Poverty remains a persistent problem in central cities across the US and the government's approach to measuring it is not without shortcomings. This paper applies recently developed innovations in poverty measurement and presents improved estimates of central-city poverty across time. A broader and more comprehensive income concept is employed to measure family resources and important distributional aspects of poverty are incorporated by using the Sen index. In general, Sen indexes for the central city are significantly reduced when comprehensive income is used to evaluate poverty. Motivating these changes are the substantial reductions that occur in the depth of poverty and the relative income inequality among poor central-city residents. Regionally, the results suggest that the elements of comprehensive income have their greatest impact on estimates of poverty in Southern central cities, while the central cities of the West are least affected.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bishop, J.A., Formby, J.P. and Zheng, B. (1997) Statistical inference and the Sen index of poverty , International Economic Review, 38, pp. 381—387.
2.
Bishop, J.A., Formby, J.P. and Zheng, B. (1999) Distribution sensitive measures of poverty in the United States, Review of Social Economy, 57, pp. 306—343.
3.
Citro, C.F. and Michel, R.F. (1995) Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Dalaker, J. (2005) Alternative poverty estimates in the United States: 2003. Current Population Reports, Series P60-227, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
5.
Fisher, G. (1992) The development and history of the poverty thresholds , Social Security Bulletin, 55, pp. 3—14.
6.
Formby, J.P., Bishop, J. and Kim, H. (2002) The economic well-being of low-income working families . Employment Policies Institute, Washington, DC.
7.
Formby, J.P., Hoover, G. and Kim, H. (2001) Economic growth and poverty in the United States: official statistics versus Sen's Index of Poverty, Journal of Income Distribution, 10(3/4), pp. 6—22.
8.
Formby, J.P., Kim, H. and Zheng, B. (2001) Sen measures of poverty in the United States: cash versus comprehensive incomes in the 1990s, Pacific Economic Review, 6(2), pp. 193—210.
9.
Foster, J.E., Greer, J. and Thorbecke, E. (1984) A class of decomposable poverty measures, Econometrica, 52, pp. 761—766.
10.
Garner, T.I. and Short, K. (2002) Experimental poverty measures under alternate treatments of medical out-of-pocket expenditures, Monthly Labor Review , 125(8), pp. 3—13.
11.
Myers, D. (2001) Advances in homeownership across the states and generations: continued gains for the elderly and stagnation among the young . Census Note 8, Fannie Mae Foundation, Washington, DC.
12.
Naifeh, M. and Eller, T.J. (1997) Valuing housing subsidies in a new measure of poverty: CPS, in: American Statistical Association (Ed.) Proceedings of the Government and Social Sciences Section, pp. 382—387.
13.
Orshansky, M. (1965a) Counting the poor: another look at the poverty profile, Social Security Bulletin, 28, pp. 387—406.
14.
Orshansky, M. (1965b) Who's who among the poor? A demographic view of poverty, Social Security Bulletin, 28, pp. 3—32.
15.
Radner, D. (1997) Noncash income, equivalence scales, and the measurement of economic well-being, Review of Income and Wealth, 43, pp. 71—88.
16.
Ruggles, P. (1990) Drawing the Line: Alternative Poverty Measures and Their Implications for Public Policy. Washington, DC : Urban Institute Press.
17.
Sen, A. ( 1976) Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement, Econometrica, 44, pp. 219—231.
18.
Shea, M., Naifeh, M. and Short, K. (1997) Valuing housing subsidies in a new measure of poverty: SIPP, in: American Statistical Association (Ed.) Proceedings of the Government and Social Statistics Section, pp. 376—381.
19.
Shorrocks, A.F. (1995) Revisiting the Sen poverty index, Econometrica, 63, pp. 1225—1230.
20.
Short, K., Garner, T.I., Johnson, D. and Doyle, P. (1999) Experimental poverty measures: 1990 to 1997. Current Population Reports, Series P60 — 205: Consumer Income, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
21.
Short, K., Shea, M., Johnson, D. and Garner, T.I. (1998) Poverty measurement using the consumer expenditure survey and the survey of income and program participation, American Economic Review, 88(May), pp. 352—356.
22.
Stoline, M.R. and Ury, H.K. (1979) Tables of the studentized maximum modulus distribution and an application to multiple comparison among means, Technometrics , 21, pp. 87—93.
23.
Us Bureau Of The Census (1982) Alternative methods for valuing selected in-kind transfer benefits and measuring their effect on poverty. Technical Paper No. 50, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
24.
Us Bureau Of The Census (1988) Estimates of poverty including the value of noncash benefits: 1987. Technical Paper No. 58, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
25.
Us Bureau Of The Census (1992) Measuring the effect of benefits and taxes on income and poverty: 1979 to 1991. Current Population Reports, Series P60-182RD, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
26.
Us Bureau Of The Census (1993) Measuring the effect of benefits and taxes on income and poverty: 1992. Current Population Reports, Series P60-186RD, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
27.
Us Bureau Of The Census (2003) Poverty in the United States: 2002. Current Population Reports, Series P60 — 222, US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
28.
Weinberg, D. (2005) Alternative measures of income poverty and the anti-poverty effects of taxes and transfers. Paper presented at the 2005 Welfare Reform Academy session on Reconsidering the Federal Poverty Measure, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland.
