Norm Sensitive Multidimensional Measurement of Deprivation
Debabrata Pal & Aparajay
What the paper says
In the measurement of multidimensional deprivation, dimensions of deprivation are often weighted by people using either their own implicit value judgements or data-based statistical methods. Each of these methods has limitations. The weights based on implicit value judgements leave no scope for any reason-based public scrutiny so that, over time, a consensus may develop over a set of value judgements on which the weighting of dimensions ought to be based. The data-based statistical methods also seem to be inadequate as they ignore the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, whereby what ‘ought’ to be cannot be derived from what ‘is’. In this paper, we argue for an approach to determining the weights of the dimensions of deprivation based on normative judgements. We adopt clearly spelt-out, norm-based weighting. The dimensions of deprivation in our analysis are categorized into basic and non-basic dimensions based on human rights and the hierarchy of needs theory. The basic dimensions of deprivation are given more weight than the non-basic dimensions of deprivation. We construct a class of norm-sensitive deprivation indices based on Jayaraj and Subramanian (2010) index that falls in the similar axiomatized group of indices of Chakravarty and D’Ambrosio (2006) . We provide some applications of these indices using India’s National Family Health Surveys. We observe certain significant changes in the deprivation ranking of the Indian states as compared to the other methods followed in the literature. JEL Classifications: D63, I31, I32
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.