Welfare Measurement and Poverty Targeting Based on Participatory Wealth Rankings

Martin Wiegand
{"title":"Welfare Measurement and Poverty Targeting Based on Participatory Wealth Rankings","authors":"Martin Wiegand","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3756257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Participatory wealth rankings (PWRs) present an inclusive and inexpensive targeting method to identify poor households. They tend to be well received by participants but point to a systematically different understanding of welfare than implied by consumption-based rankings. This suggests that PWRs could be used as the basis for alternative welfare measures that aim to reflect local perceptions of poverty. This paper demonstrates how such a measure can be constructed, using data from a field experiment on poverty targeting in Indonesia. It then explores the potential impact of using this welfare measure as targeting goal on participants’ and village leaders’ satisfaction. I find that higher targeting accuracy—using the PWR-based measure as benchmark—increases satisfaction with the program. However, after controlling for targeting accuracy, the PWR does not lead to discernibly higher satisfaction than a proxy means targeting mechanism. The PWRs thus seem to be appreciated for their resulting allocations rather than valued intrinsically. I also find that targeting accuracy explains satisfaction outcomes better when it is measured against PWR-based welfare rather than predicted consumption. This holds true even for communities where no actual PWRs had been conducted. The results suggest that the information contained in PWRs can be used as a meaningful basis for targeting and poverty measurement.<br>","PeriodicalId":410371,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Microeconomics: Welfare Economics & Collective Decision-Making (Topic)","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other Microeconomics: Welfare Economics & Collective Decision-Making (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3756257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Participatory wealth rankings (PWRs) present an inclusive and inexpensive targeting method to identify poor households. They tend to be well received by participants but point to a systematically different understanding of welfare than implied by consumption-based rankings. This suggests that PWRs could be used as the basis for alternative welfare measures that aim to reflect local perceptions of poverty. This paper demonstrates how such a measure can be constructed, using data from a field experiment on poverty targeting in Indonesia. It then explores the potential impact of using this welfare measure as targeting goal on participants’ and village leaders’ satisfaction. I find that higher targeting accuracy—using the PWR-based measure as benchmark—increases satisfaction with the program. However, after controlling for targeting accuracy, the PWR does not lead to discernibly higher satisfaction than a proxy means targeting mechanism. The PWRs thus seem to be appreciated for their resulting allocations rather than valued intrinsically. I also find that targeting accuracy explains satisfaction outcomes better when it is measured against PWR-based welfare rather than predicted consumption. This holds true even for communities where no actual PWRs had been conducted. The results suggest that the information contained in PWRs can be used as a meaningful basis for targeting and poverty measurement.
基于参与式财富排名的福利衡量与贫困定位
参与式财富排名(PWRs)提供了一种包容性和廉价的确定贫困家庭的目标方法。它们往往受到参与者的欢迎,但与基于消费的排名所暗示的不同,它们表明了对福利的系统性不同理解。这表明,pwr可用作旨在反映当地贫困观念的其他福利措施的基础。本文利用印度尼西亚一项针对贫困目标的实地实验的数据,展示了如何构建这样一种措施。然后探讨了将这一福利措施作为目标目标对参与者和村领导满意度的潜在影响。我发现更高的目标准确性——使用基于pwr的度量作为基准——提高了对程序的满意度。然而,在控制了瞄准精度之后,PWR并不比代理手段瞄准机制带来明显更高的满意度。因此,压水堆似乎因其结果分配而受到赞赏,而不是因其本身而受到重视。我还发现,当以基于pwr的福利而不是预测消费来衡量时,目标准确性更好地解释了满意度结果。这甚至适用于没有实际进行压水堆的社区。结果表明,PWRs中包含的信息可以作为确定目标和衡量贫困的有意义的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信