Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:53:41.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Les mesures monétaires et directes de la pauvreté sont-elles substituables? Investigations sur base de la courbe du ROC1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Alessio Fusco
Alessio Fusco*
Affiliation:
CEPS/INSTEAD – Luxembourg, CEMAFI – Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis
Get access

Résumé

L'utilité pratique des approches non monétaires de la pauvreté est interrogée sur base de l'étude du degré de recoupement entre mesures directes et mesure monétaire de ce concept. L'utilisation de la méthode graphique de la courbe du Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) permet, contrairement à l'approche généralement utilisée, d'évaluer ce degré de recoupement indépendamment du seuil de privation utilisé. L'application de cette méthode aux données du Panel Communautaire des Ménages confirme l'aboutissement de nombreux travaux, à savoir que les résultats issus de ces deux approches se recoupent, mais de manière imparfaite. Dès lors, c'est le caractère complémentaire, plutôt que celui substituable de ces deux mesures qui prévaut. Un tel résultat plaide donc pour un approfondissement de la recherche sur les méthodes directes de mesure de la pauvreté, et ce en vue de compléter l'approche monétaire largement utilisée.

Summary

Summary

The practical utility of the non monetary approaches of poverty is assessed on the basis of the study of the overlap between income and direct outcome measures of poverty. The use of the graphic method of the curve of the Receiver Operating Characteristics allows, contrary to the approach traditionally used, to assess the degree of overlap independently of the threshold of deprivation. The application of this methodology to the data of the European Community Household Panel shows a significant discrepancy between these approaches, hence advocating for a complementary, rather than substitutable, use of these approaches and for further research on the methods of measurement of multidimensional poverty.

Keywords

Pauvreté monétairePrivation MatérielleReceiver Operating CharacteristicI32Income povertyMaterial DeprivationReceiver Operating CharacteristicI32
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 369 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

2

Centre d'Etudes de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-Economiques/International Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives, Development (CEPS/INSTEAD), B.P. 48, L-4501 Differdange, Luxembourg. E-mail: [email protected]

1

Je souhaite remercier Philippe Van Kerm, Claude Berthomieu, Vincent Dautel, Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti, Sally Bould et deux rapporteurs anonymes pour leurs commentaires et suggestions ainsi que les participants à la conférence EPUNet 2006 et aux 10èmes rencontres euro-mèditerranèennes pour leurs remarques concernant une version anglaise de cet article. Je conserve bien entendu la responsabilité des erreurs ou lacunes de cette contribution.

References

Bibliographie

Alcockj, P. (2006). Understanding Poverty, Third edition, London : Palgrave Mac-millan.Google Scholar
Atkinson, T., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E. et Nolan, B. (2002). Social Indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion, Oxford : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baulch, B. (2002). “Poverty monitoring and targeting using ROC curves: examples from Vietnam”, IDS Working Paper 161, Sussex : Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
Boltvinik, J. (1999). “Poverty measurement methods - an overview”, UNDP Social Development and Poverty Elimination Division, Poverty Reduction Series.Google Scholar
Bourguignon, F. et Chakravarty, S. (2003). “The measurement of multidimensional poverty”, Journal of Economic Inequality, Vol.1, p. 25–49.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. et Finch, N. (2003). “The overlap of dimensions”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol.32, n°4, p. 513–525.Google Scholar
Brandolini, A. et D’Alessio, G. (1998). “Measuring well-being in the functioning space”, mimeo, Roma : Banca d’Italia.Google Scholar
Cerioli, A. et Zani, S. (1990). “A Fuzzy Approach to the Measurement of Poverty”, in : Dagum, C. et Zenga, M. (éds), Income and Wealth Distribution, Inequality and Poverty, Berlin Heidelberg : Springer-Verlag, p. 272–284.Google Scholar
Chakravarty, S.R., Mukherjee, D. et Ranade, R.R. (1998). “On the family of subgroup and factor decomposable measures of multidimensional poverty”, in Slottje, D.J. (ed.), Research on Economic Inequality, Stanford, CT and London : JAI Press, Vol. 8, p. 175–194.Google Scholar
Cheli, B. et Lemmi, A. (1995). “A Totally Fuzzy and Relative Approach to the Mul-tidimensional Analysis of Poverty”, Economic Notes Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Vol. 24, n°l, pp.115–134.Google Scholar
ChiapperoMartinetti, E. Martinetti, E. (2000). “A Multidimensional Assessment of Well-Being Based on Sen's Functioning Approach”, Società Italiana di Economia Publica Working Paper, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, n°2, 38 p.Google Scholar
Costa, M. (2003). “A Comparison Between Unidimensional and Multidimensional Approaches to the Measurement of Poverty”, IRISS Working Paper n°2003–02, Luxembourg : CEPS/INSTEAD.Google Scholar
Cowell, F. et Victoria-Feser, M.-P. (2006). “Distributional dominance with trimmed data”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol. 24, n°3, pp.291–300.Google Scholar
Dekkers, G. (2003). “Financial and Multidimensional Poverty in European Countries: Can the Former be Used as a Proxy of the Latter?”, IRISS Working Paper n° 2003–13, Luxembourg : CEPS/INSTEAD.Google Scholar
Delhausse, B. et Sluse, M. (2004). « La Dynamique de la Privation relative », in Doutrelepont, R., Mortelmans, D. et Casman, M-T. (eds), Onze ans de vie en Belgique. Analyses socioéconomiques à partir du Panel Démographique Familiale, Gent : Academia Press, pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
Desai, M. et Shah, A. (1988). “An econometric approach to the measurement of poverty”, Oxford Economic Papers, n°40, p. 505–522.Google Scholar
Deutsch, J. et Silber, J. (2005). “Measuring Multidimensional Poverty: An Empirical Comparison of Various Approaches”, Review of Income and Wealth, Series 51, n° 1, March, p. 145–174.Google Scholar
Dewilde, C. (2004). “The Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty in Belgium and Britain: A Categorical Approach”, Social Indicators Research, n° 68, p. 331–369.Google Scholar
Dickes, P. (1989). « Pauvreté et Conditions d’Existence. Théories, modèles et mesures », Document PSELL n°8, Luxembourg : CEPS/INSTEAD.Google Scholar
Efron, B. et Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap, New-York : Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Eurostat (1996). “The European Community Household Panel (ECHP): Survey methodology and Implementation - Volume 1”, Luxembourg : OPOCE.Google Scholar
Eurostat (2002), « Deuxième rapport sur le revenu, la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale », Statistiques sociales européennes, Luxembourg : OPOCE.Google Scholar
Fall, M. et Verger, D. (2005). « Pauvreté relative et conditions de vie en France », Economie et Statistique, n°383–384–385, p. 91–107.Google Scholar
Fischer, I.E., Bachmann, L.M. et Jaeschke, R. (2003). “A readers’ guide to the inter-pretation of diagnosis test properties: clinical example of sepsis”, Intens Care Med, Vol. 29, n° 7, p. 1043–51.Google Scholar
Fusco, A. (2007). La Pauvreté, Un Concept Multidimensional, Paris : Harmattan.Google Scholar
Fusco, A. (2005), La Contribution des Analyses Multidimensionnelles à la Compré-hension et à la Mesure du Concept de Pauvreté : Application Empirique au Panel Communautaire des Ménages, thèse en français pour l’obtention du Doctorat en Sciences Economiques, Nice : Université de Nice- Sophia Antipolis.Google Scholar
Guio, A.-C. (2005). “La privation matérielle dans l’UE”, Statistiques en bref n°21/ 2005, Luxembourg : EUROSTAT.Google Scholar
Hanley, J.A. et McNeil, B. (1982). “The meaning and use of the Area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve”, Radiology, Vol.143, n°l, pp.29–36.Google Scholar
Hsieh, F. et Turnbull, B.W. (1996). “Nonparametric and semiparametric estimation of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve”, The Annals of Statistics, Vol.24, n°l, p. 25–40.Google Scholar
Kakwani, N. et Silber, J. (eds) (2008a). Many Dimensions of Poverty, Houndmills : Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kakwani, N. et Silber, J. (eds) (2008b). Quantitative Approaches To Multidimensional Poverty Measurement, Houndmills : Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Klasen, S. (2000). “Measuring poverty and deprivation in South Africa”, Review of Income and Wealth, series 46, n°l, p. 33–58.Google Scholar
Kuklys, W. (2005). Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Applications, Berlin : Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Lachaud, J.-P. (1999), « Le différentiel spatial de pauvreté au Burkina Faso : ‘capa-bilities’ versus dépenses », Document de travail n°36, CED, Université Mon-tesquieu-Bordeaux IV.Google Scholar
Lachaud, J.-P. (2000). « Dépenses des ménages, développement humain et pauvreté au Burkina Faso : substitution ou complémentarité ? », Document de travail n°49, CED, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV.Google Scholar
Layte, R., Maître, B., Nolan, B. et Whelan, C.T. (2001). “Persistent and consistent poverty in the 1994 and 1995 waves of the European Community Household Panel”, Review of Income and Wealth, Series 47, n°4, p. 427–449.Google Scholar
Lollivier, S. et Verger, D. (1997). « Pauvreté d’existence, monétaire ou subjective sont distinctes », Economie et statistique, N° 308/309/310, p. 113–142.Google Scholar
Mack, J. et Lansley, S. (1985). Poor Britain, London : Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Marlier, E., Atkinson, A.B., Cantillon, B. et Nolan, B. (2007). The EU and social inclusion: Facing the challenges, Bristol : Policy Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, B et Whelan, C.T. (1996). Resources, Deprivation and Poverty, Oxford : Oxford University Press Google Scholar
Osmani, S.R. (2005). “Poverty and Human Rights”, Journal of Human Development, Vol. 6, n° 2, July.Google Scholar
Peracchi, F. (2002). “The European Community Household Panel: A review”, Empi-rical Economics, Springer-Verlag, n°27, p. 63–90.Google Scholar
Pepe, M.S. (2000). “Receiver Operating Characteristic Methodology”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 95, n° 449, p. 308–11.Google Scholar
Perry, B. (2002). “The mismatch between income measures and direct outcome measures of poverty”, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 19, December, p. 101–127.Google Scholar
Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement (PNUD) (1997). Rapport Mondial sur le développement humain, Paris : Economica.Google Scholar
Ravallion, M. (1992). “Poverty Comparisons: A Guide To Concepts And Methods”, LSMS Working Paper n°88, Feb., World Bank.Google Scholar
Ringen, S. (1987). The Possibility of Politics, Oxford : Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ringen, S. (1988). “Direct and indirect measures of poverty”, Journal of Social Policy, 17, p. 351–66.Google Scholar
Runciman, W.G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, London : Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1979). “Issues in the Measurement of Poverty”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, n°81, p. 285–307.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1985). Commodities and capabilities, Oxford : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tape, T.G. (1999). “Interpreting Diagnosis Tests, Technical Report”, University of Nebraska Medical Center. Version disponible à l’adresse http://gim.unmc.edu/dxtests/Default.htm.Google Scholar
Thorbecke, E. (2008). “Multidimensional Poverty: Conceptual and Measurement Issues”, in : Kakwani, N. et Silber, J. (eds), Many Dimensions of Poverty, Houdnmills : Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom, Hardmonsworth : Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Tsakloglou, P. et Papadopoulos, F. (2002). “Aggregate level and determining factors of social exclusion in twelve European countries”, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 12, n°3, p. 211–225.Google Scholar
Van Kerm, P.(2003). “An anatomy of household income volatility in European countries”, CHER Working Paper n°16, Luxembourg : CEPS/INSTEAD.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B et Ferrer-I-Carbonell, A. (2008). “The Subjective Approach to Multi-dimensional Poverty Measurement”, in : Kakwani, N. et Silber, J. (eds), Quantitative Approaches To Multidimensional Poverty Measurement, Houndmills : Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Whelan, C.T., Layte, R. et Maître, B. (2004). “Understanding the mismatch between income poverty and deprivation: a dynamic comparative analysis”, European Sociological Review, Vol. 20, n°4, p. 287–302.Google Scholar
Whelan, C.T. et Maître, B. (2006). “Comparing Poverty and deprivation dynamics: issues of reliability and validity”, Journal of Economic Inequality, Vol. 4, n°3, p. 303–323.Google Scholar
Wodon, Q.T. (1997). “Targeting the poor using ROC curves”, World Development, Vol. 25, n°12, p. 2083–2092.Google Scholar