Transcript Peter Lanjouw, DECPI March, 2011 Three Topics 1. Small area estimation of poverty: “Poverty Maps” 2. Comparing poverty with non-comparable data 3. Using repeated cross-sections to explore movements in and.

Peter Lanjouw, DECPI
March, 2011
Three Topics
1.
Small area estimation of poverty: “Poverty
Maps”
2.
Comparing poverty with non-comparable
data
3.
Using repeated cross-sections to explore
movements in and out of poverty

Introduction
◦ What is a poverty map?
◦ Why is there demand?


Poverty mapping methodology
Examining the underlying assumptions

Project within World Bank’s Research
Department
◦ In collaboration with academics

Methodological papers
◦ Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (2003,
Econometrica)
◦ Hentschel et al. (2000) and ELL (2000, 2002)


PovMap Software (Qinghua Zhao)
Goal is to produce accurate estimates of
welfare at small area level – “poverty maps”


Not necessarily “Maps”; rather,
highly disaggregated databases of welfare
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Poverty
Inequality
Average income/consumption
Calorie intake
Under-nutrition
Other indicators (health outcomes? lifeexpectancy?)
disaggregation may, but need not, be
spatial
 Poverty of “statistically invisible” groups
Growing world-wide interest in having access to
local-level information
1. Process of decentralization:
◦ Sub-national governments (state,
municipality….) are expected to devise and
implement policies
◦ It is important to know which localities should
be prioritized
 Need to compare poverty across localities
Geographic targeting of resources
2.

◦

Fine geographic targeting typically results in
less leakage than coarse targeting.
Simulations from Ecuador, Cambodia and
Madagascar:
 Poverty reduction attainable by a uniform lumpsum transfer can be achieved with less than one
third of the total funds available if the funds are
targeted to the poorest communities (on average
less than 2000 households).
Of course, implementation of fine targeting
can also be more costly


Main source of information on consumption
welfare - household expenditure surveys permit only limited disaggregation
Very large data sources (e.g. census) typically
collect very limited information on welfare
outcomes
1.
Collect larger samples
◦
◦
Expensive
Some kind of data compromise
2. Combine limited information available in
data, such as the census, into some
welfare index (e.g. “basic needs index” or
“asset index”)
◦
◦
◦
Ad-hoc, easily leads to multiple maps
How to interpret?
Measures of welfare do not line up with
official numbers at the national/regional level

Impute a measure of welfare from household
survey into census, using statistical prediction
methods
◦ Produces readily interpretable estimates:
Works with exactly the same concept of welfare as
traditional survey-based analysis.
◦ Statistical precision can be gauged
◦ Encouraging results to date
◦ But, non-negligible data requirements





Survey and census have variables in
common (questionnaires have to be
corresponding)
Common variables are sufficiently
correlated with consumption
Survey and census can be linked at the
cluster level
Census includes variables that capture
location specific effects (or 3rd data set)
Census enjoys large coverage
ELL (2002, 2003)
◦ Estimate a model of, for example, per-capita
consumption yh using sample survey data
◦ Restrict explanatory variables to those that
can be linked to households in survey and
census
◦ Estimate expected level of poverty or
inequality for a target population using its
census-based characteristics and the
estimates from the model of y
◦ Zero stage: establish comparability of data
sources; identify/merge common variables;
understand sampling design; GIS info(?)
◦ First stage: estimate model of
consumption/income
◦ Second stage: take parameter estimates to census,
predict consumption, and estimate poverty and
inequality.


