Author

  • Rudy Badrudin

    • STIE YKPN School of Business Yogyakarta, Indonesia
    • Indonesia

  • Ari Warokka

    • Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
    • Malaysia

Abstract

This study aimed at testing the poverty measurement and the choice of poverty reduction strategy by using the data in four regencies and one municipal in Special Province of Yogyakarta (Indonesia). The study observed the number of poor people in those regions for eight-year periods (2001-2008) after the Law of Local Government Autonomy was in force in 2000. By using averagely 140 observations for each regency and municipal and employing ANOVA 2-Ways Analysis, the empirical results surprisingly revealed that only one regency and municipal produced nearly correct measurement on poverty. As to inter-temporal comparisons of the poverty number for each region, the statistical testing validated the inconsistency of poverty measure used. It gave evidence that the choice of poverty lines and poverty measures was a product of local government’s arbitrary decision, and of course, based on the finding; it called for robustness analysis of the poverty measurement used by the local government. To this respect, the choice of poverty reduction strategy should be seen as the free-vested interest decision in determining the poverty measurement. It needs a customization strategy based on the measure taken.

Keywords

References

  • Alderman, H. & Paxson, C. (1994). Do the poor insure? A synthesis of the literature on risk and consumption in developing countries, in Edmar Bacha (ed.), Economics in a changing world: Proceedings off the Tenth World Congress of the International Economic Association, Moscow, 48-78.
  • Alkire, S. (2008). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty, in N. Kakwani, & J. Silber (Eds.), the many dimensions of poverty. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
  • Anand, S. & Ravallion, M. (1993). Human development in poor countries: on the role of private incomes and public services. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 7, 133-50.
  • Anh, V. T. (1997). Criteria for rural poverty monitoring. Vietnam's Socio-Economic Development , 9(2), 3- 16.
  • Atkinson, A. B. (1987). On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica , 55(4), 749-64.
  • Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review , 63, 586-606.
  • Briceno-Garmendia, C., Antonio, E. & Shafik, N. (2004). Infrastructure services in developing countries: access, quality, costs and policy reform. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3468, available at: http://econ.worldbank.org
  • Chen, S. & Ravallion, M. (2010). The developing world is poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight against poverty. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 125(4), 1577-1625.
  • Dao, M. Q. (2004). Rural poverty in developing countries: An empirical analysis. Journal of Economic Studies , 31(5/6), 500-508.
  • Eccles, R. G. & Pyburn, P. J. (1992). Creating a comprehensive system to measure performance. Management Accounting , 74(4), 41-44.
  • Kalirajan, K. & Singh, K. (2009). The pace of poverty reduction across the globe: an exploratory analysis. International Journal of Social Economics , 36, 692-705.
  • Kilkenny, M. (2004). Geography, agriculture, and rural development. Plenary address, The Agriculture Economic Society 78th Annual Conference, London, April 2-4.
  • Laderchi, C. A., Saith, R. & Stewart, F. (2003). Everyone agrees we need poverty reduction, but not what this means: Does this matter? WIDER Conference on Inequality, Poverty and Human Wellbeing, Helsinki, 30-31 May 2003, 1-42.
  • Malina, M. A. & Selto, F. M. (2004). Choice and change of measures in performance measurement models. Working Paper, June, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA and University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
  • Martinez, V. & Kennerley, M. (2005). Performance measurement systems: Mix effects, in EURAM 2005, Responsible Management in an Uncertain World, 5th Annual International Conference Proceedings, TUM Business School, and Munich.
  • Moullin, M. (2003). Defining performance measurement. Perspectives on Performance , 2(12), 3.
  • Osberg, L. & Xu, K. (2008). How should we measure poverty in a changing world? Methodological issues and Chinese case study. Review of Development Economics , 12(2), 419-441.
  • Oshima, H. (1998). Income distribution policies in East Asia. The Developing Economies , 36(4), 359-386.
  • Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ravallion, M. (1998). Poverty lines in theory and practice, living standards measurement study , Working Paper No. 133, World Bank.
  • Sandbrook, R. (2000). Citizenship, rights and poverty – Narrowing the gap between theory and practice. Paper presented to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Democracy Forum 2000.
  • World Bank Institute. (2005). Poverty manual. JH Revision of August 8, 2005, Washington DC, 1-218.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Badrudin, R., & Warokka, A. (2012). Poverty Measurement and Choice of Poverty Reduction Strategy: The Importance of Poverty Measurement in Determining the Right Strategy. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 4(10), 595-602. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v4i10.360

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2012 Rudy Badrudin, Ari Warokka (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 4 No. 10 (2012) Markets, Education & Organizational Perception View issue contents

Published

2012-10-15

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission