June 14, 2013
By: Florent Bresson (LEO – Laboratoire d’économie d’Orleans – CNRS : UMR7322 – Université d’Orléans)
Jean-Yves Duclos (CIRPEE – Université de Laval, Department of Economics – Université de Laval)
The paper deals with poverty orderings when the value of multidimensional attributes can be compared on a same scale, such as with income of different types or from different members of the same household. The dominance criteria extend the power of earlier multidimensional dominance tests (see Duclos et al. 2006) by making (reasonable) assumptions on the relative marginal contributions of each dimensional attribute to poverty. The paper focuses on an important special case of this, that is comparisons of poverty over time. In contrast to earlier work on intertemporal poverty comparisons, this paper proposes procedures to check for whether poverty comparisons can be made robust to wide classes of aggregation procedures and to broad areas of intertemporal poverty frontiers.
Keywords: Poverty comparisons, intertemporal well-being, stochastic dominance, multidimensional poverty, intra-household inequalities.
June 14, 2013
By: Marx, Ive (University of Antwerp)
Salanauskaite, Lina (University of Antwerp)
Verbist, Gerlinde (University of Antwerp)
There is a long-standing controversy over the question of whether targeting social transfers towards the bottom part of the income distribution actually enhances or weakens their redistributive impact. Korpi and Palme have influentially claimed that “the more we target benefits at the poor, the less likely we are to reduce poverty and inequality”. The basic empirical underpinning of this claim is a strong inverse relationship at the country level between social transfer targeting and redistributive impact. We show that this no longer holds as a robust empirical generalisation. The relationship between the extent of targeting and redistributive impact over a broad set of empirical specifications, country selections and data sources has in fact become a very weak one. For what it matters, targeting tends to be associated with higher levels of redistribution, especially when overall effort in terms of spending is high. We t! ry to make substantive sense of this breakdown of the originally established relationship by focusing on two questions: first, what has changed in the countries originally included in the study and, second, what is different about the countries now additionally included in the analysis?
Keywords: targeting, tax benefit policies, redistribution, inequality