BharatNotes
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
/ˌmʌltiˌdaɪˈmɛnʃənəl ˈpɒvərti ˈɪndɛks/An international measure of acute poverty that captures simultaneous deprivations across three equally weighted dimensions — health, education, and standard of living — identifying a person as MPI-poor if deprived in at least one-third (33.33%) of the weighted indicators. The global MPI uses 10 indicators; India's national MPI (published by NITI Aayog) uses 12 SDG-aligned indicators including bank account and maternal health. India's MPI value in the 2025 Global MPI Report is 0.069, with a headcount ratio of 16.4% and an intensity of deprivation of 42%.
Context & Background
Developed in 2010 by Sabina Alkire and James Foster at the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), in partnership with UNDP, using the Alkire-Foster (AF) methodology. India's national MPI headcount declined dramatically from 29.17% (2013-14) to 11.28% (2022-23), with 24.82 crore people (248.2 million) escaping multidimensional poverty — the largest reduction globally. The global MPI (2025 report, titled "Overlapping Hardships: Poverty and Climate Hazards") shows India reduced poverty from 55.1% (2005-06) to 16.4% (2019-21). The national MPI data is sourced from National Family Health Surveys (NFHS 4 and 5). Uttar Pradesh (5.94 crore), Bihar (3.77 crore), and Madhya Pradesh (~3.5 crore) recorded the highest absolute reductions. NITI Aayog projected India would reach single-digit MPI poverty by 2024. However, large regions still face overlapping hazards like heat, floods, and air pollution that exacerbate deprivation.
UPSC Exam Relevance
GS3 Economy — Prelims: 3 dimensions (health, education, standard of living), 10 indicators (global MPI) / 12 indicators (India MPI — includes bank account and maternal health), 33.33% deprivation threshold, developed by Alkire-Foster (2010), published by UNDP-OPHI (global) and NITI Aayog (national), India MPI value 0.069 (2025 global report), headcount declined from 29.17% to 11.28%; Mains: is MPI a better measure of poverty than income-based poverty lines (captures non-income deprivations that Tendulkar/Rangarajan miss), India's progress in reducing multidimensional poverty (24.82 crore escaped), regional variation (Bihar, Jharkhand worst; Kerala, Goa best — what explains this), criticism that MPI uses NFHS data which may not capture consumption poverty adequately, climate vulnerability and its overlap with poverty.