Let W(m, y) be a welfare measure based on a vector of
household per-capita expenditures, y, and household
sizes, m.
We want to estimate W for a target population (say a
municipality, v) where y is unknown.
We estimate a model of consumption/income per
capita:
ln ych  E[ln ych | zch ]  uch  z  c   ch ,
T
ch
where ηc is a cluster random effect allowing for a
locational influence on consumption.
First Stage:
◦ Estimate separate regressions per stratum
◦ Use cluster weights where significant
◦ Allow for non-normality of disturbances
(parametric/non-parametric), and
◦ Heteroskedasticity in individual-specific
component of disturbances.
◦ Model is estimated by GLS
◦ Modelling criteria: explanatory power,
significance of parameters, parsimony
(overfitting), size of location effect.
Second Stage: Simulation into Census
~r
β, and simulated
◦ For each household rslope coefficients,
~
r
disturbance terms,c and ~ch
, are drawn from their
corresponding distributions (parametric or semiparametric)
◦ Simulate per capita expenditure/income per household:

~r ~r ~r
r

ˆy ch
 exp x ch β  c   ch

◦ Apply r simulations
◦ Calculate poverty in target population for each
simulation.
◦ Welfare estimate is mean estimate across r simulations
◦ Standard error is standard deviation across simulations.
The error in the estimator can be decomposed as:
  W    (W   )  (   ).
Idiosyncratic error – increases with smaller
populations.
Model error – not related to size of target population.
Other elements can include:
Computation error – part of model error, can be
negligible with sufficient number of simulations

Model accurately describes consumption for
each level to which it is applied
◦ Conditional distribution of y given x in small area
A is the same as in larger region R
◦ Tarozzi and Deaton (2007) refer to this as the
“Area homogeneity assumption”

A shared cluster error is able to provide an
accurate account of the spatial correlation
between households
◦ Presence of spatial correlation will diminish
precision of estimates

Validation studies are needed to check on
these assumptions
◦ Elbers, Lanjouw and Leite (2008) provide
validation study for Brazil


Elbers, Lanjouw and Leite (2008) consider Minas
Gerais, Brazil
Brazil Census collects income data
◦ Thin round (87.5%) collects single-question measure of
household income
◦ Thick round (12.5%) collects more detailed info.
◦ Neither are judged reliable for an ‘official’ poverty map.

We focus on Minas Gerais (for computational ease)
◦ 606,000 households in 12.5% sample (out of 4.8m)
◦ 12.5% sample covers all 853 municipalities in Minas Gerais

Per Capita Income

Infant Mortality Rate

Life Expectancy

We draw 41 synthetic surveys from Census
sample
◦ 21 mimic sample design of POF - 2,800 households
 13 households per cluster/EA
 241 EA’s in about 151 Municipalities
◦ 20 mimic sample design of PNAD – 12,000
households
 16 households per cluster/EA
 779 EA’s in 123 municipalities

We produce 41 poverty maps for Minas Gerais
◦ We estimate location effect at EA level
◦ We apply location effect at Municipality level
 Tarozzi and Deaton’s conservative approach

Estimate 41 models
Table 6: Local Effect and R2 estimated on the basis of our surveys
Sample type
'PNAD' obs: 11,721
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'PNAD
'POF' obs: 2,800
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
'POF'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
R2
su
s*
s*2 / s2u
0.603
0.603
0.596
0.600
0.606
0.572
0.576
0.567
0.585
0.571
0.516
0.566
0.600
0.565
0.555
0.584
0.584
0.569
0.582
0.565
0.566
0.578
0.569
0.576
0.569
0.590
0.592
0.576
0.581
0.597
0.580
0.586
0.585
0.593
0.578
0.587
0.594
0.620
0.624
0.622
0.588
0.686
0.686
0.696
0.690
0.678
0.713
0.707
0.714
0.696
0.711
0.758
0.723
0.688
0.715
0.721
0.699
0.699
0.712
0.703
0.718
0.719
0.694
0.702
0.690
0.709
0.693
0.686
0.698
0.698
0.688
0.706
0.686
0.691
0.689
0.693
0.690
0.688
0.663
0.679
0.664
0.729
0.101
0.109
0.099
0.110
0.102
0.115
0.104
0.109
0.108
0.115
0.110
0.108
0.112
0.106
0.109
0.110
0.123
0.123
0.123
0.112
0.134
0.124
0.112
0.122
0.122
0.127
0.113
0.127
0.124
0.096
0.127
0.107
0.136
0.102
0.140
0.132
0.113
0.113
0.098
0.118
0.137
0.0214
0.0252
0.0201
0.0253
0.0225
0.0258
0.0215
0.0232
0.0239
0.0260
0.0211
0.0222
0.0264
0.0218
0.0228
0.0247
0.0311
0.0298
0.0303
0.0242
0.0348
0.0318
0.0252
0.0314
0.0298
0.0338
0.0273
0.0333
0.0318
0.0196
0.0325
0.0244
0.0387
0.0218
0.0409
0.0368
0.0270
0.0291
0.0209
0.0317
0.0353
Source: IBGE 12.5% Census and Author's Calculation.
Exercise 1: Differences in returns
◦ Apply one model in full census sample (specified in one PNAD sample)
◦ Re-estimate model separately in each municipality (again in PNAD
sample)
◦ Compare predicted municipality-level income
Figure 13: Predicted Value Estimations: Small Area model vs Regional Model, 'PNAD' sample
6.5
R2 = 0.8394
6.0
5.5
E[y/X, H(R)]

5.0
74.8% of E[.,H(A)] fell onto the 95%CI of E[.,H(R)]
95.9% of the 95%CI of E[.,H(A)] lay down onto the 95%CI of
E[.,H(R)]
4.5
4.0
4.0
Source: IBGE 12.5% Census and Author's Calculation
4.5
5.0
5.5
E[y/X, H(A)]
6.0
6.5
Municipal level Poverty Estimates versus “Truth”
Figure 20a: FGT(0) measures at Municipality Level - Observed values x Simulated Values,
Poverty Map Simulations using 'PNAD' Type Sample
100%
80%
2
R = 0.8807
60%
'PNAD'

40%
20%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Census 12.5%
Source: IBGE 12.5% Census and Author's Calculation
80%
100%
Municipal level Poverty Estimates versus “Truth”
Figure 20b: FGT(0) measures at Municipality Level - Observed values x Simulated Values,
Poverty Map Simulations using 'POF' Type Sample
100%
2
R = 0.8837
80%
60%
'POF'

40%
20%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Census 12.5%
Source: IBGE 12.5% Census and Author's Calculation
80%
100%
Overly Precise estimates?
Figure 25a: Share of municipalities where 95% confidence interval encompass the 'true'
estimate, FGT(0)
100%
95%
90%
85%
Share

80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
surveys
Source: IBGE 12.5% Census and Author's Calculation

Overly Precise estimates?
10
5
0
Density
15
20
Figure 26a: Histogram of the number of good predictions at municipality level using PovMap: FGT(0)
0
.1
.2
.3
Source: 12.5% Census- PovMap Estimations and Author's calculation.
.4
.5
Share
.6
.7
.8
.9
1

Are poverty estimates usable?
Proportion of municipalities with significant HCR change versus Confidence Interval
F GT ( 0 ) measures f ro m M inas Gerais - Est imat io ns o n t he b asis o f ELL
0.45
100%
0.43
90%
% of municipalities with significant changes
0.41
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
0.39
0.37
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.29
10%
0%
0.27
0
100
200
300
400
500
M uni ci pal i t i es
600
700
800
900
0.25
75
80
85
90
95
Confidence Interval (%)
ELL Conservative
97.5
99
99.5



Our evidence is quite supportive of ELL
methodology and underlying assumptions.
BUT, evidence for one place need not imply
assumptions hold everywhere.
Validation efforts like these must be
undertaken wherever possible.
◦ Sometimes survey data do allow one to probe ELL
assumptions explicitly. Clearly that should be
done, whenever possible.

Proper validation can be built into planning
and design of future poverty mapping
activities.
◦ Involvement of census bureau is likely to be
central.

Household surveys fielded at different times are
rarely identical in every respect:
◦ Timing of fieldwork
◦ Refining/modification of questionnaire
◦ Aggregation/disaggregation of consumption
components
◦ Shift from recall to diary, or changes in recall periods

Can poverty still be readily compared?
◦ “Great Indian Poverty Debate” focused on the 1999/0 round
of the NSS survey which introduced slightly altered recall
period.
◦ Comparability of estimates was seriously compromised
 Deaton & Tarozzi, Himanshu and Sen, Kijima and Lanjouw

Can we use ELL method to impute consumption
from one survey into another?
◦ i.e impute consumption into survey of time t+1 based on
a model estimated in survey of time t
◦ Are predicted poverty rates for t+1 similar to actual
rates?
◦ If so, this implies parameter estimates from consumption
model are stable over time
 All action is in changing X’s

Christiaensen, Lanjouw, Luoto and Stifel (2010)
experiment with a variety of different
consumption models in Kenya, Vietnam, and
Russia
◦ “test” this idea with surveys that are actually comparable,
but pretend that the surveys are not.

Example of Vietnam
◦ Consider two household surveys: 1992/93 and 1997/8
◦ These surveys are generally regarded as high quality and
fully comparable
◦ Poverty in Vietnam declined significantly in this period
National
Rural
Urban

1993/4
60.6%
68.5%
28.6%
1997/8
37.4%
44.9%
9.0%
Indicative of major structural changes in Vietnam
◦ A priori expectation that “returns” are changing, i.e.
stable parameter assumption would not hold.

“poverty map” style models
Included in Models:
Geographic
Indicators
Household
demographics
Education/
Profession Variables
Housing Quality
Variables
Asset Ownership
Variables
Region
National
Rural
Urban
(1)
(2)
X
X
P0
1992/3
VLSS
60.6
P1
19.0
P0
68.5
P1
22.0
P0
28.6
P1
7.3
54.6
(1.4)
16.5
(0.9)
63.5
(2.0)
19.1
(1.0)
21.7
(2.6)
5.4
(0.9)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
55.6
(1.4)
17.2
(0.6)
64.8
(1.7)
19.7
(0.9)
22.8
(2.3)
5.6
(0.8)
46.6
(1.4)
13.4
(0.6)
56.3
(1.5)
16.8
(0.7)
18.3
(1.8)
4.5
(0.6)
38.2
(1.3)
10.5
(0.5)
48.5
(1.7)
13.7
(0.7)
11.8
(1.3)
2.6
(0.4)
36.7
(1.4)
9.4
(0.5)
44.2
(2.1)
11.5
(0.8)
9.7
(1.5)
1.9
(0.4)
(7)
1997/8
VLSS
37.4
9.5
44.9
11.6
9.0
1.7

Replicating this exercise in Russia, between
1994 and 1998, doesn’t work so well.
◦ Major financial crisis: poverty rose from 15.5% to
43.8%
◦ However, model for 1994 predicts poverty in 2003
reasonably well
 But little change in poverty over this time period

Broad Conclusion: assumption of stable
parameters in roughly adjacent years seems
reasonable.
◦ If there is a major crisis (earthquake,
macroeconomic, etc.) then caution is warranted.

Goal:
◦ Explore whether repeated cross-sections which are
widely available can be used to provide some
reasonable, basic, descriptives of transitions in and
out of poverty.
 Set out methods which we claim will give upper and
lower bounds on mobility.
 Validate these methods by using genuine panel data
from Vietnam and Indonesia, generating repeated
cross-sections from these panels, and comparing the
results of our method to what one would estimate
based on the genuine panel.



Combines ideas of poverty-mapping with pseudopanel ideas.
Will set out for case of 2 rounds, can be extended
easily to multiple rounds.
Let xi1 be characteristics of household i in time
period 1, which are observed in both the round 1
and round 2 surveys:
◦ All time-invariant characteristics (language, religion,
ethnicity)
◦ Characteristics of household head if the head doesn’t
change across rounds (sex, place of birth, parental
education, etc.)
◦ Can include time-varying characteristics that can easily be
recalled for round 1 in round 2
 E.g. whether household head was employed in round 1, place of
residence in round 1, whether household has a TV in round 1,
etc.



