Multidimensional Poverty in Tripura

The measurement of poverty based on monetary attributes, such as consumption or income, has been criticised heavily. Critics claim that monetary poverty measures are not sufficient to explain the multifaceted nature of the deprivations of well-being. A realistic poverty measure should contain basic human needs, such as minimum levels of educational attainment, basic attainment of health, and living conditions (Tsui 2002). Poverty is characterised by multidimensional deprivations and is best explained by a multidimensional approach (Bourguignon and Chakravarty 2003). There has been a conceptual revolution in measuring poverty during the past few decades and a focus on developing a more comprehensive multidimensional framework.

Several methodologies have been developed for identifying the multidimensionally poor: counting approaches, multiple correspondence analysis, latent variable techniques, and fuzzy set theory. Researchers have proposed multidimensional poverty measures based on the capability approach with a normative framework. One of them is the Alkire and Foster (2007) methodology based on the counting approach (Atkinson 2003) along with the axiomatic approach following the Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) class of unidimensional measures. In this approach, the axioms of subgroup decomposability and dimensional breakdown allow for decomposing the aggregate value into population subgroups, such as social and religious groups, to identify the major drivers of poverty (Alkire and Foster 2011). The decomposability of the poverty measure appears to be an important component for the policymakers to frame effective multisectoral planning across states and districts.