New evidence on gender gaps and child poverty: measuring intra-household inequalities – The London School of Economics and Political Science

Report on Intra-Household Poverty and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Re-evaluating Poverty Measurement for SDG Achievement

Global poverty estimates, central to monitoring Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty), traditionally rely on per capita household welfare measures. This report analyses research indicating that this approach masks critical inequalities within households, thereby misrepresenting progress towards several SDGs, including SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). By failing to account for the unequal distribution of resources among men, women, and children, conventional metrics underestimate the true extent of gender- and age-based deprivation.

A study covering 45 low- and middle-income countries, representing 42% of the global population, utilizes state-of-the-art models of intra-household resource distribution to provide a more granular view of individual poverty. This analysis is crucial for developing policies that effectively target the most vulnerable and ensure no one is left behind in the pursuit of the 2030 Agenda.

Analysis of Intra-Household Resource Distribution and SDG Implications

Gender Disparities and SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

The research reveals a persistent gender gap in the allocation of household resources, a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 5. This economic disempowerment at the household level is a fundamental barrier to achieving gender equality.

• On average, women receive a global mean of 24.6% of household resources, compared to 30.6% for men.
• In 23 of the 45 countries studied, women receive a significantly smaller share of resources than men—on average, about 20% less.
• This disparity translates into higher poverty rates for women. Using a $3.2/day poverty line, the global average poverty rate for women is 29.5%, which is 59% higher than the 18.5% rate for men.
• While the gender gap tends to diminish as national living standards rise, its persistence across a majority of the countries surveyed highlights a systemic issue that hinders progress on SDG 5.

Child Deprivation and SDG 1 (No Poverty)

The analysis uncovers a stark resource gap for children, indicating that per capita household measures severely miscalculate the prevalence of child poverty, a primary focus of SDG 1. The findings suggest that a significant portion of child poverty is hidden within households classified as “non-poor.”

• Children receive the lowest share of household resources, with a global mean of just 8.3%.
• This results in an average child poverty rate of 74.5% (assuming needs equal to adults), a figure that remains substantially higher than adult rates even when adjusted for lower consumption needs.
• The adult-child resource gap is pronounced at all development levels, except in the wealthiest countries in the sample.
• Crucially, an estimated 25% of children who are poor by this individual measure would be overlooked by poverty programs that rely solely on per capita household income. This represents a major blind spot in efforts to eradicate child poverty.

Contribution to Overall Inequality and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

By quantifying the inequality that exists within families, the research demonstrates that overlooking this dimension leads to a significant underestimation of total global inequality, which is the focus of SDG 10. Addressing intra-household disparities is therefore essential for reducing overall societal inequality.

• Inequality within households accounts for a substantial portion—between 13% and 32%—of total global inequality in consumption.
• This finding underscores that household-level data is insufficient for understanding the full scope of inequality as targeted by SDG 10.
• The data shows that intra-household inequality declines as living standards rise, suggesting that economic development, as promoted by SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), can contribute to more equitable outcomes within families.

Policy Recommendations for More Inclusive SDG Strategies

The evidence necessitates a fundamental shift in how poverty and inequality are measured and addressed to accelerate progress on the SDGs. Policies must look inside the household to tackle hidden deprivation.

1. Refine Poverty Targeting Mechanisms: To effectively achieve SDG 1, anti-poverty strategies must move beyond household-level metrics. Individual-level assessments are needed to identify and support poor women and children living in households that are not classified as poor by per capita measures.
2. Implement Gender-Responsive Social Protection: To advance SDG 5, interventions such as cash transfers, food subsidies, and childcare benefits should be targeted directly to mothers. This can help offset existing biases in resource allocation and improve welfare outcomes for both women and their children.
3. Promote Women’s Economic Empowerment: In line with SDG 5 and SDG 8, policies that expand women’s earnings, economic opportunities, and bargaining power are critical. Such empowerment is proven to improve not only their own welfare but also to increase the resources allocated to children, thereby addressing child poverty (SDG 1).
4. Integrate Intra-Household Metrics into SDG Monitoring: National and international bodies must adopt measurement frameworks that capture the distribution of resources within households to accurately track progress towards SDG 1, SDG 5, and SDG 10.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The entire article is centered on measuring and understanding poverty. It critiques the conventional per capita method and proposes a new model to identify individual poverty rates, particularly for women and children. It explicitly discusses poverty lines (e.g., $3.2/day) and the “global average poverty rate.”
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article directly addresses gender inequality by highlighting a “significant gender gap in resource shares.” It quantifies this gap, stating that women receive “a significantly smaller share of household resources than men in 23 countries and, on average, about 20% less.” The analysis of higher poverty rates for women (29.5%) compared to men (18.5%) is a core theme.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article’s main argument is that overlooking intra-household disparities distorts inequality measurements. It quantifies this by stating that “13-32% from intra-household inequality” contributes to total global inequality. It also analyzes inequality based on age, showing a “starker” child gap and how children experience the highest poverty rates.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 1 (No Poverty):
   • Target 1.2: “By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions…” The article’s focus on disaggregating poverty data by gender and age to reveal hidden poverty among women and children directly relates to measuring progress towards this target. It argues that conventional methods “overlook” about a quarter of poor children.
2. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The unequal distribution of resources within a household, where men receive larger shares than women, is a form of economic discrimination that the article identifies and measures.
   • Target 5.a: “Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources…” The article’s finding that women have access to a smaller share of household consumption (economic resources) highlights the need for reforms. The recommendation for “policies that expand women’s earnings and bargaining power” directly supports this target.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex…” The article reveals the economic exclusion of women and children within the household unit. Its call for “more inclusive anti-poverty strategies” that “look inside households” is aimed at promoting the economic inclusion of these overlooked groups.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 1 (No Poverty):
   • Indicator (related to 1.2.1): Proportion of population living below a specific poverty line, by sex and age. The article provides explicit data for this: “Working with the $3.2/day poverty line, the global average poverty rate for men stands at approximately 18.5%, while for women, it is significantly higher at 29.5%… Among children, the poverty rate is even more striking, averaging 74.5%.”
2. For SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Indicator: Individual share of household resources, by gender. The article proposes and uses this as a key metric. It states, “On average, each man consumes… (a global mean of 30.6%), each woman receives… (a global mean of 24.6%).” This provides a direct measure of economic inequality within the household.
3. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Indicator: Contribution of intra-household inequality to total global inequality. The article provides a quantitative measure for this, stating that “13-32% from intra-household inequality” contributes to total global inequality. This indicator helps to pinpoint the source of inequality.
   • Indicator: Individual resource shares by age. The article provides a clear indicator of age-based inequality: “each child receives between 3%-23% (a global mean of 8.3%)” of household resources, which is significantly lower than the shares for men and women.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: blogs.lse.ac.uk