Project round 1 consumption or income onto
xi1:
Project round 2 consumption or income onto
same set of characteristics as they appear at
time of second round:
Then we are interested in knowing quantities
such as:
Don’t observe for the same
household

Step one: Use the sample of households
observed in round 1, and regress
◦ Obtain the OLS estimator

on
and the residuals:
Step two: For each household observed in
round 2, take a random draw with
replacement from the empirical distribution
of residuals, then combine with parameter
estimate and known x to estimate round 1
income or consumption:

Step Three: calculate movements into and out

Step Four: Repeat steps 1-3 R times, and take
of poverty using
in place of the unobserved round 1
variable:
average of the quantity of interest over the R
replications.

Condition 1: the underlying population
sampled is the same in round 1 and round
2
◦ Requires measure of consumption to be same
from round to round, no (non-random) changes
in underlying population from births, deaths,
migration out of sample…as with pseudo-panels
in general, household analysis works best when
restricted to households headed by prime age
adults

Condition 2: εi1 is independent of yi2. This requires
εi1 to be independent of εi2
(otherwise the distribution of εi1|yi2 >p is not the same
as the unconditional distribution of εi1)
◦ Won’t hold if:
 Error term contains individual fixed effect
 If shocks to consumption or income are non-transitory.

Expect in many cases this condition to be
violated. So long as errors positively
correlated (which seems likely in most cases),
this will overstate mobility, providing an upper
bound on movements into and out of poverty.


Instead assume the prediction error for household i in
round 1 is the same as it is for round 2 (perfect positive
autocorrelation).
Step One: for sample of households surveyed in round
2, obtain OLS residuals:

Step Two: then estimate round 1 income or

Step Three: Use the estimated y from step 2 to
consumption as
calculate poverty dynamic of interest.

Methods here aim to estimate same level of
movements into and out of poverty as one
would observe in genuine panel data.
◦ Some of this mobility will be due to measurement
error. A variety of fixes in literature (e.g. Glewwe,
2005; Antman and McKenzie, 2007; Fields et al.
2007)
◦ Basic idea of these is to study mobility which is
related to mobility in some underlying variable (e.g.
health, cohort characteristics, assets)
◦ Not the goal here: we want to just see if we can
match panel.


Choose two genuine panels from Vietnam and
Indonesia:
VLSS 1992/93 and 1997/98
◦ Period over which poverty fell from 58% to 37%,
more households exiting poverty than entering
◦ Panel of approximately 4800 households

Indonesian Family Life Survey 1997 and 2000
(IFLS2 and 3)
◦ Static in terms of overall poverty levels, household
moving into and out of poverty at similar rates
◦ Panel of 7500

Randomly split each genuine panel into two
sub-samples, A and B.
◦ Use sub-sample A from round 1 and sub-sample B
from round 2 as two repeated cross-sections.
◦ Then carry out our method by using sub-sample A
to impute round 1 values for sub-sample B, and
compare to results we would get using genuine
panel for sub-sample B.



Consider a hierarchy of models which
progressively employ more and more data
that is sometimes, but not always, collected
retrospectively.
Since we have the actual panel data to work
with, we can force variables to be timeinvariant by using round 1 variables.
Start with a basic “traditional model”, and add
more regressors.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(Basic Model): gender of head, age of head as of round 1,
birthplace of head (rural/urban), whether the head ever
attended primary school, education of head’s parents,
head’s religion and ethnicity.
Add locational dummies for where household was living
in round 1.
Add community variables from round 1 (e.g. village has
electricity, village has a stone road, community has a
primary school)
Head’s sector of work and education in round 1
Demographic variables from round 1 (household size,
number of children)
Household’s assets and housing quality as of round 1 –
e.g. did household own TV, radio, what sort of roof and
floor did it have?
Table 1: Poverty Headcount:
Data
Source:
IFLS
Round 1:
Lower Bound
Basic
Full
Truth
95% CI
1997 Poverty Rate (P0):
0.147
0.159
0.145
0.188
0.120
0.159
VLSS
1992 Poverty Rate (P0):
0.611
0.592
0.597
0.682
0.562
0.622
Method seems to be getting levels close
Upper Bound
Basic
Full


Recall our claim was that the residuals would
likely be positively autocorrelated, making
our first method an upper bound, and that
this correlation would shrink as we add more
variables to the model.
This is what we see:
Table 2: Correlation Between Round 1 and Round 2 Residuals
1
2
3
4
5
6
Indonesia
0.474
0.466
0.464
0.452
0.408
0.348
Vietnam
0.653
0.575
0.563
0.539
0.523
0.420
Columns 1-6 build increasingly rich models of consumption.
Table 3: Poverty Dynamics from “Pseudo” Panel and Actual Panel Data
Indonesia
Lower Bounds
Truth
Upper Bounds
1997, 2000 Statuses
Basic
Full
95% CI
Basic
Full
Poor, Poor
0.115 0.105 0.047 0.070 0.024
0.037
Poor, Nonpoor
0.015 0.031 0.065 0.088 0.097
0.090
Nonpoor, Poor
0.021 0.030 0.065 0.088 0.111
0.099
Nonpoor, Nonpoor
0.848 0.832 0.759 0.801 0.766
0.774
Vietnam
Lower Bounds
Truth
Upper Bounds
1992, 1998 Statuses
Basic
Full
95% CI
Basic
Full
Poor, Poor
0.360 0.322 0.275 0.360 0.227
0.288
Poor, Nonpoor
0.241 0.274 0.261 0.324 0.331
0.308
Nonpoor, Poor
0.000 0.039 0.034 0.060 0.138
0.077
Nonpoor, Nonpoor
0.398 0.366 0.300 0.386 0.305
0.327
For both countries, round 1 year is predicted, round 2 is "truth"

Bounds not that wide:
◦ Full model would lead us to estimate 3-9% of
households in Indonesia and 27-31% of households
in Vietnam exited poverty over 2 rounds.
◦ Genuine panel would say 7-9% in Indonesia and 2632% in Vietnam

More detailed model for consumption with
higher R2 leads to narrower bounds
◦ E.g. bounds of 0.021-0.111 using basic model vs
(0.033-0.099) using full model for entry into
poverty rate in Indonesia.


Genuine panel data are rare, and even the best panels
are often smaller in scale & frequency than crosssectional surveys.
E.g. Indonesia IFLS is one of, if not the, best
developing country panel out there
◦
◦
◦
◦

But not nationally representative
Sample size of around 7000 households
Low frequency
Vs SUSENAS
 Annual, nationally representative (and representative at district
level), around 200,000 households!
Policymakers and academics do care about
movements into and out of poverty- would be nice to
be able to say something regularly and in most
countries, even if what we can say is relatively basic.

We’ve provided a method of using repeated
cross-sections to obtain bounds on movements
into and out of poverty
◦ Validated this against genuine panel data
◦ Found the bounds can be narrow enough in practice to
be useful

However, method works best when full range of
variables used, some of which are not typically
asked retrospectively in surveys
◦ But no reason why they can’t be – and much cheaper to
add a few of these questions than field a panel
=> Seems worth experimenting with inclusion of some
such questions in upcoming surveys.



Christiaensen, L., Lanjouw, P., Luoto, J. and
Stifel, D. (2010) ‘The Reliability of Small
Area Estimation Prediction Methods to
Track Poverty’, WIDER Working Paper No.
2010/99.
Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J., and Lanjouw, P.
(2003) Micro-level Estimation of Poverty
and Inequality, Econometrica, Vol 71(1),
January, 355-364.
Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J.O., Lanjouw, P. (2002)
Micro-Level Estimation of Welfare Policy
Research Working Paper 2911, DECRG, The
World Bank.


Elbers, C., Lanjouw, P. and Leite, P. (2008)
‘Brazil within Brazil: Testing the Poverty
Map Methodology in Minas Gerais’, Policy
Research Working Paper WPS 4513, DECRG,
the World Bank
Lanjouw, P., Luoto, J. and McKenzie, D.
(2011) ‘Using Repeated Cross Sections to
Explore Movements in and out of Poverty’,
Policy Research Working Paper WPS 5550,
DECRG, the World Bank.