Examining a weight reallocation method for small area estimation of poverty


Small area estimation methodologies used in poverty estimation usually entail significant data requirements and sophisticated modeling techniques. However, there is a growing need for simpler small area estimation tools which can be easily institutionalized by national statistical offices of developing countries. Using a survey reweighting method, the paper demonstrates a more straightforward approach of estimating poverty statistics at the sub-domain level.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i20705948v7n2p417

Keywords: small area estimation, survey reweighting, Lorenz curve estimation


Elbers, C., Lanjouw, J., and Lanjouw, P. (2003). Micro-level estimation of poverty and inequality. Econometrica 71(1): 355-364.

Estevao, V. and Särndal, C. (2004). Borrowing strength is not the best technique within a wide class of design-consistent domain estimators. Journal of Official Statistics 20:645–669.

______________. (1999). The use of auxiliary information in design-based estimation for domains, Survey Methodology 25 pp. 213-221.

Ghosh, M., Natarajan, K., Stroud, T., and Carlin, B. (1998). Generalized linear models for small area estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 93 (441):273-282.

Kakwani, N., Khandker, S., and Son, H. (2004). Pro-poor growth: concepts and measurement with country case studies. Working paper number 1, International Poverty Centre, United Nations Development Programme.

Kakwani, N. and Pernia, E. (2000). What is pro-poor growth?. Asian Development Review 18(1):1-16.

Kalton, G. and Maligalig, D. (1991). A comparison of methods of weighting adjustment for non-response. Proceedings of the 1991 Annual Research Conference Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census 409-428..

Lopez, H. (2004). Pro-poor-pro-growth: is there a trade off? Policy Research Working Paper No. 3378, World Bank.

Martinez, A. (2009) Small Area Estimation using Survey Reweighting and Lorenz Parameterization. The Philippine Statistician Vol. 58

McCulloch, N. and Baulch, B. (1999). Tracking pro-poor growth: new ways to spot the biases and benefits. ID21 Insights No. 31, Institute of Development Studies.

_______________. (2007). The assessment of poverty and inequality through parametric estimation of Lorenz curves. Institute for Social and Economic Research Policy, Columbia University.

Pernia, E. (2002). Is growth good enough for the poor? Policy Brief Number 1, Economic Research Department, Asian Development Bank.

Rao, J. (2003). Small Area Estimation. New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ravallion, M. (2004). Pro-poor growth: a primer. Policy Research Working Paper 3242, World Bank.

Ravallion, M. and Chen, S. (2003). Measuring pro-poor growth. Economics Letters 78(1):93-99.

Santos, A. (2008). Press Statement on the Release of 2006 Official Poverty Statistics, National Economic Development Authority Secretary.

Särndal, C., Swensson, B. and Wretman, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling (1992), New York: Springer-Verlag

Schirm, A. and Zaslavsky, A. (1997), "Reweighting Households to Develop Microsimulation Estimates for States." Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association

Schelzig, K. (2005). Poverty in the Philippines: income, assets, and access. ADB Report. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Poverty-in-the-Philippines/default.asp

White, H. and Anderson, A. (2000). Growth vs. redistribution: does the pattern of growth matter? mimeo, Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex.

Full Text: pdf

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.