The PMMA network puts most emphasis on the use of existing nation-wide micro-based data. Collection of new data is normally not carried out. Teams generally adopt or develop common methodologies, often involving micro-econometrics, to ensure that training and technical support/partnership are provided efficiently at the network level. The PMMA network strives for good comparative international research, but retains a focus on national results and impact. It remains substantively coordinated with the MPIA and CBMS networks. The themes of interest are broad and evolving with developments in the scientific literature. They are also flexibly adapted to the heterogeneous needs of policy making in the diverse socio-economic environments that PEP covers. Current PMMA research focuses on five main themes:

• Multidimensional poverty analysis
• Public spending and its impact on poverty and equity
• Growth and poverty dynamics
• Policy impact analysis
• Intra-household allocation of well-being 

Thematic focus

Multidimensional poverty analysis

PMMA network research on multidimensional poverty has made use of recently developed or neglected methodologies in economics, which can be highly effective in answering the concerns of policy makers that poverty and well-being cannot be considered solely on the basis of money-metric assessments. Such a concern has inter alia been strongly expressed in the development and monitoring of the Millennium Development Goals. PEP’s original achievements in this area have been noted by many institutions and organizations around the world. They will also help set the basis of PEP’s forthcoming and promising collaboration with the Human Development and Capability Initiative.

Public spending and its impact on poverty and equity.

This has scored particularly well with the PRSP exercises in Africa. Despite this, there is of course still much that can and should be done to improve the understanding of the impact of public spending on poverty and equity, PEP’s second phase of PMMA research broadened to incorporate Intra-household allocation of well-being and Poverty dynamics.

Growth and Poverty Dynamics:

This theme includes:

• Comparing poverty across time and space, using statistically and normatively reliable methods;
• Analysing the impact of demographic and socio-economic transformations (such as emigration, urbanization, environmental changes, changes in family sizes and composition, changes in human capital, changes in trade and openness) on poverty and inequality;
• Analysing the impact of growth and redistribution on the evolution of poverty, and in particular, the heterogeneity of that impact;
• Analysing the impact of growth in factor incomes on poverty alleviation;
• Analysing the pro-poorness of growth and policy;
• Using panel data to look at individual and household poverty dynamics;
• Analysing social protection, security, risk management, and vulnerability;
• Studying poverty duration, transient vs. permanent poverty.

This is an area in which current research activities are very strong both in the policy and in the academic communities. Understanding the impact on poverty and inequality of national and sectoral growth, inequality, migration and/or demographic changes is for instance high in the agenda of international and national policy organizations. Individual poverty dynamics – including issues related to mobility, vulnerability and transiency of poverty – is also currently the focus of much academic work, both from an ethical and a statistical point of view. Even here, research could evolve around the understanding of the experience of poverty across different categories of households, characterized not merely by household incomes, but also by different kinds of gender and age compositions. Comparative work across countries and time (made easier by a research structure such as that of PEP) is particularly valuable in this area since the results are usually country specific.

Policy impact analysis

Many countries are designing and implementing social policies targeted to specific populations, e.g. social protection to poor people, job training programs to the youth and unemployed, agricultural development programs to farmers. It is important for policymakers and donors to know whether the programs have the expected benefits – and such knowledge is also important for generating political support for the continuation or expansion of the programs. This theme thus encourages the conduct of rigorous research to help improve the design and the implementation of such programs. This is often done in the context of welfare and job training programs in industrialized countries; it is also increasingly starting to be applied in developing countries. Policy-makers are for instance likely to be interested in answers to such questions as: What is the impact of a program on participants? What would be the impact from expanding eligibility to the program? Do the poor gain the most from the program? Do some benefit who should not? Would it be possible to have the same impact at lower cost? This is an area for which interest has grown strongly in the last phase of the network. This has materialized, for instance, in research projects on the poverty and employability effects of workfare programs in Argentina, on the effect of business development services for female microfinance clients in Peru, and on the poverty Impact of the national micro-credit program in Vietnam. It is also the main topic of an important joint PEP-AusAID initiative entitled Policy Impact Evaluation Research Initiative.

Intra-household allocation of well-being

This analysis is undertaken with a view to going from household-based poverty analysis to individual-based poverty analysis. Such analysis can matter significantly for looking at equity, gender issues, child welfare, social services access, among many other aspects. It can help assessing the true extent of inequality in the distribution of resources, as well as the extent of inequity in access to goods and services. This is fundamental to understanding the effect of policy and growth on welfare, poverty and exclusion. This is also an area for which PEP researchers have long expressed an interest. In the course of the first phase of the PEP network, this interest materialized in part through the creation of a Gender Challenge Fund in collaboration with MIMAP’s Gender Network. The fund allowed PEP to award additional grants for projects dealing with gender issues within the MPIA or PMMA networks. More generally, the aim of this theme is to encourage researchers to go beyond the usual household-based measurement of well-being to consider individual well-being, and how it varies across gender and age. Such analysis can matter significantly for looking at equity, gender issues, child welfare, social services access, etc. This is the focus of much of current research internationally, from both an ethical and a statistical point of view, and it attracts significant attention from international and donor organizations.

It must be stressed, however, that the PMMA themes are not exclusive. Exciting and good research outside these themes that furthers the role and the impact of the PMMA network is certainly welcome, even in the short term. For example, PMMA has supported a number of projects on gender analysis and child well-being, as well as using micro-simulation techniques and experimental data analysis. All work will keep emphasizing the importance of reliability and robustness in drawing out ethical and statistical conclusions. Whether such research is financed is decided on an individual basis, and on the terms of the trade-off between the advantages and the disadvantages of focused network research.

PEP also has a number of special programs including the PEP-OPHI Human Development and Capabilities Initiative. This program is considered under PMMA.