other people in society, not finite but expanding as the satisfaction of one need gives rise to another” (ODI, 1978).

2 Social exclusion relates to individuals “that are not adequately integrated in society”. Its main forms are: non-inclusion in systems of social protection, poverty and disability that preclude from participation in ordinary activities, and stigma or discrimination (Spicker et al. 2006). The definition of poverty in most EU countries involves being socially excluded.

3 Sen’s capability approach conceives poverty as ‘capability deprivation’ (Sen 1992, cited by Alkire et al. 2015: 5).

assesses human deprivation in terms of shortfalls from minimum levels of basic needs per se, instead of using income as an interme- diary of basic needs satisfaction. The reasoning for this relies on the argument that, while an increase in purchasing power allows the poor to better achieve their basic needs, markets for all basic needs may not always exist. Indeed, several basic needs are public goods (malaria prevention for example; Tsui, 2002). And, in fact, since the 1980s, studies have shown that income does not cor- rectly proxy non-monetary deprivations for identifying the poor.

Accordingly, empirical analysts have come to introduce vari- ous nonmonetary measures of deprivations, supplementing these multidimensional analyses with monetary measures to create a better overall picture of poverty.

Multidimensional poverty measurement Several techniques to measure poverty from a multidimen-

sional perspective have been developed over the years. A few of the main prevailing approaches, among many others include (Alkire et al. 2015):

i. The dashboard approach: an analysis of different indicators of poverty. A prominent example of which is the Millennium Development Goals;

ii. The composite indices approach: whereby deprivation indices, possibly considered in a dashboard approach, are converted into one single number. Well-known composite indices include the Human Develop- ment Index, the Gender Empowerment Index and the Human Poverty Index, all of which have been published by the United Nations Development Pro- gramme (UNDP) Human Development Report;

Development Strategy and Policy Analysis Unit w Development Policy and Analysis Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Multidimensional Poverty Development Issues No. 3

Summary Measuring poverty with a single income or expenditure measure is an imperfect way to understand the deprivations of the poor since, for example, markets for basic needs and public goods may not exist. Complementing monetary with non-monetary information provides a more complete picture of poverty.

21 October 2015

2 October 2015

iii. Multivariate statistical methods: techniques to iden- tify the poor, set indicator weights, build individual deprivation scores, and aggregate the information into societal poverty indices;

iv. Fuzzy sets: mathematical technique employed to identify mathematically the poor (using fewer nor- mative judgements);

Many criteria can be used to decide on a particular meth- odology. Empirical researchers might prefer measures that can accommodate data from different sources. Policymakers might be inclined to choose a measure that produces one single easily comparable figure. They might also prefer measures that can reveal which people are suffering which deprivations simultane- ously (a joint distribution of disadvantages) and thus effectively identify the poor.

In the context of the direct method of poverty measurement, counting the number of deprivations a poor individual suffers appeared intuitively as a way to identify the poor and observe progress. This ‘counting approach’ is currently witnessing fast- emerging research. While in the unidimensional framework the task of identifying the poor is usually performed by means of poverty lines, in a multidimensional counting framework “depri- vation cutoffs” pinpoint who is deprived in what dimensions, and an overall “poverty cutoff ” across dimensions identifies who is poor. An example of this method follows in the next section.

Multidimensional Poverty Index One recently developed counting method, the Alkire-Foster counting approach, was adopted by the UNDP in 2010. Assisted by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, UNDP used the approach to develop the global Multi- dimensional Poverty Index (MPI), which substituted its Human Poverty Index (in use since 1997). The index complements monetary measures of poverty with information on overlapping

deprivations experienced simultaneously by individuals. It iden- tifies deprivations in the same three dimensions as the Human Development Index (health, education and standard of living), and presents the number of people who are multi-dimensionally poor (i.e. deprived in at least one third of the dimensions) as well as the number of deprivations faced by the poor – thus reveal- ing the incidence and intensity of poverty in a given region in a given time. It can be decomposed by dimension or by groupings (such as region, ethnicity and other), with useful implications for policy.

According to the 2014 Human Development Report, 1.2 bil- lion people have an income of $1.25 or less a day and 2.7 billion live on less than $2.50 a day, in 104 developing countries. The MPI estimates 1.5 billion people are multi-dimensionally poor in 91 developing countries, and, in total, 2.2 billion people are estimated to live in multidimensional poverty or near-poverty.

References Alkire, S., Foster, J., Seth, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M., and Ballon, P. (2015).

‘Multidimensional Poverty Measurement and Analysis’, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 2 October 2015 from Oxford Scholarship Online: August 2015.

Overseas Development Institute (1978). Briefing Paper No. 5, December 1978.

Rowntree, B. S. (1901). Poverty: A Study of Town Life. London: Macmillan. Sen, A. K. (1976). ‘Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement’,

Econometrica, 44(2):219–31. Sen, A. K. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and

Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spicker, P., Álvarez, L. S., Gordon, D., Comparative Research Programme

on Poverty., & International Social Science Council. (2007). Poverty: An international glossary. London: Zed Books.

Tsui, K.-Y. (2002). ‘Multidimensional Poverty Indices’, Social Choice and Welfare, 19(1):69–93.

United Nations Development Programme (2014). Human Development Report 2014 – Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience.