Comments and limitations:

There are mainly two limitations of shared prosperity indicators: data availability and data quality.

Data availability

Lack of household survey data is even more problematic for monitoring shared prosperity than for monitoring poverty. To monitor shared prosperity, two surveys of a country have to be conducted within five years or so during a chosen period. They have to be reasonably comparable to each other in terms of both the survey design and the construction of the welfare aggregates. Thus, not every survey that can generate poverty estimates can generate shared prosperity estimates.

The second consideration is the coverage of countries, with data that are as recent as possible. Since shared prosperity must be estimated and used at the country level, there are good reasons for obtaining a wide coverage of countries, regardless of the size of their population. Moreover, for policy purposes it is important to have indicators for the most recent period possible for each country. The selection of survey years and countries needs to be made consistently and transparently, achieving a balance between matching the time period as closely as possible across all countries, including the most recent data, and ensuring the widest possible coverage of countries, across regions and income levels. In practice, this means that time periods will not match perfectly across countries. This is a compromise: while it introduces a degree of incomparability, it also creates a database that includes a larger set of countries than would be otherwise possible.

Data quality

Like for poverty rates, estimates of annualized growth of mean per capita real income or consumption are based on income or consumption data collected in household surveys. The same quality issues applying to poverty rates apply here. Specifically, measuring household living standards has its own complications. Surveys ask detailed questions on sources of income and how it was spent, which must be carefully recorded by trained personnel. Income is difficult to measure accurately, and consumption comes closer to the notion of living standards. Moreover, income can vary over time even if living standards do not. But consumption data are not always available: the latest estimates reported here use consumption for about two-thirds of countries.

Similar surveys may not be strictly comparable because of differences in timing, sampling frames, or the quality and training of enumerators. Comparisons of countries at different levels of development also pose problems because of differences in the relative importance of the consumption of nonmarket goods. The local market value of all consumption in kind (including own production, particularly important in underdeveloped rural economies) should be included in total consumption expenditure, but in practice are often not. Most survey data now include valuations for consumption or income from own production, but valuation methods vary.

The statistics reported here are based on consumption data or, when unavailable, on income data. Analysis of some 20 countries for which both consumption and income data were available from the same surveys found income to yield a higher mean than consumption but also higher inequality. When poverty measures based on consumption and income were compared, the two effects roughly cancelled each other out: there was no significant statistical difference.

Invariably some sampled households do not participate in surveys because they refuse to do so or because nobody is at home during the interview visit. This is referred to as “unit nonresponse” and is distinct from “item nonresponse,” which occurs when some of the sampled respondents participate but refuse to answer certain questions, such as those pertaining to income or consumption. To the extent that survey nonresponse is random, there is no concern regarding biases in survey-based inferences; the sample will still be representative of the population. However, households with different incomes may not be equally likely to respond. Richer households may be less likely to participate because of the high opportunity cost of their time or because of privacy concerns. It is conceivable that the poorest can likewise be underrepresented; some are homeless or nomadic and hard to reach in standard household survey designs, and some may be physically or socially isolated and thus less likely to be interviewed. This can bias both poverty and inequality measurement if not corrected for.

Hesin internet-kagin er ikki longur stuðlaður

Rætta uppseting: 10.1.1