Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty?
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 hou...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo preliminar |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
International Food Policy Research Institute
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/178967 |
| _version_ | 1855517151875563520 |
|---|---|
| author | Ranucci, Immacolata Abay, Kibrom A. Tiberti, Luca |
| author_browse | Abay, Kibrom A. Ranucci, Immacolata Tiberti, Luca |
| author_facet | Ranucci, Immacolata Abay, Kibrom A. Tiberti, Luca |
| author_sort | Ranucci, Immacolata |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | 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. |
| format | Artículo preliminar |
| id | CGSpace178967 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publishDateRange | 2025 |
| publishDateSort | 2025 |
| publisher | International Food Policy Research Institute |
| publisherStr | International Food Policy Research Institute |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace1789672025-12-18T18:55:15Z Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? Ranucci, Immacolata Abay, Kibrom A. Tiberti, Luca needs poverty living standards social welfare targeting social protection 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. 2025-12-17 2025-12-17T21:30:38Z 2025-12-17T21:30:38Z Working Paper https://hdl.handle.net/10568/178967 en Open Access application/pdf International Food Policy Research Institute Ranucci, Immacolata; Abay, Kibrom A.; and Tiberti, Luca. 2025. Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? IFPRI Discussion Paper 2386. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/178967 |
| spellingShingle | needs poverty living standards social welfare targeting social protection Ranucci, Immacolata Abay, Kibrom A. Tiberti, Luca Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? |
| title | Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? |
| title_full | Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? |
| title_fullStr | Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? |
| title_short | Perceived need and measured well-being: How well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty? |
| title_sort | perceived need and measured well being how well do subjective rankings capture relative poverty |
| topic | needs poverty living standards social welfare targeting social protection |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/178967 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ranucciimmacolata perceivedneedandmeasuredwellbeinghowwelldosubjectiverankingscapturerelativepoverty AT abaykibroma perceivedneedandmeasuredwellbeinghowwelldosubjectiverankingscapturerelativepoverty AT tibertiluca perceivedneedandmeasuredwellbeinghowwelldosubjectiverankingscapturerelativepoverty |