Measuring development post-2015: highlighting the poorest of the poor

This ProgBlog article written by Sabina Alkire, Director of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), is part of the Wikiprogress post-2015 series. 

We saw the culmination of the Global Thematic Consultation on Addressing Inequalities in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, led by UNICEF and UN Women with support from the governments of Denmark and Ghana.

One of the recommendations put forward in the consultation’s Synthesis Report is that better data systems should be developed at country level that can describe and monitor changes in the circumstances of different population groups.

‘One important tool in strengthening these systems is a Multidimensional Poverty Index, which shows the deprivations a household (or child) experiences simultaneously, highlighting the poorest of the poor as those experiencing a large set of simultaneous deprivations at the same time,’ the report states.

‘This approach not only highlights changes in multidimensional poverty but also illustrates trends in social exclusion and marginalization.’

Also, Andy Sumner and I published a briefing in which we call for a new ‘headline’ measure of multidimensional poverty to be considered for the post-2015 MDGs; a measure that reflects participatory inputs (including new dimensions), can be easily disaggregated, and that we believe could serve the purpose set out in the Inequalities Consultation report.

A global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 2.0 – building on the MPI reported in theHuman Development Reports for over 100 developing countries since 2010 – could provide an intuitive overview of multidimensional poverty to complement a $1.25/day measure and indicators on individual goals such as health or education.

Such a measure could enable policymakers to see at a glance whether and how multidimensional poverty was being reduced across states, for example, or different social groups; it could be quickly and easily disaggregated to show which overlapping disadvantages are faced by agricultural labourers, or by families with small children in different geographical regions.

The MPI reported in UNDP’s Human Development Report is based on ten indicators of health, education and living standards, and shows both the incidence and intensity of poverty. It measures deprivations directly, and shows in which regions or among which groups poverty is being reduced, and how that reduction is being achieved; for example, that a particular group has moved out of poverty thanks to an improvement in its access to education or safe water and electricity.

For the post-2015 context, an MPI 2.0 could be created with dimensions, indicators and cutoffs that reflect the post-2015 development agenda. The process of selecting the indicators and cutoffs should be participatory, and the voices of the poor and the marginalised should drive decisions. A “child MPI” could also be created to measure multidimensional poverty among children, using the same methodology.

In addition, governments or civil society organisations can create their own national MPIs with indicators, cutoffs and values that reflect their national plan or goals, complementing and enriching a global MPI 2.0. Such measures are already in use – for example, by the Government of Colombia.

An MPI 2.0 could reflect effective social policy interventions immediately, thereby acting as a monitoring and evaluation tool. In doing so, it would provide political incentives to policymakers not only to implement effective interventions, but to reduce the many different aspects of poverty together. A disaggregated MPI could also be used alongside geographic data to give an overview of the nexus between poverty and sustainability challenges.

Andy and I suggest that an easy to understand and disaggregate measure that clearly shows the inequalities between those living in poverty, in terms of the number and type of interconnected deprivations they face, provides an essential complement to income measures and individual goals for policymakers, by enabling them to see quickly and easily what is happening ‘beneath the averages’. We hope to discuss this further with all sides and see what kind of MPI 2.0 could be truly useful.

To close with a quote from the Global Thematic Consultation on Addressing InequalitiesSynthesis Report:

‘Whatever the methodologies to be used, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of the intersecting and multidimensional nature of prevailing inequalities, such that the use of “simple” or proxy indicators does not serve to distract policy attention from the inherent complexities, or from the need for comprehensive, multi-sectoral policy responses.’

Sabina Alkire is Director of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI).

This post is based on the OPHI briefing ‘Multidimensional Poverty and the Post-2015 MDGs’, by Sabina Alkire and Andy Sumner of King’s College London. It first appeared on The University of Oxford's Debating Development Blog on February 21st, 2013.

The OECD Global Forum on Development (GFD) is currently running an online consultation* entitled “Reducing poverty is achievable: Finding those who are hidden by inequalities” on the Wikiprogress platform. You can post a comment in a few clicks by going to the “Contribute!” section of the online consultation page, so if you have an opinion, make sure your voice is heard. 

We look forward to hearing what you have to say,

The Wikiprogress Team

@Wikiprogress @Wikigender @Wiki_child

Women’s legal rights – progress and backlashes

This post first appeared on Gender Debate.

In every region of the world, there has been a significant progress on legal reform to expand the scope of women’s rights. Law implementation and enforcement improves women’s access to justice and therefore can advance gender equality. However, a lot of work remains to be done for all women and girls to experience justice, physical integrity and equality in their homes and working places.

