Answer:
Approach:
- Introduction: Present the idea of the National Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) as a new-age, holistic measure of poverty, emphasizing the paradigm shift from traditional metrics.
- Body:
- Highlight the MPI’s broader scope of poverty estimation that transcends mere income metrics.
- Emphasise the holistic approach of the MPI using distinct dimensions and indicators, citing specific examples.
- Discuss its role as a complementary tool to existing poverty measurements.
- Compare the multi-dimensional focus of MPI versus the single-dimension concentration of conventional metrics.
- Address the intensity of deprivation and its distinction in the MPI.
- Discuss the practical implications and policy relevance that MPI brings to the table with specific examples.
- Conclusion: Conclude, reinforcing the value of MPI as a comprehensive tool for poverty assessment, and highlighting its significance in policy-making and strategic planning.
|
Introduction:
The National Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) reflects a paradigm shift in poverty estimation. Instead of merely focusing on income or consumption, it incorporates multiple facets of deprivation that people may experience.
Body:
Core Objectives of the National Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI):
- Comprehensive Poverty Estimation:
- Objective: Measure Poverty across its multiple dimensions rather than relying solely on income or consumption.
- For example, unlike traditional methods, which might label a family as non-poor based on income alone, the MPI could still identify them as poor if they lack access to clean water, education, or healthcare.
- Holistic Approach:
- Dimensions and Indicators: MPI comprises three equally weighted dimensions – Health, Education, and Standard of Living, broken down further into 12 indicators like nutrition, electricity, housing, and more.
- For instance, A family might have a good standard of living but might suffer from poor health due to malnutrition, and this would be captured by the MPI.
- Complementary Tool to Existing Metrics:
- Objective: Offer a broader perspective and complement existing poverty statistics based on per capita consumption expenditure.
How MPI Differs from Traditional Measures?
- Multiple Dimensions vs Single Dimension:
- Traditional Measures: Typically focus on income or consumption as the sole metric.
- MPI: Considers Health, Education, and Standard of Living as interconnected facets of poverty.
- Capturing Intensity of Deprivation:
- Traditional Measures: Generally focus on the proportion of poor in the population.
- MPI: Also captures the intensity of deprivation. For example, India’s intensity of poverty reduced from 47% to 44% between 2015-16 and 2019-21.
- Acknowledging Varied Aspects of Deprivation:
- Traditional Measures: Might overlook deprivations in areas like sanitation or access to clean cooking fuel.
- MPI: Showcases improvements in specific indicators, like the 14.6% improvement in cooking fuel deprivations, attributable to the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana.
- Policy Relevance:
- Traditional Measures: May not provide actionable insights across varied sectors.
- MPI: Directly aligns with policy impacts, such as the influence of the Swachh Bharat Mission resulting in a 21.8% points improvement in sanitation deprivations.
Conclusion:
While traditional poverty measures have their value, the MPI offers a more intricate and comprehensive picture of poverty by incorporating multiple dimensions. This approach not only provides a nuanced understanding of poverty but also aligns well with policy implications, thereby assisting in drafting more effective anti-poverty strategies.
To get PDF version, Please click on "Print PDF" button.
August 12, 2023
8
Latest Comments