Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 5.
Published in final edited form as: Am Econ Rev. 2012 Jun;102(4):1206–1240. doi: 10.1257/aer.102.4.1206

Table 5.

Simulated poverty impacts for different transfer sizes and poverty lines

Transfer Size (Rp. 000s) Poverty line = Poor Poverty line = Very poor
PMT Community Hybrid PMT Community Hybrid
No transfer headcount 33.86 33.86 33.86 15.64 15.64 15.64
pov. gap 9.45 9.45 9.45 3.55 3.55 3.55
sq. pov gap 3.73 3.73 3.73 1.21 1.21 1.21
50 headcount 32.81 32.81 33.30 15.04 14.52 14.55
pov. gap 8.88 8.89 8.87 3.17 3.15 3.16
sq. pov gap 3.42 3.41 3.39 1.04 1.02 1.02
100 headcount 31.45 32.03 32.01 14.02 13.68 13.77
pov. gap 8.37 8.40 8.35 2.84 2.82 2.83
sq. pov gap 3.14 3.13 3.11 0.91 0.88 0.88
200 headcount 29.60 30.03 30.10 12.33 12.13 12.28
pov. gap 7.47 7.54 7.48 2.37 2.33 2.32
sq. pov gap 2.71 2.69 2.67 0.74 0.68 0.68
500 headcount 24.22 25.15 25.38 8.85 9.17 9.13
pov. gap 5.76 5.87 5.84 1.69 1.59 1.61
sq. pov gap 2.02 1.98 1.97 0.53 0.45 0.46

Notes: Transfers are in thousands of Rupiah (Rp. 1,000 = US $0.10) and assume a uniform transfer for all recipient households. Note that the transfer is per household, whereas poverty is defined as per-capita, so a given transfer has less of an impact on larger households. Headcount and poverty gap are in percent; squared poverty gap is multiplied by 100.