UN Women, the newly established United Nations Entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women recently released its biannual flagship report, ‘Progress for the World’s Women in Pursuit of Justice 2011-2012.’

The report highlights the ways in which governments and civil societies should work together to reform laws and create new models for justice service delivery that meets women’s needs. The report also sheds light on the challenge of ensuring that women can access justice in the most challenging situations, including after conflict and in the context of legal pluralism. Women themselves play a central role as agents for change, as legislators, judges, lawyers, campaigners and community activists.

The report focuses on women’s pursuit of justice and it recognizes the positive progress made all over the world, for instance about 139 countries and territories, now guarantee gender equality in their constitutions.

A remarkable advance has been made over the past century in the quest for gender equality and women’s empowerment, particularly in terms of legal rights. Today, 139 countries and territories, now guarantee gender equality in their constitutions. 125 countries have outlawed domestic violence, 115 guarantee equal property rights and women’s voice in decision-making is stronger than ever before. In many countries, legal reforms to expand women’s rights and access to justice have been followed by an increase in women’s representation in parliaments.

Share of women in parliament 1997

Share of women in parliament 2011

Image Source: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/human-rights-maps-70-gender-equality-in-government/

However, despite widespread legal guarantees of equality, the reality for many millions of women is that justice remains out of reach. This often also goes for women’s economic participation:



Therefore, it is important to continue changing national laws, demanding enforcements of existing laws, striking down discriminatory customary laws and revolutionizing the scope of international law. Making the justice system work for women, for example by catalyzing legal reforms, supporting legal aid and training for judges, requires investment.


Most international organizations recognize the importance of strengthening the rule of, but targeted funding for promoting gender equality in the area of legal and judicial development and human rights has remained low.

In 2009, the OECD allocated $4.2 billion to justice, with US and European Union accounting for 70 per cent of the total. Out of this amount, only 5% were allocated to programs focusing on gender equality as primary aim. 15 per cent were allocated to programs for which gender equality was a secondary aim.

The World Bank has also allocated only a very small fraction of its funding  to gender equality focused rule of law projects over the past decade. The Bank’s funding for grants, credits and loans for the years 2000-2010 adds up to 261 billion USD (2946 projects). 6% are allocated to rule of law projects (16 billion USD). The total amount allocated to rule of law and gender equality projects adds up to 61 million USD (0.02%).The total amount allocated to the gender equality components of these projects is only 9.6 million USD (0.004%).

By Angela Luci.

Sources: Angela Luci; The Citizen; UN Women Report

Launch of UN WOMEN: taking the first steps…

With all the attention on UN WOMEN these days, an article from the Guardian caught my eye. It is titled “Send a message to UN WOMEN” and invites readers to express their voice by sending a photo illustrating their opinions, hopes and expectations of UNWOMEN to a Flickr group created for the occasion.

On February 24^th 2011, UN WOMEN, the new United Nation’s entity solely dedicated to promoting and enhancing gender equality and women’s empowerment was created. Coinciding with the week long 55^th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York, the launch was celebrated with a big bang by political leaders, women leaders, media personalities and celebrities. These celebrations fit in perfectly with the upcoming next few weeks of attention on gender equality, as the current CSW will continue until March 3^rd only to be followed by International Women’s day on March 8^th. In preparation for this launch and to comment on the first steps of this new agency, journalists and bloggers have been vocal in expressing their thoughts, expectations and even their doubts on this new UN “superagency”. This is a good thing, as it attracts attention to important issues relating to gender equality. However, what happens when all of this will die off in a few weeks’ time when the party’s over? Hopefully the creation of UN WOMEN will be able to keep the momentum on women’s advancement going, even after this month’s frenzy of activity on the topic.

The Guardian’s initiative is a great and original way to keep people involved and ask them what they think about UN WOMEN. It keeps attention on the issue of women’s empowerment rather than on institutional and bureaucratic questions. Others express concerns on the lag it took the Agency to become operational and also on its financing. But for an organisation that was long awaited by gender practitioners and advocates this seems normal, as any transition phase usually can be bumpy.

A more important concern is that by merging four international agencies and offices and centralising gender issues in one organisation, the risk is to overshadow other organisations that have projects and divisions working on gender. The biggest risk is mostly for NGOs and grassroot organisations – will they still receive adequate support and funding? Or will it all go to UN WOMEN? It is important to have one strong entity focusing on this topic but also to keep the light on other very important projects and initiatives led by more technical and specialised organisations.

Let’s wait and see….

Nejma Bouchama