Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Log In
Sign Up

Figure 6 – uploaded by José Espinoza-Delgado

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

*Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications
(Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 4 Continued from previous page — Table 4 *Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 4 Continued from previous page

Related Figures (37)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3: Spearman Correlation Coefficients between Deprivations, by Group. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMN\ — ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 3: Spearman Correlation Coefficients between Deprivations, by Group. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMN\

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron,
1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. ***The difference is not statistically significant at 5%.
Table 4: Proportion of Males and Females Deprived in Various Indicators (h%) and Gender Differential. Source: Authors' estimates bas
on 2014-EMNV — *Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. ***The difference is not statistically significant at 5%. Table 4: Proportion of Males and Females Deprived in Various Indicators (h%) and Gender Differential. Source: Authors' estimates bas on 2014-EMNV

*Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications
(Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 5: Proportion of Males and Females Deprived in Various Indicators (h%) and Gender Differential. Source: Authors' estimates based
on 2014-EMNV — *Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 5: Proportion of Males and Females Deprived in Various Indicators (h%) and Gender Differential. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMNV

The Average Deprivation Share among the Multidimensionally Poor (A): The In-
tensity of Multidimensional Poverty
The Multidimensional Headcount Ratio (H%): The Incidence of Multidimensional
Poverty — The Average Deprivation Share among the Multidimensionally Poor (A): The In- tensity of Multidimensional Poverty The Multidimensional Headcount Ratio (H%): The Incidence of Multidimensional Poverty

*Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the stan-
dard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications
(Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the boot-
strap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p.
145). — *Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the stan- dard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the boot- strap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145).

*Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications
(Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981,
p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
The Multidimensional Headcount Ratio (H%): The Incidence of Multidimensional Poverty
Table 7: Multidimensional Poverty Measures, by Group and Gender, and Gender Differentials. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2
EMNV — *Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. The Multidimensional Headcount Ratio (H%): The Incidence of Multidimensional Poverty Table 7: Multidimensional Poverty Measures, by Group and Gender, and Gender Differentials. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2 EMNV

The Average Deprivation Share among the Poor (A): The Intensity of Multidimensional Poverty

*Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the stan-
dard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications
(Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the boot-
strap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p.
145).
The Multidimensional Headcount Ratio (H%): The Incidence of Multidimensional
Poverty
Table 8: Multidimensional Poverty Measures using the Union Approach, by Group. Source
Authors' estimates based on data from EMNV-2014 — *Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the stan- dard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the boot- strap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). The Multidimensional Headcount Ratio (H%): The Incidence of Multidimensional Poverty Table 8: Multidimensional Poverty Measures using the Union Approach, by Group. Source Authors' estimates based on data from EMNV-2014

The Aggregate Deprivation Count Ratio: The Intensity of Multidimensional Poverty

Table 9: Multidimensional Poverty Measures using the Union Approach by Group and Gender, and Gender Differentials. Source: Authors
estimates based on data from EMNV-2014 — Table 9: Multidimensional Poverty Measures using the Union Approach by Group and Gender, and Gender Differentials. Source: Authors estimates based on data from EMNV-2014

The Correlation Sensitive Poverty Index (CSPI)

*Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard
error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981,
pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method
with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145).
Table 10: Inequality Among the Multidimensionally Poor (Iq) by Group. Source: Authors! estimates based on data from EMNV-2014 — *Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). Table 10: Inequality Among the Multidimensionally Poor (Iq) by Group. Source: Authors! estimates based on data from EMNV-2014

*Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron,
1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The
difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 11: Inequality Among the Multidimensionally Poor (Iq) by Group and Gender, and Gender Differentials. Source: Authors! estimates
based on data from EMNV-2014 — *Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 11: Inequality Among the Multidimensionally Poor (Iq) by Group and Gender, and Gender Differentials. Source: Authors! estimates based on data from EMNV-2014

*Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap
replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap
replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 12: Multidimensional Poverty Measures among Adults, considering Employment as fourth dimension, and Gender Differences. Source
Authors' estimates based on data from EMNV-2014 — *Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 12: Multidimensional Poverty Measures among Adults, considering Employment as fourth dimension, and Gender Differences. Source Authors' estimates based on data from EMNV-2014

*Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap
replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap
replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 13: Multidimensional Poverty Measures among Elderly, considering Social Protection as fourth dimension, and Gender Differe
Source: Authors' estimates based on data from EMNV-2014 — *Standard errors (SE) were estimated following the bootstrap estimate of the standard error proposed by Bradley Efron with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, pgs. 139-143). Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 13: Multidimensional Poverty Measures among Elderly, considering Social Protection as fourth dimension, and Gender Differe Source: Authors' estimates based on data from EMNV-2014

*The coefficient is statistically significant at 1%. **The coefficient is statistically significant at 10%.
***The coefficient is not statistically significant at 10%.
Table 14: Results of the Logit Regressions: The Determinants of the Monetary and Multidi-
mensional Poverty in Nicaragua. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMNV — *The coefficient is statistically significant at 1%. **The coefficient is statistically significant at 10%. ***The coefficient is not statistically significant at 10%. Table 14: Results of the Logit Regressions: The Determinants of the Monetary and Multidi- mensional Poverty in Nicaragua. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMNV

Figure 2: Absolute Contribution of the Gender Gap in each Indicator to the Overall Gap.
Source: Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMNV. Note: A positive bar in any indicator means
that females are worse off than males in that indicator, and vice versa. The Overall_Gap is
obtained adding up all indicator gaps.
Figure 1: Percentage of People Deprived in each Indicator. Source: Authors' estimates based on
data from 2014-EMNV. *The dash line represents the proportion of the monetary poor estimated
by using the official “Overall Poverty Line (OPL)” (INIDE, 2015, p. 8), which is equivalent to
1.80 dollars a day.
1.80 dollars a day. — Figure 2: Absolute Contribution of the Gender Gap in each Indicator to the Overall Gap. Source: Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMNV. Note: A positive bar in any indicator means that females are worse off than males in that indicator, and vice versa. The Overall_Gap is obtained adding up all indicator gaps. Figure 1: Percentage of People Deprived in each Indicator. Source: Authors' estimates based on data from 2014-EMNV. *The dash line represents the proportion of the monetary poor estimated by using the official “Overall Poverty Line (OPL)” (INIDE, 2015, p. 8), which is equivalent to 1.80 dollars a day. 1.80 dollars a day.

A score of 0 signifies that individual does not have access to any of the following six items:
microwave, motorcycle, car, refrigerator, freezer or washing machine; a score of 1 means that
the individual has access to one of the six items; and so on.
Table 15: Relation between Health Deprived Rate (%) and Assets Index, by group. Source:
Authors! estimates based on 2014-EMNV — A score of 0 signifies that individual does not have access to any of the following six items: microwave, motorcycle, car, refrigerator, freezer or washing machine; a score of 1 means that the individual has access to one of the six items; and so on. Table 15: Relation between Health Deprived Rate (%) and Assets Index, by group. Source: Authors! estimates based on 2014-EMNV

fable 16: Relation between Health Deprived Rate (%) and Income Quintile (Q), by Group.
source: Authors! estimates based on 2014-EMNV — fable 16: Relation between Health Deprived Rate (%) and Income Quintile (Q), by Group. source: Authors! estimates based on 2014-EMNV

*Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000
stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145).
Table 17: Proportion of Individuals Deprived in Various Indicators (h%), by Group. Source
Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMNV — *Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). Table 17: Proportion of Individuals Deprived in Various Indicators (h%), by Group. Source Authors' estimates based on 2014-EMNV

The Whole Population
*Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap
percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replica-
tions (Efron, 1981, p. 145).
Table 18: Proportion of Individuals Deprived in Various Indicators (h%). Source: Authors'
estimates based on EMNV-2014 — The Whole Population *Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replica- tions (Efron, 1981, p. 145). Table 18: Proportion of Individuals Deprived in Various Indicators (h%). Source: Authors' estimates based on EMNV-2014

*Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap
percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replica-
tions (Efron, 1981, p. 145).
Table 19: The Incidence of Monetary Poverty (H%). Source: Authors! estimates based on data
from 2014-EMNV — *Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replica- tions (Efron, 1981, p. 145). Table 19: The Incidence of Monetary Poverty (H%). Source: Authors! estimates based on data from 2014-EMNV

*Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron,
1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. ***The difference is statistically significant at 10 percent.
Table 20: The Incidence of Monetary Poverty (H%) by Gender. Source: Authors' estimates based on data from 2014-EMNV — *Confidence intervals were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). **The difference is statistically significant at 1%. ***The difference is statistically significant at 10 percent. Table 20: The Incidence of Monetary Poverty (H%) by Gender. Source: Authors' estimates based on data from 2014-EMNV

Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified
bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 21: The Multidimensional Poverty Incidence (H%), using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors' estimates based «
2014-EMNV — Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replications (Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 21: The Multidimensional Poverty Incidence (H%), using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors' estimates based « 2014-EMNV

Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replication:
(Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 22: The Multidimensional Poverty Intensity (A), using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors' estimates base
2014-EMNV — Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replication: (Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 22: The Multidimensional Poverty Intensity (A), using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors' estimates base 2014-EMNV

Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replication:
(Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%.
Table 23: The Adjusted Headcount Ratio (Mo), the MPI index, using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors' estimates bas
on 2014-EMNV — Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replication: (Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%. Table 23: The Adjusted Headcount Ratio (Mo), the MPI index, using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors' estimates bas on 2014-EMNV

Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replication:
(Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%. **The difference is statistically significant at 10%.
Table 24: The Inequality among the Multidimensional Poor (Iq), using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors!' estimates base
on 2014-EMNV — Lb: Lower bound; Ub: Upper bound. Confidence intervals at 95% were computed using the bootstrap percentile method with 1,000 stratified bootstrap replication: (Efron, 1981, p. 145). *The difference is statistically significant at 1%. **The difference is statistically significant at 10%. Table 24: The Inequality among the Multidimensional Poor (Iq), using six alternate Weighting Structures. Source: Authors!' estimates base on 2014-EMNV

Related topics:

Development Economics Child Poverty Poverty Analysis Gender and Development Multidimensional Poverty Poverty and Inequality Economics and Development studies Multidimensional Poverty Measurement

Connect with 287M+ leading minds in your field

Discover breakthrough research and expand your academic network

Explore
Papers
Topics

Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts

Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials

Company
About
Careers
Press
Help Center
Terms
Privacy
Copyright
Content Policy

580 California St., Suite 400

San Francisco, CA, 94104

© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved