Poverty Measures and Anti-Poverty Policy

[Excerpt] Amartya Sen has made fundamental contributions to the study of distributional aspects of economic growth and decline. Among his pathbreaking works are his lectures on the economics of inequality (Sen, 1973), his article on the axiomatics of poverty measurement (Sen, 1976), and his book on anti-poverty policy in the context of famines (Sen, 1981). This paper is concerned with one of these areas, namely, the measurement of poverty and the implications for anti-poverty policy. In the 1960\u27s and 1970\u27s those who were working in the poverty field held a number of somewhat incompletely articulated views as to the extent of poverty in an economy. One was the judgment that a country is poorer the larger is the number or fraction of its people below an agreed-upon poverty standard. Second, the severity of poverty depends on how poor the poor are. As formulated then, the larger is the average income shortfall among the poor, the more severe is poverty. Thirdly, it was recognized that some of the poor are poorer than others, and the extent of poverty should also depend on the distribution of income among the poor

Columbus and Franklin County Poverty Profile

Using census data, CRP looked at poverty in Columbus and Franklin County. We examined the overall increase in poverty, the people in poverty, and where those people are living. Between 1970 and 2006, the number of persons in poverty in Franklin County grew at more than triple the rate of overall population growth. In 2006, one in three county residents had incomes below the self-sufficiency level of 200% of poverty. Over 40% of female-headed families with young children lived in poverty, while only about 4% of married couple families were poor. In 2006, Franklin County's black or African American population had a poverty rate nearly three times that for the white population. The Hispanic population had poverty over twice the rate of the white population. The poverty rate of Older Columbus was nearly three times that of Newer Columbus and almost five times suburban Franklin County; however, poverty is becoming much more dispersed. In 2000, the majority of Franklin County's poverty population (51%) lived outside of Older Columbus, compared to only 30% in 1970

Prosperity Threatened: Perspectives on Childhood Poverty in California

By the official measure, 6.1 million Californians are living in poverty -- more than at any point since the US Census started tracking state poverty. California has the highest sheer number of people living in poverty of any state in the nation and is ranked 20th among all states in terms of the percentage of its population living in official poverty. Yet, even more alarming, using the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM) developed by the Census Bureau, the poverty rate in California vaults to the first in the nation at 23.5 percent. Only Hawaii and the District of Columbia come close to matching the rate of poverty in the state. On closer inspection, the situation becomes grimmer: California's children are by far the biggest victims of increased poverty. More than one in five children in California lives in poverty; nearly half live either in poverty or perilously close to it. And, in a surprising twist, children live in poverty at twice the rate of seniors in the state. This is concerning not only due to the immediate effects of income deprivation, such as decreased health outcomes, but also because poverty is mobile across generations. According to a recent study from Columbia University's National Center for Children in poverty, 45 percent of people who spent half their childhoods in poverty were also poor as adults

Exploring poverty gaps among children in the UK

"The purpose of this paper is to use poverty gap analysis to explore the depth of poverty experienced by children of low-income families in the UK. Measures set out in the Child Poverty Act1 and in the National Child Poverty Strategy2 are based on poverty headcounts, i.e. you are either below or above a certain poverty threshold. The most commonly used measure is the 60 per cent relative poverty measure, defined as individuals living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the median income. The National Strategy, published in April 2011, introduces a new measure on severe poverty, defined as individuals living in households experiencing material deprivation and with incomes below 50 per cent of the median income. The head count does not distinguish between those with incomes just below the poverty line and those deeper in poverty. Policies which improve incomes for those at the bottom of the income distribution will not lead to a fall in measured income poverty, unless incomes are raised sufficiently to cross the chosen poverty threshold, and yet reducing these families’ depth of poverty is highly likely to improve living standards. This paper supplements the headcount measures with analysis of the ‘poverty gap’ for UK children. The poverty gap measures ‘How poor are the poor’ i.e. the extent of poverty for those who are below the relative poverty threshold. With this measure, an improvement in incomes for those in poverty which is not sufficient for them to escape poverty, is nevertheless captured as a drop in measured poverty. In practice, for each poor individual we measure the poverty gap by calculating the shortfall in their income from the poverty line, and expressing this as a percentage of the poverty line. For example, if the poverty line was 100 and the income was 25 then the poverty gap would be 75 per cent (100 minus 25 equals 75; 75 divided by 100 is 75 per cent). A poverty gap of 75 per cent can be interpreted as an income that is 75 per cent below the poverty line" - page 1

US poverty studies and poverty measurement: the past twenty-five years

This paper discusses the contribution made by American social scientists to the study of poverty in the past twenty five years. It has three parts. The first concentrates on the measurement of poverty and the fact that the US poverty line remained unchanged in that period despite its increasingly important deficiencies. Proposals to produce a revised poverty line and an Annual Poverty Report are advanced. The second part traces the change of emphasis in US writing about poverty both in terms of academic emphasis and prescription. The final part considers the policy impact of American work on poverty policy beyond America. This paper has been published as: "US Poverty Studies and Poverty Measurement: The past twenty-five years", Social Service Review, March 200

Timing of poverty in childhood and adolescent health: Evidence from the US and UK

Childhood poverty is associated with poorer adolescent health and health behaviours, but the importance of the timing of poverty remains unclear. There may be critical or sensitive periods in early life or early adolescence, or poverty may have cumulative effects throughout childhood. Understanding when poverty is most important can support efficient timing of interventions to raise family income or buffer against the effects of low income, but answers may vary across social contexts. The US and the UK are a useful comparison with similar liberal approaches to cash transfers, but very different approaches to healthcare provision. Utilising data from large population studies in the US (n = 9408; born 1979–1996) and UK (n = 1204; born 1991–1997), this study employs a structured life course approach to compare competing hypotheses about the importance of the timing or pattern of childhood exposure to poverty in predicting adolescent health limitations, symptoms of psychiatric distress, and smoking at age 16 (age 15/16 in US). Household income histories identified experience of poverty (measured as <60% of the national median equivalised income for a given year) in early life (ages 0–5), mid-childhood (ages 6–10) and early adolescence (ages 11–15). The Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) compared fit across models with variables representing different life course patterns of exposure to poverty. Adolescent distress was not associated with poverty in either country. In both countries, however, variables representing cumulative or persistent experiences of poverty exhibited optimal fit of all poverty exposure variables in predicting adolescent smoking and health limitations. There was also evidence of an early life sensitive period for smoking in the US. Poverty was more persistent in the US, but associations between poverty and outcomes were consistent across countries. Although poverty can have cumulative effects on health and behaviour, early interventions may offer the best long-term protection

Poverty Matters: It's Now 50/50, Chicago Region Poverty Growth is a Suburban Story

Nationwide, the number of people in poverty in the suburbs has now surpassed the number of people in poverty in central cities. Cities have long been thought to be home to the most and worst poverty. However, in the past several decades, the suburbs have experienced the greatest growth in poverty. In this brief, the Social IMPACT Research Center examines the distribution of poverty in Chicago and the suburbs over two decades. The findings suggest that from 1990 to 2011, poverty grew much more in the suburbs than in Chicago, and consequently, poverty became more equally distributed between Chicago and the suburbs

The government's child poverty target: how much progress has been made?

Before the 2001 election the Treasury said that `tax and benefit reforms announced in this Parliament will lift over 1.2 million children out of relative poverty'. But official figures released on 11 April show a smaller fall in child poverty, of only 0.5 million since 1996-97. This commentary attempts to explain the discrepancy. Using the data that lie behind the official Households Below Average Income publications, we analyse trend in child poverty, measured against various poverty lines, since 1979. We show how the government's choice of a relative poverty line is making its goal to abolish child poverty more difficult and more expensive. We also discuss how easy the government will find it to make further reductions in child poverty

Who is Living in Poverty and Why?

In thinking about poverty, it is common to focus on those places and populations where the poverty rate is the highest, where poverty is the most concentrated and visible. Thus, many associate poverty with inner city residents, people of color, high school drop-outs, never-married mothers, and people without jobs – all of whom suffer from disproportionately high rates of poverty. There are both good and bad reasons to focus attention on these groups, but it is important to remember the big picture as well. What is most typical among the 39 million people living in poverty in the United States

A Modern Framework for Measuring Poverty and Basic Economic Security

This report details how the dominant framework for understanding and measuring poverty in the United States has become a conservative one. The current U.S. approach to measuring poverty views poverty only in terms of having an extremely low level of annual income, and utilizes poverty thresholds that are adjusted only for inflation rather than for changes in overall living standards. As a result, the official poverty measure has effectively defined deprivation down over the last four decades, moving it further and further away from mainstream living standards over time, as well as from majority public opinion of the minimum amount needed to "get along" at a basic level. A new Supplemental Income Poverty Measure (SIPM) proposed by the Obama administration makes some important improvements to the current poverty measure. However, the SIPM remains a conservative approach that appears likely to lock in the poverty line at an extremely low level. This report proposes a new framework for measuring poverty and basic economic security in the United States. Instead of being limited to the "extremely-low-income-only" approach the current poverty line and administration's proposed Supplemental Income Poverty Measure (SIPM) represent, this framework should utilize measures of low income and other forms of economic hardship related to low income