Statistic of the Month: How Multidimensional Poverty Measures Overlook Accessibility for People with Disabilities?

Multidimensional poverty and disability are closely connected. People with and without disabilities may have the same economic resources. However, they may not experience the same level of wellbeing.

Moreover, environmental and accessibility barriers can leave persons with disabilities deprived even when standard poverty indicators suggest otherwise. The Center for Inclusive Policy (CIP) examines this gap through multidimensional poverty measures (MPIs), now widely used at national and global levels. Nearly 50 countries have national MPIs, and the Human Development Report and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) have published global MPI results for more than 100 countries since 2011.

Do Multidimensional Poverty Measures Capture Disability?

 The extent to which these measures capture the deprivations faced by people with disabilities remains questionable, particularly in relation to housing indicators such as access to water, sanitation, electricity, and adequate housing. MPIs typically measure poverty at the household level. They assume that all members share deprivations and achievements equally.

This approach overlooks the specific needs of individuals with different disabilities or functional difficulties. It raises questions about how well the data capture the relationship between multidimensional poverty and disability.

For example, sanitation indicators rarely account for accessibility. A facility may exist, but a wheelchair user may not be able to use it. In this case, the indicator underestimates deprivation. As a result, official statistics may mask higher levels of deprivation among persons with disabilities.

What Does the Data Show?

One study in Tajikistan found that 24% of households with members with disabilities reported barriers accessing their main source of water; 14% reported that people with disabilities have difficulties accessing the source, with distance as the main barrier (17%), with physical accessibility or difficulty to transport the water reported by 11% of people with disabilities who mentioned not being able to access the main water source. In the case of sanitation, 20% of households with disabilities reported having problems accessing their sanitation facilities, and 60% that they do not have any adaptations to make their sanitation facilities accessible. These numbers reveal that the main issue is not only regarding having the improved source of water or sanitation but it being accessible.

Evidence from Jamaica’s national MPI in 2019 illustrates this issue. Among people living in households with members with disabilities, 12% were multidimensionally poor. The figure was 8% among those living in households without members with disabilities. No significant differences were reported in access to water, sanitation, or electricity. However, because accessibility was not measured, the actual deprivation is likely greater. For example, in Tajikistan access to water and sanitation for persons with disabilities was less for their household members, although they were living in the same house.

Unfortunately, such data on access to basic services such as water, sanitation, and housing rarely incorporates accessibility dimensions. Thus, even when headline figures show little difference between households with and without members with disabilities, it is recognized that accessibility barriers prevent equal and adequate access.

For instance, analyses by the Disability Data Hub using data from multiple countries found no apparent differences between people with and without disabilities. Yet, these datasets do not allow examination of the barriers that limit access.