Thesis
Rethinking the Poverty Line:
What Alternate Poverty Measures Indicate About Urban Poverty and Its Geographic Distribution
Abstract
In order to adequately address problems associated with poverty, definitions and measurements of the issue must first be understood. This goal is complex, as both the definitions and measurement of poverty are subjective and vary geographically and categorically. The commonly used American poverty measure (i.e. the "poverty line") has recently received criticism because of its limitations as an absolute measure that fails to recognize the relative nature of poverty. Such criticisms have led to the development of alternate poverty measures. However, no single measure has the ability to account for all factors associated with poverty. As such, it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of various poverty metrics.
The aim of this study is to identify the benefits and limitations of several alternate poverty measures by examining each measure in relation to cultural and social indicators. In this study, several alternate poverty measures are identified and applied to the St. Louis Region. Principal component analysis and multiple linear regression techniques are used in conjunction with census data from the St. Louis metropolitan statistical area to identify the social and cultural factors that are concomitant to poverty as measured by each of the alternate poverty metrics. The poverty measures are then compared based on the significance of each identified concomitant. Additionally, alternate poverty metrics are compared through an examination of maps created to show variations in geographic distribution. The distribution of poverty is measured geographically for each alternate measure and subsequently standardized for meaningful comparison between measures by mapping the variance of distribution.
Introduction
This section will introduce the research questions and goals of this thesis project. Additionally, this section will provide a brief outline of the contents of the report.
Chapter 1:
Literature Review
The literature review will provide a more detailed overview of the various ways in which poverty is defined and measured. The review will examine several general approaches to understanding poverty. Additionally, the review will look more closely at how poverty is commonly measured in the United States as well as examine alternate approaches to understanding poverty both domestically and internationally. Finally, the review will look at several specific applications in representing poverty geographically. By establishing such a background, the literature review will point out the importance in understanding the various methods of measuring poverty.
Chapter 2:
Methodology
This chapter will provide an overview of the methodology used in this project. This will include the selection of poverty measures, the mapping of poverty distributions based on such measures, and the statistical process to compare the measures.
Chapter 3:
Finding Poverty Metrics
This chapter will weigh some of the existing alternate poverty measures against the official U.S. poverty standard for use in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Such measures will include the U.S. census NAS-based experimental poverty measure, as well as several relative poverty measures based on percent of median income. During work on this chapter, two to three alternate poverty measures will be selected for use in the subsequent statistical portion of this study. Due to data availability, one or more alternate poverty measures used in this study may need to be synthesized from existing U.S. census data.
Chapter 4:
Mapping Selected Measures
Using the previously selected poverty measures, a series of maps will be created that show the geographic distribution of poverty in the St. Louis Metropolitan area. There are several options for defining the St. Louis metropolitan area. Tentatively, this study will use the eight counties defined by East-West Gateway that make up the core of the region. These counties include St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Franklin County, and Jefferson County in Missouri, and Madison County, St. Clair County, and Monroe County in Illinois. This area may, however, be redefined as research on this project progresses.
Because not all poverty metrics will be measured in comparable units, some kind of standardization must be performed on the maps produced. This may include mapping the standard deviations of alternate poverty distributions rather than the percentages of those in poverty as defined by each metric. This additional comparison will be able to show meaningful differences in the geographic distribution of poverty.
Chapter 5:
Statistical Analysis and Results
This section will analyze the differences between poverty measures by comparing the concomitant factors of each measurement of poverty. Part of the work on this chapter will be to select appropriate concomitant socio-demographic measures. This will be done through Pearson correlation tests. Subsequently, principal component analysis and linear regression analyses will be used to determine the importance of concomitant factors to poverty as measured by each poverty metric. This chapter will include statistical results in the form of charts, as well as a write up that provides some analysis of the results.
Chapter 6:
Conclusions
This chapter will provide an overview of the results of the study, as well as any conclusions made. The conclusion will also mention the possibilities for further research in this areas, as well as generalizability of this study to be done in geographic areas.
Bibliography
Akinyemi, Felicia. 2010. A Conceptual Poverty Mapping Data Model. Transactions in GIS 14 (1): 85-100.
Berg, Nate. 2011. A Better Way to Measure Poverty. The Atlantic Cities. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/09/better-measure-poverty/213/ accessed September, 2011).
Besharov, Douglas and Douglas Call. 2009. Income Transfers Alone Won't Eradicate Poverty. The Policy Studies Journal 37 (4): 599-631.
Borgeraas, Elling and Espen Dahl. 2010. Low Income and 'Poverty Lines' in Norway: A Comparison of Three Concepts. International Journal of Social Welfare 19: 73-83.
Brady, David. 2003. Rethinking the Sociological Measurement of Poverty. Social Forces 81 (3): 715-752.
Cooke, Thomas J. 1999. Geographic Context and Concentrated Urban Poverty Within the United States. Urban Geography 20 (6): 552-566.
Eberstadt, Nicholas. 2006. The Mismeasure of Poverty. Policy Review 138.
Foster, Kirk A. and J, Aaron Hipp. 2011. Defining Neighborhood Boundaries for Social Measurement: Advancing Social Work Research. Social Work Research 35 (1): 25-35.
Gordon, Colin. 2008. Mapping Decline. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Greenberg, Mark. 2009. "It's Time for a Better Poverty Measure." Center for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/new_poverty_measure.html (accessed September, 2011).
Hutto, Nathan, Jane Waldfogel, Neeraj Kaushal, and Irwin Garfinkel. 2011. Improving the Measurment of Poverty. Social Science Review 85 (1): 39-74.
Iceland, John and Josh Kim. 2001. Poverty Among Working Families: New Insights from an Improved Measure of Poverty. Social Science Quarterly 82 (2): 254-267.
Iceland, John. 2003. Poverty in America: A Handbook. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Iceland, John. 2005. Measuring Poverty: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations. Measurement 3 (4) 199-235.
Jargowsky, Paul A. 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Nolan, Brian and Christopher T. Whelan. 1996. Measuring Poverty Using Income and Deprivation Indicators: Alternative Approaches. Journal of European Social Policy 6 (3): 225-240.
Rector, Robert. 2007. How Poor Are America's Poor? Executive Summary Backgrounder 2064.
Rector, Robert and Rachel Sheffield. 2011. Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today? Executive Summary Backgrounder 2575.
Rogalsky, Jennifer. 2010. The Working Poor and What GIS Reveals About the Possibilities of Public Transit. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2): 226-237.
Sallila, Seppo, Heikki Hiilmo and Reijo Sund. 2006. Rethinking Relative Measures of Poverty. Journal of European Social Policy 16 (2): 107-120.
Segal, Elizabeth A. and Laura R. Peck. 2006. The Sequential Costs of Poverty: What Traditional Measures Overlook. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 33 (1): 227-238.
Strait, John B. 2001. The Disparate Impact of Metropolitan Economic Change: The Growth of Extreme Poverty Neighborhoods, 1970-1990. Economic Geography 77 (3): 272-305.
Swanstrom, Todd, Rob Ryan, and Katherine M. Stigers. 2010. Measuring Concentrated Poverty: The Federal Standard vs. a Relative Standard. Housing Policy Debate 19 (2): 295-231.