Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty?
Journal of Development Economics · 2027 · Immacolata Ranucci、Kibrom A. Abay、Luca Tiberti
中文摘要
主观福祉排名日益被用于社会保护项目的瞄准,但其捕捉相对福利与财富的能力仍存争议。本研究利用埃塞俄比亚住户调查数据,将基于自我、同伴和精英的贫困排名与基于消费和财富的指标进行基准比较;在每个村庄,约20户住户由其自身、同伴和社区领导者按从最需要到最不需要进行排名。我们评估了主观排名与传统福利排名之间的一致性,并探讨分歧的来源。主观排名与相对财富的一致性高于与消费的一致性,与总福利的一致性高于与人均福利的一致性,表明其忽视了家庭构成。基于精英的排名最能捕捉传统指标,其次是同伴排名和自我排名。主观排名也能更好地反映遭受共同冲击的家庭之间的相对剥夺。将三者结合的复合指数提高了与标准指标的一致性。信息不对称、偏袒以及福利动态可部分解释这些差异,为在数据稀缺环境下改进瞄准提供了启示。
Abstract
Subjective well-being rankings are increasingly used to target social protection programs, yet their ability to capture relative welfare and wealth remains debated. This study benchmarks self-, peer-, and elite-based poverty rankings against consumption- and wealth-based measures using Ethiopian household survey data, where about 20 households per village were ranked from neediest to least needy by themselves, peers, and community leaders. We assess concordance between subjective and conventional welfare rankings and explore sources of divergence. Subjective rankings align more with relative wealth than consumption and with total rather than per capita welfare, suggesting they overlook household composition. Elite-based rankings best capture conventional measures, followed by peers’ and self-rankings. Subjective rankings also better reflect relative deprivation among households exposed to covariate shocks. A composite index combining all three improves agreement with standard metrics. Information asymmetries, favoritism, and welfare dynamics partly explain discrepancies, offering insights for enhancing targeting in data-scarce settings.