Identify the temporal time pereferences on multidimensional poverty

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• AMIR ARYANA ¹
• mohsen zayanderoody ²
• Sayyed Abdolmajid Jalaee Esfandabadi ³

¹ Ph. D Student of Economics, Department of Economics, Islamic Azad University of Kerman

² Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Islamic Azad University of Kerman

³ Professor, Department of University of bahonar kerman

https://doi.org/10.22067/erd.2021.70272.1043

Abstract

 
1- INTRODUCTION
  Multidimensional poverty based on Alkire & Foster indexses is health indicator, education indicator, standard of living indicator. Preferences is the resaons of people for Decision-making is divided into trust, risks, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity. This research introduces the temporal time preferences and its influences on multidimensional poverty. Two stages used in the research method, the first multidimensional poverty measuring and the second identify the preferences on multidimensional poverty. Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) in MATLAB software used to examine the effects of this. The results show that altruism has a greater effect on multidimensional poverty than other variables and the next are, positive and negative reciprocity, trust and risks.
 
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this paper, Alkire & Foster's method is used to measure multidimensional poverty. This method has been used in regional and international studies of multidimensional poverty. Preferences in this article are time preferences. Superior preferences are defined in terms of individual preferences at the time of decision. Initially, for measuring multidimensional poverty using the the adaptive neuro fuzzy inference systems and then investigate the influence of preferences on multidimensional poverty. The Alkir & Foster's method is flexibly tested to measure multidimensional poverty in various dimensions of income, living standards, education, health and wellness, as well as superior time preferences. In this research, capability approach of sen uses for selective parameters that are compatible with the selection of dimension factors, deprivation indices for dimensions, size dimensions and weights for each dimension are used. All of the above is achieved by gathering information from the target areas.
 
3- METHODOLOGY
   The data used in this study were collected through the distribution of questionnaires in marginal areas in Mashhad. According to the definition of age of poverty, the first stage of which is to find society and poor people, refer to the areas of Qala-e-Sakhtman, Golshahr, Cement Road and North Tabarsi, which are less developed and underdeveloped areas on the outskirts of Mashhad. Considering the annual income of individuals in 1398, which is 15,170,000 Rials per month and 182,040,000 Rials per year, individuals with less than the minimum selection rights and a multidimensional poverty questionnaire were selected, if they were satisfied.
 500 questionnaires were distributed among the target regions. The multidimensional poverty questionnaire was designed using multidimensional poverty indicators in articles and the standard multidimensional poverty questionnaire (Alkir & Foster) and in order to assess the effect of superior time preferences, preference indices were added. Questionnaires were distributed in two stages. The first stage identified multidimensional poverty by distributing questionnaires among low-income peoples and the second stage provided preference identification questionnaires among middle-income people and then completed multidimensional poverty questionnaires and the effect of preferences on the dimensions of multidimensional poverty using It is determined by the options. In this study, the variables of education, living standards, health and hygiene for multidimensional poverty and the variables of temporal trust, temporal risk, temporal altruism, positive and negative temporal interaction, are used for superior temporal preferences. The selected variables for multidimensional poverty are selected from the Alkir & Foster questionnaire and the preference variables are selected according to the questionnaire designed by the global site of preferences. In selecting areas, the level of deprivation in all dimensions is considered.
 
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
 




Dimensons of
multidimensional poverty


Altruism




Positive and negative reciprocity




Trust




Risk




 
5- CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
In the previous studies, the effect of preferences on multidimensional poverty considered separately. In this paper, the effect of superior temporal preferences on multidimensional poverty was investigated using Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Multidimensional poverty is introduced in various papers with other factors of deprivation such as education, health, living standards. Preferences introduce as the reasons for people's decisions. Preferences refer to trust, risk, altruism, and positive and negative reciprocity. For the first time in this study, the superior preferences of time that the reasons for the decision of the person outside the previous decisions and consider the reasons of the people at the time of the decision. Hence, temporal trust, temporal risk, temporal altruism, and positive and negative temporal interaction occur at the moment of a person's decision, and in the past, the effect of this preference has rarely existed. The reason for this is related to the individual's decision-making conditions at the time of the decision. For example, a person does not trust different people, but at the moment of decision making, he trusts the reasons and circumstances. Finally, by creating an ANFIS model, we examine the preferences for each of the dimensions of multidimensional poverty and obtain the results using the best creative membership functions and rules. According to the results table of temporal altruism, temporal reciprocity, temporal trust and temporal risk are the most common reasons for people to help and have the greatest impact on the dimensions of multidimensional poverty. According to the results of the research, it is suggested that attention to multidimensional poverty and its dimensions is necessary to reduce poverty, and in this regard, the personal and social potentials of individuals such as altruism, reciprocity, trust and risk can be Used to provide information on the dimensions of deprivation.

Keywords

• multidimensional poverty
• adaptive fuzzy inferences system
• preferences

References

References

Allardt, E. (1993). Having, loving, being: an alternative to the swedish model of welfare research. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. K. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of   Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.  

Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30 (2), 181-205

Alkire & Foster. (2011a). Counting and multidimensional poverty                                         measurement. Journal of public economics, 95(7), 476-487.

Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries.

Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1997). Concepts of human development and poverty: a multidimensional perspective. human development papers, 1-19.

 

Askari, M., & M, Ghafoorzadeh, H, Journal of islamic economic studies summer-fall 2014, volume 6, Number 2 (12); Page(s) 53 To 82.

Blank, R. M. (2008). Presidential address: how to improve poverty measurement in the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(2), 233-254.

Booysen, F. (2002). An Overview and Evaluation of Composite Indices of Development. Social Indicators Research, 59 (2), 115-151.

Bourguignon, & Chakravarty. (2003). The measurement of multidimensional poverty. journal of economic inequality, 1(1), 25-49

Brandolini, A., & D'Alessio, G. (1998). Measuring well-being in the                       functioning space. mimeo. Banca d'Italia.

Cerioli, A., & Zani, S. (1990). A Fuzzy Approach to The Measurement of Poverty. In C. Dagum & M. Zenga (Eds.), Income and Wealth Distribution, Inequality and Poverty. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (2000). A multidimensional assessment of well- being based on sens functioning approach. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 2, 207-239.

Comim, F. (2001, June, 5-7). Operationalizing sen's capability approach. In The Con-ference on Justice and Poverty: Examining Sen's Capability Approach. Cambridge, U.K.

Cummins, R. A. (1996). The Domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. social indicators research, 38 (3), 303-328.

Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. New York, NY: guilford Press.

Deutsch, J., & Silber, J. (2005). Measuring multidimensional poverty: an empirical comparison of various approaches. Review of Income and Wealth, 51 (1), 145-174.

Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Duclos, J. Y., Sahn, D. E., & Younger, S. D. (2006a). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. the economic journal, 116 (514), 943-968.

Fotros M, H, Ghodsi S. Social welfare   summer 2018, volume 18, number 69; Page(s)185 To 227.

T Dohmen, A Falk, K Fliessbach, U Sunde, B Weber. Journal of public economics 95(3-4), 279-285

Esposito, L., & Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (2008). Multidimensional poverty measurement: restricted and unrestricted hierarchy among poverty dimensions (OPHI Working Papers No. 22). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Poverty and Human development Initiative.

Esfahani, H. S., & Pesaran, M. H. (2009). The iranian economy in the twentieth century: A global perspective. Iranian Studies, 42(2), 177-211.

Federman, M., & Garner, T. I. (1996). What does it mean to be poor in america? monthly labor review, 119 (5), 3.

Gasper, D. (2002). Is Sen's capability approach an adequate basis for considering human development? review of political economy, 14 (4), 435- 461.

Gillie, A. (1996). The origin of the poverty line. the economic history review, 49(4), 715-730.

Kangas, O., & Ritakallio, V.-M. (1998). Di_erent Methods - Di_erent                      Results? Approaches to multidimensional poverty. in H.-J. Andress (Ed.), mpirical poverty research in a comparative perspective (p. 167-203).   U.K.: Ashgate.

Klemisch-Ahlert, M. (1993). Freedom of choice. social choice and welfare, 10 (3), 189-207.

Klassen, S. (2000). Measuring poverty and deprivation in south africa. review of income and wealth, 46 (1), 33-58.

Lelli, S. (2001). Factor analysis vs. fuzzy sets theory: assessing the inuence of di_erent techniques on sens functioning approach (Discussion Paper).  Center of Economic Studies, K. U. Leuven.

Max-Neef, M. A. (1993). Human scale development: conception, application and further reections. New York, NY: The Apex Press.  

Narayan, D., Patel, R., Scha_t, K., Rademacher, A., & Koch-Schulte, S.                  (2000). Can Anyone Hear Us? Voces from 47 Countries (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.   

Orshansky, M. (1965). Counting the poor: another looks at the poverty                      pro_le. social security bulletin, 28 (1), 3-29.

Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. cambridge, MA: harvard university  Press.

Ravallion, M. (2011). On multidimensional indices of poverty. The Journal of economic inequality,9(2), 235-248.

Ringen, S. (1995). Well-being, measurement, and preferences. Acta Sociologica, 38 (1),3-15.          

Robeyns, I. (2005a, 28 January). The Capability Approach and Welfare                   Policies. In The Conference on Gender Auditing and Gender Budgeting. Bologna, Italy. 

Salem A, A, Abounoori E, A. YarmohamAadi J. Multidimensional approach   to measuring poverty: theoretical concepts and empirical evidence from the iranian economy from 1370 to 1392 persian calendar. 

Saith, R. (2001). Capabilities: the concept and its operationalisation (Working Papers No. 66). Oxford, UK: Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.

Sen, A. K. (1979). Issues in the measurement of poverty. the scandinavian journal of economics, 81 (2), 285-307 

Sen. (1976). Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. econometrica: journal of the econometric society, 219-231.

Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and capabilities (Vol. 7). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. 

Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality re-examined. cambridge, NY: Harvard university press.

Shirvanian A.R., Bakhshoodeh M., Mehrjoo S. Journal of agricultural    economics research   fall 2013, volume 5, Number 3 (19); Page(s) 65 To 81.

Sumner, A. (2007). Meaning versus measurement: why do ‘economic’indicators of poverty still predominate? Development in Practice, 17(1), 4-13.

Spicker, P. (1990). Charles booth: the examination of poverty. Social Policy & Administration, 24(1), 21-38.

Thorbecke, E. (2007). Multidimensional poverty: conceptual and measurement issues. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many     Dimensions of Poverty (chap. 1). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tsui, K. (2002). Multidimensional poverty indices. social choice and welfare, 19 (1), 69-93. 

Vollmer, F. (2010). Reviewing'poverty'as an object of study: Seeking a conceptual match of wellbeing with the inter-subjective understanding of ill being. Spire Journal of Law, Politics and Societies, 5(2), 67-85.

Watts, H. (1968). An economic de_nition of poverty. In D. P. Moynihan (Ed.), On Understanding Poverty (p. 316-29). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Wagle, U. (2008b). Multidimensional poverty measurement: concepts and applications. New York, NY: Springer. 

Wagle, U. (2009). Capability deprivation and income poverty in the United States, 1994 and 2004: measurement outcomes and demographic pro_les. Social Indicators Research, 94 (3), 509-533. 

Whelan, B. J. (1993). Non-monetary indicators of poverty. In J. Berghman   B. Cantillon (Eds.), The European Face of Social Security: Essays in Honour of Hermann Deleeck. Brook_eld, VT: Avebury.