Cited by 717Income, Poverty, and InequalityPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareQuality of Life Measurement

Exploring Alternative Measures of Welfare in the Absence of Expenditure Data

Open access
Sahn, David E., Stifel, David·2003·Review of Income and Wealth

Abstract

We consider an asset‐based alternative to the standard use of expenditures in defining well‐being and poverty. Our motivation is to see if there exist simpler and less demanding ways to collect data to measure economic welfare and rank households. This is particularly important in poor regions where there is limited capacity to collect consumption, expenditure and price data. We evaluate an index derived from a factor analysis on household assets using multipurpose surveys from several countries. We find that the asset index is a valid predictor of a crucial manifestation of poverty—child health and nutrition. Indicators of relative measurement error show that the asset index is measured as a proxy for long‐term wealth with less error than expenditures. Analysts may thus prefer to use the asset index as an explanatory variable or as a means of mapping economic welfare to other living standards and capabilities such as health and nutrition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0034-6586.2003.00100.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The target in PovertyMap-wilds is a real-valued composite asset wealth index computed as the first principal component of survey responses about household assets, thought to be a less noisy measure of longer-run economic well-being than consumption expenditure.

    “The target is a real-valued composite asset wealth index computed as the first principal component of survey responses about household assets, which is thought to be a less noisy measure of households' longer-run economic well-being than other welfare measurements like consumption expenditure (Sahn and Stifel, 2003; Filmer and Scott, 2011).”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Sahn and Stifel, 2003

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sahn, D. E., & Stifel, D.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Lafayette College (US)
Venue
Review of Income and Wealth
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
463-489
ISSN
  • 0034-6586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-4991
OpenAlex
W1981677892
Cited by
717
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 40
FWCI
49.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Review of Income and Wealth (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Quality of Life Measurement
Keywords
household assets, poverty measurement, welfare indicators, factor analysis, child health and nutrition, measurement error

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review