Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 23 – uploaded by José Espinoza-Delgado

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
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

Table 15 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

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).
** 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 4 Continued from previous page
*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
*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
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
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)
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.
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 EconomicsChild PovertyPoverty AnalysisGender and DevelopmentMultidimensional PovertyPoverty and InequalityEconomics and Development studiesMultidimensional Poverty Measurement
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved