Poverty measurement in the U.S., Europe, and developing countries
Maureen Pirog2010, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
AI
This paper discusses the inadequacies of the current poverty measurement in the United States, advocating for an updated approach in light of changing economic conditions and spending patterns. It compares the U.S. poverty measure to methods used in Europe and developing countries, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive assessment that includes in-kind transfers and tax impacts on family resources. Recommendations from an expert panel highlight practical measures for improving poverty statistics, urging a shift towards a more symmetric understanding of poverty thresholds and available resources.
Related papers
Statement on Establishing a Modern Poverty Measure
2008
I am submitting comments on behalf of the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) to express support for the ideas presented in the draft legislation, the "Measuring American Poverty Act." The proposal addresses a number of issues I raised in testimony given a year ago at this subcommittee's hearing on "Measuring Poverty in America" (Cauthen 2007). In brief, I argued that: n Because poverty exacts such a high toll on our society, it is critical that we measure it in a meaningful way so that we can address it and measure the degree to which our anti-poverty policies are successful. n The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) 1995 recommendations for improving the official poverty measure offer the most promising-and efficacious-approach to creating a more accurate measure of income poverty. n In a wealthy, advanced industrial society such as ours, it is imperative that we supplement measures of income poverty with additional indicators of the health and well-being of our nation's citizens, especially our youngest.
Improving the Supplemental Poverty Measure: Two proposals
Research Papers in Economics, 2017
Questions about the adequacy of the official poverty measure led to the development of the Supplemental Poverty Measure, designed to be released concurrently with the official poverty measure. We raise two concerns with the Supplemental Poverty Measure: a discontinuity in the economies of scale implied by the equivalence scale and the adjustment for local prices using only housing costs. We propose corrections for both issues that can be applied by anyone using the public use files of the Current Population Survey. The changes we propose would have the greatest effect on poverty rates for the elderly and would reduce the difference in poverty rates by metro status.
Poverty in the United States: A Review of Relevant Programs
Poverty & Public Policy, 2016
Poverty is a major social problem in the United States: in 2014, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 46.7 million people living in poverty and an estimated 14.8 percent poverty rate. The poverty rate has been steadily increasing in the United States, with a 2 percent increase in 2012 over 2007. Federal and state governments have initiated many anti-poverty programs, starting with the New Deal Program in the 1930s. With the advent of a new governance approach in the 1990s, many hierarchical bureaucratic government agencies were replaced with public, private, network, and collaborative approaches to solve this complex national problem. Tax expenditures, vouchers, and grants are the three major governance tools used by the U.S. federal and state governments to fight poverty. This article addresses three important programs-the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)used in fighting poverty in the United States and discusses the problem of poverty, the effectiveness of these governance tools, suggestions for future research, and policy implications
United States Poverty Studies and Poverty Measurement: The Past Twenty‐Five Years
Social Service Review, 2002
Estimating the Relative Poverty Status of Children and the Elderly using a Comprehensive Measure of Poverty
2001
Each fall, the Census Bureau makes public the official estimates of the number of persons and families who were poor in the previous year. Their annual report contains a vast array of tables that track the nation's progress or lack thereof in fighting poverty as well as changes in the composition of the poverty population. Over the thirty-year period that the Census Bureau has been issuing its reports, one of the more significant trends has been the reversal of fortunes, or perhaps one should say misfortunes, of children and the elderly. In 1967, 29.5 percent of elderly individuals were poor while 16.6 percent of children were poor. By 1974, both groups experienced similar rates of poverty. Since 1974, the incidence of poverty among children has steadily grown while the poverty rate of the elderly has continued to fall. By 1992, 12.9 percent of the elderly were poor while 21.9 percent of children were in poverty. Policy analysts speculated that the favorable trend in poverty among the aged was the direct result of their relative political power to garner more than their fair share of government benefits. They cited the statistics to back their claim. In 1992, the Census Bureau reported that 50.0 percent of the elderly would have been poor if the value of government benefits were not counted as income. By contrast, 25.3 percent of children would have been poor. 1 Comparing these numbers to the poverty counts where government transfers were included in income
Revisiting the income threshold for measuring poverty
This article makes a contribution to the ongoing debate on the most appropriate method of measuring poverty for interventionist purposes in rural areas. It is informed by the Zimbabwe experience that income-based measures may not always adequately target those most in need of social support. A new approach is proposed that focuses on the non-income component of poverty. The aim is to assist 'technocrats' to better target the poor in need of a social safety net in crisis situations. The search is for a 'credible' measure that will be acceptable to various interest groups including the poor. Thus the proposed measure derived by means of a consensual approach meets this objective. The article describes and discusses the weaknesses of conventional poverty measures, divided into two broad categories of those pre-and post-dating Sen's introduction of the capability concept. It then uses these to explore the conventional approaches (the dominant income measures) and flag their operational deficiencies, and then postulates an asset threshold model, the minimally adequate asset level (MAAL), which is contextspecific and is based on the consensual approach. Using such a threshold as a basis for intervention makes the intervention direct, for example, asset for asset. An asset-threshold brings out particular specific and peculiar circumstances of the poor as well as providing a fresh perspective and framework for measuring poverty. Thus an asset-threshold can be useful for purposes of allocating resources and setting and monitoring targets. However, the asset threshold is not transferable to other places if typicality cannot be established.
Food Stamp Benefits And Childhood Poverty In The 1990s
2003
In 2000, 8.8 million children received food stamps, making the Food Stamp Program a crucial component of the social safety net. Despite its importance, little research has examined the effect of food stamps on children's overall well-being. Using the Current Population Survey from 1989 to 2001, we consider the impact of food stamps on three measures of poverty-the headcount, the poverty gap, and the squared poverty gap. These measures portray the incidence, depth, and severity of poverty. We find that in comparison to the headcount measure, food stamp benefits lead to large reductions in the poverty gap and squared poverty gap measures. We then simulate the effects of several changes in the distribution of food stamps and find that a general across-the-board increase in benefits has little impact on poverty reduction. In contrast, targeted changes can greatly reduce the depth and severity of poverty-increasing benefits to the poor results in a greater reduction in the depth of poverty than expanding participation rates, at a similar cost, among poor households.
Food stamp benefits and child poverty in the 1990s
2003
In 2000, 8.8 million children received food stamps, making the Food Stamp Program a crucial component of the social safety net. Despite its importance, little research has examined the effect of food stamps on children's overall well-being. Using the Current Population Survey from 1989 to 2001, we consider the impact of food stamps on three measures of poverty-the headcount, the poverty gap, and the squared poverty gap. These measures portray the incidence, depth, and severity of poverty. We find that in comparison to the headcount measure, food stamp benefits lead to large reductions in the poverty gap and squared poverty gap measures. We then simulate the effects of several changes in the distribution of food stamps and find that a general across-the-board increase in benefits has little impact on poverty reduction. In contrast, targeted changes can greatly reduce the depth and severity of poverty-increasing benefits to the poor results in a greater reduction in the depth of poverty than expanding participation rates, at a similar cost, among poor households.
The income and consumption approach to unidimensional poverty measurement
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, 2023
Related papers
Presidential address: How to improve poverty measurement in the United States
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2008
This paper discusses the reasons why the current official U.S. poverty measure is outdated and nonresponsive to many anti-poverty initiatives. A variety of efforts to update and improve the statistic have failed, for political, technical, and institutional reasons. Meanwhile, the European Union is taking a very different approach to poverty measurement. The paper ends with four recommended steps that would allow the U.S. to improve its measurement of poverty and economic need." 1 For a more extended discussion of all of these issues (and others), see Citro and Michael (1995) or Ruggles (1990); Haveman (2007) provides a recent overview of these issues.
Mollie Orshansky's Strategy to Poverty Measurement as a Relationship between Household Food Expenditures and Economy Food Plan *
Review of Agricultural Economics, 2008
assess the economic well-being of children in the United Sates. To do so, she developed a measure of income inadequacy (poverty thresholds) for families to compare the well-being of children in families of different size and composition. This was initially done in Orshansky (1963), and further refined in Orshansky (1965). Her poverty thresholds became the official poverty thresholds, which have not changed much since then, though they are adjusted for price changes (Citro and Michael; Fisher; Ruggles). Poverty thresholds were presented as a measure of income inadequacy. In her words, "if it is not possible to state unequivocally how much is enough, it should be possible to assert with confidence how much, on an average, is too little," she goes on to note that such poverty thresholds may be "arbitrary, but not unreasonable" (Orshansky 1965). They are meant to be appropriate for the cultural setting in which they are used. The poverty thresholds are built on two empirical findings from food consumption research at USDA. First, she made use of the 1962 Economy Food
Measuring Poverty in the United States
2008
This fact sheet discusses how the U.S. government measures poverty, why the current measure is inadequate, and what alternative ways exist to measure economic hardship. The U.S. government measures poverty by a narrow income standard that does not include other aspects of economic status, such as material hardship (for example, living in substandard housing) or debt, nor does it consider financial assets (including savings or property). The official poverty measure is a specific dollar amount that varies by family size but is the same across the continental U.S. According to the guidelines, the poverty level in 2008 is $21,200 a year for a family of four and $17,600 for a family of three (see table). The poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for public programs. A similar but more complex measure is used for calculating poverty rates.
Alternative Measures of Income Poverty and the Anti-Poverty Effects of Taxes and Transfers
The Census Bureau prepared a number of alternative income-based measures of poverty to illustrate the distributional impacts of several alternatives to the official measure. The paper examines five income variants for two different units of analysis (families and households) for two different assumptions about inflation (the historical Consumer Price Index and a “Research Series” alternative that uses current methods) for two different sets of thresholds (official and a formula-based alternative base on three parameters). The poverty rate effects are analyzed for the total population, the distributional effects are analyzed using poverty shares, and the anti-poverty effects of taxes and transfers are analyzed using a percentage reduction in poverty rates. Suggestions for future research are included.
The Mismeasure of Poverty
Policy Review, 2006
FOR WELL OVER a century, with ever-expanding scale and scope, the United States government has been generating statistics that might illuminate the plight of society's poorest and most vulnerable elements. From the beginning, the express objective of such efforts has always been to abet purposeful action to protect the weak, better the condition of the needy, and progressively enhance the general weal. America's official quest to describe the circumstances of the disadvantaged in quantitative terms began in the 1870s and the 1880s, with the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the initial efforts to compile systematic information on cost-of-living, wages, and employment conditions for urban working households in the United States. 1 U.S. statistical capabilities for describing the material well-being of the nation's population through numbers have developed greatly since then. Today the United States government regularly compiles hundreds upon hundreds of social and economic indicators that bear on poverty or progress on the domestic scene. Within that now-vast compendium, however, one number on deprivation and need in modern America is unquestionably more important than any of the others-and has been so regarded for the past four decades. This is what is commonly known as the "poverty rate" (the informal locution for the much more technical mouthful "the incidence of poverty as estimated against the federal poverty measure.") First unveiled in early 1965, shortly after the launch of the Johnson administration's "War on Poverty," the poverty rate is a measure identifying households with incomes falling below an official "poverty threshold" (levels based on that household's size and composition, devised to be fixed and unchanging over time). Almost immediately, this calculated federal poverty measure was accorded a special significance in the national conversation on the U.S. poverty situation and in policymakers' responses to the problem. Just months after its debut-in May 1965-the War on Poverty's new Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) designated the measure as its unofficial "working definition" of poverty. By August 1969, the Bureau of the Budget had stipulated that the poverty thresholds used in calculating American poverty rates would constitute the federal government's official statistical definition for poverty. It has remained so ever since. 2 The authority and credibility that the official poverty rate (OPR) enjoys as a specially telling indicator of American domestic want is revealed in its unique official treatment. The OPR is regularly calculated not only for the country as a whole, but for every locality down to the county level and beyond-on to the level of the school district. (It is even available at the level of the census tract: enumerative designations that demarcate the nation into subdivisions of as few as one thousand residents.) Furthermore, U.S. government antipoverty spending has come to be calibrated against, and made contingent upon, this particular measure. Everywhere in America today, eligibility for means-tested public benefits depends on the relationship between a household's income and the apposite poverty threshold. In Fiscal Year 2002 (the latest period for which such figures are readily available), perhaps $300 billion in public funds were allocated directly against the criterion of the "poverty guideline" (the Department of Health and Human Services' version of poverty thresholds). 3 The poverty rate currently also conditions many billions of dollars of additional public spending not directly earmarked for anti-poverty programs: for example, as a component in the complex formulae through which community grants (what used to be called "revenue sharing") dispense funds to local communities.
Reconstructing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to More Effectively Alleviate Food Insecurity in the United States
RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences
cr a ig gundersen, br en t K r eider, a nd John v. pepper Although the central objective of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is to reduce food insecurity in the United States, the majority of SNAP households are food insecure. Higher benefits may lead these households to food security. To evaluate this possibility, we use a question from the Current Population Survey that asks respondents how much additional money they would need to be food secure. Food insecure SNAP households report needing an average of about $42 per week to become food secure. Under a set of assumptions about the measurement of benefits and behavioral responses, we find that an increase in weekly
The Food Stamp Program and Food Insufficiency
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2001
A major goal of the Food Stamp Program is to provide access to a nutritious diet for lowincome households. One requirement in fulfilling this goal is that households have enough food to eat, i.e. that they are food sufficient. An important question in any comprehensive evaluation of the Food Stamp Program is then: How well does it help alleviate food insufficiency? In this paper, we provide a preliminary answer by econometrically estimating the influence of food stamps on the probability of self-assessed food insufficiency for households eligible for the program.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.