BarryBHughes
commented
1 year ago Would be good to have their approach to Gini, very different than ours, in IFs. I suggest adding GiniRao to common the next time it is increased. Then at our convenience we could add their formulation for it, should not be too hard.
Barry
From: wverhagen @.> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:41 AM To: PardeeCenterDU/IFs-Issues-Tracking @.> Cc: Barry Hughes @.>; Assign @.> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PardeeCenterDU/IFs-Issues-Tracking] Explore updating gini forecasts to Rao et al. (Issue #215)
Following a conversation with Barry.
The gini-coefficient is quite critical in our poverty projections, and linked to many other outcomes as a driver. However, projections of gini are challenging, and there is a general sense that the IFs gini-projections require critical review. In many publications we actually keep gini constant through ginidomr and impose exogenous changes to it.
In 2018 Rao et al. published new gini forecasts along the SSPs that are nowadays widely used in the literature. Drivers include MFP, education, trade opennness, and social public spending. All these can be forecasted by the IFs model, and thus provide an avenue for updating and alligning the gini-projections with the most recent literature on this.
The implementation in IFs is relatively straightforward but currently lacks funding, and a project with a real need. At the same time poverty is in every project.
Currently, the priority for this is low, but future funds in which poverty is an outcome indicators should try to incorporate model development on GINI as a key priority along the lines of Rao et al.
link to article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001632871730349Xhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001632871730349X__;!!NCZxaNi9jForCP_SxBKJCA!SkkgPaPdfU37jEnW0tm9Jr_sz7hOuUsEcGexgxH9MfZbkty3lRXxR6jlxa1uLLxY9RFh4ejIETkTd-cexy3gDMY$ Formula:
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/PardeeCenterDU/IFs-Issues-Tracking/issues/215__;!!NCZxaNi9jForCP_SxBKJCA!SkkgPaPdfU37jEnW0tm9Jr_sz7hOuUsEcGexgxH9MfZbkty3lRXxR6jlxa1uLLxY9RFh4ejIETkTd-ceelyrCcw$, or unsubscribehttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATOQD2BCOZZECFXRSR5HV5LVTQP5FANCNFSM53HRZAIA__;!!NCZxaNi9jForCP_SxBKJCA!SkkgPaPdfU37jEnW0tm9Jr_sz7hOuUsEcGexgxH9MfZbkty3lRXxR6jlxa1uLLxY9RFh4ejIETkTd-ceby4oP9k$. You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.**@.>>
Following a conversation with Barry.
The gini-coefficient is quite critical in our poverty projections, and linked to many other outcomes as a driver. However, projections of gini are challenging, and there is a general sense that the IFs gini-projections require critical review. In many publications we actually keep gini constant through ginidomr and impose exogenous changes to it.
In 2018 Rao et al. published new gini forecasts along the SSPs that are nowadays widely used in the literature. Drivers include MFP, education, trade opennness, and social public spending. All these can be forecasted by the IFs model, and thus provide an avenue for updating and alligning the gini-projections with the most recent literature on this.
The implementation in IFs is relatively straightforward but currently lacks funding, and a project with a real need. At the same time poverty is in every project.
Currently, the priority for this is low, but future funds in which poverty is an outcome indicators should try to incorporate model development on GINI as a key priority along the lines of Rao et al.
link to article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001632871730349X Formula: