主流多维贫困指标中固有的不正当激励的快速解决方案

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry discussed Core Insights - The adjusted headcount ratio used in multidimensional poverty measures creates perverse incentives that prioritize targeting the least intensely poor individuals rather than the most intensely poor individuals [2][8][20] - A proposed quick-fix solution modifies the adjusted headcount ratio to eliminate these perverse incentives while maintaining the identification of the poor [8][26][34] - The new index, referred to as M'0, preserves the identification method but changes the poverty contribution of poor individuals to their multidimensional poverty gap, thus avoiding the discontinuous "jump" in poverty contributions [28][31][34] Summary by Sections Introduction - Prioritarianism suggests that social protection policies should prioritize the worst-off individuals, and the adjusted headcount ratio fails to do so [7][20] Basic Framework - The report introduces a framework for understanding multidimensional poverty measures, including the adjusted headcount ratio and its implications [15][16] Perverse Incentives - The adjusted headcount ratio and the headcount ratio both exhibit perverse incentives that can mislead policymakers [20][22] - The report illustrates how these incentives can lead to suboptimal policy decisions that do not align with prioritarian principles [21][24] Quick Fix: Tweaking M0 - The proposed solution involves changing the poverty contribution function to reflect the multidimensional poverty gap, thus eliminating perverse incentives [26][28][34] - The new index M'0 maintains the same properties as M0 except for Dimensional Breakdown, which is argued to be less critical for policymaking [35][51] Limitations of Dimensional Breakdown - The report discusses two significant limitations of Dimensional Breakdown, emphasizing that it may mislead policymakers regarding the sources of progress and optimal policy choices [35][50]