The importance of adult equivalence and economies of scale in the estimation of poverty and inequality are well-established. Empirical investigations have validated that all measures of poverty and inequality are sensitive to various choices of equivalence scales. The current research attempts to examine the effects of equivalence scales on poverty and inequality measurement within the region of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in order to validate whether poverty estimates are sensitive to these scales or not. Despite being industrially backward and politically fragile, J&K reflects better economic indicators than most other Indian states. The findings of the current study validate the same. The application of adult equivalence generates mixed results, and the economies of scale highlight the fact that standard measures of poverty and inequality are overstated. Most importantly, welfare rank reversal takes place when household size and gender of the household are tested for.
AgarwalB. (1986). Women, poverty and agricultural growth in India. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 13(4), 165–220.
2.
AslamM. (1977). Land reforms in Jammu and Kashmir. Scientist, 6(4), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/3516587
3.
AtkinsonA. B. (1975). The economics of inequality. Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.
4.
BatanaY., BussoloM., & CockburnJ. (2013). Global extreme poverty rates for children, adults and the elderly. Economics Letters, 120(3), 405–407.
5.
BeecheyV. (1979). On patriarchy. Feminist Review, 3(1), 66–82.
6.
BuhmannB., RainwaterL., SchmausG., & SmeedingT. M. (1988). Equivalence scales, well-being, inequality, and poverty: Sensitivity estimates across ten countries using the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) database. Review of Income and Wealth, 34(2), 115–142.
7.
BurkhauserR. V, SmeedingT. M., & MerzJ. (1996). Relative inequality and poverty in Germany and the United States using alternative equivalence scales. Review of Income and Wealth, 42(4), 381–400.
8.
CommissionerC. (2011). Census of India. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India Ministry of Home Affairs, March.
9.
CookeE., HagueS., & McKayA. (2016). The Ghana poverty and inequality report: Using the 6th Ghana living standards survey (pp. 1–43). University of Sussex.
10.
CoulterF. A. E., CowellF. A., & JenkinsS. P. (1992). Equivalence scale relativities and the extent of inequality and poverty. The Economic Journal, 102(414), 1067–1082.
11.
CreedyJ., & SleemanC. (2005). Adult equivalence scales, inequality and poverty. New Zealand Economic Papers, 39(1), 51–81.
12.
DeatonA. (2003). Household surveys, consumption, and the measurement of poverty. Economic Systems Research, 15(2), 135–159.
13.
DrabuH. (2019, August8). Was special status a development dampener in J&K?Mint. https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/opinion-was-special-status-a-development-dampener-in-j-k-1565248797810.html
14.
DrèzeJ., & SrinivasanP. V. (1997). Widowhood and poverty in rural India: Some inferences from household survey data. Journal of Development Economics, 54(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(97)00041-2
15.
ÉltetőÖ., & HavasiÉ. (2002). Impact of choice of equivalence scale on income inequality and on poverty measures. Review of Sociology, 8(2), 137–148.
16.
FuwaN. (2000). The poverty and heterogeneity among female-headed households revisited: The case of Panama. World Development, 28(8), 1515–1542.
17.
GoI. (2008). Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, annual report 2008-09.
18.
Government of Jammu & Kashmir. (2016). Indicators of economic development 2016.
19.
HaughtonJ., & KhandkerS. R. (2009). Handbook on poverty + inequality. World Bank Publications.
20.
HunterB. H., KennedyS., & SmithD. (2003). Household composition, equivalence scales and the reliability of income distributions: Some evidence for indigenous and other Australians. Economic Record, 79(244), 70–83.
21.
ImrozP., MurukutlaK., ParvezK., MataP., & KadalA. (2012). Alleged perpetrators—Stories of impunity in Jammu and Kashmir. IPTK and APDP.
22.
KaufmanP. R., MacDonaldJ. M., LutzS. M., & SmallwoodD. M. (1997). Do the poor pay more for food? Item selection and price differences affect low-income household food costs (No. 34065).
23.
LancasterG., RayR., & ValenzuelaM. R. (1999). A cross-country study of equivalence scales and expenditure inequality on unit record household budget data. Review of Income and Wealth, 45(4), 455–482.
24.
LanjouwP. (2009). Constructing a consumption aggregate for the purpose of welfare analysis: Principles, issues and recommendations arising from the case of Brazil. Paper Prepared in the World Bank for the OECD/University of Maryland Conference Entitled: Measuring Poverty, Income Inequality and Social Exclusion: Lessons from Europe, March16, 17.
25.
LanjouwP., & RavallionM. (1995). Poverty and household size. The Economic Journal, 105(433), 1415–1434.
26.
MajeedM., KhanJ. I., & MushtaqS. O. (2021). An analysis of MSME’s efficiency: A study of two comparable northern Indian regions. SEDME (Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal), 47(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/09708464211038717
27.
MajeedM., MushtaqS. O., & KhanJ. I. (2022). Perspectives into the industrialization process of India through the new economic geography lens. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 20(2), 437–458.
28.
MeenakshiJ. V, & RayR. (2002). Impact of household size and family composition on poverty in rural India. Journal of Policy Modeling, 24(6), 539–559.
29.
MushtaqS. O., MajeedM., & KhanJ. I. (2021). The localized research and development in the industrialization process of India. SEDME (Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal), 48(2), 127–141.
30.
MushtaqS. O., Iqbal KhanJ., & MajeedM. (2022). Lower inequality and lower development: A contradiction sensitivity analysis of Jammu and Kashmir. Statistics, Politics and Policy, 13(3), 315–345.
31.
O’ConnellH. (2011). What are the opportunities to promote gender equity and equality in conflict-affected and fragile states? Insights from a review of evidence. Gender & Development, 19(3), 455–466.
32.
OwaisS., KhanJ. I., & MajeedM. (2023). Out-of-pocket health spending in Jammu and Kashmir: Evidence from 68th round of National Sample Survey. Journal of Health Management, 25(2):359–368.
33.
SchröderC. (2009). Chapter 13 The construction and estimation of equivalence scales and their uses (pp. 349–362). Quantifying Consumer Preferences.
34.
ShortK., GarnerT. I., & JohnsonD. S. (1999). Experimental poverty measures: 1990 to 1997 (Issue 205). US Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.
35.
StreakJ. C., YuD., & Van der BergS. (2009). Measuring child poverty in South Africa: Sensitivity to the choice of equivalence scale and an updated profile. Social Indicators Research, 94(2), 183–201.
36.
SundaramK, & TendulkarS. D. (2003a). Poverty in India in the 1990s: Revised results for all-India and 15 major states for 1993-94. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(46), 4865–4872.
37.
SundaramK., & TendulkarS. D. (2003b). Poverty has declined in the 1990s: A resolution of comparability problems in NSS consumer expenditure data. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(4), 327–337.
38.
VisariaP. (1980). Poverty and living standards in Asia. Population and Development Review, 6(2), 189–223.
39.
VisariaP., & VisariaL. (1985). Indian households with female heads: Their incidence, characteristics and level of living. In D. Jain & N. Banerjee (Eds.), Women in poverty. Tyranny of the household: Investigative essays on women’s work (pp. 50–83). Vikas Publishing House.
40.
WeaverM., & DeolalikarA. (2004). Economies of scale and scope in Vietnamese hospitals. Social Science & Medicine, 59(1), 199–208.
41.
WeichS., LewisG., & JenkinsS. P. (2002). Income inequality and self rated health in Britain. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(6), 436–441.
42.
WenM., BrowningC. R., & CagneyK. A. (2003). Poverty, affluence, and income inequality: Neighborhood economic structure and its implications for health. Social Science & Medicine, 57(5), 843–860.
43.
WhiteH., & MassetE. (2002). Constructing the poverty profile: An illustration of the importance of allowing for household size and composition in the case of Vietnam (VO - RT - Unpublished work). In Young lives working paper (Issue 3). University of Oxford. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4b061395-8c51-4c27-9d00-6766a652c289
