Answer:

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.

DOWNLOAD PDF